| Literature DB >> 31461446 |
Dickson Kinyanyi1, Peris Amwayi1, Mark Wamalwa2, George Obiero3.
Abstract
African swine fever virus (ASFV) infection is fatal in domesticated pigs, with a mortality rate approaching 100%. This may result in economic losses and threats to food security. Currently, there are no approved vaccines or antiviral therapies for ASFV. Therefore, in this study, we evaluated congocidine congeners and a tris-benzimidazole as potential inhibitors of ASFV transcription using an in silico approach. We applied redocking of congocidine and docking of its congeners and a tris-benzimidazole to a receptor containing B-DNA with AT-motifs as a target to mimic conserved ASFV late gene promoters. Subsequently, the binding scores of DNA-ligand docked complexes were evaluated and their binding affinity was estimated. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulation was then used to assess ligand behavior within the minor groove. From our results, it is evident the less toxic congocidine congeners and tris-benzimidazole could dock to AT-rich regions significantly. Additionally, the predicted binding affinities had suitable values comparable to other experimentally determined minor groove binders, MD simulation of the docked DNA-ligand complexes and subsequent molecular trajectory visualization further showed that the ligands remained embedded in the minor groove during the time course of simulation, indicating that these ligands may have potential applications in abrogating ASFV transcription.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31461446 PMCID: PMC6713398 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221175
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Structures of congocidine congeners and tris-benzimidazole.
Fig 2A similar predicted docking pose of congocidine versus the 473D derivative.
The atoms form hydrogen bonds (in dotted spheres) with acceptor atoms N3 of adenine and O2 of thymine.
ICM top 5 docking parameters for minor groove binders.
| NAME | Score | Hbond | Hphob | VwInt | Eintl | Dsolv | SolEl |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -43.35 | -8.10 | -6.10 | -47.68 | 6.01 | 27.50 | 7.10 | |
| -40.71 | -10.16 | -6.23 | -46.91 | 9.19 | 33.50 | 11.14 | |
| -40.61 | -9.32 | -6.33 | -43.51 | 11.18 | 29.09 | 7.70 | |
| -40.02 | -11.34 | -6.10 | -43.55 | 14.28 | 34.48 | 10.02 | |
| -39.37 | -9.30 | -5.51 | -40.38 | 16.07 | 29.48 | 6.82 | |
| -57.83 | -13.44 | -7.41 | -56.33 | 13.60 | 35.23 | 12.21 | |
| -54.94 | -12.76 | -7.55 | -55.49 | 12.91 | 35.26 | 12.81 | |
| -48.21 | -10.12 | -7.47 | -51.98 | 7.90 | 33.70 | 9.24 | |
| -47.48 | -11.04 | -7.64 | -55.70 | 12.07 | 37.30 | 15.61 | |
| -47.22 | -10.22 | -7.43 | -51.74 | 8.96 | 33.17 | 11.33 | |
| -47.27 | -9.16 | -8.42 | -54.42 | 12.85 | 32.34 | 13.21 | |
| -46.70 | -8.56 | -8.65 | -55.09 | 11.91 | 33.47 | 11.75 | |
| -44.83 | -8.12 | -8.15 | -53.65 | 10.80 | 33.95 | 9.65 | |
| -41.47 | -6.82 | -7.97 | -49.21 | 11.03 | 28.53 | 9.01 | |
| -39.40 | -7.32 | -7.96 | -50.34 | 8.61 | 31.12 | 12.83 | |
| -50.29 | -8.45 | -9.02 | -53.62 | 10.42 | 29.34 | 13.28 | |
| -47.84 | -9.30 | -8.67 | -48.51 | 9.55 | 29.29 | 12.18 | |
| -44.08 | -5.89 | -9.16 | -54.48 | 11.35 | 31.60 | 11.72 | |
| -42.58 | -5.20 | -9.09 | -53.13 | 5.51 | 29.21 | 11.99 | |
| -42.56 | -6.27 | -7.98 | -47.09 | 5.00 | 25.52 | 10.03 |
aScore is the ICM score (-32 and lower are generally considered good scores)
bHbond is hydrogen bond energy (lower values are better)
cHphob is the hydrophobic energy of the surface exposed to water (lower values are better)
dVwInt is the van der Waals interaction energy (lower values are better)
eEintl is the internal conformation energy of the ligand (lower values are better)
fDsolv is the desolvation of exposed h-bond donors and acceptors (lower values are better)
gSolEl is the solvation electrostatic energy change upon binding (lower values are better)
Fig 3Minor groove binders docking to the central d (GTATATAC) 2: (A) congocidine 2, (B) congocidine 3, and (C) tris-benzimidazole (hydrogen bonds are in dotted spheres).
Binding affinity and free energy prediction of minor groove binders.
| Ligand | ICM-Score | Total | Total van | Rotational | Hydration | Total energy | Predicted Delta ΔTm(K) | Predicted Binding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -5.6 | -26.6 | 25.5 | -11.8 | -18.6 | 14.3 | -10.2 | ||
| -43.35 | -5.0 | -27.9 | 25.5 | -12.0 | -19.5 | 14.9 | -10.3 | |
| -57.83 | -6.2 | -33.5 | 26.0 | -15.2 | -28.7 | 21.2 | -11.5 | |
| -54.94 | -6.4 | -33.6 | 26.0 | -15.9 | -29.7 | 21.9 | -11.6 | |
| -48.21 | -7.8 | -30.3 | 26.0 | -15.2 | -27.3 | 20.3 | -11.3 | |
| -47.48 | -5.9 | -34.5 | 26.1 | -15.3 | -29.6 | 21.8 | -11.6 | |
| -47.22 | -5.9 | -31.2 | 26.0 | -15.2 | -26.3 | 19.6 | -11.2 | |
| -47.27 | -5.5 | -35.0 | 26.1 | -17.9 | -32.3 | 23.7 | -12.0 | |
| -46.70 | -5.6 | -33.7 | 26.1 | -18.3 | -31.4 | 23.1 | -11.8 | |
| -44.83 | -5.8 | -34.2 | 26.1 | -17.0 | -30.9 | 22.7 | -11.8 | |
| -41.47 | -4.6 | -30.2 | 26.0 | -17.2 | -25.5 | 19.4 | -11.2 | |
| -39.40 | -4.6 | -30.1 | 26.0 | -16.9 | -25.5 | 19 | -11.1 | |
| -50.29 | -3.4 | -37.9 | 26.1 | -19.9 | -35.2 | 25.6 | -12.3 | |
| -47.84 | -3.5 | -29.5 | 26.1 | -18.0 | -24.9 | 18.6 | -11.0 | |
| -44.08 | -3.1 | -34.3 | 26.1 | -19.7 | -31 | 22.8 | -11.8 | |
| -42.58 | -4.2 | -33.9 | 26.1 | -18.9 | -30.9 | 22.7 | -11.8 | |
| -42.56 | -2.4 | -30.7 | 26.0 | -17.3 | -24.4 | 18.3 | -10.9 |
Fig 4Time-dependent root means square fluctuation (RMSF) plot in Angstroms for minor groove binders showing the heavy atom fluctuations of the ligand within the minor groove.
Fig 5RMSD of the average ligand structure as a function of time and stability profiles for the MD simulation: (A) congocidine 2, (B) congocidine 3, and (C) tris-benzimidazole.
ADME properties of select minor groove binders.
| Compound | Log P | Solubility |
|---|---|---|
| -1.59 | Very Soluble | |
| -1.53 | Very soluble | |
| -0.67 | Very soluble | |
| 3.45 | Poorly Soluble | |
| 2.56 | Moderately soluble |