| Literature DB >> 30036950 |
Mayara Amoras Teles Fujishima1,2,3, Nayara Dos Santos Raulino da Silva4, Ryan da Silva Ramos5, Elenilze Figueiredo Batista Ferreira6,7, Kelton Luís Belém Dos Santos8, Carlos Henrique Tomich de Paula da Silva9, Jocivania Oliveira da Silva10,11, Joaquín Maria Campos Rosa12, Cleydson Breno Rodrigues Dos Santos13,14,15.
Abstract
Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are continuously generated in the normal biological systems, primarily by enzymes as xanthine oxidase (XO). The inappropriate scavenging or inhibition of ROS has been considered to be linked with aging, inflammatory disorders, and chronic diseases. Therefore, many plants and their products have been investigated as natural antioxidants for their potential use in preventive medicine. The leaves and bark extracts of Curatella americana Linn. were described in scientific research as anti-inflammatory, vasodilator, anti-ulcerogenic, and hypolipidemic effects. So, the aim of this study was to evaluate the antioxidant potentials of leaf hydroalcoholic extract from C. americana (HECA) through the scavenging DPPH assay and their main chemical constituents, evaluated by the following quantum chemical approaches (DFT B3LYP/6-31G**): Maps of Molecular Electrostatic Potential (MEP), Frontier Orbital's (HOMO and LUMO) followed by multivariate analysis and molecular docking simulations with the xanthine oxidase enzyme. The hydroalcoholic extract showed significant antioxidant activity by free radical scavenging probably due to the great presence of flavonoids, which were grouped in the PCA and HCA analysis with the standard gallic acid. In the molecular docking study, the compounds studied presented the binding free energy (ΔG) values close each other, due to the similar interactions with amino acids residues at the activity site. The descriptors Gap and softness were important to characterize the molecules with antioxidant potential by capturing oxygen radicals.Entities:
Keywords: Curatella americana L.; natural antioxidant; quantum chemical; xanthine oxidase
Year: 2018 PMID: 30036950 PMCID: PMC6161303 DOI: 10.3390/ph11030072
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceuticals (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8247
Figure 1Chemical constituents of the leaves the C. americana L.
Figure 2DPPH radical scavenging potential of gallic acid as the reference compound and hydroalcoholic extract of Curatella americana (HECA). The mean of scavenging percentage was significative different in all concentrations at p < 0.01.
Descriptors most relevant for the principal component analysis.
| Compounds | HE (kcal/mol) | LogP | DMT (Debye) | GAP (eV) | 1/η (eV) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −40.230 | −5.100 | 2.1057 | 0.462 | 4.3285 |
|
| −31.530 | −4.010 | 6.6104 | 0.447 | 4.4653 |
|
| −42.990 | −5.480 | 5.7241 | 0.194 | 10.2795 |
|
| −39.770 | −5.100 | 6.6674 | 0.469 | 4.2559 |
|
| −42.959 | −5.480 | 5.6174 | 0.568 | 3.5167 |
|
| −37.220 | −4.690 | 6.3514 | 0.186 | 10.6985 |
|
| −49.340 | −5.910 | 4.8393 | 0.064 | 30.8818 |
|
| 0.250 | 8.090 | 1.5464 | 6.817 | 0.2934 |
|
| −3.510 | 7.260 | 2.3235 | 6.643 | 0.3010 |
|
| −0.640 | 8.030 | 1.5438 | 7.071 | 0.2828 |
|
| −25.049 | −2.090 | 3.7109 | 1.474 | 1.3568 |
|
| −1.060 | 2.530 | 1.7570 | 0.185 | 10.7611 |
HE: Hydration energy; LogP: lipophilicity coefficient; DMT: Dipole moment total; 1/η: molecular softness; GAP: stability measure.
Figure 3The plot of PC1–PC2 scores for Curatella americana chemical constituents. Red color indicates less reactive compounds and blue color indicate more reactive compounds.
Figure 4The plot of the PC1–PC2 loadings with the five descriptors selected.
Figure 5HCA dendrogram for Curatella americana constituents showing them separated into two main classes (red color indicates less reactive and blue color indicate more reactive compounds).
