| Literature DB >> 28255310 |
Ayyub Mojaddami1, Amirhossein Sakhteman1, Masood Fereidoonnezhad2, Zeinab Faghih1, Atena Najdian3, Soghra Khabnadideh1, Hossein Sadeghpour1, Zahra Rezaei1.
Abstract
Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) as effective candidates have been used in the treatment of hormone-dependent breast cancer. In this study, we have proposed 300 structures as potential AIs and filtered them by Lipinski's rule of five using DrugLito software. Subsequently, they were subjected to docking simulation studies to select the top 20 compounds based on their Gibbs free energy changes and also to perform more studies on the protein-ligand interaction fingerprint by AuposSOM software. In this stage, anastrozole and letrozole were used as positive control to compare their interaction fingerprint patterns with our proposed structures. Finally, based on the binding energy values, one active structure (ligand 15) was selected for molecular dynamic simulation in order to get information for the binding mode of these ligands within the enzyme cavity. The triazole of ligand 15 pointed to HEM group in aromatase active site and coordinated to Fe of HEM through its N4 atom. In addition, two π-cation interactions was also observed, one interaction between triazole and porphyrin of HEM group, and the other was 4-chloro phenyl moiety of this ligand with Arg115 residue.Entities:
Keywords: Aromatase inhibitor; Breast cancer; MD simulation; Molecular docking
Year: 2017 PMID: 28255310 PMCID: PMC5333476 DOI: 10.4103/1735-5362.199043
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Res Pharm Sci ISSN: 1735-5362
Chemical structure and the docking binding energies of the triazole derivatives used in this study.
Fig. 1Structure of (A) flavone, (B) isoflavone, and (C) 4-triazolylflavans derivatives were characterized by the presence of a common scaffold containing a central azole moiety. (D) Structure of some imidazole and triazole derivatives as aromatase inhibitors which used in the design of new entities.
Fig. 2(A) correlration (linear regression) of distance between Fe of HEM and N4 of triazole ring with binding free energy. The obtained binding energies are correlated to the distance between N4-Fe (R = 0.85). (B) Visualization of seven best protein ligand complexes using VMD software. The least distance between N4 and Fe is 2.39 which is suitable for metal coordination.
Fig. 3Representation of the protein ligand interaction fingerprint of all docking poses for the top 20 structures with less negative binding energy values using AuposSOM software. Three structures (8, 9 and 15) were co-clustered with positive controls, letrozole and anastrozole.
Fig. 4(A) root mean squared distance (RMSD) of Cα for the enzyme residues during simulation. After performing 50 ns molecular dynamic (MD) simulation, a plateau was obtained based on the RMSD of Cα atoms.This was showing the system at equilibrated state. (B) heatmap analysis of the trajectories during simulation. The most fluctuations occurred at residues 1–141 (N-terminal) and 271–451 (C-terminal). These regions are terminal parts of the enzyme. (C) the frame with high fluctuation of terminal residues.
Fig. 5(A) 3D of ligand-receptor interactions for Lig 15 in aromatase active site. The triazole of ligand 15 pointed to HEM group in aromatese active site and coordinate to Fe of HEM through its N4 atom (dotted cyan line). In addition, two π-cation interaction was also observed, one interaction between triazole and porphyrin of HEM group (dotted green line), and the other one was 4-chloro phenyl moiety of this ligand with Arg115 residue (dotted green line). (B) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and enrichment factor (EF) diagrams for aromatase. The more AUC for ROC value means that the docking protocol is more able to discriminate between active ligands and decoys. EF diagram also validate this protocol of docking.