| Literature DB >> 28054602 |
Stanzin Angmo1, Neha Tripathi2, Sheenu Abbat2, Shailesh Sharma1, Shelley Sardul Singh1, Avishek Halder3, Kamalendra Yadav1, Geeta Shukla4, Rajat Sandhir3, Vikas Rishi1, Prasad V Bharatam2, Hariom Yadav5, Nitin Kumar Singhal1.
Abstract
Hepcidin, a peptide hormone, is a key regulator in mammalian iron homeostasis. Increased level of hepcidin due to inflammatory conditions stimulates the ferroportin (FPN) transporter internalization, impairing the iron absorption; clinically manifested as anemia of inflammation (AI). Inhibiting hepcidin-mediated FPN degradation is proposed as an important strategy to combat AI. A systematic approach involving in silico, in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo studies is employed to identify hepcidin-binding agents. The virtual screening of 68,752 natural compounds via molecular docking resulted into identification of guanosine 5'-diphosphate (GDP) as a promising hepcidin-binding agent. The molecular dynamics simulations helped to identify the important hepcidin residues involved in stabilization of hepcidin-GDP complex. The results gave a preliminary indication that GDP may possibly inhibit the hepcidin-FPN interactions. The in vitro studies revealed that GDP caused FPN stabilization (FPN-GFP cell lines) and increased the FPN-mediated cellular iron efflux (HepG2 and Caco-2 cells). Interestingly, the co-administration of GDP and ferrous sulphate (FeSO4) ameliorated the turpentine-induced AI in mice (indicated by increased haemoglobin level, serum iron, FPN expression and decreased ferritin level). These results suggest that GDP a promising natural small-molecule inhibitor that targets Hepcidin-FPN complex may be incorporated with iron supplement regimens to ameliorate AI.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28054602 PMCID: PMC5214259 DOI: 10.1038/srep40097
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Molecular docking results for the selected 12 compounds.
| S. No. | Title | GLIDE emodel Score | Glide docking Score | Hydrogen bonds | Other residues within 5 Å | NH-π/π-π Interactions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −81.42 | −6.32 | His15, Arg16 | Phe9, Cys10, Cys13, Cys14, Ser17, Cys19, Gly20, Met21, Cys22 | Arg16 | |
| 2 | −68.55 | −5.71 | His15, Arg16, Lys18, Cys19, Met21 | Ser17, Gly20 | ||
| 3 | −61.48 | −4.47 | Arg16, Met21 | Cys14, His15, Met21 | ||
| 4 | −55.24 | −4.04 | His15, Arg16, Ser17, Met21 | Phe9, Lys18, Cys19, Gly20, Met21 | ||
| 5 | −54.15 | −4.48 | His15, Arg16, Ser17, Lys18, Met21 | Cys19, Gly20, Met21 | Phe9 | |
| 6 | −54.10 | −4.95 | His15, Arg16, Met21 | Ser17, Gly20 | ||
| 7 | −53.36 | −4.72 | His15, Arg16, Lys18, Cys19 | Ser17, Gly20 | ||
| 8 | −50.47 | −3.75 | His15, Arg16, Lys18 | Phe9, Ser17, Cys19, Gly20, Met21, Cys22 | ||
| 9 | −49.99 | −3.58 | His15, Arg16, Cys19, Met21 | Phe9, Cys14, Ser17, Lys18, Gly20, Cys22 | Arg16 | |
| 10 | −49.81 | −4.19 | His15, Arg16, Lys18 | Ser17 | Phe9, Cys19, Gly20, Met21 | |
| 11 | −48.48 | −4.98 | His15, Arg16 | Ser17 | ||
| 12 | −40.74 | −3.35 | His15, Arg16, Lys18 | Ser17 | Phe9, Cys19, Gly20, Met21 |
The compounds are ranked on the basis of GLIDE emodel score. The top scoring ligand is guanosine 5′-diphosphate (ZINC08215481).
Figure 1Molecular modeling and spectroscopic structural analysis of hepcidin-GDP complex.
(A) RMSD of hepcidin (green) and GDP (blue) over 20 ns (500 frames/ns) simulation run; (B) Molecular recognition interactions of GDP with hepcidin; (C) Number of hydrogen bonds between GDP and hepcidin, over last 2 ns trajectory; (D) Hydrogen bond occupancies for residues over last 2 ns trajectory; (E) UV absorption spectra of GDP + hepcidin complex (green) indicates a complex formation of GDP and hepcidin (λmax at 250 nm); (F) Delta absorbance as a function of GDP concentration. The Kd value was calculated to be 5.88 μM; (G) Thermal shift assay showed increased thermal stability of hepcidin peptide in the presence of GDP. Tm of hepcidin in the absence of GDP was 24 °C, which increased to 31 °C in the presence of equimolar GDP.