Theoretical Properties obtained for the compounds studied.
| Molecules | HOMO (eV) | ENeutro (Kcal/mol) | ECation (Kcal/mol) | IP (Kcal/mol) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −0.0435 | −1340,833.36 | −1340,680.69 | 152.67 |
|
| −1.2327 | −405,680.81 | −405,505.18 | 175.62 |
|
| −0.3429 | −388,768.73 | −388,611.82 | 156.90 |
ENeutron: neutro energy; ECation: Cation energy.
Figure 6Spin densities in the cation free-radical of selected compounds.
Figure 7Control Ligands 2D structure: (A) hypoxanthine (HPX) and (B) Febuxostat (FBX).
Figure 8Binding affinity provided by AutoDock/Vina software of the compounds 11 (Gallic acid), 2 (Quercetin) and 12 (Foeniculin) and control ligand febuxostat (FBX). Ligand complexed hypoxanthine (HPX) for XO (organism Bos taurus).
Figure 9Interactions of the compounds with XO enzyme. Nominal interactions, aminoacids, and distances can be seen in Table 3.
Interactions between ligands with therapeutic target XO (organism Boss taurus).
| Amino Acid | Distance (Å) | Type | Binding Free Energy (kcal/mol) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 vs. XO | Leu873 | 3.5408 | Pi-Sigma | −6.76 |
| 4.8720 | Pi-Alkyl | |||
| Ser876 | 2.3000 | Conventional Hydrogen Bond | ||
| Phe914 | 3.7825 | Pi-Pi Stacked | ||
| Thr1010 | 2.0916 | Conventional Hydrogen Bond | ||
| Val1011 | 5.2238 | Pi-Alkyl | ||
| 5.4506 | Pi-Alkyl | |||
| Leu1014 | 5.0207 | Pi-Alkyl | ||
| 2.8423 | Pi-Sigma | |||
| 11 vs. XO | Phe914 | 3.6159 | Pi-Pi Stacked | −4.4 |
| Phe1009 | 5.4325 | Pi-Pi T-shaped | ||
| Thr1010 | 2.0504 | Conventional Hydrogen Bond | ||
| 2.8382 | Conventional Hydrogen Bond | |||
| Ala1078 | 4.9487 | Pi-Alkyl | ||
| Ala1079 | 3.6445 | Pi-Sigma | ||
| Glu1261 | 1.9196 | Conventional Hydrogen Bond | ||
| Leu873 | 4.4308 | Alkyl | ||
| 4.9122 | Alkyl | |||
| Phe914 | 3.5349 | Pi-Pi Stacked | ||
| 12 vs. XO | Phe1009 | 4.8397 | Pi-Pi Stacked | −7.13 |
| Val1011 | 4.4798 | Alkyl | ||
| Ala1078 | 4.9457 | Pi-Alkyl | ||
| 4.1350 | Alkyl | |||
| Ala1079 | 4.1423 | Pi-Alkyl | ||
| HPX vs. XO | Glu802 | 3.2579 | Conventional Hydrogen Bond | −5.65 |
| Arg880 | 3.0805 | Conventional Hydrogen Bond | ||
| Phe914 | 3.4234 | Pi-Pi Stacked | ||
| 3.8092 | Pi-Pi Stacked | |||
| Phe1009 | 4.7907 | Pi-Pi T-shaped | ||
| 5.2023 | Pi-Pi T-shaped | |||
| Thr1010 | 3.1183 | Conventional Hydrogen Bond | ||
| 2.8251 | Conventional Hydrogen Bond | |||
| Ala1078 | 4.6549 | Pi-Alkyl | ||
| Ala1079 | 3.9407 | Pi-Sigma | ||
| 4.8965 | Pi-Alkyl | |||
| FBX vs. XO | Glu802 | 1.9544 | Conventional Hydrogen Bond | −6.1 |
| Leu873 | 3.7514 | Pi-Sigma | ||
| Ser876 | 2.8449 | Conventional Hydrogen Bond | ||
| Phe914 | 3.8848 | Pi-Pi Stacked | ||
| Phe1005 | 3.8139 | Pi-Alkyl | ||
| 4.6647 | Pi-Alkyl | |||
| Phe1009 | 4.4818 | Pi-Pi T-shaped | ||
| 5.5513 | Pi-Sulfur | |||
| Val1011 | 4.8667 | Pi-Alkyl | ||
| Leu1014 | 4.2479 | Pi-Alkyl | ||
| Ala1078 | 4.4684 | Pi-Alkyl | ||
| Ala1079 | 4.7224 | Pi-Alkyl | ||
| 3.7013 | Alkyl |