| Literature DB >> 20428080 |
Auradee Punkvang1, Patchreenart Saparpakorn, Supa Hannongbua, Peter Wolschann, Pornpan Pungpo.
Abstract
The enoyl-ACP reductase enzyme (InhA) from M. tuberculosis is recognized as the primary target of isoniazid (INH), a first-line antibiotic for tuberculosis treatment. To identify the specific interactions of INH-NAD adduct and its derivative adducts in InhA binding pocket, molecular docking calculations and quantum chemical calculations were performed on a set of INH derivative adducts. Reliable binding modes of INH derivative adducts in the InhA pocket were established using the Autodock 3.05 program, which shows a good ability to reproduce the X-ray bound conformation with rmsd of less than 1.0 A. The interaction energies of the INH-NAD adduct and its derivative adducts with individual amino acids in the InhA binding pocket were computed based on quantum chemical calculations at the MP2/6-31G (d) level. The molecular docking and quantum chemical calculation results reveal that hydrogen bond interactions are the main interactions for adduct binding. To clearly delineate the linear relationship between structure and activity of these adducts, CoMFA and CoMSIA models were set up based on molecular docking alignment. The resulting CoMFA and CoMSIA models are in conformity with the best statistical qualities, in which r2cv is 0.67 and 0.74, respectively. Structural requirements of isoniazid derivatives that can be incorporated into the isoniazid framework to improve the activity have been identified through CoMFA and CoMSIA steric and electrostatic contour maps. The integrated results from structure-based, ligand-based design approaches and quantum chemical calculations provide useful structural information facilitating the design of new and more potentially effective antitubercular agents as follow: the R substituents of isoniazid derivatives should contain a large plane and both sides of the plane should contain an electropositive group. Moreover, the steric and electrostatic fields of the 4-pyridyl ring are optimal for greater potency.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20428080 PMCID: PMC6257264 DOI: 10.3390/molecules15042791
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Superimposition of the X-ray crystal structure (carbon atoms colored by yellow) and docked conformation (green) of the INH-NAD adduct in the InhA binding pocket.
The chemical structures and experimental biological activities against the BCG strain of M. tuberculosis of INH derivatives taken from literature [39].
| Compound | R | Log (1/MIC) | Compound | R | Log (1/MIC) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INH |
| 7.70 | 18 |
| 5.10 |
| 1 |
| 7.22 | 19 [a] |
| 5.10 |
| 2[a] |
| 6.82 | 20 |
| 4.92 |
| 3 |
| 6.52 | 21[a] |
| 4.92 |
| 4 |
| 6.40 | 22 |
| 4.92 |
| 5 |
| 6.22 | 23 |
| 4.82 |
| 6 |
| 6.10 | 24 |
| 4.70 |
| 7 |
| 5.82 | 25 |
| 4.52 |
| 8 |
| 5.70 | 26[a] |
| 4.52 |
| 9[a] |
| 5.70 | 27 |
| 4.40 |
| 10[a] |
| 5.52 | 28 |
| 4.10 |
| 11 |
| 5.52 | 29 |
| 4.00 |
| 12 |
| 5.52 | 30 |
| 4.00 |
| 13 |
| 5.52 | 31 |
| 3.65 |
| 14 |
| 5.22 | 32 |
| 3.52 |
| 15 |
| 5.22 | 33 |
| 3.22 |
| 16 |
| 5.22 | 34 |
| 3.22 |
| 17 |
| 5.10 | 35 |
| 3.22 |
[a] The test set compounds for CoMFA and CoMSIA.
Figure 2Superimposition of the INH-NAD adduct (colored by yellow) and compound 1 (colored by atom type) in InhA binding pocket obtained from molecular docking calculations.
