| Literature DB >> 25834405 |
Jangampalli Adi Pradeepkiran1, Sri Bhashyam Sainath2, Konidala Kranthi Kumar1, Matcha Bhaskar1.
Abstract
Brucella melitensis 16M is a Gram-negative coccobacillus that infects both animals and humans. It causes a disease known as brucellosis, which is characterized by acute febrile illness in humans and causes abortions in livestock. To prevent and control brucellosis, identification of putative drug targets is crucial. The present study aimed to identify drug targets in B. melitensis 16M by using a subtractive genomic approach. We used available database repositories (Database of Essential Genes, Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes Automatic Annotation Server, and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes) to identify putative genes that are nonhomologous to humans and essential for pathogen B. melitensis 16M. The results revealed that among 3 Mb genome size of pathogen, 53 putative characterized and 13 uncharacterized hypothetical genes were identified; further, from Basic Local Alignment Search Tool protein analysis, one hypothetical protein showed a close resemblance (50%) to Silicibacter pomeroyi DUF1285 family protein (2RE3). A further homology model of the target was constructed using MODELLER 9.12 and optimized through variable target function method by molecular dynamics optimization with simulating annealing. The stereochemical quality of the restrained model was evaluated by PROCHECK, VERIFY-3D, ERRAT, and WHATIF servers. Furthermore, structure-based virtual screening was carried out against the predicted active site of the respective protein using the glycerol structural analogs from the PubChem database. We identified five best inhibitors with strong affinities, stable interactions, and also with reliable drug-like properties. Hence, these leads might be used as the most effective inhibitors of modeled protein. The outcome of the present work of virtual screening of putative gene targets might facilitate design of potential drugs for better treatment against brucellosis.Entities:
Keywords: Brucella melitensis 16M; homology modeling; putative genes; structure based virtual screening; subtractive genomic approach; targets
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25834405 PMCID: PMC4371898 DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S76948
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Drug Des Devel Ther ISSN: 1177-8881 Impact factor: 4.162
Figure 1Schematic representation of drug target identification through subtractive genomic analysis and molecular modeling studies of characterizing hypothetical protein.
Classification of total putative drug targets and their metabolic pathway distribution of Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes orthology numbers (KO) and enzyme classification numbers of Brucella melitensis 16M.
| Serial no | Membrane transporters | Nucleotide metabolism | Carbohydrate metabolism | Amino acid metabolism | Replication and repair | Energy metabolism | Hypothetical | Cofactors and vitamin metabolism | Folding sorting and degradation metabolism | Glycan biosynthesis and metabolism | Lipid metabolism | Cell motility | Genetic information processing | Nitrogen metabolism |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NP_539150.1 (UMF1) (K06902) | NP_538921.1 (rho) (K03628) | NP_539267.1 (E2.3.1.-) (K00680) | NP_539144.1 (tyrA1) [EC:5.4.99.5] (K04092) | NP_540054.1 (DPO3A1, dnaE) [EC:2.7.7.7] (K02337) | NP_539149.1 (GDH2) [EC:1.4.1.2] (K15371) | NP_539165.1 | NP_539620.1 (cbiD) (K02188) | NP_539694.1 (secY) (K03076) | NP_540005.1 (E3.2.1.-) (K01238) | NP_540097.1 (fabH) [EC:2.3.1.180] (K00648) | NP_541129.1 (fliF) (K02409) | NP_541786.1 (K07112) | NP_541929.1 (narH) (K00371) |
