| Literature DB >> 29201098 |
Usman Sumo Friend Tambunan1, Arli Aditya Parikesit1, Mochammad Arfin Fardiansyah Nasution1, Amalia Hapsari1, Djati Kerami2.
Abstract
The menace of cervical cancer has reached an alarming rate. There are more than 450.000 cases of cervical cancer yearly, with mortality rate of about 50%. This deadly cancer is caused by human papillomavirus (HPV), mainly subtypes 16 and 18. The pharmaceutical industry has produced drug for combating the virus, known as SAHA (suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid). It inhibits class II HDAC Homo sapiens (HDACi). The utilization of SAHA has some side effects, one of which is bone loss. Thus, searching for viable alternatives aside SAHA is inevitable. The objective of this research is to investigate the molecular interaction of selected Indonesian natural products with class II HDAC Homo sapiens. LigX tool in MOE 2008.10 was used as an instrument to investigate the molecular interaction. Then, computer-aided drug discovery and development (CADDD) approach involving molecular docking and dynamics methods was utilized to screen the natural products library. In the end, we found that herbaric acid could act as a potential drug candidate for cervical cancer.Entities:
Keywords: CADDD approach; Cervical cancer; HDAC; HDACi; Herbaric acid; Human papillomavirus (HPV); Indonesian natural products
Year: 2017 PMID: 29201098 PMCID: PMC5610765
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Pharm Res ISSN: 1726-6882 Impact factor: 1.696
Figure 1Structural models of HDAC Class II Homo sapiens: (a) HDAC 4 (b) HDAC 5 (c) HDAC 6 (d) HDAC 7 (e) HDAC 9 (f) HDAC 10
∆Gbinding value of the twelve best and three standard ligands with the HDAC enzymes.
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 1 | Lithospemic acid II | -7.241 | -12.883 | -10.501 | -12.618 | -12.810 | -9.720 |
| 2 | Lithospemic acid I | -5.831 | -9.401 | -8.416 | -9.499 | -11.190 | -6.404 |
| 3 | Manadomanzamine A | -5.526 | -7.351 | -7.193 | -12.094 | -10.975 | -8.712 |
| 4 | Silvestrol | -3.001 | -12.428 | -9.407 | -8.581 | -8.772 | -5.364 |
| 5 | Herbaric acid | -7.136 | -11.864 | -7.781 | -9.109 | -7.198 | -6.306 |
| 6 | Lissoclibadin 7 | -10.141 | -7.141 | -10.284 | -10.168 | -11.181 | -7.256 |
| 7 | Lissoclibadin 1 | -10.110 | -8.030 | -9.506 | -7.554 | -11.284 | -6.942 |
| 8 | Citirifolinin A | -5.503 | -6.348 | -10.194 | -11.434 | -8.010 | -4.996 |
| 9 | Lissoclinotoxin F | -7.025 | -11.048 | -10.036 | -10.938 | -10.584 | -5.235 |
| 10 | Lissoclinotoxin E | -6.259 | -6.541 | -9.671 | -10.876 | -7.526 | -8.948 |
| 11 | Kaemferol 3- ramnoglucoside | -8.181 | -8.159 | -6.467 | -8.812 | -6.091 | -10.915 |
| 12 | Lissoclibadin 2 | -7.562 | -9.045 | -5.495 | -6.587 | -8.207 | -10.436 |
| S1 | SAHA | -5.030 | -7.642 | -5.743 | -7.813 | -4.957 | -6.271 |
| S2 | TSA | -4.540 | -8.315 | -15.231 | -6.568 | -7.988 | -5.349 |
| S3 | VPA | -4.609 | -8.374 | -9.230 | -6.132 | -8.243 | -6.412 |
Figure 2The chemical structures of selected Indonesian natural product compounds
Figure 3The chemical structures of the chosen standard ligands in this study
inhibition constants value of the twelve best and three standard ligands with the HDAC enzymes
|
|
|
P
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 1 | Lithospemic acid II | 5.276 | 9.386 | 7.651 | 9.193 | 9.333 | 7.082 |
| 2 | Lithospemic acid I | 4.248 | 6.849 | 6.131 | 6.920 | 8.153 | 4.665 |
| 3 | Manadomanzamine A | 4.026 | 5.356 | 5.240 | 8.811 | 7.996 | 6.347 |
| 4 | Silvestrol | 2.187 | 9.055 | 6.853 | 6.252 | 6.391 | 3.908 |
| 5 | Herbaric acid | 5.199 | 8.643 | 5.669 | 6.637 | 5.244 | 4.595 |
| 6 | Lissoclibadin 7 | 7.388 | 5.203 | 7.493 | 7.408 | 8.146 | 5.286 |
| 7 | Lissoclibadin 1 | 7.366 | 5.850 | 6.926 | 5.503 | 8.221 | 5.058 |
| 8 | Citirifolinin A | 4.009 | 4.625 | 7.427 | 8.330 | 5.836 | 3.640 |
| 9 | Lissoclinotoxin F | 5.118 | 8.049 | 7.312 | 7.969 | 7.711 | 3.814 |
| 10 | Lissoclinotoxin E | 4.560 | 4.765 | 7.046 | 7.924 | 5.483 | 6.519 |
| 11 | Kaemferol 3- ramnoglucoside | 5.960 | 5.944 | 4.712 | 6.420 | 4.438 | 7.952 |
| 12 | Lissoclibadin 2 | 5.510 | 6.589 | 4.004 | 4.799 | 5.979 | 7.603 |
| S1 | SAHA | 3.665 | 5.567 | 4.184 | 5.693 | 3.611 | 4.569 |
