Next Article in Journal
Chitosan-Based Scaffolds for the Treatment of Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Network Pharmacology and Molecular Modeling to Elucidate the Potential Mechanism of Neem Oil against Acne vulgaris
Previous Article in Journal
Mechanisms for Catalytic CO Oxidation on SiAun (n = 1–5) Cluster
Previous Article in Special Issue
Designing Functionally Substituted Pyridine-Carbohydrazides for Potent Antibacterial and Devouring Antifungal Effect on Multidrug Resistant (MDR) Strains
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Molecules
Volume 28
Issue 4
10.3390/molecules28041918
molecules-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Synthetic Cinnamides and Cinnamates: Antimicrobial Activity, Mechanism of Action, and In Silico Study

by
Mayara Castro de Morais
1,
Edeltrudes de Oliveira Lima
1,
Yunierkis Perez-Castillo
2 and
Damião Pergentino de Sousa
1,3,*
1
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa 58051-900, PB, Brazil
2
Bio-Cheminformatics Research Group and Area de Ciencias Aplicadas, Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias Aplicadas, Universidad de Las Americas, Quito 170503, Ecuador
3
Postgraduate Program in Bioactive Natural and Synthetic Products, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa 58051-900, PB, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2023, 28(4), 1918; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28041918
Submission received: 21 January 2023 / Revised: 1 February 2023 / Accepted: 6 February 2023 / Published: 17 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Natural and Designed Molecules in Drug Discovery)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The severity of infectious diseases associated with the resistance of microorganisms to drugs highlights the importance of investigating bioactive compounds with antimicrobial potential. Therefore, nineteen synthetic cinnamides and cinnamates having a cinnamoyl nucleus were prepared and submitted for the evaluation of antimicrobial activity against pathogenic fungi and bacteria in this study. To determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the compounds, possible mechanisms of antifungal action, and synergistic effects, microdilution testing in broth was used. The structures of the synthesized products were characterized with FTIR spectroscopy, 1 H-NMR, 13 C-NMR, and HRMS. Derivative 6 presented the best antifungal profile, suggesting that the presence of the butyl substituent potentiates its biological response (MIC = 626.62 μM), followed by compound 4 (672.83 μM) and compound 3 (726.36 μM). All three compounds were fungicidal, with MFC/MIC ≤ 4. For mechanism of action, compounds 4 and 6 directly interacted with the ergosterol present in the fungal plasmatic membrane and with the cell wall. Compound 18 presented the best antibacterial profile (MIC = 458.15 μM), followed by compound 9 (550.96 μM) and compound 6 (626.62 μM), which suggested that the presence of an isopropyl group is important for antibacterial activity. The compounds were bactericidal, with MBC/MIC ≤ 4. Association tests were performed using the Checkerboard method to evaluate potential synergistic effects with nystatin (fungi) and amoxicillin (bacteria). Derivatives 6 and 18 presented additive effects. Molecular docking simulations suggested that the most likely targets of compound 6 in C. albicans were caHOS2 and caRPD3, while the most likely target of compound 18 in S. aureus was saFABH. Our results suggest that these compounds could be used as prototypes to obtain new antimicrobial drugs.

1. Introduction

Cinnamic acid (CA) (1) is a natural product that presents a low toxicity to most living organisms. It is found in plant species, mainly in Cinnamomum zeylanicum, which gives rise to the term “cinnamic”. Its structure is simple (Figure 1), but it is involved in many crucial systemic functions such as growth, development, reproduction, and defense in various plant species [1,2]. This acid comes from the biosynthetic pathway of shikimic acid, its precursor being phenylalanine, and participates in the synthesis of more complex secondary metabolites such as lignins, flavonoids, isoflavonoids, tannins, coumarins and anthocyanins, which play vital roles in plant physiology such as during growth, development, reproduction and disease resistance [3,4].
In the last 10 years, interest in CA and its derivatives (esters, amides, aldehydes and alcohols) [5] has increased because of its many pharmacological activities, such as antituberculosis [6,7,8,9], antiviral [10], anticancer [11,12,13,14,15,16], mammary (MCF-7) and prostate (PC-3) inhibition, neoplastic cell growth, apoptosis inducement [17,18,19], anticholesterolemic [20,21,22,23], cardioprotective [24], antioxidant [25,26,27,28], anti-inflammatory [2,29,30,31,32], hepatoprotective [33,34,35], antidiabetic [36,37,38], antimalarial [39], anxiolytic [40], central nervous system depressant [41], neuroprotective [42,43,44,45,46], larvicidal agent [47,48,49,50,51], anti-leishmania [52], cosmetic [17,53], and antimicrobial action [54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66] properties.
Infectious diseases caused by bacteria and fungi remain a major global health problem, especially in developing countries. Antibacterial and antifungal drugs, widely known as antimicrobials, began to be used in chemotherapy in the 1940s, and many new classes of antimicrobials were discovered in the period from 1940 to 1970 and successfully introduced into clinical practice [67]. However, as these new drugs were employed, drug-resistant strains began to appear [68]. The widespread use of antibiotics during the last forty years in animal feed and human consumption has only accelerated the emergence of resistance in various pathogenic organisms [69]. Infection with drug-resistant strains is typically associated with longer treatments, greater toxicity, and higher costs.
The CA skeleton is an interesting scaffold for the development of novel bioactive substances. CA derivatives are known for their antimicrobial activity [21]. Antimicrobial mechanism studies have reported that CA mainly exerts its activity through plasma membrane disruption, nucleic acid and protein damage, and the induction of intracellular reactive oxygen species [70,71]. The biological activities of CA can be explained through its interactions with the molecular targets present in a living organism. CA has three main reactive sites: the aromatic ring substituent, the carboxylic acid function, and the conjugated olefin (Figure 1) [72].
Therefore, the objectives of this study were to synthesize a series of cinnamic acid derivatives and to evaluate their antifungal and antibacterial activities to identify new antimicrobial drug candidates. An in silico approach was used to investigate the potential mechanisms of antimicrobial action.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Chemistry

Cinnamic acid (1) and cinnamoyl chloride were used as starting materials for the preparation of a series of nineteen compounds: via Fischer esterification reactions [51,73,74] (2–8), bimolecular nucleophilic substitution [51,73,75] (9 and 14), and Schotten–Baumann reactions [65] (10–13 and 15–20) (Scheme 1). The following reagents were used: methanol (2), ethanol (3), propanol (4), isopropanol (5), butanol (6), pentanol (7), iso-pentanol (8), bromodecane (9), benzyl alcohol (10), 4-methylbenzyl alcohol (11), 4-hydroxybenzyl alcohol (12), 4-nitrobenzyl alcohol (13), 4-chlorobenzyl chloride (14), piperonyl alcohol (15), benzyl amine (16), 4-chlorobenzyl amine (17), 4-isopropylbenzyl amine (18), piperonyl amine (19) and dibenzyl amine (20) (Figure 2). The compounds were structurally characterized using infrared (IR) spectroscopy, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), and high-resolution mass spectrometry.
The compounds were evaluated for in vitro antimicrobial activity against strains of Candida albicans (ATCC-76485), Candida tropicalis (ATCC-13803), Candida glabrata (ATCC-90030), Aspergillus flavus (LM-171), Penicillium citrinum (ATCC-4001), Streptococcus aureus (ATCC-35903), Streptococcus epidermidis (ATCC-12228), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC-25853).
An analysis of the 1 H NMR spectra of the cinnamic derivatives showed seven hydrogens in common in the cinnamoyl substructure, five belonging to the aromatic ring and two olefinic hydrogens referring to the side carbon chain. In view of the common signals for all analogues, the most unprotected hydrogen signal in the spectrum was that of the olefinic hydrogen in the form of a doublet at about δH 7.60 ppm, which was coupled to the neighboring hydrogen that presented a signal in the form of doublet around δH 6.53 ppm, evidencing the configuration of the double bond is trans.
In the 13 C NMR spectra, chemical shifts indicated that the cinnamic derivatives had nine carbons in common. A signal close to δC 166.0 ppm was attributed to carbonyl; a signal around δC 141.3 ppm was attributed to olefinic carbon. A signal at δC 133.0 ppm was attributed to the aromatic carbon adjacent to the olefinic group. In addition, the signals at about δC 129.6 ppm and δC 128.8 ppm were attributed to meta carbons of the aromatic ring and to two ortho carbons, respectively, and another chemical shift of approximately δC 127.8 ppm indicated carbon in the para position. Furthermore, the presence of a signal close to δC 120.3 ppm was attributed to olefinic carbon.
The IR spectra showed absorption bands between 2850 and 3000 cm−1, indicating C-H sp3 stretching; signals between 3000 and 3100 cm−1 indicating C-H sp2 stretching; and C=O stretching bands in the range of 1750–1730 cm−1 characteristic of ester carbonyls or a strong signal around 1650 cm−1 belonging to the carbonyl stretch of the amides.

2.2. Evaluation of Antifungal Activity

Following the antifungal activity analysis of the nineteen cinnamic acid analogs against strains of C. albicans (ATCC-76485), C. tropicalis (ATCC-13803), C. glabrata (ATCC-90030), A. flavus (LM-171), and P. citrinum (ATCC-4001) (Table 1), it was verified that eleven were bioactive. Butyl cinnamate (6) was the most potent compound (MIC = 626.62 µM) against all tested strains. Ethyl cinnamate (3) and methyl cinnamate (2) were also bioactive, though with a lower potency, with MIC = 726.36 µM and 789.19 µM, respectively. In general, the ester derivatives were more bioactive than the amide derivatives.

2.2.1. Minimum Fungicidal Concentration (MFC)

One may analyze whether a substance is fungicidal or fungistatic by calculating its MFC to MIC ratio [76]. Therefore, MFC/MIC ratios were calculated to determine whether the substances presented fungistatic (MFC/MIC > 4) or fungicidal (MFC/MIC ≤ 4) activity. The MFC/MIC ratios were all less than 4 (Table 2), strongly suggesting that the compounds maintain antifungal activity with a fungicidal character.

2.2.2. Mechanism of Action

Sterols make up part of the constitution of all fungal cells. Ergosterol is a principal sterol and modulates membrane fluidity, cell growth, and proliferation [76]. In this study, tests to detect the biological targets of compounds 4 and 6 were performed by adding ergosterol to the medium. An increase in the MIC of the compounds was observed, indicating that the fungus likely acts by inhibiting ergosterol synthesis or directly binding to ergosterol. Azoles and polyenes are well-known classes of antifungal drugs that act on ergosterol to treat fungal infections [76] (Table 3 and Table 4).
When studying cell wall architecture, protoplasts stabilized with osmo-protectants are important biochemical tools [76]. Osmotic stability is used with C. albicans and other fungi to study antibiotic mechanisms of action [76,77,78]. Damage to essential components of the cell wall, caused by antifungal agents such as cell wall synthesis inhibitors, can lyse cells in the absence of an osmo-protectant. However, cells will continue to grow if an adequate stabilizer is present in the medium. In the sorbitol (osmotic protector) test, the MIC of compounds 3 and 6 increased with microbial growth, indicating interference in cellular functions that are involved the participation of the cell wall (Table 3 and Table 4).