The hydrogen bond distances (Å) between the NAD part of all adducts and amino acid residues.
| Cpd. | Nicotinamide | Pyrophosphate | Adenine ring | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asp148 | Thr196 | Ser20 | Ile21 | Asp64 | Val65 | |
| INH | 2.75, 2.34 | 2.99, 3.66 | 2.47 | 2.69 | 2.09 | 2.80 |
| 1 | 2.74, 2.33 | 2.92, 3.65 | 2.42 | 2.63 | 2.14 | 2.82 |
| 2 | 2.91, 2.40 | 2.97, 3.66 | 2.43 | 2.72 | 2.12 | 2.74 |
| 3 | 2.80, 2.36 | 2.85, 3.59 | 2.42 | 2.59 | 2.21 | 2.86 |
| 4 | 2.87, 2.36 | 2.94, 3.64 | 2.43 | 2.68 | 2.16 | 2.76 |
| 5 | 2.91, 2.41 | 2.89, 3.62 | 2.41 | 2.66 | 2.25 | 2.76 |
| 6 | 2.79, 2.35 | 2.91, 3.65 | 2.40 | 2.62 | 2.13 | 2.81 |
| 7 | 2.87, 2.34 | 2.91, 3.68 | 2.41 | 2.64 | 2.23 | 2.75 |
| 8 | 2.95, 2.39 | 2.90, 3.61 | 2.43 | 2.67 | 2.25 | 2.76 |
| 9 | 3.71, 3.38 | 3.21, 4.53 | 2.13 | 3.22 | 1.64 | 2.45 |
| 10 | 2.93, 2.99 | 3.31, 4.38 | 2.28 | 3.14 | 1.56 | 2.43 |
| 11 | 3.29, 2.81 | 3.10, 3.77 | 2.30 | 2.90 | 1.78 | 2.65 |
| 12 | 3.01, 2.50 | 2.91, 3.68 | 2.41 | 2.73 | 2.16 | 2.71 |
| 13 | 2.87, 2.34 | 2.90, 3.67 | 2.41 | 2.63 | 2.22 | 2.76 |
| 14 | 3.46, 3.15 | 3.12, 3.88 | 2.14 | 2.97 | 1.67 | 2.60 |
| 15 | 3.20, 2.85 | 2.87, 3.74 | 2.29 | 2.82 | 1.88 | 2.55 |
| 16 | 3.09, 2.53 | 3.12, 3.84 | 2.39 | 2.86 | 1.89 | 2.58 |
| 17 | 2.67, 2.99 | 3.31, 4.53 | 2.28 | 3.14 | 1.56 | 2.43 |
| 18 | 3.83, 3.62 | 3.30, 4.71 | 2.11 | 3.34 | 1.72 | 2.59 |
| 19 | 2.82, 2.36 | 3.02, 3.64 | 2.83 | 2.73 | 2.35 | 2.86 |
| 20 | 3.38, 2.89 | 3.08, 3.83 | 2.21 | 2.89 | 1.77 | 2.59 |
| 21 | 3.28, 2.56 | 3.10, 3.67 | 2.30 | 2.90 | 1.78 | 2.65 |
| 22 | 3.38, 3.03 | 2.82, 3.76 | 2.18 | 2.82 | 1.81 | 2.58 |
| 23 | 3.55, 3.51 | 3.43, 4.66 | 2.19 | 3.37 | 1.53 | 2.60 |
| 24 | 2.85, 2.33 | 2.91, 3.67 | 2.41 | 2.64 | 2.23 | 2.75 |
| 25 | 2.72, 2.39 | 2.89, 3.70 | 2.41 | 2.66 | 2.25 | 2.76 |
| 26 | 3.25, 2.81 | 2.90, 3.70 | 2.38 | 2.88 | 1.92 | 2.55 |
| 27 | 2.78, 2.95 | 2.89, 3.66 | 3.01 | 3.15 | 2.15 | 2.61 |
| 28 | 3.06, 2.77 | 3.42, 5.17 | 2.15 | 3.07 | 2.62 | 2.26 |
| 29 | 2.35, 2.24 | 3.02, 3.66 | 2.91 | 2.70 | 2.50 | 2.93 |
| 30 | 2.34, 2.23 | 3.02, 3.56 | 2.83 | 2.73 | 2.35 | 2.86 |
| 31 | 4.66, 3.79 | 3.17, 4.46 | 2.32 | 3.35 | 2.15 | 2.69 |
| 32 | 2.25, 2.38 | 3.05, 3.68 | 2.70 | 2.71 | 2.09 | 2.78 |
| 33 | 3.90, 3.07 | 2.73, 3.57 | 2.16 | 2.81 | 2.02 | 2.68 |
| 34 | 3.52, 3.16 | 3.45, 5.03 | 2.19 | 3.19 | 1.96 | 2.59 |
| 35 | 2.93, 2.42 | 2.99, 3.68 | 2.42 | 2.74 | 2.01 | 2.75 |
Figure 3Superimposition of the INH-NAD adduct (colored by yellow) and compounds 2-7 (colored by atom type) in InhA binding pocket obtained from molecular docking calculations.
