| Literature DB >> 31835879 |
Francis Opoku1, Penny P Govender1, Ofentse J Pooe2, Mthokozisi B C Simelane3.
Abstract
To date, Plasmodium falciparum is one of the most lethal strains of the malaria parasite. P. falciparum lacks the required enzymes to create its own purines via the de novo pathway, thereby making Plasmodium falciparum hypoxanthine-guanine-xanthine phosphoribosyltransferase (PfHGXPT) a crucial enzyme in the malaria life cycle. Recently, studies have described iso-mukaadial acetate and ursolic acid acetate as promising antimalarials. However, the mode of action is still unknown, thus, the current study sought to investigate the selective inhibitory and binding actions of iso-mukaadial acetate and ursolic acid acetate against recombinant PfHGXPT using in-silico and experimental approaches. Recombinant PfHGXPT protein was expressed using E. coli BL21 cells and homogeneously purified by affinity chromatography. Experimentally, iso-mukaadial acetate and ursolic acid acetate, respectively, demonstrated direct inhibitory activity towards PfHGXPT in a dose-dependent manner. The binding affinity of iso-mukaadial acetate and ursolic acid acetate on the PfHGXPT dissociation constant (KD), where it was found that 0.0833 µM and 2.8396 µM, respectively, are indicative of strong binding. The mode of action for the observed antimalarial activity was further established by a molecular docking study. The molecular docking and dynamics simulations show specific interactions and high affinity within the binding pocket of Plasmodium falciparum and human hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyl transferases. The predicted in silico absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion/toxicity (ADME/T) properties predicted that the iso-mukaadial acetate ligand may follow the criteria for orally active drugs. The theoretical calculation derived from ADME, molecular docking and dynamics provide in-depth information into the structural basis, specific bonding and non-bonding interactions governing the inhibition of malarial. Taken together, these findings provide a basis for the recommendation of iso-mukaadial acetate and ursolic acid acetate as high-affinity ligands and drug candidates against PfHGXPT.Entities:
Keywords: PfHGXPT; Plasmodium falciparum; iso-mukaadial acetate; ursolic acid acetate
Year: 2019 PMID: 31835879 PMCID: PMC6995562 DOI: 10.3390/biom9120861
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomolecules ISSN: 2218-273X
Figure 1Recombinant Plasmodium falciparum hypoxanthine-guanine-xanthine phosphoribosyltransferase (PfHGXPRT) expression and purification. Isopropyl-β-D-1-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG)-induced protein expression (A) and affinity purification (B) of PfHGXPRT was visualized by sodium dodecyl sulphate–polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) 12.5% (Upper panel) and confirmed by western blot (lower panel) using α-His horse-raddish-peroxidase (HRP)-conjugated antibodies (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). Lane M represents a broad range molecular marker (Bio-Rad) in kilodaltons (kDa) shown on the left-hand side of the SDS-PAGE images. Lane: 2HR, 4HR, 6HR and O/N, respectively, represent cell lysates collected at 2, 4, 6 and 24 h post-IPTG induction. Lane E1–E7 represents the successfully purified PfHGXPRT protein elutions.
Figure 2UV-Vis absorption spectra of PfHGXPRT in the presence of triethyl-2-phosphonobutyrate (Tri) standard inhibitor with (a) iso-mukaadial acetate (IMA) and (b) ursolic acid acetate (UAA).
PfHGXPRT binding affinities and binding constants of bioactive compounds iso-mukaadial acetate (IMA) and ursolic acid acetate (UAA).
| Protein and Ligand |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0833 | 12.0058 | −11.66 | |
| 2.8396 | 0.3522 | −13.78 |
K = 1/K
Figure 3The binding modes of (a) iso-mukaadial acetate and (b) ursolic acid acetate ligands with the 2VFA receptor. (c) iso-mukaadial acetate and (d) ursolic acid acetate ligands with 1Z7G receptor.
Docking scores and interaction residues for the binding mode of iso-mukaadial acetate and ursolic acid acetate ligands with the 2VFA receptor.
| Complex | Docking Scores | pIC50 | Δ | Residue Involved H-bond |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iso-mukaadial acetate-2VFA | −4.10 | 5.35 | −26.73 | ARG80, ASP213 |
| Ursolic acid acetate-2VFA | −2.96 | 4.19 | −44.46 | LYS138 |
Figure 4Two-dimensional protein-ligand interaction of (a) iso-mukaadial acetate and (b) ursolic acid acetate compounds with hydrogen bond interactions at the pocket sites of the 2VFA receptor. (c) iso-mukaadial acetate and (d) ursolic acid acetate compounds with hydrogen bond interactions at the pocket sites of the 1Z7G receptor.
