They also suggested that the side chain added to INH would be metabolized so that the active form of INH liberates inside the bacteria. In a subsequent related study, Rastogi and Goh2 also floated the idea that buy Panobinostat a palmitic acid chain that was attached to the amphipathic INH derivative was possibly utilized as an energy source and liberates the parent INH molecule inside the bacteria, thus, exerts its natural anti-mycobacterial activity. In a similar study, David et al13 reported that the highly hydrophobic low-polar drugs are the most active anti-mycobacterial drugs because they could easily dissolved in the lipids

of the outer cell wall layer and interact with surface amphiphils. On the basis of these considerations, it is assumed that the

lipophilic derivatives were penetrated through the lipophilic periplasmic space of the mycobacterial cell wall and metabolized in such a way that the active INH molecule is released inside the bacteria. Thus, it can be reckoned that the mechanism of action of the INH derivatives Ipatasertib manufacturer on M. tuberculosis could be similar to that of their parent INH, which is via the inhibition of mycolic acid synthesis. With regards to the drug interaction studies, we have used fixed-ratio method because it is easier to conduct and fewer calculations are needed. The ∑FICs of INH-C16, INH-C17 and INH-C18 in combination with first-line drugs are shown in Table 2. The combinations of INH-C16, INH-C17 and INH-C18 with both INH and EMB showed

additive/indifferent interaction at all the combination ratios. Additive/indifferent or no synergistic interaction could be due to the indifferent mechanisms of action of the drugs which is based on the idea that the combined drugs were not heptaminol interacting, causing only one metabolic pathway to become the growth limiting factor of an organism at a time.11 For instance, Rastogi et al14 reported that INH in combination with EMB did not show any synergistic activity against M. tuberculosis H37Rv because both drugs target the cell wall. INH inhibits the mycolic acid synthesis in the cell wall, whereas EMB inhibits cell wall arabinogalactan synthesis. 15 Therefore, the additive/indifferent between the derivatives and INH and EMB respectively probably due to the similar target (the cell wall) of these drugs which neither enhance nor hinder their anti-TB activity when combined. On the other hand, INH-C16 and INH-C18 in combinations with STR and RIF indicated synergism. One of the reasons for synergistic interaction could be due to the contradictory mechanisms of action of the individual drugs.14 The mechanism of action of STR is via the inhibition of protein synthesis and RIF interferes with RNA synthesis.15 In the case of INH-C16 and INH-C18, if their target is mycolic acid synthesis, synergism with STR and RIF is expected as the mechanisms of action of these drugs are also totally different.