| Literature DB >> 31703388 |
Thommas Musyoka1, Özlem Tastan Bishop1.
Abstract
The hemoglobin degradation process in Plasmodium parasites is vital for nutrient acquisition required for their growth and proliferation. In P. falciparum, falcipains (FP-2 and FP-3) are the major hemoglobinases, and remain attractive antimalarial drug targets. Other Plasmodium species also possess highly homologous proteins to FP-2 and FP-3. Although several inhibitors have been designed against these proteins, none has been commercialized due to associated toxicity on human cathepsins (Cat-K, Cat-L and Cat-S). Despite the two enzyme groups sharing a common structural fold and catalytic mechanism, distinct active site variations have been identified, and can be exploited for drug development. Here, we utilize in silico approaches to screen 628 compounds from the South African natural sources to identify potential hits that can selectively inhibit the plasmodial proteases. Using docking studies, seven abietane diterpenoids, binding strongly to the plasmodial proteases, and three additional analogs from PubChem were identified. Important residues involved in ligand stabilization were identified for all potential hits through binding pose analysis and their energetic contribution determined by binding free energy calculations. The identified compounds present important scaffolds that could be further developed as plasmodial protease inhibitors. Previous laboratory assays showed the effect of the seven diterpenoids as antimalarials. Here, for the first time, we demonstrate that their possible mechanism of action could be by interacting with falcipains and their plasmodial homologs. Dynamic residue network (DRN) analysis on the plasmodial proteases identified functionally important residues, including a region with high betweenness centrality, which had previously been proposed as a potential allosteric site in FP-2.Entities:
Keywords: binding free energy; docking; dynamic residue interaction network; falcipains; molecular dynamics simulation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31703388 PMCID: PMC6891524 DOI: 10.3390/molecules24224036
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1The general structural fold of (A) falcipains (FPs) and plasmodial homologs and (B) human cysteine proteases. The different subsites forming the “trench-like” active pocket are shown in red (S1), pink (S2), green (S3) and cyan (S1′). The central catalytic Cys residue is colored in magenta. The unique structural features (nose and arm) found only in plasmodial proteases are marked with a broken line. Tables present the name of the homologous FP-2 and FP-3 proteins from other Plasmodium species as well as the human host.
Figure 2Docking protocol validation. (A–C) Root mean square deviation (RMSD) comparison between crystallographic ligand pose (pink) and the lowest energy redocked conformation (green) for E64, Leupeptin and K11017 in FP-2 and FP-3. Benchmarking result of our docking process as shown by (D) Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) and (E) an enrichment curve using a library of active compounds against FP-2 and their decoys.
Figure 32D representation of identified South African Natural Compound Database (SANCDB) hits and analog compounds from PubChem.
Figure 4A heatmap representation of (A) interaction energies between the selected hits and the plasmodial proteases as well as human cathepsins and (B) interaction energy difference of the various complexes to the corresponding FP-2-hit complex. Weak interactions are shown in white while in black are complexes with the strongest affinities.
Figure 5Ligand binding mode in plasmodial proteases. (A) A zoomed surface representation of the FP-2 active site. Shown in sticks are the different subsite residues (S1 = Q36, C39, G40, C80, N81; S2 = L84, I85, S149, L172, N173, A175, D234; S3 K76, N77, Y78, G82, G83; S1′ = V150, A151, A157, H174, N204, W206). (B–K) Schematic representation of the interactions of the different compounds with the four subsites in the plasmodial proteins. S1 = Red, S2 = Pink, S3 = Green and S1′ = Pink broken lines.