| 2 | NP_539445.1 (yjbB) (K03324) | NP_538937.1 (lacI, galR) (K02529) | NP_539297.1 (E2.3.3.9, aceB, glcB) [EC:2.3.3.9] (K01638) | NP_539728.1 (E4.3.1.17, sdaA) (K01752) | NP_540402.1 (dnaB) [EC:3.6.4.12] (K02314) | NP_539560.1 (ureD, ureH) (K03190) | NP_539180.1 | NP_539633.1 (cobL) (K00595) | NP_540385.1 (tldD) (K03568) | NP_541137.1 (flgK) (K02396) | NP_541976.1 (norB) [EC:1.7.2.5] (K04561) | |||
| 3 | NP_539539.1 (kup) (K03549) | NP_540035.1 (K07104) | NP_539326.1 (E4.1.3.1, aceA) [EC:4.1.3.1] (K01637) | NP_540023.1 (phnM) [EC:3.6.1.63] (K06162) | NP_540859.1 (DPO3B, dnaN) (K02338) | NP_539563.1 (ureE) (K03187) | NP_539271.1 | NP_540753.1 (pncB, NAPRT1) [EC:6.3.4.21] (K00763) | NP_539493.1 (mraY) [EC:2.7.8.13] (K01000) | NP_541144.1 (flhA) (K02400) | ||||
| 4 | NP_539581.1 (ABC.SS.P) (K02057) | NP_540361.1 (ccrM) (K13581) | NP_540311.1 (E5.3.1.8, manA) [EC:5.3.1.8] (K01809) | NP_540506.1) (nspC) (K13747) | NP_540884.1 (nusA) (K02600) | NP_539884.1 (E1.1.1.40, maeB) [EC:1.1.1.40] (K00029) | NP_539374.1 | |||||||
| 5 | NP_540308.1 (rbsC) (K10440) | NP_541065.1 (iunH) [EC:3.2.2.1] (K01239) | NP_540754.1 (chvB, cgs, ndvB) [EC:2.4.1.-] (K13688) | NP_540834.1 (aroA) [EC:2.5.1.19] (K00800) | NP_540566.1 (ureG) (K03189) | NP_539378.1 | ||||||||
| 6 | NP_541601.1 (ABC.MS.P1) (K02026) | NP_541566.1(fdhD) (K02379) | NP_541026.1 [EC:3.5.1.68] (K01458) | NP_540818.1 (cyoA) (K02297) | NP_539467.1 | |||||||||
| 7 | NP_540746.1 (omp31) (K16079) | NP_541247.1 (dapD) [EC:2.3.1.117] (K00674) | NP_539545.1 | |||||||||||
| 8 | NP_540854.1 (yejE) (K13895) | NP_541664.1 (recG)(K03655) | NP_540112.1 | |||||||||||
| 9 | NP_541275.1 (TC.FEV.OM) (K02014) | NP_541685.1 (rirA) (K13772) | NP_541094.1 | |||||||||||
| 10 | NP_541562.1 (afuA, fbpA) (K02012) | NP_540102.2 (hppA) [EC:3.6.1.1] (K15987) | NP_541517.1 | |||||||||||
| 11 | NP_541692.1 (K07484) | NP_541820.1 | ||||||||||||
| 12 | NP_541781.1 (ABC-2.TX) (K01993) | NP_541971.1 | ||||||||||||
| 13 | NP_542115.1 |
Figure 2Pie graph showing putative drug targets and classification of 14 metabolic pathways analysis in Brucella melitensis 16M.
Molecular characterization of target hypothetical protein: the results indicating that the protein forms a basis for drug development and vaccine design for brucellosis
| Serial no | Protein molecular features | Tool/server | Predictions | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Conserved motif regions | MotifScan | Motif patterns in target protein | PKC_PHOSPHO_SITE – 2 |
| 2 | Physicochemical properties | ProtParam | Molecular weight | 23,658.1 kD |
| Isoelectric point (pI) | 4.86 | |||
| Negative amino acids | 32 | |||
| Positive amino acids | 23 | |||
| Aliphatic index | 89.14 | |||
| Instability index | 44.50 | |||
| Grand average of hydropathicity | −0.037 | |||
| Extinction coefficients | 16,960 M−1 cm−1 (280 nm) | |||
| 3 | Trans membrane helices prediction | TMHMM v2.0 | Trans membrane regions | No transmembrane helix |
| 4 | Signaling peptides identification | SignalP v4.1 | Signaling peptide regions | No signaling peptides |
| 5 | Localization | PSORTb v3.0 | Subcellular localization | Cytoplasmic protein (9.77) |
| 6 | Secondary structure prediction | SOPMA | Alpha helix | 23.98% |
| Extended strand | 23.98% | |||
| Beta turn | 5.88% | |||
| Random coils | 46.15% |
Figure 3Ramachandran plot for optimized three-dimensional model of target hypothetical protein generated by Structural Analysis and Verification Server (PROCHECK).
Note: The most favored regions are indicated in red, additional allowed in yellow, generously allowed in light yellow, and disallowed regions indicated in white fields.