Figure 4Superimposition of the INH-NAD adduct (colored by yellow) and compound 35 (colored by atom type) in the InhA binding pocket obtained from molecular docking calculations.
Interaction energy between each part of the adducts of INH, compounds 1, 33, 35 and each amino acid surrounding within 6 Å from each part of adducts in InhA binding pocket.
| Adduct fragment | Amino acid | Interaction energy (kcal/mol) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INH | Cpd. 1 | Cpd. 33 | Cpd. 35 | ||
| R substituent | Phe149 | -1.21 | -0.93 | 30.17 | 2.64 |
| Tyr158 | -2.09 | -0.98 | 23.02 | -0.07 | |
| Ala191 | 0.78 | 3.69 | 18.01 | 4.01 | |
| Gly192 | 1.61 | 1.96 | -2.92 | 5.13 | |
| Pro193 | 0.23 | -0.89 | 23.68 | 6.72 | |
| Trp222 | 0.03 | -1.48 | 18.17 | -0.21 | |
| Nicotinamide | Ile21 | -0.62 | 0.54 | -0.61 | -0.39 |
| Met147 | -0.58 | -0.23 | -0.08 | -0.32 | |
| Asp148 | -4.31 | -5.98 | -4.65 | -5.75 | |
| Phe149 | 6.95 | 2.50 | -0.20 | 4.55 | |
| Lys165 | 1.56 | 1.90 | 3.43 | 2.64 | |
| Ala191 | -2.41 | -1.84 | -1.10 | -1.90 | |
| Gly192 | -0.12 | -0.57 | -0.24 | -0.35 | |
| Pro193 | 0.52 | 0.62 | -0.71 | -0.22 | |
| Ile194 | 13.20 | 10.70 | 3.34 | 3.74 | |
| Thr196 | -1.88 | -1.88 | -2.66 | -2.09 | |
| Nicotinamide Ribose | Gly14 | -0.18 | -0.21 | -0.21 | -0.20 |
| Ser20 | 0.01 | 0.01 | -0.02 | 0.01 | |
| Ile21 | -0.54 | 0.29 | 0.39 | -0.19 | |
| Ala22 | -0.02 | -0.04 | -0.04 | -0.03 | |
| Ser94 | -1.30 | -0.41 | -1.71 | -1.15 | |
| Ile95 | 0.22 | -0.32 | 0.00 | -0.17 | |
| Gly96 | -1.19 | -1.08 | -1.21 | -1.24 | |
| Met147 | 0.54 | 3.76 | -1.27 | 0.99 | |
| Asp148 | -0.29 | -0.61 | 0.26 | -0.39 | |
| Phe149 | -0.26 | -0.23 | -0.22 | -0.24 | |
| Met161 | -0.18 | -0.16 | -0.18 | -0.16 | |
| Lys165 | -11.15 | -11.87 | -10.19 | -12.00 | |
| Ala191 | -0.30 | -0.31 | -0.27 | -0.30 | |
| Pyrophosphate | Gly14 | 8.87 | 9.29 | 9.79 | 9.34 |
| Ile16 | -10.17 | -10.28 | -5.55 | -10.12 | |
| Thr17 | -7.32 | -7.81 | -9.80 | -7.83 | |
| Ser19 | -1.09 | -1.24 | -1.77 | -1.24 | |
| Ser20 | -33.01 | -32.55 | -13.41 | -32.08 | |
| Ile21 | -23.92 | -22.51 | -23.39 | -23.87 | |
| Ala22 | -10.86 | -11.12 | -10.26 | -10.84 | |
| Ser94 | 6.63 | 9.15 | 7.41 | 8.70 | |
| Ile95 | -4.14 | -4.10 | -4.19 | -4.16 | |
| Gly96 | 3.27 | 3.35 | 3.41 | 3.41 | |
| Met147 | -3.63 | -3.57 | -2.99 | -3.49 | |
| Thr196 | -24.48 | -24.93 | -25.04 | -24.94 | |
