| Literature DB >> 30424582 |
Reuel L de Paula1,2, Joyce S F D de Almeida3, Samir F A Cavalcante4,5, Arlan S Gonçalves6, Alessandro B C Simas7, Tanos C C Franca8,9, Martin Valis10, Kamil Kuca11, Eugenie Nepovimova12, José M Granjeiro13.
Abstract
The present work aimed to compare the small, neutral and monoaromatic oxime, isatin-3-oxime (isatin-O), to the commercial ones, pralidoxime (2-PAM) and obidoxime, in a search for a new potential reactivator for acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibited by the pesticide paraoxon (AChE/POX) as well as a novel potential scaffold for further synthetic modifications. The multicriteria decision methods (MCDM) allowed the identification of the best docking poses of those molecules inside AChE/POX for further molecular dynamic (MD) studies, while Ellman's modified method enabled in vitro inhibition and reactivation assays. In corroboration with the theoretical studies, our experimental results showed that isatin-O have a reactivation potential capable of overcoming 2-PAM at the initial moments of the assay. Despite not achieving better results than obidoxime, this molecule is promising for being an active neutral oxime with capacity of crossing the blood⁻brain barrier (BBB), to reactivate AChE/POX inside the central and peripheral nervous systems. Moreover, the fact that isatin-O can also act as anticonvulsant makes this molecule a possible multipotent reactivator. Besides, the MCDM method showed to be an accurate method for the selection of the best docking poses generated in the docking studies.Entities:
Keywords: Ellman’s method; TOPSIS-AHP; acetylcholinesterase; molecular modeling; multicriteria decision making; neutral oxime
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30424582 PMCID: PMC6278417 DOI: 10.3390/molecules23112954
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Structures 2-PAM, isatin-O and obidoxime.
Figure 2Structures of some neutral oximes reported in literature (1 [11], 2 [18] and 3–5 [22]).
Figure 3Reactivation efficacy of the oximes for EeAChE/POX at 10 μmol/L.
Figure 4Reactivation efficacy of the oximes for EeAChE/POX at 100 μmol/L.
Figure 5Best redocking pose.
Docking results for the oximes inside EeAChE/POX.
| Oxime | Distance O(oxime)-P(POX) (Å) | Intermolecular Energy (kcal/mol) | H-Bond Energy (kcal/mol) | Interaction Residues | % Reactivation (Mean in 10 min—Conc. 10 µmol/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4.03 | −75.22 | −1.60 | Ser125 | 6.37 |
|
| 4.60 | −122.48 | −11.54 | Ser203 Tyr124 | 24.55 |
|
| 8.14 | −87.18 | −2.03 | His447 | 4.13 |
Figure 6Best docking poses for: (a) 2-PAM; (b) obidoxime; and (c) isatin-O.
Decision matrix (isatin-O and obidoxime). The poses with better performances are shown in bold.
| Criterion | Distance O-P (Å) | Intermolecular Energy (kcal/mol) | H-Bond Energy (kcal/mol) | Interaction Residues |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Min | Min | Min | Max |
|
| 0.633 | 0.228 | 0.044 | 0.095 |
|
| ||||
|
| 5.19 | −81.13 | −4.92 | 2 |
|
| 4.50 | −94.18 | −2.65 | 2 |
|
| 3.75 | −84.51 | −0.6 | 1 |
|
| 5.76 | −81.33 | −7.76 | 3 |
|
| 4.68 | −93.39 | −2.53 | 3 |
|
| 5.44 | −71.62 | −2.25 | 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4.50 | −78.03 | −0.96 | 3 |
|
| 4.60 | −92.04 | −3.77 | 3 |
|
| 4.50 | −85.00 | −0.24 | 2 |
|
| ||||
|
| 5.28 | −123.99 | −8.78 | 4 |
|
| 4.62 | −125.10 | −7.71 | 3 |
|
| 5.42 | −103.54 | −5.33 | 2 |
|
| 5.3 | −111.45 | −11.7 | 3 |
|
| 5.29 | −122.32 | −5.20 | 3 |
|
| 5.15 | −122.76 | −8.67 | 4 |
|
| 5.3 | −118.75 | −7.22 | 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5.28 | −121.38 | −7.73 | 3 |
|
| 5.12 | −111.4 | −10.23 | 2 |
Pairwise Comparison Matrices (PCMs).
|
| Crit 1 | Crit 2 | Crit 3 | Crit 4 |
| Crit 1 | Crit 2 | Crit 3 | Crit 4 |
| Crit 1 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 7 | Crit 1 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 7 |
| Crit 2 | 1/5 | 1 | 5 | 4 | Crit 2 | 1/4 | 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Crit 3 | 1/9 | 1/5 | 1 | 1/3 | Crit 3 | 1/9 | 1/7 | 1 | 1/4 |
| Crit 4 | 1/7 | 1/4 | 3 | 1 | Crit 4 | 1/7 | 1/4 | 4 | 1 |
| CR = 0.09 | CR = 0.09 | ||||||||
|
| Crit 1 | Crit 2 | Crit 3 | Crit 4 |
| Crit 1 | Crit 2 | Crit 3 | Crit 4 |
| Crit 1 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 7 | Crit 1 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 6 |
| Crit 2 | 1/5 | 1 | 5 | 3 | Crit 2 | 1/4 | 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Crit 3 | 1/9 | 1/5 | 1 | ¼ | Crit 3 | 1/8 | 1/5 | 1 | 1/3 |
| Crit 4 | 1/7 | 1/3 | 4 | 1 | Crit 4 | 1/6 | 1/4 | 3 | 1 |
| CR = 0.08 | CR = 0.08 | ||||||||
|
| Crit 1 | Crit 2 | Crit 3 | Crit 4 |
| ||||
| Crit 1 | 1 | 4.47 | 8.74 | 6.74 |
| ||||
| Crit 2 | 0.22 | 1 | 5.44 | 3.72 |
| ||||
| Crit 3 | 0.11 | 0.18 | 1 | 0.29 |
| ||||
| Crit 4 | 0.15 | 0.27 | 3.46 | 1 |
| ||||
| CR = 0.083 | |||||||||
Crit 1, Distance O(oxime)-P(POX); Crit 2, Intermolecular energy; Crit 3, H-bond energy; Crit 4, Interaction residues; DM, decision maker/expert; GrPCM, Group pairwise comparison matrix.
Figure 7Results for the evaluation of poses through the hybrid MCDM TOPSIS-AHP method. (Left): Isatin-O; (Right): Obidoxime.
Figure 8Energy plot for the complex EeAChE/POX/isatin-O during 20 ns of MD simulation.
Figure 9RMSD plots for the complexes EeAChE/POX/ligands during 20 ns of MD simulation.
Figure 10H-bond prevalence for the systems EeAChE/POX/oximes.
Summary of MD results for all complexes EeAChE/POX/ligands. The interacting residues observed also in docking studies are shown in red.
| Oxime | Average H-Bond Number | Interaction Residues |
|---|---|---|
|
| 3 | Leu76 |
| Tyr77 | ||
| Thr83 | ||
| Asn89 | ||
|
| ||
|
| 2 |
|
| Thr83 | ||
| Asn89 | ||
| Glu202 | ||
|
| 1 | His441 |