Average binding energy for hepcidin-GDP complex (last 2 ns) along with its different energy componentsa.
| Components | Energy (kcal/mol) |
|---|---|
| VDW | −28.17 |
| EEL | −460.44 |
| EPB | 450.77 |
| ECAVITY | −2.45 |
| ΔGgas | −488.61 |
| ΔGsolv | 448.31 |
| ΔGbind | −40.30 ± 4.71 |
VDW, van der Waals energy as calculated by the MM force field; EEL, electrostatic energy as calculated by the MM force field; EPB, electrostatic contribution to the solvation free energy calculated by PBSA. ECAVITY, nonpolar contribution to the solvation free energy calculated by PBSA; ΔGgas, total gas phase energy i.e. sum of van der Waals and electrostatic energy from MM; ΔGsolv, total solvation free energy i.e. sum of electrostatic and nonpolar contributions from PBSA. ΔGbind, final estimated binding energy calculated from these terms.
Figure 2Effect of compounds on hepcidin mediated ferroportin degradation with cellular iron export.
(A) FPN-GFP images of compounds representing GDP as potent hepcidin inhibitor with FPN retention on cellular surface in comparison with other organic phosphates. The Ponasterone (Pon+) induced cells were treated with hepcidin. Various compounds under evaluation were added to Pon+ induced cells with hepcidin. The baseline correction was employed using blank (Pon−). (B,C) The effect of GFP-FPN fluorescence intensity on GDP and other compounds was quantified using flow cytometer. P values were calculated using Holm-Sidak method.‘*’with P ≤ 0.05. (D) GDP and Pon+ prevented hepcidin-induced FPN internalization with decrease cellular iron efflux as compared to hepcidin, Pon− and other compounds. P values were calculated using one-way ANOVA. ‘*’with P ≤ 0.05 vs. Pon−, ‘#’with P ≤ 0.05 vs. Pon+.
Figure 3Protein expression and intracellular iron content level in HepG2 and Caco-2 cells.
(A,B) Intracellular iron content was increased due to hepcidin treatment, whereas GDP treatment reversed this effect with decreased intracellular iron content level. (C,D) GDP prevented hepcidin-mediated FPN internalization with decrease iron storage ferritin level. (E,F) Immunoblot were scanned and densitometry was used to quantify the level of ferritin and FPN proteins relative to tubulin densities. Data were normalized to mRNA expression of a housekeeping gene, GAPDH. P values were calculated using one-way ANOVA. ‘**’ with P ≤ 0.01 control vs hepcidin and ‘**’ with P ≤ 0.01 hepcidin vs hepcidin + GDP in HepG2 cells. ‘##’ with P ≤ 0.01 control vs hepcidin and ‘##’ with P ≤ 0.01 hepcidin vs hepcidin + GDP in Caco-2 cells.
Figure 4Effect of GDP + FeSO4 in response to normal body iron homeostasis.
(A) GDP + FeSO4 significantly increase the serum iron concentration. (B) Decrease in Hamp expression is observed with treatment with GDP + FeSO4 in liver. GDP + FeSO4 in liver. (C,D) Decreases in spleen iron content level were observed along with increase FPN and decrease iron storage ferritin level. (E,F) Relative increase in mRNA expression of Divalent metal transporter 1 (DMT1) and Transferrin receptor 1 (TFR1) were observed in enterocyte. (G) Protein expression in enterocyte revealed increase FPN expression with reduced ferritin level for effective cellular iron efflux. Tubulin is used as an internal control. Results are normalized to GAPDH and expressed as mean ± SD for n animals (n = 8/group). P values were calculated using student t test. **P ≤ 0.01 *P ≤ 0.05.
Figure 5Turpentine induced AI ameliorated with GDP + FeSO4 treatment.
(A) Dose response study at different concentration of GDP in response to Hamp gene expression in liver (B) GDP + FeSO4 corrected anemia induced with turpentine with significant increase in haemoglobin level. (C) Increase in serum iron is exhibited on treatment with GDP + FeSO4. (D,E) Tissue specific iron distribution in anemic and anemic + FeSO4 showed increase iron deposits due to hepcidin-induced FPN internalization whereas, GDP + FeSO4 reversed this effect with decrease in iron accumulation paralleled with decrease liver and spleen iron content level. ‘##’ with P ≤ 0.01 control vs anemic and ‘##’ with P ≤ 0.01 anemic + GDP + FeSO4 vs anemic in liver. ‘**’ with P ≤ 0.01 control vs anemic and ‘**’ with P ≤ 0.01 anemic + GDP + FeSO4 vs anemic in spleen. (F) Protein expression analysis revealed increase FPN expression in liver, spleen and enterocyte with effective cellular mediated iron efflux. (G) Decrease in iron storage ferritin level were observed in spleen and enterocyte thus, improving hypoferrmia. (H) Gene expression analysis showed decrease hepatic Hamp mRNA expression in comparison to Control + GDP + FeSO4. Results are normalized to GAPDH and expressed relative to controls. n = 8/group. P values were calculated using One-way ANOVA and Two-way ANOVA. ‘*’ with P ≤ 0.05 control vs anemic ‘**’ with P ≤ 0.01 anemic + GDP + FeSO4 vs anemic.