Drug-like properties and pan assay interference compounds (PAINS) filtering of identified hits from the SANCDB and analogs from the PubChem database.
| Compound ID | Chemical Formula | Lipinski’s Rule of Five (RO5) | PAINS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mol. wt | HBA | HBD | nRB | LogP | |||
| SANC00364 | C22H30O6 | 390.2 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 3.9 | Fail |
| SANC00365 | C21H28O6 | 376.2 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 3.6 | Fail |
| SANC00367 | C27H30O5 | 434.2 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 5.0 | Pass |
| SANC00369 | C27H30O6 | 450.2 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 5.4 | Fail |
| SANC00371 | C25H32O4 | 396.2 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 5.2 | Pass |
| SANC00372 | C27H30O5 | 434.2 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 4.7 | Pass |
| SANC00373 | C27H30O6 | 450.2 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 5.0 | Fail |
| CID126461286 | C21H20N4O3S | 408.1 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 0.8 | Pass |
| CID126462623 | C23H25F3N4O2 | 446.2 | 6 | 1 | 7 | -0.4 | Pass |
| CID126465495 | C25H25N3O2S | 431.2 | 5 | 1 | 7 | 1.8 | Pass |
Main hydrogen-forming residues during molecular dynamics in different proteins. Residue numbering is based on the catalytic domain (Table S1).
| Protein | Compound | Residues |
|---|---|---|
| FP-2 | SANC00364 | C42, W206 |
| SANC00367 | K37, C39, W207 | |
| SANC00371 | Q36, N38, C39, W206 | |
| 126462623 | Q36, N81, G83, N173, W206 | |
| VP-2 | SANC00364 | D36, W207 |
| SANC00367 | A38, H175, W207 | |
| SANC00371 | Q37, A38, W207 | |
| 126462623 | Q37, G84, N174, W207 | |
| BP-2 | SANC00364 | Q37, W207 |
| SANC00367 | Q37, E82, N174 | |
| SANC00371 | Q37, G84, W207 | |
| 126462623 | Q37, G84, N174, W207 | |
| Cat-K | SANC00364 | W184 |
| SANC00367 | Q19, W184 | |
| SANC00371 | Q19, W184 | |
| 126462623 | Q19, W184 | |
| Cat-L | SANC00364 | Q20 |
| SANC00367 | N19, W190 | |
| SANC00371 | G21, W190 | |
| 126462623 | Q20, G21 |
Figure 6Heatmaps representing the (A) binding free energies of the protein-ligand complexes and the contributions from individual energetic components: (B) van der Waals (vdW); (C) polar solvation (PB); (D) electrostatics (ele); and (E) solvation energy (SASA).
Figure 7Per-residue decomposition of the net binding free energy (BFE) showing the contributions from each subsite residue towards ligand binding. The details (name and number) of the subsite residues (shown in letters) are listed in Table S6.
Figure 8Key communication hubs in plasmodial proteases and their human homologs. Structural mapping of residues with significantly high average BC (A, red) and low average L (B, blue) values in plasmodial proteases and human cathepsins in both ligand-bound and ligand-free states. Active site location is shown by the thick green broken line.
Residues with high average BC values (A) and low average L (B) in both apo and ligand-bound systems. Residue numbering based on the catalytic domain length indicated in Table S1. Bold red shows cluster of residues with high BC values in both human and plasmodial proteins while bold black those only in plasmodial proteases.
| Protein | Residues |
|---|---|
|
| |
| FP-2 | |
| FP-3 | |
| VP-2 | |
| VP-3 | |
| KP-2 | |
| KP-3 | |
| BP-2 | |
| CP-2 | |
| YP-2 | W |
| Cat-K | |
| Cat-L | |
| Cat-S | |
|
| |
| FP-2 | S47, I48, S50, V51, |
| FP-3 | S49, V50, S52, V53, |
| VP-2 | T48, V49, V51, V52, |
| VP-3 | T47, V48, V50, V51, |
| KP-2 | T48, V49, V51, V52, |
| KP-3 | T46, V47, V49, V50, |
| BP-2 | T48, A49, V51, V52, |
| CP-2 | T48, A49, V51, I52, |
| YP-2 | T48, A49, V51, V52, |
| Cat-K | A27, F28, V131, V164 |
| Cat-L | A31, T32, V135, V168 |
| Cat-S | A30, V31, V136, V168 |
Figure 9A graphical workflow of the computational approaches used in the identification of potential hits against P. falciparum FP-2 and FP-3 proteins and their homologs from other plasmodial species.