The principle descriptors and physicochemical properties of identified IMA and UAA compounds towards the 2VFA receptor.
| Principal Descriptors | IMA | UAA | (Range 95% of Drugs) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Solute Molecular Weight | 284.352 | 498.745 | (130.0–725.0) |
| Solute Dipole Moment | 1.465 | 7.944 | (1.0–12.5) |
| Solute Total SASA | 518.477 | 741.364 | (300.0–1000.0) |
| Solute Hydrophobic | 408.528 | 628.533 | (0.0–750.0) |
| Solute Hydrophilic | 109.949 | 104.637 | (7.0–330.0) |
| Solute Carbon Pi SASA | 0 | 8.195 | (0.0–450.0) |
| Solute Weakly Polar SASA | 0 | 0 | (0.0–175.0) |
| Solute Molecular Volume (Å3) | 934.962 | 1522.361 | (500.0–2000.0) |
| Solute vdW Polar SA | 81.308 | 75.126 | (7.0–200.0) |
| Solute Number of Rotatable Bonds | 4 | 2 | (0.0–15.0) |
| Solute as Donor - Hydrogen Bonds | 1 | 1 | (0.0–6.0) |
| Solute as Acceptor - Hydrogen Bonds | 5.7 | 4 | (2.0–20.0) |
| Solute Globularity (Sphere = 1) | 0.892 | 0.863 | (0.75–0.95) |
| Solute Ionization Potential (eV) | 10.803 * | 9.669 | (7.9–10.5) |
| Solute Electron Affinity (eV) | −0.815 | −0.737 | (−0.9–1.7) |
| Predictions for Properties | |||
| QP Polarizability (Å3) | 28.695M | 53.565M | (13.0–70.0) |
| QP log P forhexadecane/gas | 8.065M | 13.173M | (4.0–18.0) |
| QP log P foroctanol/gas | 13.452M | 21.994M | (8.0–35.0) |
| QP log P forwater/gas | 7.911M | 7.234M | (4.0–45.0) |
| QP log P foroctano/water | 2.561 | 7.020 * | (−2.0–6.5) |
| QP log S foraqueous solubility | −3.104 | −7.984 * | (−6.5–0.5) |
| QP log S - conformation independent | −2.765 | −7.823 | (−6.5–0.5) |
| QP log K hsa Serum Protein Binding | −0.231 | 1.771 * | (−1.5–1.5) |
| QP log BB for brain/blood | −0.599 | −0.493 | (−3.0–1.2) |
| No. of Primary Metabolites | 2 | 2 | (1.0–8.0) |
| HERG K+ Channel Blockage: log IC50 | −1.474 | −1.976 | (concern below −5) |
| Apparent Caco-2 Permeability (nm/sec) | 227 | 255 | (<25 poor, >500 great) |
| Apparent MDCK Permeability (nm/sec) | 126 | 143M | (<25 poor, >500 great) |
| QP log Kp for skin permeability | −3.162 | −3.227 | (Kp in cm/hr) |
| Jm, max transdermal transport rate | 0.154 | 0 | (micrograms/cm2-hr) |
| Lipinski Rule of 5 Violations | 0 | 1 | (maximum is 4) |
| Jorgensen Rule of 3 Violations | 0 | 1 | (maximum is 3) |
| % Human Oral Absorption in GI (±20%) | 84 | 100 | (<25% is poor) |
| Qualitative Model for Human Oral Absorption | High | Low | (>80% is high) |
* indicates a violation of the 95% range; M indicates MW is outside training range.
Figure 5(a–d) The backbone Cα root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) profile for both iso-mukaadial acetate and ursolic acid acetate complexes over 100 ns MD trajectories.
Figure 6The ligand root-mean-square fluctuation for both iso-mukaadial acetate and ursolic acid acetate towards the (a) 2VFA and (b) 1Z7G receptors over 100 ns MD trajectories.
Figure 7Interactions of (a) iso-mukaadial acetate and (b) ursolic acid acetate with the binding pocket residues of the 2VFA receptor after 100 ns MD simulation. (c) Iso-mukaadial acetate and (d) ursolic acid acetate interactions with the binding site residues of the 1Z7G receptor during the 100 ns MD simulation timeframe.