| Adenine Ribose | Gly14 | 2.62 | 6.28 | 6.74 | 6.42 |
| Ile15 | -1.36 | -1.32 | -1.32 | -1.37 | |
| Ile16 | 3.17 | 3.92 | 2.92 | 2.96 | |
| Ser20 | -0.09 | -0.03 | -0.02 | -0.04 | |
| Phe41 | 0.10 | 0.27 | 3.00 | 0.65 | |
| Val65 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.06 | |
| Ser94 | -0.15 | 0.17 | -0.10 | 0.07 | |
| Ile95 | -2.08 | -1.55 | -1.88 | -1.64 | |
| Gly96 | -1.74 | -1.79 | -1.36 | -1.70 | |
| Phe97 | -0.50 | -0.36 | -0.35 | -0.36 | |
| Ile122 | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.12 | |
| Adenine | Gly14 | -0.65 | -0.80 | -0.71 | -0.76 |
| Gly40 | -1.36 | -0.20 | -0.13 | -0.18 | |
| Phe41 | -2.03 | -2.48 | -2.35 | -2.45 | |
| Leu63 | 0.18 | 1.32 | 1.51 | 1.67 | |
| Asp64 | -9.11 | -8.43 | -7.54 | -8.80 | |
| Val65 | -2.67 | 4.18 | 14.11 | 5.76 | |
| Gln66 | 0.85 | 1.31 | 1.66 | 1.45 | |
| Ile95 | -0.95 | 0.45 | 0.90 | 0.15 | |
| Gly96 | -1.31 | -1.18 | -0.88 | -1.08 | |
| Phe97 | -0.03 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.05 | |
| Ile122 | -0.94 | -0.30 | -0.93 | -0.70 | |
The statistical parameters of the CoMFA and CoMSIA models.
| Models | Statistical parameters | Fraction | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r2cv | r2 | N | s-press | SEE | F | ||
| CoMFA | 0.67 | 0.94 | 5 | 0.71 | 0.31 | 72.74 | 91/9 (S/E) |
| CoMSIA | |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| S/E/H | 0.55 | 0.87 | 5 | 0.86 | 0.46 | 28.30 | 17.4/21.2/61.4 |
| S/E/HD | 0.56 | 0.93 | 6 | 0.86 | 0.35 | 42.94 | 27.1/28.6/44.3 |
| S/E/HA | 0.62 | 0.93 | 6 | 0.77 | 0.34 | 41.26 | 32.2/38.9/28.9 |
| S/E/HD/HA | 0.38 | 0.95 | 5 | 1.14 | 0.28 | 86.84 | 18.2/22.9/39.3/19.6 |
| /E/H/HD/HA | 0.32 | 0.91 | 5 | 1.06 | 0.40 | 39.84 | 11.1/13.4/40.5/26.3/8.7 |
Bold values indicate the best CoMSIA model. r2cv, leave-one-out (LOO) cross-validated correlation coefficient; r2, non-cross-validated correlation coefficient; N, optimum number of components; s-press, Standard error of prediction, SEE, standard error of estimate; F, F-test value; S, steric field; E, electrostatic field; H, hydrophobic; HD, hydrogen donor field and HA, hydrogen acceptor field.
Figure 5Plots between the experimental and predicted activities of training and test sets from CoMFA model (a) and CoMSIA model (b).
Figure 6CoMFA contour maps for steric and electrostatic fields.
Figure 7The best CoMSIA contour maps for steric and electrostatic fields.