| Literature DB >> 31123393 |
Arif Malik1, Uzma Jamil2, Tariq Tahir Butt3, Sulayman Waquar1, Siew Hua Gan4, Hassan Shafique1, Tassadaq Hussain Jafar1.
Abstract
Background: In silico characterization can help to explain the interaction between molecules and predict three-dimensional structures. Various studies have confirmed the glucose-lowering effects of plant extracts, ie, lupeol and iso-orientin, which enable them to be used as antidiabetic agents. Purpose: Aims of the present study were to evaluate the hypoglycemic activities of lupeol and iso-orientin in a rat model. The study proposed the effects of alloxan on blood glucose level, body weight, and oxidative stress. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: AutoDock vina; GLUT-4; Iso-orientin; diabetes; lupeol; molecular docking
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31123393 PMCID: PMC6510393 DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S176698
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Drug Des Devel Ther ISSN: 1177-8881 Impact factor: 4.162
Antioxidative antioxidant profile of rats receiving alloxan vs controls
| Variables | GROUPS | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | G2 | G3 | G4 | G5 | G6 | ||
| 90.000±7.380 | 208.000±6.940 | 156.150±7.260 | 138.260±10.260 | 129.060±6.290 | 114.260±7.260 | 0.016 | |
| 1.060±0.005 | 4.060±1.090 | 2.010±0.056 | 1.960±0.041 | 1.610±0.013 | 1.330±0.019 | 0.015 | |
| 0.610±0.0013 | 0.216±0.004 | 0.395±0.008 | 0.423±0.013 | 0.463±0.018 | 0.531±0.013 | 0.023 | |
| 8.550±2.160 | 4.235±1.220 | 6.135±1.880 | 6.200±1.330 | 6.890±2.150 | 7.140±1.880 | 0.000 | |
| 4.710±0.091 | 1.250±0.016 | 2.230±0.320 | 2.890±0.016 | 3.090±0.560 | 3.660±1.230 | 0.019 | |
| 6.260±1.880 | 2.260±0.150 | 4.350±1.220 | 3.990±1.110 | 5.640±2.160 | 5.990±1.140 | 0.019 | |
| 4.260±0.001 | 1.090±0.004 | 2.330±0.014 | 2.808±0.160 | 3.260±1.060 | 3.660±1.220 | 0.018 | |
| 245.160±5.260 | 168.180±2.550 | 180.640±4.590 | 196.290±7.250 | 205.560±3.550 | 207.560±11.260 | 0.011 | |
| 18.260±4.260 | 33.260±5.230 | 29.350±8.260 | 27.250±4.250 | 22.350±3.250 | 20.260±4.550 | 0.033 | |
Notes: Groups: G1 (control), G2 (alloxan), G3 (iso-orientin), G4 (lupeol), G5 (iso-orientin+lupeol), G6 (insulin). All results are statistically significant (p<0.05).
Abbreviations: MDA, malondialdehyde; SOD, superoxide dismutase; GSH, glutathione; CAT, catalase; GPx, glutathione peroxidase; GR, ; NO, nitric oxide.
Templates of targeted proteins stored by their overall quality, query coverage, E-values, and identity
| Target proteins | Accession no | Query coverage (%) | Identity (%) | E-value | Maximum score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPR40 | 4PHU | 100 | 81 | 2e-111 | 332 |
| Glucose-6-phosphatase | 5JKI | 20 | 32 | 1.1 | 31.6 |
| UCP2 | 2LCK | 95 | 99 | 0.0 | 605 |
| Glycogen phosphorylase | 1EM6 | 99 | 95 | 0.0 | 1637 |
| Aldose reductase | 2PDK | 99 | 86 | 0.0 | 552 |
| GLUT-4 | 5EQG | 97 | 66 | 0.0 | 649 |
Figure 1Schematic representation of the two-dimensional chemical structures (A) lupeol and (B) iso-orientin.
Figure S1Comparative model assessment plot showing ERRAT quality factor, Verify3d and Ramachandran favored, allowed and outlier regions. (A) Graphical representation of aldose reductase. (B) Graphical representation of glucose-6-phosphatase. (C) Graphical representation of glycogen phosphorylase. (D) Graphical representation of GPR40. (E) Graphical representation of GLUT-4 and (F) graphical representation of UCP2.
