Antitubercular potential of some semisynthetic analogues of phytol

Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 508-512

  Saikia, Dharmendra ^a   Parihar, Swati ^a   Chanda, D ^a   Ojha, S ^a   Kumar, J K ^a   Chanotiya, C S ^a   Shanker, K ^a   Negi, Arvind S ^a  

^a CSIR CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICINAL AND AROMATIC PLANTS   (India)

Author keywords

Antitubercular; Diterpene; Lipophilicity; Phytol; Toxicity

Indexed keywords

PHYTOL; RIFAMPICIN; STREPTOMYCIN; TUBERCULOSTATIC AGENT;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANTIBACTERIAL ACTIVITY; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG POTENCY; DRUG TOLERABILITY; FEMALE; IN VITRO STUDY; IN VIVO STUDY; LIPOPHILICITY; MALE; MINIMUM INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION; MOUSE; MYCOBACTERIUM TUBERCULOSIS; NONHUMAN; SINGLE DRUG DOSE;

ANIMALS; ANTITUBERCULAR AGENTS; MICE; MICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TESTS; MYCOBACTERIUM TUBERCULOSIS; OXIMES; PHYTOL;

ANIMALIA; MUS;

EID: 72249122947     PISSN: 0960894X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2009.11.107     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. WHO report: 'Global Tuberculosis Control- Epidemiology, Strategy, Financing'-Key points, Geneva 22, Switzerland, 2009, pp 1-4.
2. Negi, A. S.; Kumar J. K.; Luqman, S.; Saikia, D.; Khanuja, S. P. S. Med. Res. Rev. 2009. doi:10.1002/med.
3. Copp B.R. Nat. Prod. Rep. 20 (2003) 535
4. Ghosh, M. N. In Fundamentals of experimental pharmacology, 1st ed.; Hilton and Co. 109, College St., Kolkata-700 012, 1984; Scientific Book Agency: Kolkata, p 156.
5. Srivastava V., Negi A.S., Kumar J.K., and Gupta M.M. Steroids 71 (2006) 632
6. Fieser L.F., and Fieser M. Reagents for Organic Synthesis Vol. I (1967), John Wiley & Sons, USA p 873
7. Chattopadhyay S.K., Srivastava S., Sashidhara K.V., Tripathi A.K., Bhattacharya A.K., and Negi A.S. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 14 (2004) 1729
8. Furniss B.S., Hannaford A.J., Smith P.W.G., and Tatchell A.R. Vogel's Text Book of Practical Organic Chemistry. 5th ed. (1998), Addition Wesley Longman, England
9. Agarwal D.K., Saikia D., Tiwari R., Ojha S., Shanker K., Kumar J.K., Gupta A.K., Tandon S., Negi A.S., and Khanuja S.P.S. Planta Med. 74 (2008) 1828
10. -1): 2928, 1724, 1654, 975.
11. 6 cfu/mL).Briefly, 0.1 mL of bacterial suspension from the primary inoculum culture vial (GI 500) was injected into test compound-containing vials using 1.0 mL insulin syringe. To comply with 1% proportion method, 0.1 mL of primary inoculum was added to 9.9 mL BACTEC diluting fluid to obtain 1:100 dilutions. From this 0.1 mL was injected into two 12B vials for two test compounds containing 4.0 ml medium along with 40 μL of DMSO. Vials were incubated at 37 °C, and the GI was recorded every 24 h in a BACTEC 460TB instrument (Becton-Dickinson). Once the GI of the control vial (1:100) reached 30 then the GI values of the test (compound-containing) vials were compared with that of control vials based on difference in growth (ΔGI). The result was interpreted as follows: If the difference (called as ΔGI) of current GI from previous day GI in the case of drug containing vials is lower than the ΔGI of 1:100 control vial for the same period then the test compound is termed as active against MTB or otherwise inactive.Twofold serial dilution technique was used to assess the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of a test compounds. Only broth culture was used as a positive control and media as a negative control.
12. Rajab M.S., Cantrell C.L., Franzblau S.G., and Fischer N.H. Planta Med. 64 (1998) 2
13. Saludes J.P., Garson M.J., Franzblau S.G., and Aguinaldo A.M. Phytother. Res. 16 (2002) 683
14. Lu T., Cantrell C.L., Robbs S.L., Franzblau S.G., and Fischer N.H. Planta Med. 64 (1998) 665
15. Fischer N.H., Lu T., Cantrell C.L., Castaneda-Acosta J., Quijano L., and Franzblau S.G. Phytochemistry 49 (1998) 559
16. Barry III C.E., Slayden R.A., Sampson A.E., and Lee R.E. Biochem. Pharmacol. 59 (2000) 221
17. Connell N.D., and Nikaido H. Membrane Permeability and Transport in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. In: Bloom B.R. (Ed). Tuberculosis, Pathogenesis, Protection and Control (1994), ASM Press, Washington DC 333-351
18. In vivo acute oral toxicity evaluation.Sixteen mice (8 male and 8 female) were taken and divided into four groups comprising 2 male and 2 female in each group weighing between 20 and 25 g. The animals were maintained at 22 ± 5 °C with humidity control and also on an automatic dark and light cycle of 12 h. The animals were fed with the standard rat feed and provided ad libitum drinking water. Mice of group 1 were kept as control and rest were kept as experimental. The animals were acclimatized for 7 days in the experimental environment prior to the actual experimentation. The test compound was suspended in distilled water using traces of ethanol as co-solvent and was given at 5, 50 and 300 mg/kg body weight to animals of groups 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Control animals received only vehicle. All the animals were sacrificed on 7th day after the experimentation.The animals were checked for mortality and any signs of ill health at hourly interval on the day of administration of drug and there after a daily general case side clinical examination was carried out including changes in skin, mucous membrane, eyes, occurrence of secretion and excretion and also responses like lachrymation, pilo-erection respiratory patterns, etc. Also changes in gait, posture and response to handling were also recorded. In addition to observational study, body weights were recorded and blood and serum samples were collected from all the animals on 7th day after experiment and were analysed for total RBC, WBC, differential leukocyte count, haemoglobin percentage and biochemical parameters like total cholesterol, triglycerides, creatinine, SGPT and SGOT activity. The animals were then sacrificed and necropsed for any gross pathological changes. Weights of vital organs like liver, heart, kidney, etc. were recorded.