| S2 | TSA | 3.307 | 6.058 | 11.097 | 4.785 | 5.819 | 3.897 |
| S3 | VPA | 3.358 | 6.101 | 6.725 | 4.468 | 6.005 | 4.671 |
Figure 4The interaction between (a) the enzyme HDAC4 and lissoclibadin 7 (b) the enzyme HDAC 10 and herbaric acid
The data of best ligands pharmacological properties according to Lipinski’s rules of five
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lithospemic acid II | 702.61 | 4.34 | 257.81 | 14 | 8 | 15 | 4 |
| 2 | Lithospemic acid II | 716.61 | 3.98 | 278.04 | 14 | 9 | 16 | 6 |
| 3 | Manadomanzamine A | 608.86 | 5.15 | 71.60 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 2 |
| 4 | Silvestrol | 640.63 | 1.31 | 182.83 | 10 | 5 | 13 | 4 |
| 5 | Herbaric acid | 224.17 | 0.72 | 104.06 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 0 |
| 6 | Lissoclibadin 7 | 514.74 | 4.04 | 166.60 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 1 |
| 7 | Lissoclibadin 1 | 482.68 | 5.77 | 150.12 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 1 |
| 8 | Citirifolinin A | 610.52 | -1.12 | 248.20 | 11 | 7 | 16 | 5 |
| 9 | Lissoclinotoxin F | 602.92 | 7.44 | 178.72 | 12 | 0 | 6 | 4 |
| 10 | Lissoclinotoxin E | 570.85 | 5.64 | 144.60 | 12 | 0 | 6 | 2 |
| 11 | Kaemferol 3- ramnoglucoside | 594.52 | -0.38 | 249.20 | 6 | 9 | 15 | 4 |
| 12 | Lissoclibadin 2 | 570.92 | 8.23 | 160.26 | 10 | 0 | 4 | 2 |
| S1 | SAHA | 264.36 | 2.47 | 78.42 | 8 | 3 | 5 | 0 |
| S2 | TSA | 302.37 | 2.68 | 69.64 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 0 |
| S3 | VPA | 144.21 | 2.80 | 37.30 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
Potential mutagenicity and carcinogenicity of the best ligands according to Benigni-Bossa rules
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lithospemic acid II | No | Negative | Negative | No |
| 2 | Lithospemic acid I | No | Negative | Negative | No |
| 3 | Manadomanzamine A | No | Negative | Negative | No |
| 4 | Silvestrol | No | Negative | Negative | No |
| 5 | Herbaric acid | No | Negative | Negative | No |
| 6 | Lissoclibadin 7 | No | Negative | Negative | No |
| 7 | Lissoclibadin 1 | No | Negative | Negative | No |
| 8 | Citirifolinin A | No | Negative | Negative | No |
| 9 | Lissoclinotoxin F | No | Negative | Negative | No |
| 10 | Lissoclinotoxin E | No | Negative | Negative | No |
| 11 | Kaemferol 3- ramnoglucoside | No | Negative | Negative | No |
| 12 | Lissoclibadin 2 | No | Negative | Negative | No |
| S1 | SAHA | No | Negative | Negative | No |
| S2 | VPA | No | Positive | Negative | Yes |
| S3 | TSA | No | Negative | Negative | No |
Prediction of ADMET properties based on ACD/I-Lab.
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 1 | Lithospemic acid II | 0.74 | 0.96 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.86 | 0.90 | 0.033 | 0.008 |
| 2 | Lithospemic acid I | 0.74 | 0.96 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.86 | 0.90 | 0.033 | 0.008 |
| 3 | Manadomanzamine A | 0.94 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 0.290 | 0.039 |
| 4 | Silvestrol | 0.91 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 0.81 | 0.66 | 0.033 | 0.008 |
| 5 | Herbaric acid | 0.91 | 0.17 | 0.20 | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.15 | 0.223 | 0.025 |
| 6 | Lissoclibadin 7 | 0.59 | 0.95 | 0.99 | 0.38 | 0.07 | 0.92 | 0.060 | 0.025 |
| 7 | Lissoclibadin 1 | 0.60 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.41 | 0.16 | 0.90 | 0.231 | 0.049 |
| 8 | Citirifolinin A | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.95 | 0.78 | 0.98 | 0.92 | 0.033 | 0.008 |
| 9 | Lissoclinotoxin F | 0.32 | 0.64 | 0.96 | 0.57 | 0.05 | 0.53 | 0.231 | 0.039 |
| 10 | Lissoclinotoxin E | 0.33 | 0.81 | 0.95 | 0.61 | 0.13 | 0.47 | 0.231 | 0.039 |
| 11 | Kaemferol 3- ramnoglucoside | 0.94 | 0.94 | 0.98 | 0.38 | 0.67 | 0.74 | 0.033 | 0.009 |
| 12 | Lissoclibadin 2 | 0.39 | 0.53 | 0.97 | 0.65 | 0.07 | 0.56 | 0.231 | 0.039 |
| S1 | SAHA | 0.36 | 0.25 | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.37 | 0.759 | 0.756 |
| S2 | TSA | 0.59 | 0.50 | 0.51 | 0.27 | 0.52 | 0.63 | 0.909 | 0.432 |
| S3 | VPA | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.950 | 0.838 |
Figure 5RMSD curve of HDAC enzyme-ligand complex.
Figure 6RMSD curve of HDAC 5 and herbaric acid complex