| Literature DB >> 29476294 |
Xiao-Hui Zhao1,2, Xiao-Lei Wang1,2, Yu Li3,4.
Abstract
The molecular docking method was used to calculate the binding free energies between biphenyl dioxygenase and 209 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners. The relationships between the calculated binding free energies and migration (octanol-air partition coefficients, KOA), persistence (half-life, t1/2), toxicity (half maximal inhibitory concentration, IC50), and bioaccumulation (bioconcentration factor, BCF) values for the PCBs were used to gain insight into the degradation of PCBs in the presence of biphenyl dioxygenase. The relationships between the calculated binding free energies and the molecular weights, KOA, BCF, and t1/2 values for the PCBs were statistically significant (P < 0.01), whereas the relationship between the calculated binding free energies and the IC50 for the PCBs was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The electrostatic field, derived from three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship studies, was a primary factor governing the binding free energy, which agreed with literature findings for KOA, t1/2, and BCF. Comparative molecular field analysis and comparative molecular similarity indices analysis contour maps showed that the binding free energies, KOA, t1/2, and BCF values for the PCBs decreased simultaneously when substituents with electropositive groups at the 3-position or electronegative groups at the 3'-position were introduced. This indicated the binding free energy was correlated with the persistent organic pollutant characteristics of PCBs. Furthermore, low binding free energies improved the degradation of the PCBs and simultaneously decreased the KOA, t1/2, and BCF values, thereby reducing the persistent organic pollutant characteristics of PCBs in the environment. These results are expected to be beneficial in providing a theoretical foundation for further elucidation of the degradation and molecular modification of PCBs.Entities:
Keywords: Biphenyl dioxygenase; Molecular docking; Pearson correlation; Polychlorinated biphenyl; Three-dimensional quantitative structure–activity relationship
Year: 2018 PMID: 29476294 PMCID: PMC5825354 DOI: 10.1186/s13065-018-0389-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chem Cent J ISSN: 1752-153X Impact factor: 4.215
Fig. 1The docking results for 2,2′,3,4,5,6-hexachlorobiphenyl and 2YFJ as examples
Fig. 2The binding free energies of PCBs classified according to their number of Cl atoms
Pearson correlation analysis between the binding free energies and the properties of the PCBs
| BphA | 1ULJ | 1WQL | 2YFJ | 2YFL | 2GBX | 2XSH | 2E4P | 3GZX | 3GZY | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Molecular weight | r | 0.982** | 0.989** | 0.945** | 0.983** | 0.974** | 0.975** | 0.946** | 0.992** | 0.950** |
| Sig. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| N | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | |
|
| r | 0.882** | 0.744** | 0.712** | 0.756** | 0.864** | 0.734** | 0.421** | 0.744** | 0.514** |
| Sig. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| N | 209 | 209 | 209 | 209 | 209 | 209 | 209 | 209 | 209 | |
| BCF | r | 0.774** | 0.682** | 0.640** | 0.707** | 0.743** | 0.660** | 0.593** | 0.592** | 0.459** |
| Sig. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| N | 209 | 209 | 209 | 209 | 209 | 209 | 209 | 209 | 209 | |
|
| r | 0.591** | 0.609** | 0.565** | 0.563** | 0.549** | 0.527** | 0.540** | 0.572** | 0.404** |
| Sig. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| N | 209 | 209 | 209 | 209 | 209 | 209 | 209 | 209 | 209 | |
