ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2000
Antimycobacterial activities of novel levofloxacin analogues.
Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Secondary Metabolites from a New Antibiotic-Producing Endophytic Streptomyces Isolate Inhibited Pathogenic and Multidrug-ResistantTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Article
- Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of gatifloxacin against Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus in a granulocyte-rich exudate.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In order to investigate structure-activity relationships between antimycobacterial activities and basic substituents at the C-10 position of levofloxacin (LVFX), we synthesized a series of pyridobenzoxazine derivatives by replacement of the N-methylpiperazinyl group of LVFX with various basic substituents. A compound with a 3-aminopyrrolidinyl group had one-half the activity of LVFX against Mycobacterium avium, M. intracellulare, and M. tuberculosis. Mono- and dimethylation of the 3-amino moiety of the pyrrolidinyl group increased the activities against M. avium and M. intracellulare but not those against M. tuberculosis. On the other hand, dialkylation at the C-4 position of the 3-aminopyrrolidinyl group enhanced the activities against M. avium, M. intracellulare, and M. tuberculosis. Thus, introduction of an N-alkyl or a C-alkyl group(s) into the 3-aminopyrrolidinyl group may contribute to an increase in potency against M. avium, M. intracellulare, and/or M. tuberculosis, probably through elevation of the lipophilicity. However, among the compounds synthesized, compound VII, which was a 2,8-diazabicyclo[4.3.0]nonanyl derivative with relatively low lipophilicity, showed the most potent activity against mycobacterial species: the activity was 4- to 32-fold more potent than that of LVFX and two to four times as potent as that of gatifloxacin. These results suggested that an increase in the lipophilicity of LVFX analogues in part contributed to enhancement of antimycobacterial activities but that lipophilicity of the compound was not a critical factor affecting the potency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.