3.0 Microbicidal activeness of control drugs and tested compounds against tested standard organism
Control drugs
Ciprofloxicin (CPX) for bacteria
Ketonaxol (PEF) for fungus
Compound 1 (1)
Compound 2 (2)
3.1. Characterization of 5,6 -dimethoxyl-2-methyl-4H–benzo[d] [1,3]–oxazine–4–one (1).
1H NMR (400MHz, DMSO) δ 7.16 (s, 1H), 6.40 (s, 1H), 3.78 (s, 6H), 3.68 (s, 3H), 13(NMR (400MHz, DMSO) δ 168.28, 155.80, 149.23, 140.28, 113.37, 100.56, 100.05, 56.94, 56.94, 56.13, 51.93, 16.95: IR (KBr, cm-1) 3381, 3203, 3135, (NHz), 3018 (CH aromatic), 2951, 2s871, 2718 (CH aliphatic), 1662 (C=0). Anal.Cal 1159 (C0) for C11H11N04; C 62.20; H 5.18. Found: C 62.10, H 4.98.
3.2. Characterization of 3-amino-5,6-dimethoxyl 2-methyl quinazoline-4-(3H)-One (2).
1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO) δ 7.41 (s, 1H), 7.10 (s, 1H), 5.80 (s, 2H), 3.90 (s, 6H), 2.58 (s, 3H), 13C NMR (400MHz, DMSO) δ 160.28, 155.29, 154.57, 149.07, 143.77, 113.65, 108.24, 105.64, 56.80, 56.63, 22.58, IR (KBr, cm-1) 3301 (NH2), 1622 (C=0), Anal. Cal. for C11H13N303; C 56.11, H 5.53; Found, C 56.40, H 5.41.
Table 1: Characterization and physical data of synthesized compounds
Compound No
|
Solvent
|
Formula M. wt
|
Analysis% Calc/Found
C H
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
Ethanol
|
C11H11N04
(221.209)
|
62.20
62.10
|
5.18
4.98
|
2
|
Ethanol
|
C11H13N303
(235.239)
|
56.11
56.40
|
5.53
5.41
|
Table 4: Lowest prohibition congregation (MIC) in mg/mL of tested compounds against tested standard microorganisms.
Test Organism
|
Compund
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
Escherichia Coli
Biscillus Species
Staphylococcus Avreces
Klebsiela Pneumonia
Serratia Narcenses
Candida Albicans
|
-
-
6:00
7:00
8:00
-
|
6:00
-
7:00
-
12:00
-
|
-
-
6:00
7:00
8:00
-
|
6:00
-
7:00
-
12:00
-
|
Discussion
The introduction of 2-amino substituent is a successful strategy to improve the chemical stability of benzoxazinone. Due to the pharmacological activities of 4(3H)-quinazolinone derivative, 5,6-dimethoxyl derivatives of quinazoline-4-one was synthesized via the interaction of the benzoxazinone derivative with nitrogen nucleophile with the aim of obtaining more pricise information about the course of the reaction and some interesting pharmaceutical compounds. The reaction of 4, 5-dimethoxyl derivatives of methylanthranilate and acetic anhydride yielded the cyclic compound 2-methyl-6,7 dimethoxyl-4H–benzo[d] [1,3]–oxazine–4–one. The reaction of this compound with hydrazine hydrate yielded the novel 5, 6-dimethoxyl quinazoline-4-one.
Structural elucidations of compounds synthesized were characterized by correct elemental analysis and careful inspections of spectral data. Looking at the 1H NMR spectra of the compounds synthesized, compound 1 displayed a singlet signal at: δ 3.78 attributed to methoxy group and singlet at δ 3.68 which was due to methyl group. Other singlets appeared at δ7.16 and 6.40 attributed to aromatic protons. Also, 1H NMR spectrum of compound 2 showed a characteristic signal at δ 2.56 (singlet) corresponding to methyl group and duplet at: δ 3.90 for methoxy group. Two singlets appeared at δ7.41 and 7.10 attributed to aromatic protons. Another signal appeared at 5.80 which was attributed to the protons of the amino group. For the IR spectra, compound 1 was characterized by absence of υ NH2and presence of υ C-O stretch in 1101cm-1 region of the compound. Compound 2 was characterized by absence of υ C-0 and presence of υNH2 in 3301cm-1and 3300 region of the compounds.
The 13C NMR spectrum of compound 1, revealed signals at δ16.95, 51.93 and 56.13 attributed to methyl and the two methoxy groups respectively, while the aromatic carbon atoms appeared between δ values 100.05-168.28 with the carbonyl carbon atom appearing as the highest δ value of 168.28. Similarly, compound 2 showed signals at δ22.58, 56.63 and 56.80 attributed to methyl and the two methoxy groups respectively, while the aromatic carbon atoms appeared between δ values 105.64-160.28, with the carbonyl carbon atom appearing as the highest δ value of 160.28.
The 13C nuclear magnetic resonance revealed low δ values for the aliphatic carbons. This is because the alkyl group is electron donating and hence produces a shielding effect which makes the carbon atom to resonate at low δ values. The aromatic and the carbonyl carbon atoms appeared at high δ values. This is because the aromatic ring is electron withdrawing and the aromatic carbons are highly deshielded and resonate at high frequency. The electronegative effect of the oxygen atom on the carbonyl group makes the carbonyl carbon to appear at higher δ value.
The compounds were investigated for their antimicrobial activity. The compounds synthesized exhibited promising antimicrobial activity against Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus species, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumonia, Serratiamarcescens and Candida albicans (ATCC24433) In addition, compound 1 showed activity against Escherichia coli while compound 2 was active against Klebsiellapneumonia(Figure 1). Table 3 Showed the MIC of both compounds against the susceptible organisms. Compound 2 had a slightly lower MIC (7 and 12 mg/mL) than compound 1 (6 and 8 mg/kg) against Staphylococcus aureus and Serratiamarcescens, respectively (table 3). This indicated that compound 2 is slightly more active against Staphylococcus aureus and Serratiamarcescenscompared to compound 1.
Activity and inactivity were observed in accordance with standard and accepted method. [34]