| Literature DB >> 28672837 |
René Escobedo-González1, Claudia Lucia Vargas-Requena2, Edgar Moyers-Montoya3, Juan Manuel Aceves-Hernández4, María Inés Nicolás-Vázquez5, René Miranda-Ruvalcaba6.
Abstract
Several indolylquinone analogues ofEntities:
Keywords: apoptosis; cancer; chemioinformatics tools; docking study; indolylquinones; perezone; quantum chemistry calculations
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28672837 PMCID: PMC6152338 DOI: 10.3390/molecules22071060
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Target molecules, and their corresponding quinone raw material.
Figure 2Cytotoxic effect of indolylquinones in cancer breast cells. (a) Atom numbering assignments of compounds 1–4. (b) Histogram of the corresponding IC50 values.
Figure 3Gap energy plot (kcal/mol) of the target molecules.
EHOMO and ELUMO of the studied molecules.
| Molecule | Energy (eV) | |
|---|---|---|
| HOMO | LUMO | |
| −5986 | −3374 | |
| −5959 | −3428 | |
| −6013 | −3347 | |
| −5905 | −3184 | |
Figure 4Molecular HOMO orbitals of the target molecules.
Figure 5Molecular LUMO orbitals of the target molecules.
Figure 6Charge distribution of selected atoms.
Figure 7Molecular electrostatic potential surface of 1–4.
OSIRIS toxicological and physicochemical predicted properties.
| Property | Compound | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
| Toxicity Risks | Mutagenic | N | N | N | N |
| Tumorigenic | N | N | N | N | |
| Irritant | H | H | N | N | |
| Reproductive effect | N | N | N | N | |
| Physicochemical Properties | cLogP | 4.6 | 4.6 | 2.83 | 3.17 |
| Solubility (Log S) | −4.07 | −4.07 | −4.15 | −4.46 | |
| Mol. weight | 363 | 363 | 303 | 287 | |
| TPSA | 70.16 | 70.16 | 70.16 | 49.93 | |
| Druglikeness | −0.87 | −0.87 | 2.29 | −0.57 | |
| Drug Score | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.74 | 0.5 | |
1: indolylperezone, 2: indolylisoperezone, 3: indolylplumbagin, 4: indolylmenadione; N = no risk, H = High risk.
Figure 8Intrinsic and extrinsic pathways of apoptosis.
Energy values of the interaction (score) between the ligands with the protein and their root mean standard deviation (RMSD in Å).
| Protein | Target Molecules | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||||
| Score | RMSD | Score | RMSD | Score | RMSD | Score | RMSD | |
| PARP-1 (1UKO) | −144.263 | 22.569 | −136.380 | 0.702 | −103.384 | 0.117 | −102.680 | 0.254 |
| p53 (2OCJ) | −115.059 | 5.92 | −102.806 | 2.274 | −107.622 | 1.975 | −97.960 | 0.212 |
| BID (2BID) | −157.069 | 0.654 | −133.750 | 52.699 | −141.290 | 0.082 | −137.550 | 0.16 |
| BIM (4YK9) | −126.480 | 6.99 | −141.566 | 0.837 | −99.742 | 2.744 | −100.855 | 0.142 |
| CD95L (4MSV) | −99.340 | 0.6789 | −132.437 | 0.457 | −102.592 | 0.17 | −105.411 | 0.127 |
| TRAIL-R2 (4I9X) (4N90) | −126.081 | 1.342 | −137.349 | 16.801 | −101.123 | 6.465 | −101.083 | 7.82 |
| −140.412 | 1.6765 | −132.437 | 136.013 | −121.757 | 0.136 | −122.564 | 31.917 | |
| t-BiID (2M51) | No docking | No docking | −1790.830 | 0.454 | −1552.800 | 0.073 | −1556.770 | 0.389 |
| BAX (1FI6) | −140.360 | 9.819 | −138.366 | 0.884 | −130.975 | 0.08 | −126.530 | 0.072 |
| BAK (2IMT) | −116.520 | 0.3111 | −135.800 | 0.868 | −121.235 | 0.146 | −95.060 | 2.179 |
Figure 9Interaction of 2 with PARP-1, PDB code (1UKO). (a) 2 and the pose, overlapping of the ligand (red) and the pose (grey). (b) Interaction of 2 and PARP-1 complex, three H bonds with protein residues. (c) Secondary structure, ligand (green) in the middle of the two isomers protein.
