| Literature DB >> 29226142 |
Shailima Rampogu1, Ayoung Baek1, Minky Son1, Amir Zeb1, Chanin Park1, Raj Kumar1, Gihwan Lee1, Donghwan Kim1, Yeonuk Choi1, Yeongrae Cho1, Yohan Park2, Seok Ju Park3, Keun Woo Lee1.
Abstract
Progeria is a rare genetic disorder characterized by premature aging that eventually leads to death and is noticed globally. Despite alarming conditions, this disease lacks effective medications; however, the farnesyltransferase inhibitors (FTIs) are a hope in the dark. Therefore, the objective of the present article is to identify new compounds from the databases employing pharmacophore based virtual screening. Utilizing nine training set compounds along with lonafarnib, a common feature pharmacophore was constructed consisting of four features. The validated Hypo1 was subsequently allowed to screen Maybridge, Chembridge, and Asinex databases to retrieve the novel lead candidates, which were then subjected to Lipinski's rule of 5 and ADMET for drug-like assessment. The obtained 3,372 compounds were forwarded to docking simulations and were manually examined for the key interactions with the crucial residues. Two compounds that have demonstrated a higher dock score than the reference compounds and showed interactions with the crucial residues were subjected to MD simulations and binding free energy calculations to assess the stability of docked conformation and to investigate the binding interactions in detail. Furthermore, this study suggests that the Hits may be more effective against progeria and further the DFT studies were executed to understand their orbital energies.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29226142 PMCID: PMC5684607 DOI: 10.1155/2017/5270940
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Training set compounds employed to build the pharmacophore. The chemical features of lonafarnib are also exploited in its construction. IC50 values are indicated in parentheses.
Common feature pharmacophore results as generated by the HipHop.
| Hypo number | Features | Rank | Direct Hit | Partial Hit | Max fit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | RHHDA | 26.307 | 1111 | 0000 | 4 |
| 2 | RHHDA | 25.624 | 1111 | 0000 | 4 |
| 3 | ZHHDA | 25.574 | 1111 | 0000 | 4 |
| 4 | RHHDA | 25.352 | 1111 | 0000 | 4 |
| 5 | RHHDA | 25.352 | 1111 | 0000 | 4 |
| 6 | HHHDA | 24.569 | 1111 | 0000 | 4 |
| 7 | RHHDA | 24.450 | 1111 | 0000 | 4 |
| 8 | HHHDA | 24.362 | 1111 | 0000 | 4 |
| 9 | ZHHDA | 24.290 | 1111 | 0000 | 4 |
| 10 | RHAA | 24.069 | 1111 | 0000 | 4 |
R: ring aromatic, H: hydrophobic, HD: hydrogen bond donor, A: hydrogen bond acceptor, Z: zinc binder.
Figure 2The best pharmacophore model (Hypo 1) consisting of four pharmacophoric features with its geometry.
Figure 3ROC curve. The quality of the pharmacophore was observed to be good.
Different parameters computed by decoy set method. The GF score confirms the predictive ability of the pharmacophore.
| S. number | Parameters | Values |
|---|---|---|
| (1) | Total number of molecules in database ( | 107 |
| (2) | Total number of actives in database ( | 9 |
| (3) | Total number of Hit molecules from the database (Ht) | 9 |
| (4) | Total number of active molecules in Hit list (Ha) | 8 |
| (5) | % yield of active (Ha/Ht) | 88.8 |
| (6) | % ratio of actives [(Ha/ | 88 |
| (7) | Enrichment factor (EF) | 9.4 |
| (8) | False negatives ( | 1 |
| (9) | False positives (Ht − Ha) | 1 |
| (10) | Goodness of fit score (GF) | 0.71 |
GH = {[Ha∗(3A + Ht)]/(4HtA)}∗[1 − (Ht − Ha)/(D − A)] and EF = (Ha/Ht)/(A/D).
Figure 4Different steps involved in screening the candidate compounds. 3,372 compounds are obtained from screening and 9 compounds belong to the training set.
Figure 5Validating the docking parameters using the cocrystal. Pink refers to the cocrystal and cyan refers to the docked pose.
Docking results according to CDOCKER interaction energy of the potential candidates. Dock scores higher than reference and lonafarnib were considered.
| S. number | Name of the compound | -CDOCKER energy | -CDOCKER interaction energy (kcal/mol) |
|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | AXN_1 | 23.97 | 56.60 |
| (2) | AXN_2 | 20.47 | 51.07 |
| (3) | AXN_3 | 20.51 | 51.67 |
| (4) | AXN_4 | 24.13 | 52.01 |
| (5) | CHEM | 28.53 | 51.33 |
| (6) | MAY | 40.37 | 52.38 |
| (7) | Lonafarnib | 20.16 | 50.61 |
| (8) | Reference | 22.57 | 23.52 |
Figure 6Mapping of the Hits onto the pharmacophore. The Hits are found to map with all the features of the pharmacophore.
Figure 7Structural stability analysis through RMSD of the four complexes.
Figure 8Radius of gyrations of the four systems to understand their compactness.
Figure 9Binding mode analysis of the reference the Hits. Picture on the left represents the superimposed structure and on the right is its enlarged form.
Figure 10Hydrogen bond interactions between the protein and the ligands. Purple dashed lines denote the hydrogen bonds.
Different interactions rendered between the protein and the ligands.
| S. number | Name of the compound | Hydrogen bonds < 3 Å |
| Van der Waals interactions | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Residue | atom | Ligand atom | Bond length | ||||
| (1) | Reference | Lys794 | HZ2 | O21 | 2.2 | His748 | Leu795, Asp797, |
|
| |||||||
| (2) | Lonafarnib | Cys754 | HG | O5 | 2.2 | Arg702, Asp797, Leu795, | Trp602, Tyr654, |
|
| |||||||
| (3) | Hit 1 | Arg791 | HE | O24 | 2.4 | Arg702, Tyr751, | Trp602, Ala651, |
|
| |||||||
| (4) | Hit 2 | Lys794 | HZ2 | O10 | 2.6 | Tyr800 | Trp606, Tyr751, |
Figure 11The number of intermolecular hydrogen bonds between protein and the ligands during 20 ns MD simulations.
Figure 122D structures of the Hit compounds.
Figure 13Estimation of binding free energy using MM/PBSA approach conducted during 20 ns.
Figure 14Perresidue decomposition of the binding energies of the key residues.
HOMO, LUMO, and band gap of the Hits and the reference compounds computed employing the DFT approach.
| Name | HOMO | LUMO | Band gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reference | −0.163 | −0.0547 | 0.108 |
| Hit 1 | −0.154 | −0.095 | 0.058 |
| Hit 2 | −0.179 | −0.1149 | 0.064 |
| Lonafarnib | −0.182 | −0.0766 | 0.105 |
Figure 15DFT studies for the MD optimized conformations. The HOMO, LUMO, and the molecular electrostatic profiles of the four systems.
Mulliken atomic charges of the atoms involved in hydrogen bonds.
| Compound name | Ligand atoms | Mulliken atomic charges (au) |
|---|---|---|
| Reference | O2 | −0.449 |
| Lonafarnib | O5 | −0.527 |
| N8 | −0.303 | |
| Hit 1 | O24 | −0.448 |
| Hit 2 | O10 | −0.437 |