2.2.3. Association Tests—Checkerboard Method

In the microdilution assays, compound 6 demonstrated the best antifungal activity, so it was tested in combination with nystatin using the Checkerboard method to analyze its synergistic effect. When tested alone, the compound presented an MIC of 626.62 µM and nystatin presented an MIC of 8.0 µM. When tested in combination, compound 6 presented an MIC of 313.31 µM and nystatin presented an MIC of 3.2 µM, thus demonstrating an additive effect (0.5 < FIC ≤ 1); see Table 5 [79].

2.3. Evaluation of the Antibacterial Activity of the Derivatives

According to the results shown in Table 6, when observing the antibacterial activity of the compounds against strains of S. aureus (ATCC-35903), S. epidermidis (ATCC-12228), and P. aeruginosa (ATCC-25853), it was verified that of the 20 tested compounds, 9 were bioactive. 4-isopropylbenzylcinnamide (18) was the most potent (MIC = 458.15 µM), followed by decyl cinnamate (9), which for all tested strains presented an MIC = 550.96 µM. Benzyl cinnamate (10) was equipotent (MIC = 537.81 μM) to compound 9 against S. aureus ATCC-35903 and S. epidermidis ATCC-12228, and it was less active (1075.63 µM) against P. aeruginosa ATCC-25853.

2.3.1. Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC)

Antibacterial substances can be classified as bacteriostatic or bactericidal. This can be established by calculating the MBC/MIC ratio. A bactericidal effect is considered when the MBC/MIC ratio is ≤4, and a bacteriostatic effect is considered when the ratio is >4 [76]. In the present study, it was possible to determine that the compounds with better results against bacterial strains were also characterized as bactericidal (Table 7).

2.3.2. Association Test Using the Checkerboard Method

The best microdilution test results were obtained with compound 18 (for bacterial strains). This compound was then tested in combination with amoxicillin (an antimicrobial of first choice in the treatment of infections caused by S. aureus) to analyze its synergistic effect using the Checkerboard method.
When tested alone, the compound presented an MIC of 128.0 µg/mL. When tested alone, amoxicillin presented an MIC of 0.015 µg/mL. When tested in combination, the compound presented an MIC of 64.0 µg/mL and amoxicillin presented an MIC of 0.0005 µg/mL, demonstrating an additive effect (0.5 < FICI ≤ 1); see Table 8 [79].

2.4. Molecular Docking

Potential targets identified during the target docking predictions for compounds 6 and 18 in C. albicans and S. aureus, respectively, are reported in Table 9. The table contains the UniProt accessions for all predicted potential targets, the ID given to each target, the compound corresponding to each target, a brief functional description, and a column indicating whether the protein structure was retrieved from the Protein Data Bank database or obtained via homology modeling. In total, 18 potential targets were identified for compound 6 in C. albicans and 10 were predicted for compound 18 in S. aureus. In both cases, the potential targets of the chemicals covered a wide range of functions.
As described in the Methods section, the compounds were docked into the proteins listed in Table 9. The full results of the molecular docking calculations are given as Supporting Information in Table S1, and the scores of the top scored ligand conformers by target are presented in Table 10. For caTIM10, we were unable to obtain a complete homology model, and no valid docking pose was produced for caCDC42. However, three different docking conditions were explored for caTMP1: compound 6 in the absence of dUMP and 5,10-methylene tetrahydrofolate, docking in the dUMP-binding site in the presence of the cofactor, and docking in the 5,10-methylene tetrahydrofolate cavity with dUMP present.
The docking process produced 62 complexes fulfilling the selection criterion for additional analyses (aggregated Z-score larger than 1). Overall, these calculations showed that the best scored targets of compound 6 in C. albicans were RPD3, HOS2, and IMA1. The best docking scores in S. aureus were obtained for the complexes of compound 18 with FABH, MENB, and GAR. Despite being a widely used tool for computer-aided drug discovery, molecular docking tools employ very simple scoring functions. For this reason, all 62 selected complexes were subjected to MD simulations, and estimations of their free binding energies were performed based on these simulations. The use of MD simulations to refine molecular docking results has been shown to provide better estimates of free energy in ligand–receptor complex binding [80].
Of the predicted complexes, caUGA1 and caUGA11 were excluded from the MD simulation analyses because we could not find Amber parameters for the Fe2S2 cofactor coordinated by the aspartic acid residues present in these receptors. The MD simulations led to a total simulation time of 1.14 µs for all complexes. The predicted free binding energies and their components for the 57 investigated complexes are provided as Supporting Information in Table S2. The results for the best (lowest) energy conformer by target are presented in Figure 3. The results of the free binding energy predictions agreed with those obtained from molecular docking predictions regarding the best ranked molecular target in each microorganism. That is, the most probable targets of compound 6 in C. albicans were caHOS2 and caRPD3, while saFABH was the most likely target of 18 in S. aureus. Notably, for both microbes, the free binding energies derived from the MD simulations were able to separate the top ranked targets better than molecular docking. Based on these results, the predicted binding modes for compound 6 to caHOS2 and 18 to saFABH were analyzed in detail. The 6–caRPD3 complex was excluded from the analysis because all residues in the binding cavity of this receptor and caHOS2 were conserved. In addition, the orientation of the ligand in the predicted complex with caRPD3 overlapped with that predicted for caHOS2.
Figure 4 shows the complexes predicted for compound 6 with caHOS2 and compound 18 with saFABH. For depiction, the 100 ligand conformations present in the same number of MD snapshots employed for MM–PBSA calculations were clustered. The centroid of the most populated cluster was selected as the representative conformation of the complex. The residues labeled in Figure 4 are those interacting with the ligands in at least 50% of the analyzed MD snapshots. The figure was prepared using UCSF Chimera [81], the frequencies of the compound–receptor interactions were analyzed with Cytoscape [82], and ligand–receptor interaction diagrams were obtained using LigPlot+ [83].

3. Discussion

Cinnamic acid (1) presented no activity against the studied strains. Compared with its derivative compound 2 (methyl cinnamate), it was observed that alteration of the carboxylic group to an ester function resulted in a bioactive derivative with an MIC of 789.19 μM against all tested Candida strains and an MIC of 1578.16 μM against A. flavus and P. citrinum.
The presence of the ethyl group in compound 3 potentiated its pharmacological response (MIC = 726.36 μM), possibly due to an increase in lipophilicity and greater penetration of the compound into biological membranes. Indeed, the increase in carbon chain length increased the antifungal action of compound 6 (butyl cinnamate, MIC = 626.62 μM). There are several studies and lipophilicity has been extensively studied and is considered one of the most important parameters influencing antifungal activity.
The compound propyl cinnamate (4) was bioactive against all tested strains, with an MIC = 672.83 μM. However, its isomer, compound 5 (R = isopropyl), was only bioactive against yeast strains (MIC = 672.83 µM).
Compounds 8 (R = isopentyl) and 7 (pentyl cinnamate) presented no activity against the tested Candida species. However, compound 7 was weakly bioactive against A. flavus and P. citrinum, with an MIC = 2345.39 μM. Interestingly, the higher alkyl volume at the terminal portion of compound 8 resulted in inactivity against both fungal species.
compound 9 (decyl cinnamate) was bioactive against all Candida strains, with an MIC = 1101.92 µM, corroborating the results of a previous study [78] that reported on decyl 4-chlorocinnamate with antifungal action against strains of C. albicans ATCC 90028, C. glabrata ATCC 90030, C. krusei ATCC 34125, and C. guilliermondii ATCC 22017 (MIC = 3.10 μmol/mL, 3.10 μmol/mL, 3.10 μmol/mL, and 1.15 μmol/mL, respectively), evidencing the contribution of the decyl group in cinnamate analogs to the antifungal action.
Reduced biological activity (MIC = 1075.63 µM and 2151.26 µM, respectively) was noticed in compound 10 (benzyl cinnamate) compared with compound 6. The introduction of an aromatic ring as a radical, with or without substituents, resulted in a loss of antifungal activity, except for compounds 17 and 18. The molecular volume of these groups may have influenced this change in biological potency.
Of the studied amides, only compounds 17 and 18 were bioactive. The activity of compound 17 (4-chlorobenzyl cinnamide) was weak (MIC = 2021.31 μM) and specific for filamentous fungal strains. compound 18 was bioactive against all studied fungal strains, with an MIC = 1832.62 μM for C. albicans (ATCC-76485) and C. tropicalis (ATCC-13803) strains and an MIC = 916.31 μM for C. glabrata (ATCC-90030), A. flavus (LM-171), and P. citrinum (ATCC-4001).
To better understand the mechanism of the antifungal action of the derivatives, compounds 4 and 6 were subjected to a test to verify the mode of action on the cell wall and plasmatic membrane of the fungus using strains of C. albicans ATCC-76485 and P. citrinum ATCC-4001. The test results (Table 3 and Table 4) showed that there was a direct interaction between the molecules and ergosterol, a component of the fungus cell membrane, and with sorbitol, an osmotic protector of the cell wall.
Antibacterial activity increased with the length of the carbonic radical chain in compound 2 (methyl cinnamate) with an MIC = 789.19 µM, in compound 3 (ethyl cinnamate) with an MIC = 726.36 µM, and in compounds 4 (propyl cinnamate), 6 (butyl cinnamate), and 9 (decyl cinnamate) with MIC = 672.83 µM, 672.83 µM, and 550.96 µM, respectively, against all studied bacteria. These results suggest an increase in the liposolubility-augmented passage through the biological membrane. compound 7 (pentyl cinnamate) with five carbons in the main chain was inactive against S. aureus ATCC-35903.
compound 5 (with an isopropyl group) was bioactive against all tested bacterial strains; however, compound 8 (with an isopentyl group) was inactive, confirming that a greater carbon chain length with a bulky terminal group can result in steric effects that influence bioactivity. In the aryl derivatives group, only compound 18 (4-isopropylbenzylcinnamide) was bioactive against the studied strains, with the best antibacterial profile of the entire collection (MIC = 458.15 µM). The presence of the isopropyl group attached to the aromatic ring was important for antibacterial activity of this compound. In the Checkerboard test, the compounds with the best results (6 and 18) both showed an additive effect when associated with the reference drug.
Subsequently, the antifungal and antibacterial activity of compounds 6 and 18 were investigated through a molecular modeling study. For caHOS2, as well as for caRPD3, the carbonyl oxygen in compound 6 directly points to the Zn2+ ion. Furthermore, the phenyl ring of the ligand was found to be positioned in parallel with F233 and F177 at the entrance of the binding cavity and to allow for π–π stacking with these residues. This moiety also interacts with D126. These stacking interactions, as well as the strong electrostatic interaction predicted with the metal ion at the active site, are likely to make the largest contributions towards complex stability. In addition, the central enoate group presents contacts with H167, H168, and H205. However, the butyl tail was found to occupy the bottom of the binding cavity, comprising a mostly hydrophobic tunnel flanked by M56, G165, C178, G328, and G329.
In the complex predicted for compound 18 with saFABH, the 4-isopropylbenzyl group occupies the entrance of the binding site and forms a large network of interactions that includes F157, M201, V206, H238, A240, I244, N268, and F298. Two hydrogen bonds contributing to the stability of the complex were predicted: carbonyl oxygen serves as an acceptor for the backbone of G300 and amide nitrogen acts as a donor to the F298 backbone. Finally, the other side of the compound accommodates a hydrophobic pocket formed by L119, L142 I145, T146, F157, and F400 of the second saFABH monomer. This phenyl ring orients favorable π–π stacking interactions with the latter two phenylalanine residues. These modeling results could explain both the antifungal activity of compound 6 and the antibacterial activity of compound 18. Furthermore, caHOS2 has been shown to be a regulator of the essential Hsp90 protein [84]. In antifungal agents, HOS2 inhibition has been demonstrated against C. albicans, and it can even overcome resistance to azole drugs in this fungus [85]. Our results suggest that HOS2 and other histone deacetylases (such as RPD3) are potential antifungal drug targets [86,87,88]. Additionally, FABH is an essential enzyme for the synthesis of fatty acids in bacteria, and it has been investigated for its potential as a drug target [89]. In the specific case of S. aureus, FABH has been validated as a target of many chemical compounds presenting antibacterial activity [90,91,92,93].
Altogether, these modeling predictions were consistent with the antifungal and antibacterial activities observed for compounds 6 and 18, respectively. Although target-specific experiments are required to test these hypotheses, the presented results will be useful in guiding future investigations of the mechanism of action of these compounds.

