| Literature DB >> 19578428 |
Sarah L Kinnings1, Nina Liu, Nancy Buchmeier, Peter J Tonge, Lei Xie, Philip E Bourne.
Abstract
The rise of multi-drug resistant (MDR) and extensively drug resistant (XDR) tuberculosis around the world, including in industrialized nations, poses a great threat to human health and defines a need to develop new, effective and inexpensive anti-tubercular agents. Previously we developed a chemical systems biology approach to identify off-targets of major pharmaceuticals on a proteome-wide scale. In this paper we further demonstrate the value of this approach through the discovery that existing commercially available drugs, prescribed for the treatment of Parkinson's disease, have the potential to treat MDR and XDR tuberculosis. These drugs, entacapone and tolcapone, are predicted to bind to the enzyme InhA and directly inhibit substrate binding. The prediction is validated by in vitro and InhA kinetic assays using tablets of Comtan, whose active component is entacapone. The minimal inhibition concentration (MIC(99)) of entacapone for Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M.tuberculosis) is approximately 260.0 microM, well below the toxicity concentration determined by an in vitro cytotoxicity model using a human neuroblastoma cell line. Moreover, kinetic assays indicate that Comtan inhibits InhA activity by 47.0% at an entacapone concentration of approximately 80 microM. Thus the active component in Comtan represents a promising lead compound for developing a new class of anti-tubercular therapeutics with excellent safety profiles. More generally, the protocol described in this paper can be included in a drug discovery pipeline in an effort to discover novel drug leads with desired safety profiles, and therefore accelerate the development of new drugs.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19578428 PMCID: PMC2699117 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000423
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Comput Biol ISSN: 1553-734X Impact factor: 4.475
Figure 1Ligand binding site similarity between COMT and InhA.
COMT is show in green, its SAM co-factor is shown in purple, and its ligand is shown in red. InhA is shown in blue, its NAD co-factor is shown in orange, and its ligand is shown in yellow. Protein structures were aligned using the SOIPPA algorithm.
Figure 22D small molecule similarity between existing and potential InhA inhibitors.
The p-value of the InhA inhibitor with the highest 2D similarity score (Tanimoto coefficient) to A) entacapone and B) tolcapone is shown against a density distribution of 15,000 background scores.
Docking existing and potential InhA inhibitors into InhA and COMT.
| InhA inhibitor | IC50 to InhA (nM) | Docking score with InhA | Docking score with COMT |
| Pyrrolidine carboxamide s3 | >100,000 | −5.14+/−1.33 | −6.10 |
| 468 | 23,120 | −6.57+/−1.27 | −4.42 |
| 566 | 10,660 | −6.24+/−0.92 | −3.96 |
| Triclosan | 1,000 | −6.34+/−0.68 | −4.05 |
| 744 | 970 | −6.07+/−1.28 | −5.47 |
| 665 | 890 | −5.18+/−0.72 | −4.20 |
| 641 | 390 | −6.00+/−1.51 | −5.92 |
| GEQ | 200 | −6.29+/−1.61 | −4.45 |
| 5PP | 17 | −5.99+/−0.48 | −3.90 |
| 8PP | 5 | −6.51+/−0.95 | −4.04 |
| Entacapone | >80,000 | −4.91+/−0.97 | −4.49 |
| Tolcapone | - | −5.85+/−0.74 | −4.68 |
The results of the eHiTs docking studies are shown. The mean and standard deviation of the docking scores of each molecule with nine different InhAs are given, and docking scores with COMT are included as a comparison. The same docking studies using Surflex showed strong agreement (see Table S4).
Figure 3Binding pose analysis of entacapone with InhA.
The eHiTs predicted binding pose of entacapone is compared with that of a native InhA ligand. The native ligand is shown in yellow and entacapone is colored by element. The NAD co-factor is shown in orange. Distances between the nitrite group of entacapone and surrounding aspartic acid and glutamic acid residues are labeled.
Comparison of logP and logD values between existing and potential anti-tubercular drugs or pro-drugs (marked by an asterisk).
| Drug | logP | logD (pH 2) | logD (pH 5) | logD (pH 7) | logD (pH 9) | |
| COMT inhibitor | Tolcapone | 3.12 | 3.12 | 2.40 | 0.81 | 0.53 |
| Entacapone | 1.95 | 1.94 | 1.59 | −0.04 | −0.63 | |
| First-line anti-tubercular drug | Ethambutol | −0.31 | −7.51 | −6.14 | −3.63 | −1.31 |
| Isoniazid* | −0.63 | −1.97 | −0.64 | −0.63 | −0.63 | |
| Pyrazinamide* | −1.53 | −1.53 | −1.53 | −1.53 | −1.53 | |
| Rifampicin | 2.06 | −0.07 | 0.62 | 2.06 | 0.65 | |
| Streptomycin | −8.30 | −15.74 | −15.26 | −13.45 | −12.05 | |
| Second-line anti-tubercular drug | Ciprofloxacin | −1.38 | −2.04 | −1.84 | −1.38 | −1.71 |
| Moxifloxacin | −1.88 | −1.76 | −1.78 | −1.87 | −1.87 | |
| Aminosalicylic acid | 0.81 | 0.54 | −0.39 | −2.15 | −2.53 | |
Values were calculated using ChemAxon's Calculator. Values calculated from another program ChemSilico Predict are shown in Table S5.
In vitro assay results for sensitivity of M.tuberculosis to entacapone.
| Entacapone concentration (µg/ml) | Bacterial number (cfu/ml) | Percentage inhibition |
| None | 3.5×106 | 0.0 |
| 15.6 | 3.3×106 | 6.0 |
| 31.2 | 2.5×106 | 29.0 |
| 62.5 | 7.0×106 | 80.0 |
| 125.0 | <100.0 | >99.99 |
| 250.0 | <100.0 | >99.99 |
InhA kinetic assay results for entacapone inhibition.
| Entacapone (µg/ml) | Percentage inhibition of InhA |
| 2.5 | 10.7 |
| 6.2 | 23.4 |
| 12.3 | 35.5 |
| 24.9 | 47.0 |