| IC50 | r | − 0.117 | 0.090 | − 0.080 | − 0.113 | − 0.163 | 0.226 | 0.303 | 0.060 | 0.062 |
| Sig. | 0.593 | 0.684 | 0.717 | 0.606 | 0.458 | 0.300 | 0.160 | 0.786 | 0.780 | |
| N | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 |
“r” represents “Pearson correlation coefficient, the bigger the r, the stronger the correlation”; “sig.” means “significant, if sig < 0.05, indicating the significant correlation”; “N” represents “sample size”;“**” means “the coefficient statistically significant was at P = 0.01” (n = 209)
Statistical parameters of the CoMFA and CoMSIA models
| Model | 1ULJ | 1WQL | 2YFJ | 2YFL | 2GBX | 2XSH | 2E4P | 3GZX | 3GZY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CoMFA | |||||||||
| n | 18 | 10 | 14 | 15 | 20 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 15 |
| q2 | 0.908 | 0.902 | 0.818 | 0.826 | 0.896 | 0.82 | 0.691 | 0.873 | 0.585 |
| r2 | 0.948 | 0.931 | 0.881 | 0.892 | 0.948 | 0.862 | 0.770 | 0.905 | 0.717 |
| SEE | 1.380 | 1.195 | 0.804 | 0.728 | 0.681 | 0.700 | 0.357 | 0.742 | 0.409 |
| F | 192.403 | 269.003 | 102.590 | 106.547 | 169.704 | 123.646 | 95.879 | 189.390 | 32.668 |
| S | 0.381 | 0.391 | 0.341 | 0.302 | 0.336 | 0.391 | 0.387 | 0.389 | 0.319 |
| E | 0.619 | 0.609 | 0.659 | 0.698 | 0.664 | 0.609 | 0.613 | 0.611 | 0.681 |
| CoMSIA | |||||||||
| n | 15 | 18 | 10 | 20 | 8 | 20 | 3 | 19 | 16 |
| q2 | 0.897 | 0.897 | 0.799 | 0.801 | 0.869 | 0.811 | 0.681 | 0.855 | 0.521 |
| r2 | 0.915 | 0.930 | 0.825 | 0.865 | 0.888 | 0.856 | 0.714 | 0.905 | 0.630 |
| SEE | 1.750 | 1.236 | 0.964 | 0.828 | 0.965 | 0.733 | 0.394 | 0.763 | 0.469 |
| F | 138.685 | 139.531 | 93.571 | 59.999 | 197.637 | 55.866 | 170.659 | 94.295 | 20.393 |
| S | 0.024 | 0.030 | 0.009 | 0.027 | 0.009 | 0.025 | 0.008 | 0.027 | 0.031 |
| E | 0.769 | 0.681 | 0.837 | 0.716 | 0.831 | 0.721 | 0.848 | 0.709 | 0.677 |
| H | 0.207 | 0.289 | 0.154 | 0.257 | 0.160 | 0.254 | 0.144 | 0.264 | 0.292 |
| D | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| A | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
N, optimum number of components; r2, correlation coefficient; q2, cross-validated val; SEE, standard error of the estimate; F, Fischer’s test value; S, steric; E, electrostatic; H, hydrophobic; D, hydrogen bond donor; A, hydrogen bond acceptor
Fig. 3Electrostatic contour maps of CoMFA (a–e) and CoMSIA (f–j) models
Fig. 4Electrostatic contour maps of CoMFA (a–d) and CoMSIA (e–h) models
Results for the electrostatic contour maps of the CoMFA and CoMSIA models
| Position | Electrostatic fields | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 2′ | 3′ | 4′ | 5′ | 6′ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1ULJ | Electropositive | + | + | + | |||||||
| Electronegative | − | − | − | − | − | ||||||
| 1WQL | Electropositive | + | + | + | + | ||||||
| Electronegative | − | − | − | − | |||||||
| 2YFJ | Electropositive | + | + | + | + | ||||||
| Electronegative | − | − | − | − | − | − | |||||
| 2YFL | Electropositive | + | + | + | |||||||
| Electronegative | − | − | − | − | − | − | |||||
| 2GBX | Electropositive | + | + | + | |||||||
| Electronegative | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | |||
| 2XSH | Electropositive | + | + | + | |||||||
| Electronegative | − | − | − | ||||||||
| 2E4P | Electropositive | + | + | + | + | ||||||
| Electronegative | − | − | − | − | − | ||||||
| 3GZX | Electropositive | + | + | + | + | ||||||
| Electronegative | − | − | − | − | − | ||||||
| 3GZY | Electropositive | + | + | + | |||||||
| Electronegative | − | − | − | − |
“+” represents electropositive groups introduced in this position, “−” represents electronegative groups introduced in this position