| Literature DB >> 31592099 |
Javad Saffari Chaleshtori1, Ehsan Heidari-Sureshjani2, Fahimeh Moradi3, Esfandiar Heidarian4.
Abstract
Purpose: Since active plant ingredients can induce apoptosis in many tumors, in this study we evaluate the apoptotic effects of thymoquinone (TQ) on PC3 cells. Also, we predicted the interaction of TQ with BCL-XL, BCL-2, and MCL-1anti-apoptotic factors by computer-simulated environment.Entities:
Keywords: Apoptosis; Cancer; Simulation; Thymoquinone
Year: 2019 PMID: 31592099 PMCID: PMC6773927 DOI: 10.15171/apb.2019.058
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Pharm Bull ISSN: 2228-5881
Figure 1Genotoxicity Effects of TQ on PC3 Cells
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Head DNA | 100 | 43.3±0.7 | 8.2±0.2a | 3.4±0.3ab | 4.6±0.5ab | 6.6±0.5ac |
| Tail DNA | 100 | 0.8±0.1 | 2.0±0.1a | 4.3±0.1ab | 10.2±1.3abc | 15.0±1.1abc |
| Head DNA% | 100 | 98.2±0.1 | 79.7±0.7a | 40.4±1.0ab | 33.5±0.3abc | 32.8±0.5abc |
| Tail DNA% | 100 | 1.8±0.1 | 20.3±0.7a | 59.6±1.0ab | 66.5±0.3abc | 67.2±0.5abc |
A, B, C, and D are treated groups with 0 (negative control), 20, 30, and 40 µM of TQ respectively. E is positive control, a treated group with 50 µM H2O2. Head DNA; amount of DNA in the comet head, Tail DNA; amount of DNA in the comet tail, Head DNA%; percentage of DNA in the comet head to comet tail, and Tail DNA%; percentage of DNA in the comet tail to comet head. Statistical analysis was calculated by One-way ANOVA test. Each point represents mean ± SD.
a P < 0.001 compared with group A; bP < 0.001 compared with group B; cP < 0.001 compared with group C.
Figure 2
Figure 3Molecular interaction between TQ and BCL-2, BCL-XL, and MCL-1
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| ||||
| BCL-2 | -4.65 | -5.55 | 388.7 |
| Tyr139, Arg142, His143, Glu138, Ala90, Arg86, Phe89, Trp135 |
| BCL-XL | -5.89 | -6.79 | 47.94 |
| Pro116, Gly117, Ala119, Trp169, Arg165, Tyr120 |
| MCL-1 | -4.64 | -5.53 | 397.2 |
| Glu16, Asn223, Asn17, Gly219, Tyr21, Arg215, Val216, Tyr20 |
Abbreviations: BE, binding and Energy (kcal/mol); FIE, final intermolecular energy (kcal/mol); EIC, estimated inhibition constant (µM).
Figure 4
Figure 5Molecular dynamic parameters
|
|
|
|
| |
| Bcl-2 | G1 | 2.22±0.020 | 0.58±0.112 | 0.190±0.061 |
| G2 | 2.21±0.033a | 0.25±0.057a | 0.250±0.080a | |
| Bcl-xl | G1 | 1.96±0.016 | 0.68±0.043 | 0.205±0.072 |
| G2 | 1.40±0.005a | 0.32±0.010a | 0.155±0.080a | |
| Mcl-1 | G1 | 2.89±0.023 | 0.27±0.04 | 0.160±0.056 |
| G2 | 2.48±0.027a | 0.68±0.15a | 0.330±0.120a |
Abbreviations: G1, simulation before docking; G2, simulation after docking; Rg, Radius of gyration; RMSF, root mean square fluctuation; RMSD, root mean-square deviation.
Statistical analysis was calculated by paired-sample t test. Each point represents mean ± SD.
a P< 0.001 compared with group G1.
Figure 6The variations in secondary structure of MCL-1, BCL-XL and BCL
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Bcl-2 | G1 | 41.87±2.09 | 14.10±3.20 | 22.45±4.06 | 201.86±3.88 |
| G2 | 42.13±2.18a | 16.95±2.94a | 21.31±4.02a | 201.70±3.87 | |
| Bcl-xl | G1 | 38.96±1.7 | 13.21±3.20 | 24.87±4.80 | 199.56±6.03 |
| G2 | 19.45±1.7a | 7.45±2.41a | 11.62±3.65a | 194.92±4.16a | |
| Mcl-1 | G1 | 47.36±2.07 | 18.42±2.90 | 22.58±3.75 | 244.76±3.17 |
| G2 | 47.47±2.45 | 22.22±4.45a | 23.75±4.76a | 239.90±4.18a |
Abbreviations: G1, simulation before docking; G2, simulation after docking. Statistical analysis was calculated by paired-sample t test. Each point represents mean±SD.
a P < 0.001 compared with group G1.