ArticlePloS one2020
Antibacterial activity of novel dual bacterial DNA type II topoisomerase inhibitors.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- In vivo pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of orbifloxacin against Staphylococcus aureus in a neutropenic murine thigh infection model.BMC veterinary research · 2025Article
- Exploring tetrazole chemistry: synthetic techniques, structure-activity relationship, and pharmacological insights in antimicrobial and anticancer therapy.Frontiers in chemistry · 2025Review
- Article
- 1,3-Dioxane-Linked Novel Bacterial Topoisomerase Inhibitors: Expanding Structural Diversity and the Antibacterial Spectrum.ACS medicinal chemistry letters · 2022Article
- Antimicrobial Resistance ofInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Antimicrobial Activity and Mode of Action of Celastrol, a Nortriterpen Quinone Isolated from Natural Sources.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, a drug discovery programme that sought to identify novel dual bacterial topoisomerase II inhibitors (NBTIs) led to the selection of six optimized compounds. In enzymatic assays, the molecules showed equivalent dual-targeting activity against the DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV enzymes of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. Consistently, the compounds demonstrated potent activity in susceptibility tests against various Gram-positive and Gram-negative reference species, including ciprofloxacin-resistant strains. The activity of the compounds against clinical multidrug-resistant isolates of S. aureus, Clostridium difficile, Acinetobacter baumannii, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, E. coli and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. was also confirmed. Two compounds (1 and 2) were tested in time-kill and post-antibiotic effect (PAE) assays. Compound 1 was bactericidal against all tested reference strains and showed higher activity than ciprofloxacin, and compound 2 showed a prolonged PAE, even against the ciprofloxacin-resistant S. aureus BAA-1720 strain. Spontaneous development of resistance to both compounds was selected for in S. aureus at frequencies comparable to those obtained for quinolones and other NBTIs. S. aureus BAA-1720 mutants resistant to compounds 1 and 2 had single point mutations in gyrA or gyrB outside of the quinolone resistance-determining region (QRDR), confirming the distinct site of action of these NBTIs compared to that of quinolones. Overall, the very good antibacterial activity of the compounds and their optimizable in vitro safety and physicochemical profile may have relevant implications for the development of new broad-spectrum antibiotics.
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.