| Literature DB >> 31223216 |
Temitope I David1, Niyi S Adelakun1, Olaposi I Omotuyi1,2, Damilohun S Metibemu1,2, Oluwafemi E Ekun2, Gabriel O Eniafe1, Olumide K Inyang1, Bamidele Adewumi1, Ojochenemi A Enejoh1, Raymond T Owolabi1, Eunice I Oribamise1.
Abstract
Available antimalarial drugs have been associated with numerous side effects, which include skin rashes and myelo-suppression. Therefore, it is of interest to explore compounds from natural source having drug-like properties without side effect. This study focuses on the screening of compounds from Cannabis sativa against malaria Plasmodium falciparum dihydrofolate reductase for antimalarial properties using Glide (Schrodinger maestro 2018-1). The result showed that phytochemicals from Cannabis sativa binds with a higher affinity and lower free energy than the standard ligand with isovitexin and vitexin having a glide score of -11.485 and -10.601 respectively, sophoroside has a glide score of -9.711 which is lower than the cycloguanil (co-crystallized ligand) having a glide score of -6.908. This result gives new perception to the use of Cannabis sativa as antimicrobial agent.Entities:
Keywords: Cannabis sativa; Molecular docking; glide; pfDHR-TS; rule of five
Year: 2018 PMID: 31223216 PMCID: PMC6563669 DOI: 10.6026/97320630014574
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioinformation ISSN: 0973-2063
Figure 1A picture of Cannabis sativa is given 21.
Figure 2Showing the correlation graph between the experimentally determined pIC50 of pfDHFR andtheir docked scores. r2 (correlation of determination) of 0.8374 was observed which denotes that Docking experiment can reproduce the experimentally determined values of the inhibitors
Docking results with pharmacological properties.
| S.No | Entry Name | Glide Gscore (Kcal/mol) | Dock score (Kcal/mol) | ROF Violation | HOA | MW | QlogKhsa |
| 1 | isovitexin | -11.489 | -11.485 | 1 | Medium | 432.383 | -0.669 |
| 2 | vitexin | -10.604 | -10.601 | 1 | Medium | 432.383 | -0.667 |
| 3 | sophoroside | -9.711 | -9.711 | 1 | Medium | 354.353 | -1.347 |
| 4 | cannflavinA | -9.513 | -9.513 | 1 | Low | 436.504 | 1.119 |
| 5 | secoisolariciresinol | -9.205 | -9.205 | 0 | Medium | 362.422 | -0.226 |
| 6 | lariciresinol | -8.84 | -8.84 | 0 | High | 360.406 | 0.051 |
| 7 | quercetin | -8.423 | -8.421 | 0 | Medium | 302.24 | -0.349 |
| 8 | cannabitriol | -8.415 | -8.415 | 0 | High | 346.466 | 0.537 |
| 9 | kaempferol | -8.047 | -8.045 | 0 | High | 286.24 | -0.195 |
| 10 | luteolin | -7.791 | -7.788 | 0 | High | 286.24 | -0.194 |
| 11 | catechin | -7.328 | -7.328 | 0 | Medium | 290.272 | -0.422 |
| 12 | chrysin | -6.976 | -6.972 | 0 | High | 254.242 | 0.128 |
| 13 | cycloguanil(co-crystallized) | -6.908 | -6.908 | 1 | Medium | 261.797 | -0.387 |
| 14 | pyrimethamine | -6.957 | -6.957 | 0 | High | 248.714 | -0.265 |
Figure 32D stick diagram of (a) isovitexin; (b) lariciresinol; (c) vifexin; (d) sophoroside illustrating hydrogen bonds and pi-pi stacking formed with the aminoacid residues at the binding pocket of pfDHFR-TS.