4. Conclusions

Nineteen compounds derived from cinnamic acid (2–20) were synthesized, and eight of them presented antimicrobial activity. Compounds 4 and 6 exhibited the best antifungal results, and compounds 9 and 18 presented the best antibacterial results. Compounds 6 and 18 presented an additive effect with differing antibiotics. Compounds 3 and 6 promoted antifungal activity, both acting on the cell membrane (sorbitol assay) and on the fungal cell wall (ergosterol assay). In the Checkerboard association test of the most bioactive compounds, 6 and 18 presented an additive effect towards inhibitory action. According to the computational results, the most likely targets of compound 6 in C. albicans were caHOS2 and caRPD3, while saFABH was the most likely target of compound 18 in S. aureus. For caHOS2, and for caRPD3, the carbonyl oxygen of compound 6 was found to directly point to the Zn2+ ion. Furthermore, the phenyl ring of the ligand was shown to be positioned parallel to F233 and F177 at the entrance of the binding cavity, thus allowing for π–π stacking with these residues. The central enoate group made contact with H167, H168, and H205, and the butyl tail occupied the bottom of the binding cavity, comprising a mostly hydrophobic tunnel flanked by M56, G165, C178, G328, and G329. In the complex predicted for compound 18 with saFABH, the 4-isopropylbenzyl group was shown to occupy the entry of the binding site and to form a large network of interactions that included F157, M201, V206, H238, A240, I244, N268, and F298. Two hydrogen bonds that contribute to the stability of the complex were predicted: carbonyl oxygen serves as an acceptor for the G300 backbone and amide nitrogen acts as a donor for the F298 backbone. compound 18 settles into a hydrophobic pocket formed by L119, L142, I145, T146, F157, and F400 of the second saFABH monomer. This phenyl ring is favorable for π–π stacking interactions with the last two phenylalanine residues. Our data indicate that these compounds can be used as prototypes to develop structural analogs with better antimicrobial profiles.

5. Materials and Methods

5.1. Chemistry

All the chemical products used during synthesis were from Sigma-Aldrich. The 400 1H-NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) and 100 MHz 13 C-NMR, and 500 1H-NMR and 125 MHz 13 C-NMR spectra were recorded on VARIAN MERCURY, BRUKER-ASCEND, and VARIAN-RMN-SYSTEM spectrometers, respectively. Chemical shifts (δ) are expressed in parts per million (ppm) using TMS as an internal standard. Spin–spin multiplicities are given as s (singlet), brs (broad singlet), d (doublet), t (triplet), q (quartet), qu (quintet), sext (sextet), sept (septet), and m (multiplet). Column adsorption chromatography (CC) was performed on silica gel (Merck 60, 230–400 mesh); analytical TLC was performed on pre-coated silica gel plates (Merck 60 F254). Melting points were determined with a Microquímica apparatus (Microquímica equipamentos LTDA, Model MQAPF 302, Serial No.: 403/18, Palhoça, Brazil) at a temperature measurement range of 10 °C to 350 °C. All reactions were monitored with analytical thin layer chromatography.

5.1.1. Synthesis of Compounds 2–8

To a 100 mL flask, cinnamic acid (0.25 g, 1.69 mmol) and alcohol (50 mL) were added in the presence of sulfuric acid (0.4 mL); this mixture was then heated under reflux until the completion of the reaction (5–24 h), which was verified with single-spot TLC [51]. Spectroscopic data for the compounds in this study are available in the Supplementary Materials.

5.1.2. Synthesis of compounds 9 and 14

A mixture of cinnamic acid (0.2 g, 1.35 mmol), triethylamine (0.73 mL), and halide (1.39 mmol) in acetone (16.4 mL) was heated under reflux until a complete reaction (24 h), which was verified with single-spot TLC [51]. Spectroscopic data for the compounds in this study are available in the Supplementary Materials.

5.1.3. Synthesis of Compounds 10–13 and 15–20

A mixture of cinnamoyl chloride (0.1 g, 0.6 mmol) and the corresponding alcohol or amine (0.6 mmol) in pyridine (1.0 mL) was heated under reflux until a complete reaction (3–24 h), which was verified with single-spot TLC [94]. Spectroscopic data for the compounds in this study are available in the Supplementary Materials.

5.2. Antimicrobial Tests

5.2.1. Microorganisms

The 20 selected compounds were checked for antifungal activity against strains of C. albicans (ATCC-76485), C. tropicalis (ATCC-13803), C. glabrata (ATCC-90030), A. flavus (LM-171), and P. citrinum (ATCC-4001), and their antibacterial activity was evaluated against strains of S. aureus (ATCC-35903), S. epidermidis (ATCC-12228), and P. aeruginosa (ATCC-25853). The strains were acquired at the MICOTECA of the Mycology Laboratory, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences (DCF), Health Science Center (CCS) of the Federal University of Paraíba. All strains were kept on Sabouraud dextrose agar (SDA) and in brain heart infusion broth (BHI) at a temperature of 4 °C, and they were used for the assays at 24–48 h in SDA/BHIA while incubated at 35 ± 2 °C. The microorganism suspension was prepared according to the 0.5 McFarland standard to obtain 1–5 × 106 CFU/mL. Standard drugs, nystatin (yeast) and amoxicillin, were used as controls.

5.2.2. Determination of Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC)

MIC values were determined using the broth microdilution method and 96-well U-shaped plates. In each well, 100 µL of liquid medium from Roswell Park Memorial Institute (RPMI) doubly concentrated with 100 mL of product solution was added to the first row of plate wells. Through serial dilutions, concentrations of the evaluated compounds ranging from 1000 μg/mL to 2.0 μg/mL. Subsequently, 10 µL of inoculum was added to the wells in each column of the plate and the culture medium with nystatin. The plates were then incubated at 37 °C for 24–48 h. For each strain, the MIC was defined as the lowest concentration capable of inhibiting fungal growth in the wells, visually observed in comparison with the control. All tests were performed in duplicate, and the results are expressed as an arithmetic mean of the MIC values obtained in both tests [95].

5.2.3. Determination of Minimum Fungicidal Concentration (MFC)

After the MIC values were determined, 10 μL aliquots of the supernatant from the wells in which complete fungal growth inhibition (MIC, MIC × 2, and MIC × 4) was observed in the microdilution plates were added to 100 μL of RPMI broth contained in new culture plates. The plates were incubated for 24–48 h at 35 ± 2 °C. The minimum fungicidal concentration (MFC) was considered as the lowest concentration of the product that was able to inhibit the growth of microorganisms [96].

5.2.4. Determination of Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC)

After the MIC values were determined, 10 μL aliquots of the supernatants were removed from the wells of the microdilution plates at concentrations of MIC, MIC × 2, and MIC × 4 for each strain and inoculated into new microdilution plates containing only a BHI medium. The assay was performed in triplicate. The plates were incubated at 35 ± 2 °C for 24 h, and bacterial growth was observed. The MBC was defined as the lowest concentration capable of causing the complete inhibition of bacterial growth [96,97].

5.2.5. Mechanism of Antifungal Action for Amides

(1) Sorbitol Assay: The microdilution technique was performed in the presence of sorbitol (anhydrous D-sorbitol) (INLAB laboratory) to determine the mode of action of the compounds on the cell wall of C. albicans CBS 562. For this test, the inoculum was prepared with sorbitol to a final concentration of 0.8 M. The plates were incubated, and readings were taken at 24 h and 48 h post-incubation. Caspofungin was used as a positive control at an initial concentration of 5 mg/mL [76,98].
(2) Ergosterol Test: This test was performed using the microdilution technique, as previously described, in the presence of exogenous ergosterol at 400 μg/mL. Nystatin was used as a positive control. The plates were incubated, and readings were taken at 24 and 48 h [76,98].

5.2.6. Association Study Using the Checkerboard Method

In a 96-well plate, all the wells were filled with 100 μL of SD broth. Compounds 6 and 18 were initially dissolved in DMSO and further diluted in SD broth Then, 100 μL of the compound was added to the initial column (wells A1 to H1) and serially diluted up to the 10th column. The 11th and 12th columns, respectively, served as a drug-only control and a growth control. Similarly, a drug control was initially dissolved in DMSO and diluted in broth to obtain a 4 × concentration of the desired drug concentration. It was separately prepared in each tube for the desired concentration. One hundred microliters of the first control drug concentration was added to the first row A wells A1 to A11 but not to A12 (the growth control). This process was repeated with the respective drug concentrations for rows B to G (but not for row H). All wells were thoroughly mixed by pipette aspiration to obtain proper drug dispersion. One hundred microliters (100 μL) of the contents of each well was transferred to another 96-well plate, which was marked as a replica plate. Finally, 100 μL of the inoculum (1 × 103 to 3 × 103 CFU/mL) was added to all wells, and the plates were incubated at 37 °C for 7 days [79].

