Table 2.
Biological activity of quinolone complexes with lanthanide ions.
| Ligand | Complex | Biological Activity Test | Results | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pipemidic acid (PPA) | [La(PPA)4Cl]Cl2 | -antibacterial activity on E. coli, S. aureus, P. aeruginosa similar to PPA; | -antibacterial activity on S. pneumoniae much greater than PPA; -NO activity on S. aureus |
[39] |
| [M(PPA)4]Cl3 where M = Ce3+, Pr3+, Nd3+, Sm3+, Tb3+, Dy3+, Y3+. | -Pr, Sm, Y complexes have similar activity to PPA against E. coli, S. aureus, B. subtilis, S. pneumoniae; weaker activity on P. aeruginosa. | [39] | ||
| Ciprofloxacin (CPX) | [Er(CPX)2(H2O)8]Cl [Ce(CPX)2(H2O)4]Cl·(H2O)3.25(C2H5OH)0.25 |
-MIC determined by broth tube dilution method; E. coli, P. aeruginosa, S. aureus; | -for Ce, the activity is 2.5, 2.5,1.25 fold higher than CPX; -for Er, the activity is 2.5, 1.25 fold higher, resp. 3.0 fold lower than CPX. |
[41] |
| [La(H2O)4(CPX)2]Cl | -antibacterial activity against E. coli strains, through flat-filter paper method; | -the complex is less active than ciprofloxacin. | [43] | |
| Enrofloxacin (EF) | [La2(EF)6(H2O)2]⋅14H2O [Sm2(EF)6(H2O)2]⋅14H2O |
-antibacterial activity tested against B. subtilis, S. aureus, E. coli through the diffusimetric method; | -both complexes have bactericidal properties greater than the ligand; -the Sm3+ complex is more active than the La3+ complex. |
[44] |
| Gemifloxacin (GMFX) | [La(GMFX)2(H2O)2]Cl3⋅3H2O [Ce(GMFX)2(H2O)2] (SO4)2⋅2H2O |
-antibacterial activity tested against S. aureus, B. subtilis, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, by diffusimetric method; -antifungal activity tested against C. albicans, A. awamori, Altenaria sp. by diffusimetric method; -cytotoxic activity tested against human breast carcinoma cell line (MCF-7 cells), human colon carcinoma cell line (HCT-116 cells), through crystal violet colorimetric viability assay; |
-the activity of the La3+ complex is comparable to gemifloxacin, but the one of the Ce4+ complex is slightly higher; -only the Ce4+ complex is active and only against C. albicans; -results were compared to the activity of doxorubicin; both complexes were found to be active on both cell lines, but have IC50 higher than doxorubicin; Ce4+ complex more active than La3+ complex against the breast carcinoma cell line; La3+ complex more active than the Ce4+ complex against the colon carcinoma cell line. |
[47] |
| [La(GMFX)(phen)(H2O)2] Cl3⋅6H2O [Ce(GMFX)(phen)(H2O)2] (SO4)2⋅3H2O |
-antibacterial activity against S. aureus, B. subtilis, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, by diffusimetric method; -antifungal activity tested against C. albicans, A. awamori, Alternaria sp. by diffusimetric method; -cytotoxic activity tested against human breast carcinoma cell line (MCF-7 cells) and human colon carcinoma cell line (HCT-116 cells) by crystal violet staining viability assay; doxorubicin used as positive control; |
-activity against S. aureus is comparable to GMFX; higher activities against the others; -comparable activity against C. albicans to GFX; no activity against other fungi strains; -complexes show cytotoxic activity, but lower than GMFX; phen also shows cytotoxic activity, but higher than GMFX. |
[48] | |
| [Ce(GMFX)(Gly)(H2O)2] Cl2⋅H2O |
-antibacterial activity tested against Xanthomonas campestris, Bacillus megeterium, E. coli, Clavibacter michiganesis;
-antifungal activity tested against phytopathogenic fungi: Rhizoctonia solani, Sclerotinia sclerotium, Aspergillus niger, Botrytis cinerea, Penicillium digitatum; -antioxidant activity tested through DPPH and ABTS methods; |
-GMFX and complex proved to be active against all strains, the weakest activity being against E. coli and the highest against C. michiganensis; -complex shows lower activity than GMFX against all strains; -complex activity comparable to that of GMFX. |
[49] | |
| Levofloxacin (LEVO) | [Ce(LEVO)2(H2O)2]SO4⋅ 5H2O |
-antibacterial activity tested against S. aureus, B. subtilis, B. otitidis, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, K. oxytoca, by cup-diffusion technique; -antifungal activity tested against A. flaurus, A. fumigatus, using the disc diffusion sensitivity method; |
-the Ce4+ proves to be more active on B. subtilis and B. otitidis; -no antifungal activity noted; |
[50] |
| Moxifloxacin (MOXI) | [Ce(MOXI)2](SO4)2⋅2H2O | -antibacterial activity tested against S. aureus, B. subtilis, B. otitidis, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, K. oxytoca by cup-diffusion method; | -the complex shows similar activity against E.coli; -no activity against P. aeruginosa and K. oxytoca; -higher activity against B. subtilis, B. otitidis and S. aureus. |
[51] |
| Norfloxacin (NOR) | [La(NOR)3]⋅3H2O [Ce(NOR)3]⋅2H2O |
-antibacterial activities tested using modified Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method, against S. aureus, B. subtilis, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, C. albicans, A. flavus; positive controls used: tetracycline and amphotericin; | -complexes in nanoparticle form displayed greater activities than those in normal- particle form, but lower than the positive controls; -La3+ nanocomplex is the most active. |
[53] |
| Ofloxacin (OFLO) | [Pr(L-OFLO)(NO3)2(CH3OH)] (NO3) [Nd(L-OFLO)(NO3)2(CH3OH)] (NO3), where L-OFLO = ofloxacin derivative. |
-antioxidant activity tested through hydroxyl radical scavenging activity through the Fenton reaction; | -complexes show better activity than the ligand. | [55,58] |
| Sparfloxacin (SPAR) | [La(SPAR)2NO3⋅H2O]⋅2H2O (1) [La(SPAR)(HL)NO3⋅H2O]⋅ H2O (2), where L = DL-alanin. |
-antibacterial activity tested against S. aureus, E. coli using modified Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method; tetracycline used as control; -antifungal activity tested against A. flavus, C. albicans using modified Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method; amphotericin B used as control; |
-the complexes show the same activity as the free ligand, which is higher than the control, against both bacteria; -complexes and free ligand showed no antifungal activity. |
[57] |