The stereochemical quality of the protein checked by Structural Analysis and Verification server
| Serial no | Protein stereochemical quality checking for normal protein | Optimized protein by variable target function method in MODELLER | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||
| Residues in most favored regions | =87.3% | Residues in most favored regions | =87.3% | |
| Residues in additional allowed regions | =11.0% | Residues in additional allowed regions | =11.0% | |
| Residues in generously allowed regions | =1.1% | Residues in generously allowed regions | =1.3% | |
| Residues in disallowed regions | =0.6% | Residues in disallowed regions | =0.4% | |
| Number of end-residues (excl Gly and Pro) | =2 | Number of end-residues (excl Gly and Pro) | =2 | |
| Number of glycine residues (shown as triangles) | =24 | Number of glycine residues (shown as triangles) | =24 | |
| Number of proline residues | =14 | Number of proline residues | =14 | |
| 2 | ||||
| Overall quality factor | =68.269 | Overall quality factor | =72.381 | |
| 3 | ||||
| 85.59% | >0.2 | 86.00% | >0.2 | |
Note:
Predictions revealed that the protein quality is increased and it consists of reasonable functional scores.
Abbreviations: Gly, glycine; Pro, proline.
Figure 4(A) Secondary structure of modeled protein. Cartoon diagram of predicted three-dimensional structure generated by PyMOL showing four helices, 13 sheets, and two coils with conserved loops (helix = red, sheets = yellow, coils = pink, loops = blue). (B) Superimposition of three-dimensional model of target hypothetical protein. The superimposition of target and template were generated by PyMOL, where the target is shown in blue and the template 2RE3 in pink. (C) N-terminal and C-terminal domain of modeled protein predicted by Computed Atlas of Surface Topography of Proteins server shown as spheres. The N-terminal domain shows large surface with conserved motif residues.
Abbreviations: MDT, methionine; GLN, glutamine.
The five glycerol analogs showed good binding energies compared with glycerol (positive control). Reliable H-bond interactions with conserved motif residues and bond distances are illustrated
| Rank | Ligand ID | Name of compound | Two-dimensional structure | Binding energy (Kcal/Mol) | Interactions
| Bond length (Å) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ligand atoms----Protein residues | ||||||
| 1 | 6502 | Trimethylolethane |
| −5.2 | Thr5 ---- OH | 3.08 |
| Thr5 ---- OH | 2.94 | |||||
| Thr5 ---- HO | 2.85 | |||||
| 2 | 76001 | Trimethylolphosphine |
| −5 | Thr5 ---- HO | 3.10 |
| Thr5 ---- OH | 2.83 | |||||
| 3 | 237875 | Bis (hydroxymethyl) phosphinic acid |
| −5 | Lys3 ---- OH | 2.90 |
| Lys3 ---- OH | 3.01 | |||||
| Ser4 ---- OH | 2.74 | |||||
| Ser4 ---- HO | 3.04 | |||||
| Thr5 ---- HO | 3.07 | |||||
| Arg31 ---- OC | 3.02 | |||||
| 4 | 44319866 | CHEMBL85846 |
| −5 | Ser4 ---- NH | 3.29 |
| Tyr73 ---- OH | 2.85 | |||||
| 5 | 1531 | 2-amino-2-methyl-1,3-propanediol |
| −4.9 | Lys3 ---- OH | 3.00 |
| Lys3 ---- NH | 2.10 | |||||
| Ser4 ---- CN | 3.04 | |||||
| Thr5 ---- OH | 3.03 | |||||
| 6 | 751 (positive control) | Glycerol |
| −3.5 | Ala41 ---- OH | 3.14 |
| Ala41 ---- HO | 2.97 | |||||
| Val50 ---- OH | 3.38 | |||||
| Leu91 ---- OH | 3.19 | |||||
| Arg169 ---- OH | 3.22 | |||||
| Arg169 ---- OH | 3.27 |
Figure 5The predicted docking simulations of leads with the target protein based on lamarkin geometric algorithm and PyRx analyses: the five best leads were compared with a positive control: (A) trimethylolethane (Chemical Identifier: 6502), (B) trimethylolphosphinebis (hydroxymethyl) phosphinic acid (CID: 76001), (C) CHEMBL85846 (CID: 237875), (D) 2-amino-2-methyl-1 (CID: 44319866), (E) 3-propanediol (Chemical Identifier: 1531), and (F) glycerol (positive control) (CID: 751). These leads are showing good H-bond interactions, which are indicated with red dashed lines. The superimposition of the leads was distributed in only the N-terminal region, shown as surface with green sticks and polar contrasts with red dashed lines.