5.3. Modeling Methods

5.3.1. Target Selection

The previously described homology-based target fishing approach was employed to identify potential targets for compounds 6 and 18, respectively, in C. albicans and S. aureus [74,98]. Potential targets for each compound were separately predicted using the Similarity Ensemble Approach (SEA) web server [99]. For each compound, the sequences of the targets provided by SEA were retrieved from the Uniprot database. The sequences of the targets predicted for compound 6 were then submitted to a Blast [100] search using the proteins from C. albicans (taxid 5476) included in the Reference Protein (refseq_protein) database using the NCBI web implementation of Blast [101]. The same process was repeated for compound 18 using proteins from S. aureus (taxid 1280). Two criteria were used to select the potential targets: the selected proteins had to have a shared identity of at least 45% with the proteins identified during target fishing, and at least of 75% of their sequences had to be covered by the alignment obtained from the Blast search. Proteins fulfilling the latter criteria were selected for modeling studies.

5.3.2. Molecular Docking

An initial three-dimensional (3D) conformation was generated for each compound with OpenEye’s Omega [102], and partial atomic charges of the am1bcc type were added to these with MolCharge [103]. The 3D structures of a few targets were available in the Protein Data Bank (database). These targets were ACPS (PDB code 5cxd), MEMB (PDB code 2uzf), FABH (PDB code 6kvs), and GBSA (PDB code 5eyu) from S. aureus and TDH3 (PDB code 7u4s) from C. albicans. The remaining targets predicted for compounds 6 and 18 had no available 3D structure, and homology models were generated for them on the SwissModel web server [104]. Various homology models were generated for each protein, and the highest QMEANDisCo global score by potential target was selected for molecular docking calculations.
For molecular docking, the previously reported procedure was followed [74,105]. The Gold software [106] was selected for docking calculations. The binding cavities were defined from either the co-crystallized ligands or the ligands present in the templates of the homology models. Functionally relevant cofactors or metal ions were maintained in the receptor in case they were already present or were transferred to it from the model’s templates. Hydrogen atoms were added to the receptors, and residues pointing to the binding cavity were set to be flexible. The PLP scoring function was selected for primary scoring. A total of 30 docking solutions were obtained and re-scored with the ChemScore, GoldScore, and ASP GoldScore scoring functions.
Considering the average and standard deviations of the scoring values, the scores obtained with each of the four scoring functions were converted to Z-scores at a scoring function level. The resulting Z-scores were then averaged. The ligand poses with aggregated Z-scores ˃ 1 were selected for additional studies. These selected potential complexes were further studied with molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, and free binding energies were predicted from the MD snapshots as described below.

5.3.3. Molecular Dynamics Simulations and Free Energy Calculations

MD simulations were carried out with Amber 20 [107] according to previously described methods [1,76]. The same protocol was applied to model all systems, parameterizing the ligands and amino acids with the gaff2 and ff19SB force fields, respectively. For cofactors, Amber parameters were obtained from the database provided by the Bryce Group at The University of Manchester: http://amber.manchester.ac.uk/index.html (accessed on 26 May 2022). Cofactors not included in the latter database such as dUMP and 5,10-methylene tetrahydrofolate were parameterized using the same approach followed for ligands. Parameters for the Zn2+ ion, as well as for its coordinating residues, were retrieved from the Yuan-Ping Pang lab web page: https://www.mayo.edu/research/labs/computer-aided-molecular-design/projects/zinc-protein-simulations-using-cationic-dummy-atom-cada-approach (accessed on 26 May 2022) [108].
Truncated octahedron boxes were generated to enclose the systems that were solvated with OPC water molecules. Systems were neutralized with the addition of Na+ and Cl− ions at a concentration of 0.15 M [109]. Two stages of energy minimization were performed, the first with restraints applied to everything except the solvent and counter ions and the second with no restraints. The systems were next heated from 0 K to 300 K (the temperature during the 20 ps production runs). The heated systems were subsequently equilibrated at constant temperature and pressure for 100 ps. The final system for each complex was used as input for five production runs, each initialized with differing random velocities to better explore each complex’s conformational space. Each production run lasted for 4 ns, totaling 20 ns per complex.
The MM–PBSA method, as implemented in the MMPBSA.py script of Amber 20, was used to estimate the free binding energies. Calculations proceeded with 100 MD snapshots evenly extracted from five production runs. To compute the free binding energies, 20 snapshots per production run were extracted. Only snapshots in the 1 ns to 4 ns time interval were considered for MM–PBSA calculations. The ionic strength for these calculations was set at 150 mM.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/molecules28041918/s1; Spectroscopic data of compounds; Table S1: Results of docking compounds 6 and 18 to their probable targets in C. albicans and S.aureus.; Table S2: Predicted free energies of binding and their components for the predicted complexes of compounds 6 and 18 with their potential targets in C. albicans and S. aureus. References [110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118] are cited in the Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