Figure 2The three-dimensional structure representation of predicted targeted proteins for protein-ligand docking showing selected minimized structure of aldose reductase, glucose-6-phosphatase, GLUT-4, glycogen phosphorylase, GPR40, and UCP2 respectively. (All selected proteins were prepared for protein-ligand docking. Minimized proteins are depicted in different colors as shown in the above images and each figure is presented in edged ribbon style.)
Calculation of binding affinities and interactive residues in the docked complex
| Target proteins | Lupeol | Iso-orientin | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Binding affinities (Kcal/mol) of phytocompound with target proteins (AutoDock Vina) | Interactions of docked complex | Binding affinities (Kcal/mol) of phytocompound with target proteins (AutoDock Vina) | Interactions of docked complex | |
| Aldose reductase | −9.7 | Trp-21, | −10.5 | |
| Glucose-6-phosphatase | −9.6 | Trp-63, | −9.7 | Val-67, |
| Glycogen phosphorylase | −9.5 | Met-1, Gln-72, Tyr-156, Arg-194, Phe-197, Arg-310, Arg-311 | −11.0 | Arg-94, Gln-97, Gln-106, Asp-110, Tyr-114, Asp-119, Met-120, Glu-121, Glu-124, Glu-125, Leu-495, Cys-496, Pro-498, Lys-545, Lys-656 |
| GPR40 | −9.3 | Gly-95, Ala-98, Ala-99, Val-118, Ala-121, Ile-122, Leu-181, Leu-182, Leu-185, Ile-189 | −8.9 | Glu-137, Pro-139, Asp-144, Ser-146, Thr-148, Asn-153, Thr-154, Trp-166, Asp-167 |
| GLUT-4 | −9.6 | −12.6 | Phe-38, Ile-42, Ser-96, Ile-99, | |
| UCP2 | −10.4 | −10.2 | Ala-12, Ala-15, Asp-16, | |
Notes: The bold text represents common interactions.
Figure 3The molecular representation of the docked complexes. Proteins and ligands are represented in different colors. Lupeol and iso-orientin are depicted in green and firebrick respectively. The targeted proteins are aldose reductase (in cornflower), glucose 6-phophatase (in salmon), glucose transporter-4 (in yellow), glycogen phosphorylase (in magenta), GPR40 (in sea green), and UCP2 (in orchid). (Molecular representation of docked complexes of lupeol and iso-orientin with all theirl targeted proteins is shown in A–F).
mCule properties of ligands according to Lipinski's rule of five
| Properties | Lupeol | Iso-orientin |
|---|---|---|
| Molecular mass (g/mol) | 426.7162 | 434.3490 |
| Log | 8.0248 | −0.2452 |
| H-bond acceptors | 1 | 11 |
| H-bonds donors | 1 | 8 |
| Rotatable bonds | 1 | 2 |
| Polar surface area | 20.2300 | 201.2800 |
| Ro5 violations | 1 | 2 |
| Atoms | 81 | 49 |
| Rings | 5 | 4 |
Abbreviation: PSA, polar surface are.
Figure 4The molecular interactions of top-ranked docked complexes as analyzed by Lig-Plot.
Calculation of ADMET profile
| Properties | Lupeol | Iso-Orientin |
|---|---|---|
| Blood | BBB +0.9592 | BBB -0.6587 |
| Human intestinal absorption (HIA) | HIA +0.9974 | HIA +0.8876 |
| CYP inhibitory promiscuity | Low CYP inhibitory promiscuity 0.7562 | Low CYP inhibitory promiscuity |
| AMES toxicity | Non-AMES toxic 0.9420 | AMES toxic 0.9833 |
| Carcinogens | Non-carcinogens 0.9188 | Non-carcinogens 0.9537 |
| Acute oral toxicity | III | II |
| Biodegradation | Not readily biodegradable 0.9793 | Not readily biodegradable 0.7815 |
| Aqueous solubility (Logs) | −4.4193 | −2.3978 |