OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Journal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases
May, 2016;3 1-5.

Screening of the antimycobacterial activity of novel lipophilic agents by the modified broth based method.

Mehdi Zandhaghighi, Kiarash Ghazvini, Zahra Meshkat, Seyed Abdolrahim Rezaee, Mohammad Derakhshan, Saman Soleimanpour, Farzin Hadizadeh
Author Information
  1. Mehdi Zandhaghighi: Antimicrobial Resistance Research Center & Department of Medical Bacteriology and Virology, Bu-Ali Research Institute & Ghaem University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
  2. Kiarash Ghazvini: Antimicrobial Resistance Research Center & Department of Medical Bacteriology and Virology, Bu-Ali Research Institute & Ghaem University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
  3. Zahra Meshkat: Antimicrobial Resistance Research Center & Department of Medical Bacteriology and Virology, Bu-Ali Research Institute & Ghaem University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
  4. Seyed Abdolrahim Rezaee: Antimicrobial Resistance Research Center & Department of Medical Bacteriology and Virology, Bu-Ali Research Institute & Ghaem University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
  5. Mohammad Derakhshan: Antimicrobial Resistance Research Center & Department of Medical Bacteriology and Virology, Bu-Ali Research Institute & Ghaem University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
  6. Saman Soleimanpour: Antimicrobial Resistance Research Center & Department of Medical Bacteriology and Virology, Bu-Ali Research Institute & Ghaem University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
  7. Farzin Hadizadeh: Biotechnology Research Center, School of Pharmacy, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
PMID: 31723679 DOI: 10.1016/j.jctube.2016.01.001

Abstract

Most of the introduced susceptibility methods of have some disadvantages for screening. Therefore, the selection of susceptibility assay for evaluating candidate agents must be determined case by case. In this study, we evaluated the validity of a modified broth dilution-based assay in comparison to the gold standard proportional method for microbial sensitivity test of new lipophilic compounds candidate as antitubercular agents. The susceptibilities of 114 strains were separately tested against isoniazid and two lipophilic antitubercular agents (derivative of dihydropyridines) by employing the standard proportional method and a modified broth dilution-based assay. The results for isoniazid testing showed 100% concordance for sensitivity, specificity and reproducibility. In the case of microbial sensitivity test of lipophilic compounds, comparison of the results obtained from these two methods indicates a significant superiority of the modified method over the standard method. Considering the other advantages of this modified method, we concluded that this modified broth dilution-based assay could be utilized effectively for the susceptibility testing of new lipophilic compounds candidate as antitubercular agents.

Keywords

Antitubercular agents Dihydropyridines Microbial sensitivity tests Preclinical drug evaluation

References

  1. Eur J Med Chem. 2011 May;46(5):1564-71 [PMID: 21382653]
  2. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2008 Sep 29;48(2):310-4 [PMID: 18272313]
  3. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1988 May;137(5):1217-22 [PMID: 3195815]
  4. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009 Mar;53(3):849-62 [PMID: 19075046]
  5. Eur J Med Chem. 2008 Oct;43(10):2103-15 [PMID: 17950956]
  6. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2013 Sep;17(9):1212-6 [PMID: 23823178]
  7. CMAJ. 2004 Nov 23;171(11):1369-73 [PMID: 15557592]
  8. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2004 May;28(2):225-50 [PMID: 15109786]
  9. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011 Feb;15(2):205-10, i [PMID: 21219682]
  10. Farmaco Sci. 1973;28(4):298-315 [PMID: 4144627]
  11. Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2002;82(2-3):63-7 [PMID: 12356456]
  12. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997 May;41(5):1004-9 [PMID: 9145860]
  13. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2007 Oct 15;17(20):5661-4 [PMID: 17804222]
  14. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e55370 [PMID: 23405140]
  15. J Clin Microbiol. 1998 Feb;36(2):362-6 [PMID: 9466742]
  16. Lancet. 2006 Mar 18;367(9514):945-7 [PMID: 16546546]
  17. J Clin Microbiol. 2011 Mar;49(3):784-9 [PMID: 21177895]
  18. BMC Res Notes. 2013 May 30;6:215 [PMID: 23721428]
  19. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003 Nov;52(5):796-800 [PMID: 14519676]
  20. Bull World Health Organ. 1963;29:565-78 [PMID: 14102034]
  21. J Clin Microbiol. 2007 Aug;45(8):2662-8 [PMID: 17537932]
  22. J Microbiol. 2013 Oct;51(5):619-26 [PMID: 24037657]
  23. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001 Jul;45(7):1943-6 [PMID: 11408205]
  24. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2011 Apr;24(2):314-50 [PMID: 21482728]
  25. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012 Feb;67(2):404-14 [PMID: 22101217]
Journal Article

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0agentsmodifiedmethodlipophilicassaybrothsensitivitysusceptibilitycandidatecasedilution-basedstandardcompoundsantitubercularmethodscomparisonproportionalmicrobialtestnewisoniazidtworesultstestingintroduceddisadvantagesscreeningThereforeselectionevaluatingmustdeterminedstudyevaluatedvaliditygoldsusceptibilities114strainsseparatelytestedderivativedihydropyridinesemployingshowed100%concordancespecificityreproducibilityobtainedindicatessignificantsuperiorityConsideringadvantagesconcludedutilizedeffectivelyScreeningantimycobacterialactivitynovelbasedAntitubercularDihydropyridinesMicrobialtestsPreclinicaldrugevaluation

Similar Articles

Cited By