Synthesis of compounds, M.C.d.M.; biological tests, M.C.d.M. and E.d.O.L.; molecular docking, Y.P.-C.; writing—proofreading and editing, M.C.d.M. and D.P.d.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) (grant 306729/2019-9) and Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) (grant PROEX TERMO AUXPE 0521/2019).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. França, S.B.; Correia, P.R.d.S.; Castro, I.B.D.d.; Júnior, E.F.d.S.; Barros, M.E.d.S.B.; Lima, D.J.d.P. Synthesis, Applications and Structure-Activity Relationship (SAR) of Cinnamic Acid Derivatives: A Review. Res. Soc. Dev. 2021, 10, e28010111691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Da Silveira E Sá, R.D.C.; Andrade, L.N.; De Oliveira, R.D.R.B.; De Sousa, D.P. A Review on Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Phenylpropanoids Found in Essential Oils. Molecules 2014, 19, 1459–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Bhullar, K.S.; Lassalle-Claux, G.; Touaibia, M.; Vasantha Rupasinghe, H.P. Antihypertensive Effect of Caffeic Acid and Its Analogs through Dual Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibition. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2014, 730, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ververidis, F.; Trantas, E.; Douglas, C.; Vollmer, G.; Kretzschmar, G.; Panopoulos, N. Biotechnology of Flavonoids and Other Phenylpropanoid-Derived Natural Products. Part I: Chemical Diversity, Impacts on Plant Biology and Human Health. Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 1214–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Godoy, M.E.; Rotelli, A.; Pelzer, L.; Tonn, C.E. Antiinflammatory Activity of Cinnamic Acid Esters. Molecules 2000, 5, 547–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Bairwa, R.; Kakwani, M.; Tawari, N.R.; Lalchandani, J.; Ray, M.K.; Rajan, M.G.R.; Degani, M.S. Novel Molecular Hybrids of Cinnamic Acids and Guanylhydrazones as Potential Antitubercular Agents. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2010, 20, 1623–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chen, Y.L.; Huang, S.T.; Sun, F.M.; Chiang, Y.L.; Chiang, C.J.; Tsai, C.M.; Weng, C.J. Transformation of Cinnamic Acid from Trans- to Cis-Form Raises a Notable Bactericidal and Synergistic Activity against Multiple-Drug Resistant Mycobacterium Tuberculosis. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2011, 43, 188–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Guzman, J.D.; Mortazavi, P.N.; Munshi, T.; Evangelopoulos, D.; McHugh, T.D.; Gibbons, S.; Malkinson, J.; Bhakta, S. 2-Hydroxy-Substituted Cinnamic Acids and Acetanilides Are Selective Growth Inhibitors of Mycobacterium Tuberculosis. Medchemcomm 2013, 5, 47–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Teixeira, C.; Ventura, C.; Gomes, J.R.B.; Gomes, P.; Martins, F. Cinnamic Derivatives as Antitubercular Agents: Characterization by Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationship Studies. Molecules 2020, 25, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Gravina, H.D.; Tafuri, N.F.; Silva Júnior, A.; Fietto, J.L.R.; Oliveira, T.T.; Diaz, M.A.N.; Almeida, M.R. In Vitro Assessment of the Antiviral Potential of Trans-Cinnamic Acid, Quercetin and Morin against Equid Herpesvirus 1. Res. Vet. Sci. 2011, 91, e158–e162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Anantharaju, P.G.; Gowda, P.C.; Vimalambike, M.G.; Madhunapantula, S.V. An Overview on the Role of Dietary Phenolics for the Treatment of Cancers. Nutr. J. 2016, 15, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. De, P.; Baltas, M.; Bedos-Belval, F. Cinnamic Acid Derivatives as Anticancer Agents-a Review. Curr. Med. Chem. 2011, 18, 1672–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Croft, S.L.; Sundar, S.; Fairlamb, A.H. Drug Resistance in Leishmaniasis. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2006, 19, 111–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Vale, J.A.d.; Rodrigues, M.P.; Lima, Â.M.A.; Santiago, S.S.; Lima, G.D.d.A.; Almeida, A.A.; Oliveira, L.L.d.; Bressan, G.C.; Teixeira, R.R.; Machado-Neves, M. Synthesis of Cinnamic Acid Ester Derivatives with Antiproliferative and Antimetastatic Activities on Murine Melanoma Cells. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2022, 148, 112689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Pontiki, E.; Hadjipavlou-Litina, D.; Litinas, K.; Geromichalos, G. Novel Cinnamic Acid Derivatives as Antioxidant and Anticancer Agents: Design, Synthesis and Modeling Studies. Molecules 2014, 19, 9655–9674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, R.; Yang, W.; Fan, Y.; Dehaen, W.; Li, Y.; Li, H.; Wang, W.; Zheng, Q.; Huai, Q. Design and Synthesis of the Novel Oleanolic Acid-Cinnamic Acid Ester Derivatives and Glycyrrhetinic Acid-Cinnamic Acid Ester Derivatives with Cytotoxic Properties. Bioorg. Chem. 2019, 88, 102951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gunia-Krzyżak, A.; Słoczyńska, K.; Popiół, J.; Koczurkiewicz, P.; Marona, H.; Pękala, E. Cinnamic Acid Derivatives in Cosmetics: Current Use and Future Prospects. Int. J. Cosmet. Sci. 2018, 40, 356–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Martínez-Soriano, P.A.; Macías-Pérez, J.R.; María Velázquez, A.; del Carmen Camacho-Enriquez, B.; Pretelín-Castillo, G.; Ruiz-Sánchez, M.B.; Abrego-Reyes, V.H.; Villa-Treviño, S.; Angeles, E. Solvent-Free Synthesis of Carboxylic Acids and Amide Analogs of CAPE (Caffeic Acid Phenethyl Ester) under Infrared Irradiation Conditions. Green Sustain. Chem. 2015, 5, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Imai, M.; Yokoe, H.; Tsubuki, M.; Takahashi, N. Growth Inhibition of Human Breast and Prostate Cancer Cells by Cinnamic Acid Derivatives and Their Mechanism of Action. Biol. Pharm. Bull. 2019, 42, 1134–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Auger, C.; Laurent, N.; Laurent, C.; Besançon, P.; Caporiccio, B.; Teissédre, P.L.; Rouanet, J.M. Hydroxycinnamic Acids Do Not Prevent Aortic Atherosclerosis in Hypercholesterolemic Golden Syrian Hamsters. Life Sci. 2004, 74, 2365–2377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Guzman, J.D. Natural Cinnamic Acids, Synthetic Derivatives and Hybrids with Antimicrobial Activity. Molecules 2014, 19, 19292–19349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Lee, S.; Han, J.M.; Kim, H.; Kim, E.; Jeong, T.S.; Lee, W.S.; Cho, K.H. Synthesis of Cinnamic Acid Derivatives and Their Inhibitory Effects on LDL-Oxidation, Acyl-CoA:Cholesterol Acyltransferase-1 and -2 Activity, and Decrease of HDL-Particle Size. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2004, 14, 4677–4681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Lee, M.K.; Park, Y.B.; Moon, S.S.; Bok, S.H.; Kim, D.J.; Ha, T.Y.; Jeong, T.S.; Jeong, K.S.; Choi, M.S. Hypocholesterolemic and Antioxidant Properties of 3-(4-Hydroxyl)Propanoic Acid Derivatives in High-Cholesterol Fed Rats. Chem. Biol. Interact. 2007, 170, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Mnafgui, K.; Derbali, A.; Sayadi, S.; Gharsallah, N.; Elfeki, A.; Allouche, N. Anti-Obesity and Cardioprotective Effects of Cinnamic Acid in High Fat Diet- Induced Obese Rats. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 4369–4377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Chung, H.S.; Shin, J.C. Characterization of Antioxidant Alkaloids and Phenolic Acids from Anthocyanin-Pigmented Rice (Oryza sativa cv. Heugjinjubyeo). Food Chem. 2007, 104, 1670–1677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Farah, A.; Monteiro, M.; Donangelo, C.M.; Lafay, S. Chlorogenic Acids from Green Coffee Extract Are Highly Bioavailable in Humans. J. Nutr. 2008, 138, 2309–2315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Prakash, B.; Singh, P.; Mishra, P.K.; Dubey, N.K. Safety Assessment of Zanthoxylum alatum Roxb. Essential Oil, Its Antifungal, Antiaflatoxin, Antioxidant Activity and Efficacy as Antimicrobial in Preservation of Piper nigrum L. Fruits. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012, 153, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sova, M. Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Activities of Cinnamic Acid Derivatives. Mini Rev. Med. Chem. 2012, 12, 749–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chao, L.K.; Hua, K.F.; Hsu, H.Y.; Cheng, S.S.; Lin, I.F.; Chen, C.J.; Chen, S.T.; Chang, S.T. Cinnamaldehyde Inhibits Pro-Inflammatory Cytokines Secretion from Monocytes/Macrophages through Suppression of Intracellular Signaling. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008, 46, 220–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hanci, D.; Altun, H.; Çetinkaya, E.A.; Muluk, N.B.; Cengiz, B.P.; Cingi, C. Cinnamaldehyde Is an Effective Anti-Inflammatory Agent for Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis in a Rat Model. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2016, 84, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Muhammad, J.S.; Zaidi, S.F.; Shaharyar, S.; Refaat, A.; Usmanghani, K.; Saiki, I.; Sugiyama, T. Anti-Inflammatory Effect of Cinnamaldehyde in Helicobacter Pylori Induced Gastric Inflammation. Biol. Pharm. Bull. 2015, 38, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Takeda, Y.; Tanigawa, N.; Sunghwa, F.; Ninomiya, M.; Hagiwara, M.; Matsushita, K.; Koketsu, M. Morroniside Cinnamic Acid Conjugate as an Anti-Inflammatory Agent. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2010, 20, 4855–4857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Adisakwattana, S.; Moonsan, P.; Yibchok-Anun, S. Insulin-Releasing Properties of a Series of Cinnamic Acid Derivatives In Vitro and In Vivo. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 7838–7844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Fernandez-Martinez, E.; Bobadilla, R.; Morales-Rios, M.; Muriel, P.; Perez-Alvarez, V. Trans-3-Phenyl-2-Propenoic Acid (Cinnamic Acid) Derivatives: Structure-Activity Relationship as Hepatoprotective Agents. Med. Chem. 2007, 3, 475–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Pérez-Alvarez, V.; Bobadilla, R.A.; Muriel, P. Structure-Hepatoprotective Activity Relationship of 3,4-Dihydroxycinnamic Acid (Caffeic Acid) Derivatives. J. Appl. Toxicol. 2001, 21, 527–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Eun, H.J.; Sung, R.K.; In, K.H.; Tae, Y.H. Hypoglycemic Effects of a Phenolic Acid Fraction of Rice Bran and Ferulic Acid in C57BL/KsJ-Db/Db Mice. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 9800–9804. [Google Scholar]
  37. Sharma, P. Cinnamic Acid Derivatives: A New Chapter of Various Pharmacological Activities. J. Chem. Pharm. Res. 2011, 3, 403–423. [Google Scholar]
