| Literature DB >> 29436819 |
Hoan Vu1, Liliana Pedro1, Tin Mak1, Brendan McCormick1, Jessica Rowley1, Miaomiao Liu1, Angela Di Capua1, Billy Williams-Noonan1, Ngoc B Pham1, Rebecca Pouwer1, Bao Nguyen1, Katherine T Andrews1, Tina Skinner-Adams1, Jessica Kim, Wim G J Hol, Raymond Hui2, Gregory J Crowther, Wesley C Van Voorhis, Ronald J Quinn1.
Abstract
Natural products are well known for their biological relevance, high degree of three-dimensionality, and access to areas of largely unexplored chemical space. To shape our understanding of the interaction between natural products and protein targets in the postgenomic era, we have used native mass spectrometry to investigate 62 potential protein targets for malaria using a natural-product-based fragment library. We reveal here 96 low-molecular-weight natural products identified as binding partners of 32 of the putative malarial targets. Seventy-nine (79) fragments have direct growth inhibition on Plasmodium falciparum at concentrations that are promising for the development of fragment hits against these protein targets. This adds a fragment library to the published HTS active libraries in the public domain.Entities:
Keywords: fragments; malaria; native mass spectrometry; natural products; target identification
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29436819 PMCID: PMC5902791 DOI: 10.1021/acsinfecdis.7b00197
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ACS Infect Dis ISSN: 2373-8227 Impact factor: 5.084
Figure 1Fragment libraries shape (a) and structural (b) diversity. (a) Average sum of normalized PMI ratios (PMIsum) as a function of the average fraction of sp3-hybridized carbon atoms (Fsp3) calculated for each fragment library. The three principal moments of inertia (PMI) were determined for each 3D minimized structure. The normalized PMI ratios (NPR 1 and 2) were calculated by dividing the two lowest PMIs by the highest. NPR1 was added to NPR2 to give the PMIsum. Flat molecules give a PMIsum of 1. A PMIsum higher than 1 indicates a deviation from planarity toward a spherelike shape. (b) Percentage of unique Bemis-Murcko scaffolds as a function of the average number of unique fingerprint features per fragment, calculated as the total number of unique fingerprint features determined using 2D extended-connectivity fingerprints (ECFP_6) divided by the number of fragments in the library.
Examples of Fragment Hit Scaffolds Present among Antimalarial HTS Hits
Figure 2PMI of the fragment scaffolds (Bemis-Murcko molecular frameworks) contained in our fragment hit library (96 fragment hits, 72 unique fragment scaffolds) and comparison with those not contained in any fragment hit (253 unique fragment scaffolds). NPR1 constitutes the X axis, while NPR2 constitutes the Y axis.
Figure 3Native proteins and protein–ligand complexes. (a) PF3D7_1457200 thioredoxin and its strong signal complex with 10. (b) PF3D7_1457200 thioredoxin I and its medium signal complex with 16. (c) PF3D7_1457200 thioredoxin I and its weak complex with 8.
Figure 4Summary of 32 proteins that formed complexes with 96 natural products. Number of strong binders (ratio >0.5), medium (ratio 0.15 to 0.5), and weak (ratio 0.02 to <0.15) shown for each protein. Ligandability is based on high (≥2 strong/medium binders and ≥7 hits), medium (at least 1 strong/medium binder and ≥2 hits), and low (at least 1 hit).
Figure 5Structures of 96 low-molecular-weight natural product binders. * indicates a derivative of the indicated natural product. See Table S3 for details.
Figure 6Heat map showing hits from the fragment library (643 members) against 32 proteins. Green indicates strong binding (protein–ligand complex/free protein ratio is greater than 50%). Blue indicates medium binding (protein–ligand complex/free protein ratio is greater than 15% and smaller than 50%). Orange indicates weak binding (protein–ligand complex/free protein ratio is from 2 to 15%). White indicates no binding. The proteins are shown in Table S1.
Figure 7Network visualization of 96 fragment hits against 32 proteins. The network was visualized using the Cytoscape software.[63] Circle nodes represent fragment hits, and rectangular nodes represent proteins. The edge represents interaction between fragment hit and protein. The green edge indicates strong binding, blue indicates medium binding, and orange indicates weak binding, according to Figure .
Figure 8Enlarged view of Figure . Circle nodes represent fragment hits, and rectangular nodes represent proteins. The edge represents the interaction between fragment hit and protein. In this portion of Figure , nine fragments are the connecting points among six proteins.