| Literature DB >> 31484451 |
Nabil Mohamed Selim1, Abdullah Abdurrahman Elgazar2, Nabil Mohie Abdel-Hamid3, Mohammed Rizk Abu El-Magd4, Aziz Yasri5, Hala Mohamed El Hefnawy1, Mansour Sobeh6,7.
Abstract
Hepatitis is an inflammatory condition that can develop hepatocellular carcinoma. Traditional medicine has always been the pillar of medical practice. However, it became less compatible with the current understanding of the diseases and the possible treatment. Therefore, in silico tools could be utilized for building the bridge between the legacy of the past and the current medical approaches allowing access to new therapeutic discoveries. In this work, a Chinese traditional medicine database was screened using structure-based virtual screening to identify molecules that could inhibit p38 alpha mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK). Out of the identified compounds, four selected compounds: chrysophanol, physcion, curcumin and hesperidin were isolated from their respective sources and their structures were confirmed by spectroscopic methods. These compounds decreased the gene expression of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and interleukin-1beta (IL-1β) in lipopolysaccharide (LPS) induced inflammation in a hepatocellular carcinoma cell line (HepG2) in a dose-dependent manner. The molecular docking study revealed the specificity of these compounds towards p38 MAPK rather than other MAPKs. In conclusion, the molecular and in silico studies suggest that the isolated compounds could be a potential treatment for hepatitis by resolving inflammation controlled by MAPKs, thus limiting the development of further complications and lower side effects.Entities:
Keywords: hepatoprotective; in silico screening; molecular docking; p38 MAPK; phenolics
Year: 2019 PMID: 31484451 PMCID: PMC6770650 DOI: 10.3390/antiox8090371
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Forward and reverse primers sequence for investigated pro-inflammatory genes.
| Gene | Forward Primer (‘5 ------ ‘3) | Reverse Primer (‘5 ------ ‘3) |
|---|---|---|
| TNF-α | CCCAGGGACCTCTCTCTAATC | ATGGGCTACAGGCTTGTCACT |
| IL-1β | ACAGATGAAGTGCTCCTTCCA | GTCGGAGATTCGTAGCTGGAT |
| IL-6 | GGTACATCCTCGACGGCATCT | GTGCCTCTTTGCTGCTTTCAC |
| β-actin | CGACATCAGGAAGGACCTGTATGCC | GAAGATTCGTCGTGAAAGTCG |
TNF-α, tumor necrosis factor-alpha; IL-6, interleukin-6; IL-1β, interleukin-1 beta.
Figure 1Chemical structures of the isolated compounds: (a) Curcumin, (b) Physcion, (c) Chrysophanol and (d) Hesperidin.
Figure 2Cytotoxic effect of the isolated compounds on HepG2. Cells were treated with various concentrations of compounds (100, 50, 25, 12.5, and 3.25 µg/mL) for 24 h and the cell viability was determined by MTT assay. The results are expressed as percentage of cell growth relative to negative control (vehicle treated) cells.
IC50 of the isolated compounds at different concentrations (100, 50, 25, 12.5, and 3.25 µg/mL) on HepG2.
| Compound | HepG2 IC50 [µg/mL] |
|---|---|
| Chrysophanol | 34.22 ± 0.10 |
| Curcumin | 80.73 ± 0.05 |
| Hesperidin | 95.66 ± 0.85 |
| Physcion | 172.6 ± 0.59 |
The results are shown as % cell viability relative to negative control cells, n = 3. Cell viability was established by MTT assay.
Figure 3Effect of the isolated compounds (1–4) on the elevated level of TNF-α in HepG2 cells induced by 1 µg/mL LPS relative to β-Actin. qPCR was used for estimation of mRNA expression. Results are expressed as ± S.E (n = 3), ####p < 0.0001 compared with control. ****p < 0.0001 compared to LPS.
Figure 4Effects of compounds (1–4) on the elevated level of IL-1β expression induced by 1 µg/mL LPS in HepG2, relative to β-Actin. qPCR was used for detection of mRNA expression. Data were given as ± S. E (n = 3), ####p < 0.0001 compared with control. ****p < 0.0001 compared to LPS.
Figure 5Effects of isolated compounds (1–4) on the elevated level of IL-6 expression induced by 1 µg/mL LPS in HepG2, relative to β-Actin. qPCR was used for detection of mRNA expression. Results are shown as ± S. E (n = 3), ####p < 0.0001 compared with control. ****p < 0.0001 compared to LPS.