  38. Adisakwattana, S. Cinnamic Acid and Its Derivatives: Mechanisms for Prevention and Management of Diabetes and Its Complications. Nutrients 2017, 9, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Wiesner, J.; Mitsch, A.; Wißner, P.; Jomaa, H.; Schlitzer, M. Structure—Activity Relationships of Novel Anti-Malarial Agents. Part 2: Cinnamic Acid Derivatives. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2001, 11, 423–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yoon, B.H.; Jung, J.W.; Lee, J.J.; Cho, Y.W.; Jang, C.G.; Jin, C.; Oh, T.H.; Ryu, J.H. Anxiolytic-like Effects of Sinapic Acid in Mice. Life Sci. 2007, 81, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yabe, T.; Hirahara, H.; Harada, N.; Ito, N.; Nagai, T.; Sanagi, T.; Yamada, H. Ferulic Acid Induces Neural Progenitor Cell Proliferation In Vitro and In Vivo. Neuroscience 2010, 165, 515–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Chandra, S.; Roy, A.; Jana, M.; Pahan, K. Cinnamic Acid Activates PPARα to Stimulate Lysosomal Biogenesis and Lower Amyloid Plaque Pathology in an Alzheimer’s Disease Mouse Model. Neurobiol. Dis. 2019, 124, 379–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Lan, J.S.; Hou, J.W.; Liu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Li, L.; Zhang, T. Design, Synthesis and Evaluation of Novel Cinnamic Acid Derivatives Bearing N-Benzyl Pyridinium Moiety as Multifunctional Cholinesterase Inhibitors for Alzheimer’s Disease. J. Enzyme Inhib. Med. Chem. 2017, 32, 776–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Szwajgier, D.; Borowiec, K.; Pustelniak, K. The Neuroprotective Effects of Phenolic Acids: Molecular Mechanism of Action. Nutrients 2017, 9, 477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Szwajgier, D.; Baranowska-Wojcik, E.; Borowiec, K. Phenolic Acids Exert Anticholinesterase and Cognition-Improving Effects. Curr. Alzheimer Res. 2018, 15, 531–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Zhang, W.X.; Wang, H.; Cui, H.R.; Guo, W.B.; Zhou, F.; Cai, D.S.; Xu, B.; Jia, X.H.; Huang, X.M.; Yang, Y.Q.; et al. Design, Synthesis and Biological Evaluation of Cinnamic Acid Derivatives with Synergetic Neuroprotection and Angiogenesis Effect. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2019, 183, 111695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cheng, S.S.; Liu, J.Y.; Tsai, K.H.; Chen, W.J.; Chang, S.T. Chemical Composition and Mosquito Larvicidal Activity of Essential Oils from Leaves of Different Cinnamomum Osmophloeum Provenances. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 4395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dias, C.N.; Moraes, D.F.C. Essential Oils and Their Compounds as Aedes aegypti L. (Diptera: Culicidae) Larvicides: Review. Parasitol. Res. 2014, 113, 565–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Fujiwara, G.M.; Annies, V.; de Oliveira, C.F.; Lara, R.A.; Gabriel, M.M.; Betim, F.C.M.; Nadal, J.M.; Farago, P.V.; Dias, J.F.G.; Miguel, O.G.; et al. Evaluation of Larvicidal Activity and Ecotoxicity of Linalool, Methyl Cinnamate and Methyl Cinnamate/Linalool in Combination against Aedes Aegypti. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2017, 139, 238–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Seo, S.M.; Park, H.M.; Park, I.K. Larvicidal Activity of Ajowan (Trachyspermum ammi) and Peru Balsam (Myroxylon pereira) Oils and Blends of Their Constituents against Mosquito, Aedes Aegypti, Acute Toxicity on Water Flea, Daphnia Magna, and Aqueous Residue. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 5909–5914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Araújo, M.O.; Pérez-Castillo, Y.; Oliveira, L.H.G.; Nunes, F.C.; Sousa, D.P.d. Larvicidal Activity of Cinnamic Acid Derivatives: Investigating Alternative Products for Aedes aegypti L. Control. Molecules 2020, 26, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Rodrigues, M.P.; Tomaz, D.C.; Ângelo de Souza, L.; Onofre, T.S.; Aquiles de Menezes, W.; Almeida-Silva, J.; Suarez-Fontes, A.M.; Rogéria de Almeida, M.; Manoel da Silva, A.; Bressan, G.C.; et al. Synthesis of Cinnamic Acid Derivatives and Leishmanicidal Activity against Leishmania Braziliensis. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2019, 183, 111688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Letizia, C.S.; Cocchiara, J.; Lalko, J.; Lapczynski, A.; Api, A.M. Fragrance Material Review on Cinnamyl Alcohol. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2005, 43, 837–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Anwar, A.; Siddiqui, R.; Shah, M.R.; Khan, N.A. Gold Nanoparticle-Conjugated Cinnamic Acid Exhibits Antiacanthamoebic and Antibacterial Properties. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2018, 62, e00630-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Bisogno, F.; Mascoti, L.; Sanchez, C.; Garibotto, F.; Giannini, F.; Kurina-Sanz, M.; Enriz, R. Structure-Antifungal Activity Relationship of Cinnamic Acid Derivatives. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 10635–10640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Schmidt, E.; Bail, S.; Friedl, S.M.; Jirovetz, L.; Buchbauer, G.; Wanner, J.; Denkova, Z.; Slavchev, A.; Stoyanova, A.; Geissler, M. Antimicrobial Activities of Single Aroma Compounds 1. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2010, 5, 1365–1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Utchariyakiat, I.; Surassmo, S.; Jaturanpinyo, M.; Khuntayaporn, P.; Chomnawang, M.T. Efficacy of Cinnamon Bark Oil and Cinnamaldehyde on Anti-Multidrug Resistant Pseudomonas Aeruginosa and the Synergistic Effects in Combination with Other Antimicrobial Agents. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2016, 16, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Zhu, J.; Zhu, H.; Kobamoto, N.; Yasuda, M.; Tawata, S. Fungitoxic and Phytotoxic Activities of Cinnamic Acid Esters and Amides. J. Pestic. Sci. 2000, 25, 263–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Carvalho, S.A.; Kaiser, M.; Brun, R.; Da Silva, E.F.; Fraga, C.A.M. Antiprotozoal Activity of (E)-Cinnamic N-Acylhydrazone Derivatives. Molecules 2014, 19, 20374–20381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Chiriac, C.I.; Tanasa, F.; Onciu, M. A Novel Approach in Cinnamic Acid Synthesis: Direct Synthesis of Cinnamic Acids from Aromatic Aldehydes and Aliphatic Carboxylic Acids in the Presence of Boron Tribromide. Molecules 2005, 10, 481–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Hemaiswarya, S.; Doble, M. Synergistic Interaction of Phenylpropanoids with Antibiotics against Bacteria. J. Med. Microbiol. 2010, 59, 1469–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Jităreanu, A.; Pădureanu, S.; Tătărîngă, G.; Tuchiluș, C.; Stănescu, U. Turkish Journal of Biology. Evaluation of Phytotoxic and Mutagenic Effects of Some Cinnamic Acid Derivatives Using the Triticum Test. Turk. J. Biol. 2013, 37, 748–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kim, J.H.; Campbell, B.C.; Mahoney, N.E.; Chan, K.L.; Molyneux, R.J. Identification of Phenolics for Control of Aspergillus Flavus Using Saccharomyces Cerevisiae in a Model Target-Gene Bioassay. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 7814–7821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Korošec, B.; Sova, M.; Turk, S.; Kraševec, N.; Novak, M.; Lah, L.; Stojan, J.; Podobnik, B.; Berne, S.; Zupanec, N.; et al. Antifungal Activity of Cinnamic Acid Derivatives Involves Inhibition of Benzoate 4-Hydroxylase (CYP53). J. Appl. Microbiol. 2014, 116, 955–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Narasimhan, B.; Belsare, D.; Pharande, D.; Mourya, V.; Dhake, A. Esters, Amides and Substituted Derivatives of Cinnamic Acid: Synthesis, Antimicrobial Activity and QSAR Investigations. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 39, 827–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Naz, S.; Ahmad, S.; Ajaz Rasool, S.; Asad Sayeed, S.; Siddiqi, R. Antibacterial Activity Directed Isolation of Compounds from Onosma Hispidum. Microbiol. Res. 2006, 161, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Aminov, R.I. A Brief History of the Antibiotic Era: Lessons Learned and Challenges for the Future. Front. Microbiol. 2010, 1, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Harbottle, H.; Thakur, S.; Zhao, S.; White, D.G. Genetics of Antimicrobial Resistance. Anim. Biotechnol. 2007, 17, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Van Boeckel, T.P.; Brower, C.; Gilbert, M.; Grenfell, B.T.; Levin, S.A.; Robinson, T.P.; Teillant, A.; Laxminarayan, R. Global Trends in Antimicrobial Use in Food Animals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 5649–5654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Li, Y.G.; Wang, J.X.; Zhang, G.N.; Zhu, M.; You, X.F.; Hu, X.X.; Zhang, F.; Wang, Y.C. Antibacterial Activity and Structure-Activity Relationship of a Series of Newly Synthesized Pleuromutilin Derivatives. Chem. Biodivers. 2019, 16, e1800560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Cai, R.; Miao, M.; Yue, T.; Zhang, Y.; Cui, L.; Wang, Z.; Yuan, Y. Antibacterial Activity and Mechanism of Cinnamic Acid and Chlorogenic Acid against Alicyclobacillus Acidoterrestris Vegetative Cells in Apple Juice. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 54, 1697–1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Godlewska-żyłkiewicz, B.; Świsłocka, R.; Kalinowska, M.; Golonko, A.; Świderski, G.; Arciszewska, Ż.; Nalewajko-Sieliwoniuk, E.; Naumowicz, M.; Lewandowski, W. Biologically Active Compounds of Plants: Structure-Related Antioxidant, Microbiological and Cytotoxic Activity of Selected Carboxylic Acids. Materials 2020, 13, 4454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lopes, S.P.; Castillo, Y.P.; Monteiro, M.L.; de Menezes, R.R.P.P.B.; Almeida, R.N.; Martins, A.M.C.; de Sousa, D.P. Trypanocidal Mechanism of Action and In Silico Studies of P-Coumaric Acid Derivatives. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 5916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Lopes, S.P.; Yepe, L.M.; Pérez-Castillo, Y.; Robledo, S.M.; De Sousa, D.P. Alkyl and Aryl Derivatives Based on P-Coumaric Acid Modification and Inhibitory Action against Leishmania Braziliensis and Plasmodium Falciparum. Molecules 2020, 25, 3178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Li, L.; Cai, Y.; Sun, X.; Du, X.; Jiang, Z.; Ni, H.; Yang, Y.; Chen, F. Tyrosinase inhibition by p-coumaric acid ethyl ester identified from camellia pollen. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 9, 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. de Morais, M.C.; Perez-Castillo, Y.; Silva, V.R.; de Souza Santos, L.; Soares, M.B.P.; Bezerra, D.P.; de Castro, R.D.; de Sousa, D.P. Cytotoxic and Antifungal Amides Derived from Ferulic Acid: Molecular Docking and Mechanism of Action. Biomed Res. Int. 2021, 2021, 3598000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lima, T.C.; Ferreira, A.R.; Silva, D.F.; Lima, E.O.; de Sousa, D.P. Antifungal Activity of Cinnamic Acid and Benzoic Acid Esters against Candida albicans Strains. Nat. Prod. Res. 2017, 32, 572–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Silva, R.H.N.; Andrade, A.C.M.; Nóbrega, D.F.; Castro, R.D.D.; Pessôa, H.L.F.; Rani, N.; De Sousa, D.P. Antimicrobial Activity of 4-Chlorocinnamic Acid Derivatives. Biomed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 3941242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sardana, K.; Gupta, A.; Sadhasivam, S.; Gautam, R.K.; Khurana, A.; Saini, S.; Gupta, S.; Ghosh, S. Checkerboard Analysis To Evaluate Synergistic Combinations of Existing Antifungal Drugs and Propylene Glycol Monocaprylate in Isolates from Recalcitrant Tinea Corporis and Cruris Patients Harboring Squalene Epoxidase Gene Mutation. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2021, 65, e00321-21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wang, J.; Morin, P.; Wang, W.; Kollman, P.A. Use of MM-PBSA in Reproducing the Binding Free Energies to HIV-1 RT of TIBO Derivatives and Predicting the Binding Mode to HIV-1 RT of Efavirenz by Docking and MM-PBSA. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 5221–5230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Pettersen, E.F.; Goddard, T.D.; Huang, C.C.; Couch, G.S.; Greenblatt, D.M.; Meng, E.C.; Ferrin, T.E. UCSF Chimera—A Visualization System for Exploratory Research and Analysis. J. Comput. Chem. 2004, 25, 1605–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. Shannon, P.; Markiel, A.; Ozier, O.; Baliga, N.S.; Wang, J.T.; Ramage, D.; Amin, N.; Schwikowski, B.; Ideker, T. Cytoscape: A Software Environment for Integrated Models of Biomolecular Interaction Networks. Genome Res. 2003, 13, 2498–2504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Laskowski, R.A.; Swindells, M.B. LigPlot+: Multiple Ligand-Protein Interaction Diagrams for Drug Discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2011, 51, 2778–2786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Li, X.; Robbins, N.; O’Meara, T.R.; Cowen, L.E. Extensive Functional Redundancy in the Regulation of Candida Albicans Drug Resistance and Morphogenesis by Lysine Deacetylases Hos2, Hda1, Rpd3 and Rpd31. Mol. Microbiol. 2017, 103, 635–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Pfaller, M.A.; Messer, S.A.; Georgopapadakou, N.; Martell, L.A.; Besterman, J.M.; Diekema, D.J. Activity of MGCD290, a Hos2 Histone Deacetylase Inhibitor, in Combination with Azole Antifungals against Opportunistic Fungal Pathogens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2009, 47, 3797–3804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Robbins, N.; Leach, M.D.; Cowen, L.E. Lysine Deacetylases Hda1 and Rpd3 Regulate Hsp90 Function Thereby Governing Fungal Drug Resistance. Cell Rep. 2012, 2, 878–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. McCarthy, M.W.; Kontoyiannis, D.P.; Cornely, O.A.; Perfect, J.R.; Walsh, T.J. Novel Agents and Drug Targets to Meet the Challenges of Resistant Fungi. J. Infect. Dis. 2017, 216 (Suppl. 3), S474–S483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Su, S.; Li, X.; Yang, X.; Li, Y.; Chen, X.; Sun, S.; Jia, S. Histone Acetylation/Deacetylation in Candida Albicans and Their Potential as Antifungal Targets. Future Microbiol. 2020, 15, 1075–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Perez, M.; Castillo, Y. Bacterial Beta-Ketoacyl-Acyl Carrier Protein Synthase III (FabH): An Attractive Target for the Design of New Broad-Spectrum Antimicrobial Agents. Mini Rev. Med. Chem. 2008, 8, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Pishchany, G.; Mevers, E.; Ndousse-Fetter, S.; Horvath, D.J.; Paludo, C.R.; Silva-Junior, E.A.; Koren, S.; Skaar, E.P.; Clardy, J.; Kolter, R. Amycomicin Is a Potent and Specific Antibiotic Discovered with a Targeted Interaction Screen. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 10124–10129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Wang, J.; Ye, X.; Yang, X.; Cai, Y.; Wang, S.; Tang, J.; Sachdeva, M.; Qian, Y.; Hu, W.; Leeds, J.A.; et al. Discovery of Novel Antibiotics as Covalent Inhibitors of Fatty Acid Synthesis. ACS Chem. Biol. 2020, 15, 1826–1834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Wang, J.; Kodali, S.; Sang, H.L.; Galgoci, A.; Painter, R.; Dorso, K.; Racine, F.; Motyl, M.; Hernandez, L.; Tinney, E.; et al. Discovery of Platencin, a Dual FabF and FabH Inhibitor with in Vivo Antibiotic Properties. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 7612–7616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. He, X.; Reynolds, K.A. Purification, Characterization, and Identification of Novel Inhibitors of the Beta-Ketoacyl-Acyl Carrier Protein Synthase III (FabH) from Staphylococcus Aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2002, 46, 1310–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  94. Dimmock, J.R.; Murthi Kandepu, N.; Hetherington, M.; Wilson Quail, J.; Pugazhenthi, U.; Sudom, A.M.; Chamankhah, M.; Rose, P.; Pass, E.; Allen, T.M.; et al. Cytotoxic Activities of Mannich Bases of Chalcones and Related Compounds. J. Med. Chem. 1998, 41, 1014–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Uno, J.; Shigematsu, M.L.; Arai, T. Primary Site of Action of Ketoconazole on Candida Albicans. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1982, 21, 912–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Pushkareva, V.I.; Slezina, M.P.; Korostyleva, T.V.; Shcherbakova, L.A.; Istomina, E.A.; Ermolaeva, S.A.; Ogarkova, O.A.; Odintsova, T.I. Antimicrobial Activity of Wild Plant Seed Extracts against Human Bacterial and Plant Fungal Pathogens. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1572–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Pinheiro, L.S.; Filho, A.A.d.O.; Guerra, F.Q.S.; de Menezes, C.P.; dos Santos, S.G.; de Sousa, J.P.; Dantas, T.B.; Lima, E.d.O. Antifungal Activity of the Essential Oil Isolated from Laurus Nobilis L. against Cryptococcus Neoformans Strains. J. Appl. Pharm. Sci. 2017, 7, 115–118. [Google Scholar]
  98. Perez-Castillo, Y.; Montes, R.C.; da Silva, C.R.; Neto, J.B.d.A.; Dias, C.d.S.; Duarte, A.B.S.; Júnior, H.V.N.; de Sousa, D.P. Antifungal Activity of N-(4-Halobenzyl)Amides against Candida Spp. and Molecular Modeling Studies. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Keiser, M.J.; Roth, B.L.; Armbruster, B.N.; Ernsberger, P.; Irwin, J.J.; Shoichet, B.K. Relating Protein Pharmacology by Ligand Chemistry. Nat. Biotechnol. 2007, 25, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Altschul, S.F.; Madden, T.L.; Schäffer, A.A.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, Z.; Miller, W.; Lipman, D.J. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: A New Generation of Protein Database Search Programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997, 25, 3389–3402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Johnson, M.; Zaretskaya, I.; Raytselis, Y.; Merezhuk, Y.; McGinnis, S.; Madden, T.L. NCBI BLAST: A Better Web Interface. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008, 36 (Suppl. 2), W5–W9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Hawkins, P.C.D.; Skillman, A.G.; Warren, G.L.; Ellingson, B.A.; Stahl, M.T. Conformer Generation with OMEGA: Algorithm and Validation Using High Quality Structures from the Protein Databank and Cambridge Structural Database. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50, 572–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. OpenEye Scientific Software. QUACPAC. Santa Fe, NM: OpenEye Scientific Software. Available online: http://www.eyesopen.com (accessed on 26 May 2022).
  104. Bienert, S.; Waterhouse, A.; De Beer, T.A.P.; Tauriello, G.; Studer, G.; Bordoli, L.; Schwede, T. The SWISS-MODEL Repository-New Features and Functionality. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017, 45, D313–D319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Perez-Castillo, Y.; Lima, T.C.; Ferreira, A.R.; Silva, C.R.; Campos, R.S.; Neto, J.B.A.; Magalhães, H.I.F.; Cavalcanti, B.C.; Júnior, H.V.N.; De Sousa, D.P. Bioactivity and Molecular Docking Studies of Derivatives from Cinnamic and Benzoic Acids. Biomed Res. Int. 2020, 2020, 6345429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Jones, G.; Willett, P.; Glen, R.C.; Leach, A.R.; Taylor, R. Development and Validation of a Genetic Algorithm for Flexible Docking. J. Mol. Biol. 1997, 267, 727–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Case, I.Y.B.-S.D.A.; Brozell, S.R.; Cerutti, D.S.; Cheatham, T.E.; Cruzeiro, V.W.D.; Darden, T.A.; Duke, D.G.R.E.; Gilson, M.K.; Gohlke, H.; Goetz, A.W.; et al. AMBER; University of California: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  108. Pang, Y.-P. Novel Zinc Protein Molecular Dynamics Simulations: Steps Toward Antiangiogenesis for Cancer Treatment. Mol. Model. Annu. 1999, 5, 196–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Machado, M.R.; Pantano, S. Split the Charge Difference in Two! A Rule of Thumb for Adding Proper Amounts of Ions in MD Simulations. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2020, 16, 1367–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Iranpoor, N.; Firouzabadi, H.; Riazi, A.; Pedrood, K. Regioselective hydrocarbonylation of phenylacetylene to α,β-unsaturated esters and thioesters with Fe(CO)5 and Mo(CO)6. J. Organomet. Chem. 2016, 822, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Lutjen, A.B.; Quirk, M.A.; Barbera, A.M.; Kolonko, E.M. Synthesis of (E)-cinnamyl ester derivatives via a greener Steglich esterification. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2018, 26, 5291–5298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Jakovetić, S.M.; Jugović, B.Z.; Gvozdenović, M.M.; Bezbradica, D.I.; Antov, M.G.; Mijin, D.Ž.; Knežević-Jugović, Z.D. Synthesis of Aliphatic Esters of Cinnamic Acid as Potential Lipophilic Antioxidants Catalyzed by Lipase B from Candida antarctica. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2013, 170, 1560–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Sova, M.; Perdih, A.; Kotnik, M.; Kristan, K.; Rižner, T.L.; Solmajer, T.; Gobec, S. Flavonoids and cinnamic acid esters as inhibitors of fungal 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase: A synthesis, QSAR and modelling study. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2006, 14, 7404–7418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Saito, Y.; Ouchi, H.; Takahata, H. Carboxamidation of carboxylic acids with 1-tert-butoxy-2-tert-butoxycarbonyl-1,2-dihydroisoquinoline (BBDI) without bases. Tetrahedron 2008, 64, 11129–11135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Allen, C.L.; Chhatwal, A.R.; Williams, J.M.J. Direct amide formation from unactivated carboxylic acids and amines. Chem. Commun. 2011, 48, 666–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Barajas, J.G.H.; Méndez, L.Y.V.; Kouznetsov, V.V.; Stashenko, E.E. Efficient synthesis of new N-benzyl- or N-(2-furylmethyl)cinnamamides promoted by the ‘green’ catalyst boric acid, and their spectral analysis. Synthesis 2008, 3, 0377–0382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Khaldoun, K.; Safer, A.; Saidi-Besbes, S.; Carboni, B.; Le Guevel, R.; Carreaux, F. An Efficient Solvent-Free Microwave-Assisted Synthesis of Cinnamamides by Amidation Reaction Using Phenylboronic Acid/Lewis Base Co-catalytic System. Synth. J. Synth. Org. Chem. 2019, 51, 3891–3900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Yasui, Y.; Tsuchida, S.; Miyabe, H.; Takemoto, Y. One-pot amidation of olefins through Pd-catalyzed coupling of alkylboranes and carbamoyl chlorides. J. Org. Chem. 2007, 72, 5898–5900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Molecules 28 01918 g001 550
Figure 1. Reactive sites in the CA structure.
Figure 1. Reactive sites in the CA structure.
Molecules 28 01918 g001
Molecules 28 01918 g002 550
Figure 2. Chemical structures of the prepared compounds.
Figure 2. Chemical structures of the prepared compounds.
Molecules 28 01918 g002
Molecules 28 01918 g003 550
