| Literature DB >> 29888027 |
Muhammad Alamzeb1,2, Muhammad Omer3, Mamoon Ur-Rashid4, Muslim Raza5, Saqib Ali1, Behramand Khan6, Asad Ullah6.
Abstract
Urease enzyme is responsible for gastric cancer, peptic ulcer, hepatic coma, and urinary stones in millions of people across the world. So, there is a strong need to develop new and safe antiurease drugs, particularly from natural sources. In search for new and effective drugs from natural sources bioassay-guided fractionation and isolation of Berberis glaucocarpa Stapf roots bark resulted in the isolation and characterization, on the basis of 1D and 2D NMR data, of two bisbenzylisoquinoline alkaloids, oxyacanthine (1) and tetrandrine (2), followed by urease inhibition studies. Crude extract, all the subfractions and the isolated compounds 1 and 2 displayed excellent urease enzyme inhibition properties in vitro. The antiurease nature and possible mode of action for compounds 1 and 2 were verified and explained through their molecular docking studies against jack-bean urease enzyme. Half-maximum inhibitory concentration (IC50) was calculated for compounds 1 and 2. The IC50 value was found to be 6.35 and 5.51 µg/mL for compounds 1 and 2, respectively. Both compounds 1 and 2 have minimal cytotoxicity against THP-1 monocytic cells.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29888027 PMCID: PMC5977019 DOI: 10.1155/2018/7692913
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anal Methods Chem ISSN: 2090-8873 Impact factor: 2.193
1H NMR (400 MHz) and 13C NMR (100 MHz) data of compound 1 (CDCl3).
| Position |
|
| Position |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.76, (m) | 63.71 | 1/ | 3.78, (m) | 62.20 |
| N-Me | 2.22, (s) | 42.70 | N/-Me | 2.51, (s) | 42.75 |
| 3 | 2.85 and 3.39, (m) | 45.87 | 3/ | 2.54 and 2.97, (m) | 44.89 |
| 4 | 2.75 and 2.90, (m) | 25.46 | 4/ | 2.79 and 2.89, (m) | 22.69 |
| 4a | — | 128.10 | 4/a | — | 127.41 |
| 5 | 6.24, (br. s) | 105.46 | 5/ | 6.49, (s) | 111.23 |
| 6 | — | 151.81 | 6/ | — | 149.90 |
| 7 | — | 136.95 | 7/ | — | 143.76 |
| 6-OMe | 3.72, (s) | 55.53 | 6/-OMe | 3.55, (s) | 55.77 |
| 7-OMe | 3.08, (s) | 60.50 | |||
| 8 | — | 147.53 | 8/ | 5.95, (br.s) | 119.84 |
| 8a | — | 120.74 | 8/a | — | 128.74 |
|
| 2.78 and 3.24, (m) | 38.56 |
| 2.79 and 3.26, (m) | 37.77 |
| 9 | — | 133.51 | 9/ | — | 135.57 |
| 10 | 6.38, (br. s) | 114.67 | 10/ | 6.40 (dd, 8.6, 2.4) | 121.38 |
| 11 | — | 143.53 | 11/ | 6.58, (dd, 8.6, 2.4) | 121.73 |
| 12 | — | 148.18 | 12/ | — | 153.82 |
| 13 | 6.78, (d, 7.4) | 115.30 | 13/ | 7.08, (dd, 8.6, 2.4) | 130.25 |
| 14 | 6.71, (dd, 7.4, 2.2) | 123.52 | 14/ | 7.25, (dd, 8.6, 2.4) | 132.25 |
1H NMR (400 MHz) and13C NMR (100 MHz) data of compound 2 (CDCl3).
| Position |
|
| Position |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.73, (m) | 61.51 | 1/ | 3.85, (m) | 62.84 |
| N-Me | 2.28, (s) | 43.01 | N/-Me | 2.59, (s) | 42.56 |
| 3 | 2.85 and 3.39, (m) | 44.08 | 3/ | 2.82 and 3.42, (m) | 44.78 |
| 4 | 2.36 and 2.87, (m) | 21.92 | 4/ | 2.67 and 2.90, (m) | 25.69 |
| 4a | — | 128.02 | 4/a | — | 127.31 |
| 5 | 6.27, (s) | 105.46 | 5/ | 6.49, (s) | 112.10 |
| 6 | — | 151.09 | 6/ | — | 149.10 |
| 7 | — | 136.91 | 7/ | — | 143.11 |
| 6-OMe | 3.73, (s) | 55.55 | 6/-OMe | 3.37, (s) | 55.57 |
| 7-OMe | 3.15, (s) | 60.04 | |||
| 8 | — | 147.80 | 8/ | 5.98, (br.s) | 119.98 |
| 8a | — | 122.74 | 8/a | — | 128.34 |
|
| 2.42 and 2.66, (m) | 40.86 |
| 2.68 and 3.25, (m) | 38.07 |
| 9 | — | 133.51 | 9/ | — | 135.12 |
| 10 | 6.51, (d, 2.2) | 116.27 | 10/ | 6.28 (dd, 8.2, 2.2) | 131.95 |
| 11 | — | 149.51 | 11/ | 6.77, (dd, 8.4, 2.4) | 121.18 |
| 12-OMe | 3.85, (s) | 55.91 | 12/ | — | 153.72 |
| 12 | — | 146.88 | |||
| 13 | 6.80, (d, 8.2) | 111.31 | 13/ | 7.14, (dd, 8.4, 2.3) | 121.81 |
| 14 | 6.86, (dd, 8.4, 2.2) | 123.07 | 14/ | 7.35, (dd, 8.4, 2.3) | 129.95 |
Figure 1Cytotoxicity results of Berberis glaucocarpa and compounds 1 and 2.
Figure 2Structures of compounds 1 and 2.
Urease inhibitory activity of Berberis glaucocarpa roots and compounds 1 and 2.
| Serial number | Sample | % of inhibition | IC50 ± SEM ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Crude | 82 | 12.32 ± 0.21 |
| 2 | Fraction A | 91 | 10.03 ± 0.01 |
| 3 | Fraction B | 54 | 24.82 ± 0. 43 |
| 4 | Fraction C | 89 | 11.10 ± 0.71 |
| 5 | Fraction D | 86 | 11.76 ± 0.19 |
| 6 | Oxyacanthine (1) | 98 | 6.35 ± 0.34 |
| 7 | Tetrandrine (2) | 99 | 5.51 ± 0.44 |
| 8 | Standard (thiourea) | 96 | 16.39 ± 0.11 |
Values are expressed as mean ± SEM of three different assays.
Figure 3Docked poses of compounds 1 and 2 (sticks with green color) and their superimposition on the cocrystallized thiourea (shown by ball and stick cyan color) and cocrystallized Ni metal ions (indicated by ball and stick red color) against the urease enzyme.
The docking results of compounds 1 and 2 and standard (thiourea) against urease enzyme.
| Compound | i-GEMDOCK score (kcal/mol) | AutoDock Vina score (kcal/mol) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total energy | VDW | H-bond | Elec. | Binding Affinity | |
| 1 | −104 | −93 | −11 | 0 | −6.8 |
| 2 | −97 | −85 | −12 | 0 | −6.3 |
| Standard thiourea | −44 | −24 | −20 | 0 | −3.4 |
Figure 4The 2D and 3D schematic representation of binding pocket interactions of the urease enzyme with compounds 1 and 2.