Novel pentafluorosulfanyl-containing triclocarban analogs selectively kill Gram-positive bacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Novel antimicrobial agents are needed to combat antimicrobial resistance. This study tested novel pentafluorosulfanyl-containing triclocarban analogs for their potential antibacterial efficacy. Standard procedures were used to produce pentafluorosulfanyl-containing triclocarban analogs. Twenty new compounds were tested against seven Gram-positive and Gram-negative indicator strains as well as 10 clinical isolates for their antibacterial and antibiofilm activity. Mechanistic investigations focused on damage to cell membrane, oxidizing reduced thiols, iron-sulfur clusters, and oxidative stress to explain the compounds' activity. Safety profiles were assessed using cytotoxicity experiments in eukaryotic cell lines. Following screening, selected components had significantly better antibacterial and antibiofilm activity against Gram-positive bacteria in lower concentrations in comparison to ciprofloxacin and gentamycin. For instance, one compound had a minimum inhibitory concentration of <0.0003 mM, but ciprofloxacin had 0.08 mM. Mechanistic studies show that these novel compounds do not affect reduced thiol content, iron-sulfur clusters, or hydrogen peroxide pathways. Their impact comes from Gram-positive bacterial cell membrane damage. Tests on cell culture toxicity and host component safety showed promise. Novel diarylurea compounds show promise as Gram-positive antimicrobials. These compounds offer prospects for study and optimization. IMPORTANCE: . What sets these novel analogs apart is their superior efficacy at substantially lower concentrations compared with commonly used antibiotics like ciprofloxacin and gentamycin. Importantly, these compounds act by disrupting the bacterial cell membrane, offering a unique mechanism that could potentially circumvent existing resistance mechanisms. Preliminary safety assessments also highlight their potential for therapeutic use. This study not only opens new avenues for combating antibiotic-resistant infections but also underscores the importance of innovative chemical approaches in addressing the global antimicrobial resistance crisis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".