Figure 3. Predicted free binding energies of compounds 6 (a) and 18 (b) with their predicted targets in C. albicans and S. aureus, respectively.
Figure 3. Predicted free binding energies of compounds 6 (a) and 18 (b) with their predicted targets in C. albicans and S. aureus, respectively.
Molecules 28 01918 g003
Molecules 28 01918 g004 550
Figure 4. Predicted binding modes of compounds 6 and 18 to caHOS2 (a) and saFABH (b) with diagrams of the predicted ligand–receptor interactions. The ligands are represented as orange balls and sticks. Labeled residues correspond to those interacting with the receptors in at least 50% of the analyzed MD snapshots. Atoms are shown for residues either forming hydrogen bonds with the ligand or coordinating the Zn2+ ion.
Figure 4. Predicted binding modes of compounds 6 and 18 to caHOS2 (a) and saFABH (b) with diagrams of the predicted ligand–receptor interactions. The ligands are represented as orange balls and sticks. Labeled residues correspond to those interacting with the receptors in at least 50% of the analyzed MD snapshots. Atoms are shown for residues either forming hydrogen bonds with the ligand or coordinating the Zn2+ ion.
Molecules 28 01918 g004
Molecules 28 01918 sch001 550
Scheme 1. Synthesis of cinnamic acid derivatives: (a) ROH, H2SO4, reflux; (b) Et3N, RX, acetone, reflux; (c) ROH, pyridine, reflux; (d) RNH2, pyridine, reflux.
Scheme 1. Synthesis of cinnamic acid derivatives: (a) ROH, H2SO4, reflux; (b) Et3N, RX, acetone, reflux; (c) ROH, pyridine, reflux; (d) RNH2, pyridine, reflux.
Molecules 28 01918 sch001
Table
Table 1. MIC (µg/mL and µM) of compounds 1–20 against fungal strains.
Table 1. MIC (µg/mL and µM) of compounds 1–20 against fungal strains.
CompoundsC. albicans ATCC-76485C. tropicalis ATCC-13803C. glabrata ATCC-90030A. flavus LM-171P. citrinum ATCC-4001
1+++++
2128/789.19128/789.19128/789.19256/1578.16256/1578.16
3128/726.36128/726.36128/726.36128/726.36128/726.36
4128/672.83128/672.83128/672.83128/672.83128/672.83
5128/672.83128/672.83128/672.83++
6128/626.62128/626.62128/626.62128/626.62128/626.62
7+++512/2345.39512/2345.39
8+++++
9256/1101.92256/1101.92256/1101.92256/1101.92256/1101.92
10256/1075.63256/1075.63256/1075.63512/2151.26512/2151.26
11+++++
12+++++
13+++++
14+++++
15+++++
16+++++
17+++512/2021.31512/2021.31
18512/1832.62512/1832.62256/916.31256/916.31256/916.31
19+++++
20+++++
Nystatin-----
Control medium-----
Fungal growth control+++++
(+) microorganism growth; (-) no microorganism growth.
Table
Table 2. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum fungicide concentration (MFC) of compounds, 3, 4, and 6.
Table 2. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum fungicide concentration (MFC) of compounds, 3, 4, and 6.
CompoundC. albicans (ATCC-76485)C. tropicalis (ATCC-13803)C. glabrata (ATCC-90030)
MIC
(µM)		MFC
(µM)		MFC/
MIC		MIC
(µM)		MFC
(µM)		MFC/
MIC		MIC
(µM)		MFC
(µM)		MFC/
MIC
3726.361452.722726.361452.722726.361452.722
4672.83672.831672.83672.831672.83672.831
6626.62626.621626.62626.621626.62626.621
A. flavus (LM-171)P. citrinum (ATCC-4001)
MIC
(µM)		MFC
(µM)		MFC/
MIC		MIC
(µM)		MFC
(µM)		MFC/
MIC
3726.36726.361726.36726.361
4672.831345.662672.831345.662
6626.62626.621626.62626.621
Table
Table 3. Effects of compounds 3 and 6 in the presence or absence of a protective osmotic (sorbitol 0.8 M), as well as in the presence or absence of ergosterol, against the strains of C. albicans.
Table 3. Effects of compounds 3 and 6 in the presence or absence of a protective osmotic (sorbitol 0.8 M), as well as in the presence or absence of ergosterol, against the strains of C. albicans.
C. albicans ATCC-76485
Compoundswith Ergosterolwithout Ergosterolwith Sorbitolwithout Sorbitol
3672.83 µM2691.32 µM672.83 µM5382.64 µM
6626.62 µM2506.48 µM626.62 µM5012.96 µM
Caspofungin--0.5 µg/mL1.0 µg/mL
Nystatin8.05 µM129.0 µM--
Table
Table 4. Effects of compounds 4 and 6 in the presence or absence of a protective osmotic (sorbitol 0.8 M), as well as in the presence or absence of ergosterol, against the strains of P. citrinum.
Table 4. Effects of compounds 4 and 6 in the presence or absence of a protective osmotic (sorbitol 0.8 M), as well as in the presence or absence of ergosterol, against the strains of P. citrinum.
P. citrinum ATCC-4001
Compoundswith Ergosterolwithout Ergosterolwith Sorbitolwithout Sorbitol
4672.83 µM2691.32 µM672.83 µM2691.32 µM
6626.62 µM5012.96 µM626.62 µM5012.96 µM
Caspofungin--0.5 µg/mL1.0 µg/mL
Nystatin8.05 µM129.0 µM--
Table
Table 5. Synergistic effect observed with the Checkerboard method for compound 6 with nystatin against C. albicans.
Table 5. Synergistic effect observed with the Checkerboard method for compound 6 with nystatin against C. albicans.
Micro-OrganismCompoundMIC (µM)FICFICIResult
AloneCombined
C. albicans6626.62313.310.50.9Additive
Nystatin8.03.20.4
Table
Table 6. MIC (µg/mL and µM) of compounds 1–20 against bacterial strains.
Table 6. MIC (µg/mL and µM) of compounds 1–20 against bacterial strains.
CompoundsS. aureus ATCC-35903S. epidermidis ATCC-12228P. aeruginosa ATCC-25853
1128/841.05512/3364.21512/3364.21
2128/789.19128/789.19128/789.19
3128/726.36128/726.36128/726.36
4128/672.83128/672.83128/672.83
5128/672.83128/672.83128/672.83
6128/626.62128/626.62128/626.62
7+128/586.34128/586.34
8+++
9128/550.96128/550.96128/550.96
10128/537.81128/537.81256/1075.63
11+++
12+++
13+++
14+++
15+++
16+++
17+++
18128/458.15128/458.15128/458.15
19+++
20+++
Amoxicillin---
Control medium---
Bacterial growth control+++
(+) microorganism growth; (-) no microorganism growth.
Table
Table 7. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of compounds 6, 9, and 18.
Table 7. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of compounds 6, 9, and 18.
CompoundS. aureus ATCC-35903S. epidermidis ATCC-12228P. aeruginosa ATCC-25853
MIC
(µM)		MFC
(µM)		MFC/
MIC		MIC
(µM)		MFC
(µM)		MFC/
MIC		MIC
(µM)		MFC
(µM)		MFC/
MIC
6626.621253.242626.621253.242626.621253.242
9550.961101.922550.961101.922550.96550.961
18458.15458.151458.15458.151458.15458.151
Table
Table 8. Synergistic effect of compound 18 with amoxicillin against S. aureus.
Table 8. Synergistic effect of compound 18 with amoxicillin against S. aureus.
Micro-OrganismCompoundMIC (µg/mL)FICFICIResult
AloneCombined
S. aureus18128.064.00.50.53Additive
Amoxicillin0.0150.00050.033
Table
Table 9. Predicted targets of compounds 6 and 18 in C. albicans and S. aureus.
Table 9. Predicted targets of compounds 6 and 18 in C. albicans and S. aureus.
UniProt AccessionID (a)CompoundDescription (b)Source (c)
C. albicans
A0A1D8PLH1caTIM106Mitochondrial import inner membrane translocase subunit TIM10Homology
A0A1D8PHZ5caRHO26Rho family GTPaseHomology
P0CY33caCDC426Cell division control protein 42 homologHomology
O42825caRHO16GTP-binding protein RHO1Homology
A0A1D8PH96caRHO36Rho family GTPaseHomology
Q5ADT3caAKR6Aldo/keto reductaseHomology
Q5ADT4caGCY16Glycerol 2-dehydrogenaseHomology
P12461caTMP16Thymidylate synthaseHomology
Q5ADM7caTDH36Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenasePDB
A0A1D8PNK3caGRE36D-xylose reductaseHomology
Q5AHE2caUGA1164-aminobutyrate aminotransferaseHomology
A0A1D8PJ17caHOS26Histone deacetylaseHomology
A0A1D8PH55caUGA164-aminobutyrate aminotransferaseHomology
A0A1D8PSA6caRPD36Histone deacetylaseHomology
A0A1D8PUB9caIMA16Oligo-1,6-glucosidase IMA1Homology
A0A1D8PP39caAAM6Aamy domain-containing proteinHomology
Q59NB8caLKH16Leucine aminopeptidase 2Homology
A0A1D8PMM1caTOP26DNA topoisomerase 2Homology
S. aureus
Q5HED0 saACPS184′-phosphopantetheinyl transferase AcpSPDB
Q5HH38saMENB181,4-dihydroxy-2-naphthoyl-CoA synthasePDB
Q7A6I1saPPIASE-118Peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase (PPIase)Homology
A0A1Q8DEF0saPPIASE-218Peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase (PPIase)Homology
T1YB03saGAR182,5-diketo-D-gluconic acid reductaseHomology
A0A8B1CIU3saALDH18Aldo/keto reductaseHomology
A7X0K2 saFABH183-oxoacyl-[acyl-carrier-protein] synthase IIIPDB
A0A5C0VWB1saFLHA18Alcohol dehydrogenaseHomology
Q9L4P8saGBSA18Betaine aldehyde dehydrogenasePDB
A0A1Q8DC81saPPTHL18Alpha,alpha-phosphotrehalaseHomology
(a) ID used for the target. (b) Description of the target. (c) Source of the protein structure: PDB from the Protein Data Bank or Homology for structures obtained from homology modeling.
Table
Table 10. Docking results for compounds 6 and 18 with their probable targets in C. albicans and S. aureus.
Table 10. Docking results for compounds 6 and 18 with their probable targets in C. albicans and S. aureus.
TargetCompoundPLP (a)Z-PLP (b)GS (c)Z-GS (d)CS (e)Z-CS (f)ASP (g)Z-ASP (h)Aggregated Z-Score
C. albicans
caRHO2671.913.0127.360.7324.282.4919.651.271.87
caRHO1671.482.5830.140.8420.491.3319.761.131.47
caRHO3651.881.423.061.9517.560.9114.271.121.35
caAKR647.041.2212.461.0321.491.6529.271.821.43
caGCY1642.720.188.851.2616.081.3123.791.331.02
caTMP1-Both (i)644.41.6326.881.0314.27−0.7322.162.391.08
caTMP1-UMP (j)651.262.0620.960.3211.160.6517.580.370.85
caTMP1-Cof. (k)660.421.5327.431.1923.541.1433.793.491.84
caTDH3633.351.320.06−0.110.492.3810.671.421.26
caGRE3644.931.3819.451.2413.611.8719.181.441.48
caUGA11655.781.7715.070.7719.411.1325.731.991.42
caHOS2666.221.7726.470.7625.332.0629.11.881.62
caUGA1652.472.3117.771.1319.681.7817.4−0.061.29
caRPD3664.834.0443.12.6121.12.226.761.842.67
caIMA1664.553.2222.940.3226.582.6430.081.491.92
caAAM640.331.7−21.83−0.1511.56218.722.011.39
caLKH1657.371.7719.550.2924.731.6926.951.31.26
caTOP2640.321.318.271.7122.02−1.69−0.291.18
S. aureus
saACPS1869.082.8739.361.2921.731.2319.880.461.46
saMENB1870.682.526.92−0.9829.312.3126.40.681.13
saPPIASE-11864.352.6919.570.5124.811.8820.69−0.211.22
saPPIASE-21855.71.6915.710.5824.292.2131.9531.87
saGAR1862.951.5810.820.5126.031.532.661.291.22
saALDH1854.211.986.70.622.612.124.562.281.74
saFABH1874.622.3114.420.9234.21.6135.222.321.79
saFLHA1849.491.37−48.130.7811.411.4712.481.591.3
saGBSA1838.581.64−93.970.268.621.4710.471.571.23
saPPTHL1855.630.7629.661.2723.051.824.440.231.02
(a) PLP score. (b) Scaled PLP score. (c) GoldScore score. (d) Scaled GoldScore score. (e) ChemScore score. (f) Scaled ChemScore score. (g) ASP score. (h) Scaled ASP score. (i) Docking into both dUMP and cofactor site. (j) Docking into the dUMP site. (k) Docking into the cofactor site.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

de Morais, M.C.; de Oliveira Lima, E.; Perez-Castillo, Y.; de Sousa, D.P. Synthetic Cinnamides and Cinnamates: Antimicrobial Activity, Mechanism of Action, and In Silico Study. Molecules 2023, 28, 1918. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28041918

AMA Style

de Morais MC, de Oliveira Lima E, Perez-Castillo Y, de Sousa DP. Synthetic Cinnamides and Cinnamates: Antimicrobial Activity, Mechanism of Action, and In Silico Study. Molecules. 2023; 28(4):1918. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28041918

Chicago/Turabian Style

de Morais, Mayara Castro, Edeltrudes de Oliveira Lima, Yunierkis Perez-Castillo, and Damião Pergentino de Sousa. 2023. "Synthetic Cinnamides and Cinnamates: Antimicrobial Activity, Mechanism of Action, and In Silico Study" Molecules 28, no. 4: 1918. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28041918

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop