ISSN 2249-2119

I N T E R N AT I O N A L

BOOK HOUSE P. LTD.

Altaf Hussain Pandith & Nasarul Islam

Int. J. Chem
Vol 1 (1) (2012) : pp 71 - 79

Since 1941

Antimicrobial activity assessment of certain anilide derivatives:

a DFT study
Altaf Hussain Pandith*a, Nasarul Islama
a
Department of Chemistry, University of Kashmir, Srinagar-190006, (J&K) India
E mail: altafpandit23@gmail.com

Abstract
Several physiochemical, structural and quantum-mechanics based descriptors were derived for a set of anilide derivatives, using DFT-B3LYP/6-311G (d, p) level of theory. The aim of this study was to develop QSAR model using
multiple linear regression to predict the antimicrobial activity of anilides towards E. Coli in terms of several electronic
and molecular descriptors. The best-fit model involved electrophilicity index (w) in conjunction with molecular weight
(W) and logarithm of the octanol-water partition co-efficient (Log P) as antimicrobial activity descriptors. A comparison of the QSARs [ pIMC = -2.163 ELUMO+ 0.050 log P + 0.81, R2adj = 0.738, RSS = 0.109, F = 110.743], [ pIMC= 0.058
w + 0.047 Log P+ 0.772, R2adj = 0.771, RSS =0.095, F= 132.361], [ pIMC = -0.088ELUMO+ 0.012 + 0.248, R2adj = 0.688,
RSS = 0.129, F = 87.307] and [ pIMC = 0.053w +0.011 + 0.253, R2adj = 0.722, RSS = 0.115, F = 102.235] suggesting
that w is marginally a better descriptor than ELUMO and Log P is slightly a superior descriptor than for parameterization of electrophilic reactivity and hydrophobicity of molecules respectively.
Keywords: Electrophilicity, Hydrophobicity, QSAR, Escherichia Coli, DFT

Introduction
Antimicrobial drugs that help to rid our body of a bacterial infection are either microbiocidal or
microbiostatic. Most of the microbiologists classify
antimicrobial agents into two groups, antibiotics and
chemotherapeutic. Antibiotic are natural substances
produced by certain groups of microorganisms,
whereas chemotherapeutic agents are chemically synthesized. A hybrid antimicrobial substance is a semi
synthetic antibiotic produced by modifying a natural
derivative by the chemist to achieve desired properties. With the development of new antimicrobials, microorganisms have become resistant to various anti-

Vol. 1 (1) Jan - March 2012

microbial agents1-3. The old antimicrobial technology

was based either on poisons or heavy metals, which
may not have killed the microbe completely, allowing
the microbe to survive, change, and become resistant
to the poisons and/or heavy metals. Resistance to antimicrobial agents (AMR) has resulted in morbidity and
mortality from treatment failures and increased health
care costs. To meet the challenges of antimicrobial
(drug) resistance, much effort is needed for development of multi-pronged research strategy for designing new drugs4. Chemicals like substituted anilide derivatives, have recently attracted much attention as they
possess a diverse range of biological and pharmacological activities such as antibacterial, antifungal,

71

I N T E R N AT I O N A L

BOOK HOUSE P. LTD.

Since 1941

antiprotozoal, ,analgesic, anti-inflammatory, antiviral,

antidepressant and potassium channel activating potentials 5-14.
Quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR)
analysis is a widely applied methodology in modern
chemistry, biochemistry, medicinal chemistry and drug
discovery and is used to establish correlation between
molecular properties (such as biological, toxicological
and antimicrobial activities) and chemical structures
15-20
. QSARs are statistically validated mathematical
models of correlation between the chemical structures
and their activity profiles21. In the last couple of decades, computational chemistry based quantitative
structural- activity relationship analysis has assumed
much significance and is emerging as a promising research field in prediction of functional properties of
diverse classes of chemical molecules in biological systems.22-37. The quality of QSAR models depends on the
nature of biological activity evaluated, the type of statistical procedure applied and the physicochemical,
structural and quantum mechanical descriptors employed in an analysis. The QSAR models are employed
to predict the activity of derivate chemicals, on the basis of the underlying assumption that the magnitude
of a measured activity produced by a molecule under
in vitro or in vivo conditions is a direct function of the
empirical property or the theoretical parameter which
makes the descriptor of the total chemical structure of
the molecule under investigation38. Therefore, a proper
choice of the descriptor or a set of descriptors is expected to provide a precise prediction of the biological
activity of bioactive molecules. The descriptors chosen
may include physical properties of molecules, physicochemical parameters associated with various functional
groups, electronic parameters calculated by quantum
chemical methods or topological indices defined on
chemical graphs of molecules using mathematical techniques 30-45.
The main objective of this study was to develop model
QSAR equation to predict the antimicrobial activity of
substituted anilides towards Escherichia Coli (E. Coli)
in terms of several electronic and molecular descriptors such as molecular weight (W), total energy (E),
highest occupied molecular orbital energy (EHOMO),
hardness (), softness (S), molecular volume (V), po-

72

larizability () and logarithm of the octanol-water partition co-efficient (Log P ). Further, our aim was to investigate whether major chemical properties such as
electrophilic reactivity or hydrophobicity, which are
generally considered responsible for bio-availability
and biological action of chemical molecules at target
cell, can be parameterized in terms of single structural
descriptors s reported in many previous studies or it
requires a combined effect of a set of related descriptors to represent such molecular properties for developing efficient QSAR models.

Materials and methods

The experimental data (pIMC) and log P for substituted
anilides were taken from Narasimhan46 and the molecules considered in study are given in Figure 1. The
initial geometry were optimized by the DFT method
by employing Beckers three-parameter hybrid functional (B3LYP), which includes a mixture of HartreeFock exchange and DFT exchange correlation47,48 and
6-311G (d, p) basis set, which included polarization
functions for all atoms. Frequency analysis was performed on the optimized structures at the same level
of theory which showed that all of the optimized structures were minima on the potential energy surface. In
order to scan the maximum number of possible descriptors useful in mapping antimicrobial activity of the test
molecules, the following descriptors were chosen for
the QSAR analysis of the substituted derivatives;
HOMO energy (eV), LUMO energy (eV), Hardness
(s), Softness (S), Electronegativity () Chemical poten-

X
O
NH
R4

R1
R3

R2

01-11; X = C6H5;
12-22; X = CH3(CH2)9CH2;
23-33; X = CH3(CH2)11CH2;
34-40; X = CH3(CH2)15CH2
1, 12, 23, 34; R1, R2, R3, R4=H
2, 13, 24, 35; R2, R3, R4 =H, R1=Cl
3, 14, 25, 36; R1, R3, R4 =H, R2=Cl
4, 15, 26, 37; R1, R2, R4=H, R3 =Cl
5, 16, 27, 38; R1, R3, R4 =H, R2 =CH3
6, 17, 28, 39; R1, R2, R4=H, R3 =CH3
7, 18, 29, 40; R2, R3, R4 =H, R1=OCH3
8, 19, 30; R1, R2, R4 =H, R3=OCH3
9, 20, 31; R1, R3, R4 =H, R2=NO2
10, 21, 32; R1, R2, R4 =H, R3=NO2
11, 22, 33; R1, R2, R4 =H, R3 =Br

Fig. 1 Scheme showing substituted anilide derivatives

considered in this study

International Journal of Chemistry

Antimicrobial activity assessment of certain anilide derivatives: a DFT study

tial (), Electrophilicity index (), Total energy(au) (T),

logarithm of the octanol-water partition co-efficient
(Log P ), Polarizability (), Molecular weight (M),
Molecular volume (A0)3 (V)

Theoretical Background
(a) Quantum Chemical Descriptors
According to the Koopmans theorem, the IP and A are
the eigen value of the HOMO and LUMO with change
of sign49

I E HOMO A E LUMO
Chemical potential 48, hardness50 and softness51 can be
expressed in terms of ionization energy (I) and electron affinity (A) as given below:
-1+A,
1
-1+A and
1
E
-1
=
=
S=(
v(r)
v(r)
v(r)) (2)
2
2 N
2
2 N
N

Prompted by the work of Maynard and co-workers52,

Parr et al defined electrophilicity index ()53 as;

2
=
2

(3)

Polarizability () is the measure of the change in a

molecules electron distribution in response to an applied electric field, which can also be induced by electric interactions with solvents or ionic reagents and is
given as54-56;

< a > = 1/ 3(a xx + a yy + a zz )

(4)

(b) Regression Analysis

The regression analysis is a statistical method wherein
a functional dependence of a dependent variable on a
set of other independent variables is determined. In
linear regression analysis this dependence has a linear
form, which can be expressed as:
Y2 = a1X1 +a2 X2 + .. + apXp +b
where a1, a2ap are regression coefficients, b is the intercept, X1, X2, .Xp are independent variables and Y2
represents expected values of the dependent variable
by the regression model.
The equation represents a hyper plane in the p-dimensional space, where p is the number of independent
variables in the equation. This regression equation can
be used for predicting values of the dependent vari-

Vol. 1 (1) Jan - March 2012

able from the values of the independent variable.

For determining the quality of the statistical fit, the
Pearson correlation coefficient (r) (for regression with
single independent variable) or squared coefficient of
determination (R2) is used, which has the following
mathematical form:
r = (ESS/TSS)0.5
R2 = ESS/TSS =1- (RSS/TSS)
where TSS is the total sum of squares, represented as
( Y-Ymean)2, and has N-1 degrees of freedom, ESS is
the explained sum of squares, represented as ( Y2 Ymean)2 and has p degrees of freedom, RSS is the residual
sum of squares, represented as ( Y -Y2 )2 and has Np-1 degrees of freedom.
If the R2 value is greater than 0.5 the explained variance by the model (ESS) is larger than the unexplained
variance (RSS). The regression equation is considered
efficient when the value of R2is nearer to 1. The number of independent variables in the equation and the
size of the data sample affect the value of R2. When a
new variable is added to the regression equation the
value of R2may increase or remain same, even if the
added variable does not contribute to reducing of the
unexplained variance in the dependent variable. Therefore, another statistical parameter adjusted R2 value is
used, which is given by the equation;
R2adj = 1-[RSS/(N-P-1)]/[TSS/(N-1)] =1-{ (1-R2)*[(N-1)/(NP-1)]},
Where, N is the sample size and p is the number of
independent variables. The value of R2adj decreases if
an added variable to the equation does not reduce the
unexplained variance.

Results and Discussion

The quantum chemical descriptors like LUMO energy,
HOMO energy, ionization energy, electron affinity,
chemical potential, hardness, softness, electrophilicity,
polarization etc., calculated from optimized geometries
using equations 1-4, and the physiochemical and structural descriptors such as Log P, and molecular weight
of a series of substituted anilides are given in Table 1.

73

I N T E R N AT I O N A L

BOOK HOUSE P. LTD.

Since 1941

Table 1: Calculated HOMO energies, LUMO energies, ionization energies, electron affinities, electronegativities, hardness,
softness, chemical potential, weight, volume, total Energy and polarizability of compounds
Comp.
no.

HOMO
(au)

LUMO
(au)

I(eV)

A(eV)

-0.2267

-0.0379

6.17

-0.2459

-0.0511

6.69

74

(eV)

(eV)

S(eV)

(eV)

Weight

Volume

T(au)

1.03

-3.6

2.57

0.19

2.52

197.24

215.79

-632.14

57.8

1.39

-4.04

2.65

0.19

3.08

231.68

229.80

-1091.77

58.8

-0.2440

-0.0401

6.64

1.09

-3.87

2.78

0.18

2.69

231.68

228.97

-1091.76

58.7

-0.2308

-0.0588

6.28

1.6

-3.94

2.34

0.21

3.32

231.68

229.48

-1091.77

58.9

-0.2238

-0.0511

6.09

1.39

-3.74

2.35

0.21

2.98

211.26

234.08

-671.47

59.3

-0.2198

-0.0507

5.98

1.38

-3.68

2.3

0.22

2.94

211.26

234.07

-671.47

59.3

-0.2139

-0.0478

5.82

1.3

-3.56

2.26

0.22

2.80

227.26

242.65

-746.70

60.0

-0.2205

-0.0426

6.0

1.16

-3.58

2.42

0.21

2.65

227.26

242.48

-746.69

59.9

-0.2539

-0.1000

6.91

2.72

-4.82

2.1

0.24

5.53

242.23

236.78

-836.69

59.6

10

-0.2569

-0.0974

6.99

2.65

-4.82

2.17

0.23

5.35

242.23

236.73

-836.69

59.6

11

-0.2289

-0.0592

6.23

1.61

-3.92

2.31

0.22

3.33

276.13

233.96

-3205.69

59.3

12

-0.2352

-0.0250

6.4

0.68

-3.54

2.86

0.17

2.19

275.44

334.36

-833.58

67.1

13

-0.2422

-0.0353

6.59

0.96

-3.78

2.82

0.18

2.53

309.88

347.91

-1293.20

68.3

14

-0.2477

-0.0386

6.74

1.05

-3.9

2.85

0.18

2.67

309.88

348.25

-1293.20

68.3

15

-0.2308

-0.0305

6.28

0.83

-3.56

2.73

0.18

2.32

309.88

348.21

-1293.21

68.3

16

-0.2231

-0.0176

6.07

0.48

-3.28

2.8

0.18

1.92

303.49

371.14

-912.23

70.2

17

-0.2370

-0.0327

6.45

0.89

-3.67

2.78

0.18

2.42

289.46

352.82

-872.95

68.7

18

-0.2271

-0.0257

6.18

0.7

-3.44

2.74

0.18

2.16

305.46

362.00

-948.18

69.4

19

-0.2062

-0.0125

5.61

0.34

-2.98

2.64

0.19

1.68

305.46

360.76

-948.13

69.4

20

-0.2495

-0.0908

6.79

2.47

-4.63

2.16

0.23

4.96

320.43

356.00

-1038.14

69.2

21

-0.2547

-0.0908

6.93

2.47

-4.7

2.23

0.22

4.95

320.43

355.96

-1038.14

69.2

22

-0.2282

-0.0301

6.21

0.82

-3.52

2.7

0.19

2.29

354.33

352.74

-3407.13

68.7

23

-0.2374

-0.0257

6.46

0.7

-3.58

2.88

0.17

2.23

303.49

371.30

-912.22

70.1

24

-0.2403

-0.0265

6.54

0.72

-3.63

2.91

0.17

2.26

303.49

371.44

-912.22

70.1

25

-0.2440

-0.0379

6.64

1.03

-3.84

2.81

0.18

2.62

408.07

467.89

-1568.45

78.7

26

-0.2418

-0.0382

6.58

1.04

-3.81

2.77

0.18

2.62

337.94

384.98

-1371.84

71.3

27

-0.2308

-0.0232

6.28

0.63

-3.46

2.83

0.18

2.11

317.52

389.39

-951.55

71.6

28

-0.2326

-0.0228

6.33

0.62

-3.48

2.86

0.18

2.11

317.52

389.52

-951.54

71.6

29

-0.2084

-0.0209

5.67

0.57

-3.12

2.55

0.20

1.91

333.52

398.12

-1026.77

72.5

30

-0.2315

-0.0257

6.3

0.7

-3.5

2.8

0.18

2.19

333.52

398.36

-1026.77

72.4

31

-0.2576

-0.1036

7.01

2.82

-4.92

2.1

0.24

5.77

348.49

392.76

-1116.78

72.2

32

-0.2580

-0.1011

7.02

2.75

-4.89

2.14

0.23

5.59

348.49

391.80

-1116.78

72.2

33

-0.2370

-0.0375

6.45

1.02

-3.74

2.72

0.18

2.57

382.39

389.32

-3485.76

71.7

34

-0.2370

-0.0261

6.45

0.71

-3.58

2.87

0.17

2.23

359.60

444.92

-1069.50

76.1

35

-0.2392

-0.0261

6.51

0.71

-3.61

2.9

0.17

2.25

359.60

444.92

-1069.51

76.1

36

-0.2389

-0.0364

6.5

0.99

-3.75

2.76

0.18

2.55

394.04

458.34

-1529.13

77.3

37

-0.2418

-0.0382

6.58

1.04

-3.81

2.77

0.18

2.62

394.04

458.66

-1529.14

77.3

38

-0.2319

-0.0220

6.31

0.6

-3.46

2.86

0.18

2.09

373.63

463.07

-1108.84

77.6

39

-0.2337

-0.0228

6.36

0.62

-3.49

2.87

0.17

2.12

373.63

463.31

-1108.84

77.6

40

-0.2436

-0.0246

6.63

0.67

-3.65

2.98

0.17

2.24

389.62

472.65

-1183.86

78.1

International Journal of Chemistry

Antimicrobial activity assessment of certain anilide derivatives: a DFT study

Various QSAR models have been developed in this

work, based on different combination of molecular descriptors and quantum chemical descriptor calculated
at B3LYP/6311-G (d, p) level of theory. The general regression equations of the models constructed for the
whole set of compounds using one parameter descriptors having R2adj > 0.5 are given in Table 2 along with
their R2adj, RSS and F values.
Table 2: General regression equations using one parameter
obtained by total regression of whole set of compounds.

Equations

R2

RSS

-0.117 HOMO + 0.103

0.5062

0.2057

40.0734

-0.041E LUMO + 1.142

0.6201

0.1582

64.6613

0.034 + 1.092

0.7128

0.1196

97.8039

0.001W + 0.860

0.6254

0.1219

66.1072

0.007V + 0.943

0.5491

0.1470

48.4698

0.034 Log P + 1.009

0.009 + 0.581

0.5818
0.5475

0.1361
0.1472

55.2727
48.1833

The single parameter model equations obtained by

using physiochemical, structural and quantum-mechanics based descriptors considering total set of compounds are not good enough in predicting accurately
the antimicrobial activity of the chosen data set, as is
evident from the R2adj values . We find that using log P
alone or representing hydrophobicity, as an independent variable in single parameter regression equation
shows poor fit [(R adj 2 = 0.582) and (R adj2 = 0.548)
respectively]as compared to molecular weight [Radj2 =
0.626] with respect to the pIMC values of the chosen
data set towards E. coli. In two parameter regression
equations, using a combination of (w, Log P), (w, )
and (w, W) descriptors show better results as compared
to the combination of (ELUMO, log P), (ELUMO, ) and
(ELUMO, W) parameters, as indicated by their R2adj values given in Table 3.
In order to obtain model equations with better predictability and correlation, multiple parameter regression
equations were developed by employing three descriptors representing electronic, molecular and structural
parameters, simultaneously. The plots of observed versus calculated values of antimicrobial activity (pIMC)
Vol. 1 (1) Jan - March 2012

Table 3: Two and three parameter regression equations

obtained by total regression of whole set of Compounds:
Equations
-2.163 ELUMO+ 0.050 log P + 0.81
0.058 + 0.047 Log P + 0.772
-0.088 ELUMO+ 0.012 + 0.248
0.053 + 0.011 + 0.253

R2
0.738
0.771
0.689
0.722

RSS
0.109
0.095
0.129
0.116

F
110.742
132.361
87.307
102.235

-0.072 ELUMO+ 0.001 W + 0.713

0.045 + 0.003W + 0.685
-0.094 ELUMO+ 0.045 log P + 0.0001W + 0.795
0.057 + 0.042 Log P +0.002W + 0.772
-0.088 ELUMO+ 0.012 + 0.001W+ 0.245
0.052 + 0.011 +0.003W + 0.287

0.777
0.859
0.925
0.945
0.867
0.914

0.093
0.059
0.031
0.022
0.056
0.036

136.809
238.663
478.898
671.493
254.098
413.213

(a)

(b)
(b)

Fig. 2 Observed and calculated pIMC values (a) using

ELUMO, Log P, and W descriptors and (b)using , Log P and
W descriptor in three parameter regression model for
complete set of molecules.

based on three parameters regression model equations

using (ELUMO, Log P, W), (, Log P, W), (ELUMO, , W) and
(, , W) for all 40 derivatives are presented in Figure-

75

I N T E R N AT I O N A L

BOOK HOUSE P. LTD.

Since 1941

2 and Figure-3.The corresponding experimentally observed and the calculated antimicrobial activity values

(pIMC) along with various descriptors, are presented

in Table 4.

(a)

(b)

Figure 3: Observed and calculated pIMC values (a) using ELUMO, and W descriptors and (b) using
and W descriptor in three parameter regression model for complete set of molecules.

These results indicate that the two parameter regression equations using electrophilicity index () and Log
P give superior results as compared to using ELUMO and
polarizability(a). The extent of microbiocidal activity
of a given chemical derivative is expected to be governed by the extent of its electrophilic reactivity towards vital cellular components of a given microbe and
its bio-concentration and bioavailability at the target
cell. Our results indicates that electrophilicity index ()
better parameterizes electrophilic reactivity than ELUMO
for this set of test molecules and Log P shows improved
results in modeling lipophilicity than polarizability
parameter (a).However, by introducing addition structural parameter such as molecular weight (W) the resultant three parameter regression equation show better predicatively behavior for the antimicrobial activity of anilides towards E. Coli. The role of molecular
weight can be understood in terms of its effects on stabilization mechanism of the possible intermediates and
metabolites of the antimicrobial species, and also on
the steric properties of derivatives in in-vivo environments.

76

Conclusions
We have derived several physiochemical, structural
and quantum-mechanics based descriptors for a diverse set of organic derivatives compounds using DFTB3LYP/6-311G (d, p) level of theory to develop model
QSAR equations for predicting antimicrobial activity
of anilide derivatives towards E. Coli. Our main focus
has been to investigate the cumulative and synergistic
interplay of effects represents by a set of descriptors to
quantifies a major molecular property of a chemical
compound related to its antibacterial activity. Our main
conclusion is that the antimicrobial activity of compounds considered in this study cannot be completely
explained on the basis of considering only one or two
parameters. In fact, model QSAR equations with improved antimicrobial activity predictability can be developed by using a combination of structural,
physiochemical and electronic descriptors representing a range of chemical and physical properties of compounds responsible for their antimicrobial action.
Among these, the more important ones are related to
their ability to penetrate the cell membrane and their

International Journal of Chemistry

Antimicrobial activity assessment of certain anilide derivatives: a DFT study

Table 4: Observed and predicated antimicrobial activity of substituted anilides against E. coli using the best QSAR models
Observed
Comp.
no.

M. Formula

Log P*

pIMC*

( ELUMO,
Log P, W)

Calculated
( , Log P,
W)

pIMC
( ELUMO, ,
W)

( , ,
W)

C13H11NO

2.81

1.09

1.088

1.088

1.087

1.087

C13H10NOCl

3.33

1.16

1.147

1.157

1.130

1.140

C13H10NOCl

3.33

1.06

1.082

1.082

1.064

1.070

C13H10NOCl

3.33

0.97

1.010

1.001

1.018

1.014

C14H13NO

3.28

1.18

1.145

1.156

1.147

1.158

C14H13NO

3.28

1.1

1.110

1.099

1.097

1.096

C14H13NO2

2.56

1.01

1.066

1.028

1.089

1.088

C14H13NO2

2.56

1.06

1.053

1.049

1.074

1.079

C13H10N2O3

2.76

1.18

1.211

1.225

1.218

1.230

10

C13H10N2O3

2.76

1.24

1.205

1.214

1.212

1.220

11

C13H10NOBr

3.6

1.14

1.150

1.139

1.136

1.134

12

C18H29NO

5.09

1.14

1.129

1.137

1.134

1.136
1.190

13

C18H28NOCl

5.61

1.2

1.184

1.183

1.179

14

C18H28NOCl

5.61

1.2

1.193

1.191

1.187

1.197

15

C18H28NOCl

5.61

1.09

1.172

1.171

1.130

1.129

16

C19H31NO

5.56

1.21

1.176

1.185

1.180

1.187

17

C19H31NO

5.56

1.06

1.072

1.072

1.128

1.126

18

C19H31NO2

4.84

1.18

1.164

1.169

1.161

1.162
1.166

19

C19H31NO2

4.84

1.18

1.141

1.152

1.150

20

C18H28N2O3

5.04

1.4

1.382

1.400

1.359

1.379

21

C18H28N2O3

5.04

1.41

1.382

1.399

1.354

1.379

22

C18H28NOBr

5.88

1.15

1.170

1.167

1.161

1.167

23

C20H33NO

5.88

1.25

1.180

1.186

1.169

1.202

24

C20H32NOCl

6.4

1.13

1.190

1.188

1.161

1.155

25

C20H32NOCl

6.4

1.19

1.221

1.216

1.253

1.245

26

C20H32NOCl

6.4

1.27

1.251

1.266

1.213

1.239

27

C21H35NO

6.35

1.1

1.118

1.102

1.181

1.184

28

C21H35NO

6.35

1.16

1.180

1.172

1.180

1.184

29

C21H35NO2

5.09

1.1

1.128

1.125

1.176

1.164

30

C21H35NO2

5.09

1.14

1.140

1.140

1.193

1.190

5.84

1.4

1.385

1.393

1.382

1.386

31

C20H32N2O3

32

C20H32N2O3

5.84

1.24

1.259

1.243

1.265

1.256

33

C20H32NOBr

6.67

1.24

1.248

1.241

1.225

1.236

34

C24H41NO

7.47

1.3

1.282

1.292

1.273

1.282

35

C24H40NOCl

7.99

1.29

1.275

1.275

1.270

1.272

36

C24H40NOCl

7.99

1.25

1.277

1.267

1.281

1.274

37

C24H40NOCl

7.99

1.39

1.385

1.391

1.386

1.378

38

C25H43NO

7.94

1.27

1.265

1.266

1.261

1.261

39

C25H43NO

7.94

1.27

1.267

1.268

1.263

1.263

40

C25H43NO2

7.22

1.25

1.249

1.251

1.263

1.256

*reference 46
Vol. 1 (1) Jan - March 2012

77

I N T E R N AT I O N A L

BOOK HOUSE P. LTD.

Since 1941

electronic interactions with the active site of action

through different modes of chemical reactivity. We find
that that is marginally a better descriptor than ELUMO
for parameterization of electrophilic reactivity and Log
P descriptor shows overall improved results than polarizability for parameterization of hydrophobicity for
the purpose of antimicrobial QSARs for substituted
anilide derivatives.

Acknowledgment
We are thankful Prof. Khaliquz Zaman Khan, Head,
Department of Chemistry, University of Kashmir, for
his constant encouragement, and helpful suggestions.
We would also like to thank Prof. P. K. Chattaraj, Department of chemistry, IIT Kharagpur, Kharagpur for
his assistance and inspiration

References
1.

2007, Eur. J. Med. Chem. 42, 146

10. Biagi G., Giorgi I., Livi O., Nardi A., Calderone V.,
Martelli A., Martinotti E. and LeRoy S. O. 2004,
Eur. J. Med. Chem. 39, 491
11. Aydin O. N., Eyigor M. and Aydin N. 2001, Eur. J.
Anaesthesiol. 18, 687
12. Bouchain G. and Delorme D. 2003, Current Medicinal Chemistry 10, 2359
13. Clark M. T., Coburn R. A., Evans R. T. and Genco
R. J.1986, J. Med. Chem. 29, 25
14. Hung C., Tsia W., Kuo L. and Kuo Y. 2004, Bioorg.
Med. Chem. 13, 1791
15. Hansch C. and Leo A. 1995- Exploring QSAR: Fundamentals and Applications in Chemistry and Biology, American Chemical Society, (Washington,
DC)

Okuma K., Iwakawa K., Turnidge J.D., W. B. Grubb

W.B., Bell, J.M., OBrien F.G., Coombs G.W.,
Pearman J.W., Tenover F.C., Kapi M., Tiensasitorn
C., Ito, T. and Hiramatsu, K. 2002, J. Clin. Microbiol.
40, 4289

16. Karelson M., Lobanov V. and Katritzky 1996,

Chem. Rev. 96, 1027

2.

Klei E., Smith D.L. and Laxminarayan R. 2007,

Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2007,13, 1840

18. Xu J.L., Gao S.L., Zhang X.F., Xie Y.P., Huang X.Y.
and Xie X.G. 2007, Chinese J. Struct. Chem., 26, 91

3.

Johnson E. M., Warnock D. W., Luker J., Portor S.

R. and Crispian S. J. 1995, Antimicrob. Chemother.
35, 103

19. Vasanthanathan P., Lakshimi M., Babu M., Gupta

A. and Kaskhedikar S. 2006, Vhem. Pharm. Bull.,
54, 583

4.

Emami S., Foroumadi A., Falahati M., Loffali E.,

Rajabalian S., Ebrahimi S.A., Farahyar S. and
Shafiee A. 2008, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 18,141

20. Johanson T., Khan I. A., Avery M. A., Grant J. and

Meshnick S. R. 1998, Antimicrob. Chemother. 42,
1454

5.

Ozawa I., Takeuchi I., Yamomoto K., Hamada Y.,

Ito, T., Kuwahara M., and Takagaki T.1984, Chem.
Pharm. Bull., 32, 305

21. Ruchi Bansal R., Karthikeyan C., Moorthy

N.S.H.N. and Trivedi P. 2007, ARKIVOC , 15,66

6.

Narasimhan B., Belsare D., Pharande D., Mourya

V. and Dhake A. 2004, Eur. J. Med. Chem. 39, 827

7.

Schultz H. W. 2006, J. Pharm. Sci. 52, 503

23. Free S. M. and Jr. Wilson J. W. 1964, J. Med. Chem.,7,

395

8.

Niewiadomy A., Matisiak J. and MacikNiewiadomy G., 2001 Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 13, 243

24. Valadares N.F., Castilho M.S., Polikarpov I. and

Garratt R. C. 2007, Bioorg. Med. Chem., 15, 4609

9.

Ragavendran J. V., Sriram D., Patel S. K., Reddy, I.

V., Bharathwazan N., Stables, J. and Yogeeswari P.

25. Kadam R. U. and Roy N. 2006, Bioorg. Med. Chem.

Lett. 16, 5136

78

17. Polyakova M., Mei Jin, L. and Ho Row, K. 2006,

Bull. Korean Chem. Soc. 27,211

22. Sperandio G.M., SantAnna C. M. R. and Barreiro

E. J. 2004, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett., 14, 3159

International Journal of Chemistry

Antimicrobial activity assessment of certain anilide derivatives: a DFT study

26. Gonzalez-Diaz H., Aguero-Chapin G., VaronaSantos J., Molina R., de la Riva G. and Uriarte E.
2005, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 15, 2932

43. Super A. J., Brugger W. E. and Jurs P.C. 1979, Computer-Assisted Studies of Chemical Structure and
Biological Function, Wiley, (New York)

27. Gupta M. K., Mishra P., Prathipati P. and Saxena

A. K. 2002, Bioorg. Med. Chem. 10, 3713

44. Kier L. B. and Hall L. H. 1986, Molecular Connectivity in Structure-Activity Analysis Research,
Research Studies Press, John Wiley and Sons,
Chichester, (UK)

28. Gao H. and Bajorath J. 1998, Mol. Divers. 4,115

29. De La Fuente R., Sonawane N.D., Arumainayagam
D. and Verkman A. S. 2006, Br. J. Pharmacol. 149,551
30. Cramer R.D., Patterson D.E. and Bunce J. D. 1988,
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 110, 5959

45. Weinstein H., Nombodri V. K. and Osman R., 1985,

In QSAR in Toxicology and Xenobiochemistry.
Tichy, M. Elsevier, Amsterdam, (New York) , 451463

31. Klebe G., Abraham U. and Mietzner T. 1994, J.

Med. Chem.37, 4130

46. Narasimhan B., Narang R., Judge V., Ohlan R. and

Ohlan S. 2007, ARKIVOC, 112

32. Pasha F. A., Muddassar M., Beg, Y. and Cho S. J.

2008, Chem. Biol. Drug Des.71, 483

47. Becke A. D. 1993, J. Chem. Phys. 98, 5648

33. Pasha F. A., Neaz M. M., Cho S. J. and Kang S. B.

2007, Chem. Biol. Drug Des.70, 520
34. Kapur S., Shusterma A., Verma R. P., Hansch C.,
and Selassie C. D. 2000, Chemosphere, 41, 1643
35. Schultz T. W., Cronin M. T. D., Netzeva T. I. and
Aptula A. O. 2002, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 15, 1602
36. Schultz T. W., Cronin M. T. D., Bowers G. S. and
Sinks G. D. 2002, Envirno. Res. 11, 301
37. Chattaraj P. K. Padmanabhan J., Prathasarathi R.,
and Subramanian V., 2005. J. Phys. Chem. 109, 11043

48. Lee C., Yang W. and Parr G. R. 1988, Phys. Rev. B.

37,785
49. Pearson R. G. 1986, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 83,
8440
50. a) Parr R. G., Szentpaly L. and Liu S. 1999, J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 121, 1922; b) Chattaraj P. K., Sarkar U.
D. and Roy D. R. 2006, Chem. Rev. 106, 6, 2065; c)
Chattaraj P. K. and Roy D. R. 2007, Chem. Rev.107,
9, 46
51. Yang W. and Parr R.G. 1985, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
(USA ) 82, 6723

38. Basak S.C., 1987, Med. Sci. Res.15, 60

52. Maynard A. T., Huang M., Rice W. G. and Covell

D.G. 1998, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 95, 11578

39. Lessigiarska I., 2006, Ph.D. thesis Liverpool John

Moores, University, Liverpool, (UK)

53. Parr R. G., Szentpaly V. and Liu S. 2006, J. Am.

Chem. Rev. 106, 2065

40. Hansch C. and Blaney J. 1984, Fact or Fantasy In,

Wooldridge, K. H. R. (Eds), Drug Design, Academic Press, (New York), 185

54. Cartier A. and Rivail J. L. 1987, Chemom. Intell. Lab.

Sys. 1,335

41. Chattaraj P.K., Roy D. R., Parthasarathi R. and

Subramanian V. 2006, QSAR and Combinatorial Science, 25, 114-122.
42. Richards W.G. 1983, Quantum Pharmacology, 2nd
ed., Butterworth, (London)

55. Murrell J. N., Kettle S. F. and Tedder J. M. 1985,

The Chemical Bond John Wiley & Sons,
(Chichester)
56. Cocchi M., Menziani M. C., Fanelli F. and
DeBenedetti P. G. 1995, J. Mol. Struct. 331, 79.

MS Received January 14, 2012, Accepted January 27, 2012

Vol. 1 (1) Jan - March 2012

79