Figure 10Interaction of 4 with p53. (a) 4 overlapping of the ligand (red) and the pose (grey). (b) Interaction of 4 and p53 (PDB code 2OCJ) complex, three H bonds with protein residues. (c) Secondary structure, ligand (green) in the middle of the two monomers.
Figure 11Model of interaction of 2 with Bim. (a) Poor overlapping of the ligand (blue) and the pose (red). (b) Interaction of 2 and Bim complex, two H bonds with protein residues. (c) Secondary structure, ligand (blue) in the middle of the two monomers.
Figure 12Model of the interaction of 3 with TRIAL-2 (4N90 isoform). (a) Compound 3 and TRIAL-2 complex, overlapping of the ligand (green) and the pose (yellow); (b) Interaction of 3 and TRIAL-2 complex, showing three H bonds with protein residues; (c) Secondary structure, ligand (green) in the middle of the two protein isomers.
Figure 13Model of interaction of 2 with t-BiID. (a) Compound 2 and t-BiID complex, overlapping of the ligand (red) and the pose (grey); (b) Interaction of 2 and t-BiID complex, showing three H bonds between the carbonyl group and the protein residues; (c) Secondary structure, ligand (green) in the middle of the protein.
Prediction of the absorption of the target molecules in different models.
| Absorption Model | Molecules | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||||
| Result | P | Result | P | Result | P | Result | P | |
| Blood-Brain Barrier | BBB+ | 0.650 | BBB+ | 0.556 | BBB− | 0.570 | BBB+ | 0.872 |
| Human Intestinal Absorption | HIA+ | 1 | HIA+ | 1 | HIA+ | 1 | HIA+ | 1 |
| Caco-2Permeability | Caco2+ | 0.500 | Caco2+ | 0.507 | Caco2+ | 0.527 | Caco2+ | 0.646 |
| P-glycoprotein Substrate | S | 0.722 | S | 0.692 | S | 0.620 | NS | 0.511 |
| P-glycoprotein Inhibitor | I | 0.536 | I | 0.604 | NI | 0.818 | I | 0.742 |
| I | 0.946 | I | 0.946 | NI | 0.897 | NI | 0.711 | |
| Renal Organic Cation Transporter | NI | 0.769 | NI | 0.793 | NI | 0.834 | NI | 0.746 |
1: indolylperezone, 2: indolylisoperezone, 3: indolylplumbagin, 4: indolylmenadione; + = positive to absorption, − = negative to absorption, S = substrate, I = inhibitor, NI = non-inhibitor NS = non-substrate, P = probability.
Prediction of metabolism.
| Metabolism Model | Molecules | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||||
| Result | P | Result | P | Result | P | Result | P | |
| CYP450 2C9 Substrate | NS | 0.764 | NS | 0.794 | NS | 0.740 | NS | 0.734 |
| CYP450 2D6 Substrate | NS | 0.810 | NS | 0.807 | NS | 0.818 | NS | 0.814 |
| CYP450 3A4 Substrate | S | 0.678 | S | 0.646 | NS | 0.569 | NS | 0.500 |
| CYP450 1A2 Inhibitor | I | 0.637 | I | 0.664 | I | 0.912 | I | 0.914 |
| CYP450 2C9 Inhibitor | I | 0.510 | NI | 0.511 | I | 0.907 | I | 0.894 |
| CYP450 2D6 Inhibitor | NI | 0.812 | NI | 0.812 | NI | 0.687 | NI | 0.530 |
| CYP450 2C19 Inhibitor | NI | 0.589 | NI | 0.619 | I | 0.719 | I | 0.840 |
| CYP450 3A4 Inhibitor | NI | 0.809 | NI | 0.808 | NI | 0.830 | NI | 0.707 |
1: indolylperezone, 2: indolylisoperezone, 3: indolylplumbagin, 4: indolylmenadione; S = substrate, I = inhibitor, NI = non-inhibitor, HI = high inhibition, NS = non-substrate, P = probability.
Figure 14Predicted metabolism for: (a) indolylperezone and (b) indolylisoperezone.
Figure 15Predicted metabolism for: (a) indolylplumbagine (3) and (b) indolylmenadione (4).