Figure 6Molecular interactions of chrysophanol (A), physcion (B), hesperidin (C) and curcumin (D) with p38 α MAPK (PDB ID: 2QD9).
Figure 72D Protein-ligand binding diagram of chrysophanol (A), physcion (B), hesperidin (C) and curcumin (D) with p38α MAPK (PDB ID: 2QD9).
Figure 8Molecular interactions of chrysophanol (A), physcion (B), hesperidin (C) and curcumin (D) with JNK MAPK (PDB ID: 1UKI).
Figure 92D Protein ligand binding diagram of chrysophanol (A), physcion (B), hesperidin (C) and curcumin (D) with JNK MAPK (PDB ID: 1UKI).
Figure 10Molecular interactions of chrysophanol (A), physcion (B), hesperidin (C) and curcumin (D) with ERK1/2 MAPK (PDB ID: 5NHF).
Figure 112D Protein-ligand binding interaction diagram of chrysophanol (A), physcion (B), hesperidin (C) and curcumin (D) with ERK1/2 MAPK (PDB ID: 5NHF).
Figure 12Interactions and binding energy of chrysophanol (A), physcion (B), hesperidin (C) and curcumin (D) with MK-3 MAPK (PDB ID: 3SHE).
Figure 132D Protein-ligand binding interaction diagram of chrysophanol (A), physcion (B), hesperidin (C) and Curcumin (D) with MK-3 MAPK (PDB ID: 3SHE).
The interaction of docking the isolated compounds (1–4) with key amino acid residues in the binding sites of 4 MAPKs (P38 α, ERK2, JNK& MK3), in comparison to the co-crystallized ligand.
| Compound | P38 α MAPK | ERK1/2 | JNK1 | MK3 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FlexX Score | Amino Acids Interactions | Hyde Assessment/Predicted Ki | FlexX Score | Amino Acids Interactions | Hyde Assessment/Predicted Ki | FlexX Score | Amino Acids Interactions | Hyde Assessment/Predicted Ki | FlexX Score | Amino Acids Interactions | Hyde Assessment/Predicted Ki | |
| Curcumin | −24.639 | Gly110, Gly033 Met109, Thr106, Asp 168, Asn155, His107 | −34/µM | −21.8 | MET 108, Gln105, Glu33, Thr 110, Lys114 | −28 /µM | −17.72 | Asn 114, Met111, Lys 55, Ile32 | −23 /µM | −24.63 | Lys73, Met121, Glu119, Glu125 | −36/ nM |
| Physcion | −27.99 | Gly110, Met109, Thr106, Ala 111, His107 | −33/µM | −22.6 | Met 108, Gln 105, Lys 54 | −23/ µM | −24.07 | Glu 109, Met111, Ile32 | −32 /µM | −27.99 | Met121, Glu119, Thr186 | −24/ µM |
| Chrysophanol | −27.65 | Gly110, Met109, Thr106, Ala 111, His107 | −32/µM | −22.5 | Gln 105, Asp 106, Met 108, Lys54, Asp167, Tyr36, Gly34, Ile56 | −17/ mM | −24.44 | Glu 109, Met111, Ile32, Ala53 | −30 /µM | −27.65 | Met121, Glu119, leu50, leu173 | −35 /µM |
| Hesperidin | −20.03 | Gly110, Met109, Thr106, Asp 168, Ser 154 | −38/nM | −21.9 | Asp 106, Met108, Lys114, Asp111, Tyr36, Glu33, Asn15, Gln105, Ile31 | −14/ mM | −13.12 | Glu 109, Met111, Ile32, Ser34, Lys55 | −24/ µM | −20.03 | Glu125, Cys120, Met121, Asp187, Glu 170, Lys 73 | −22/ µM |
| (Co-crystallized ligand) | −30.7 | Gly110, Met109 Thr106, Ala 157 | −41/nM | −39 | Lys 54, Asp 167, Met 108, Thr 110, Tyr-36, Gly34, Ile56 | −45/ nM | −29 | Ile 32, Met111, Glu 109, Val158, Leu168, Ala53, Val40 | −39/ nM | −43.17 | Met121, Cys120, Glu 170, Glu 125, leu52 | −18 /mM |