| Literature DB >> 32426548 |
Md Mahbubur Rahman Bhuiyan1, N M Mahmudul Alam Bhuiya2, Md Nazmul Hasan3, Ummey Jannatun Nahar2.
Abstract
The objective of the study was to investigate the analgesic activity of seeds extracted from the Holarrhena antidysenterica plant (Family: Apocynaceae). The seeds of H. antidysenterica were extracted with pure ethanol and administered to the experimental Swiss albino mice at three different doses (50, 100, and 150 mg/kg body weight) in pain models. Peripheral analgesic activity was evaluated using the acetic acid-induced writhing test, and heat-induced (hot plate and tail immersion test) pain models were applied for central anti-nociceptive activity evaluation. Formalin induced licking test was applied to evaluate both peripheral and central anti-nociceptive activity on mice. Computational studies were performed by Schrödinger Maestro v10.1 for molecular docking and the SwissADME online server for ADME prediction of compounds. In acetic acid-induced writhing test, dose-dependent reduction of writhing response was observed with 43.94% (p < 0.001) writhing inhibition at 150 mg/kg dose compared to standard 60.98% (p < 0.001). 150 mg/kg caused a maximum decrease in licking and biting time in both early and late phases of the formalin-induced licking test (71.2 ± 5.67, p < 0.05, and 36.6 ± 5.62, p < 0.01 respectively). In both tests of central analgesic activity, the extract also showed dose-dependent anti-nociceptive activity. In the hot plate method, the highest %MPE was 67.39 (p < 0.001) at 30 min at 150 mg/kg dose, which was even better than the standard drug. In the case of the tail immersion method, the highest %MPE was 69.84 at a dose of 150 mg/kg at 30 min (p < 0.001). In molecular docking study, Conimine, Conarrhimin, Conessine, and Funtudienine showed the best binding affinities against the COX-1 enzyme. The study indicates that the ethanolic seed extract of H. antidysenterica has the strong potentiality of having central analgesic activity and moderate peripheral analgesic activity due to the presence of bioactive compounds in its seeds.Entities:
Keywords: ADME; Biological sciences; Central analgesic activity; Health informatics; Health profession; Holarrhena antidysenterica; Molecular docking; Peripheral analgesic activity; Pharmaceutical science; Pharmacology; Plant biology; Seed
Year: 2020 PMID: 32426548 PMCID: PMC7226892 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03962
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Anti-nociceptive effect of ethanolic extract of Holarrhena antidysenterica seeds in acetic acid-induced writhing test. Data values are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 5); % Writhing inhibition compared to control; ∗p ˂ 0.05, ∗∗p ˂ 0.01 and ∗∗∗p ˂ 0.001 compared with the control group (One way ANOVA with post hoc Dunnett's test).
Anti-nociceptive effects of H. antidysenterica seed extracts in formalin induced licking test.
| Paw licking in mice (second) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Test Group | Dose (mg/kg) | Early Phase | Late Phase |
| Control | Nil | 101.0 ± 5.25 | 62.6 ± 5.71 |
| Standard | 5 | 55.4 ± 4.08∗∗∗ [ | 20.6 ± 4.40∗∗∗ |
| Group I | 50 | 93.4 ± 6.62 | 57.0 ± 7.72 |
| Group II | 100 | 77.4 ± 2.89∗ | 43.0 ± 2.17 |
| Group III | 150 | 71.2 ± 5.67∗∗ | 36.6 ± 5.62∗ |
Data values are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 5); ∗p ˂ 0.05, ∗∗p ˂ 0.01 and ∗∗∗p ˂ 0.001 compared with control group (One way ANOVA with post hoc Dunnett's test).
Anti-nociceptive effects of H. antidysenterica seed extracts in hot plate test.
| Latency time (s) (% MPE) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test Group | Dose (mg/kg) | Pretreatment | 30 min | 60 min | 90 min |
| Control | Nil | 8.00 ± 0.89 | 8.40 ± 0.40 | 8.80 ± 0.58 | 8.40 ± 0.75 |
| Standard | 5 | 10.80 ± 0.37 | 14.80 ± 0.86∗∗∗(43.48) | 16.60 ± 0.51∗∗∗(63.04) | 12.40 ± 0.51∗∗ (17.39) |
| Group I | 50 | 9.80 ± 0.97 | 11.60 ± 0.51∗ (17.65) | 11.20 ± 0.86∗ (13.73) | 10.80 ± 0.37 (9.80) |
| Group II | 100 | 10.40 ± 0.51 | 13.20 ± 1.36∗∗ (29.17) | 12.20 ± 0.58∗∗ (18.75) | 11.60 ± 1.08∗ (12.50) |
| Group III | 150 | 10.80 ± 0.37 | 17.00 ± 1.27∗∗∗(67.39) | 13.60 ± 0.93∗∗∗ (30.43) | 13.20 ± 1.02∗∗∗(26.09) |
Data values are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 5); MPE, Maximum possible effect; Numbers in parentheses indicates %MPE compared to control; ∗p ˂ 0.05, ∗∗p ˂ 0.01 and ∗∗∗p ˂ 0.001 compared with control group (One way ANOVA with post hoc Dunnett's test).
Anti-nociceptive effects of H. antidysenterica seed extracts in the tail immersion test.
| Latency time (s) (% MPE) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test Group | Dose (mg/kg) | Pretreatment | 30 min | 60 min | 90 min |
| Control | Nil | 2.00 ± 0.32 | 4.60 ± 0.60 | 5.00 ± 0.45 | 9.80 ± 1.07 |
| Standard | 5 | 3.00 ± 0.32 | 13.20 ± 0.66∗∗∗(85.00) | 12.20 ± 0.73∗∗∗(76.67) | 11.80 ± 0.58 (73.33) |
| Group I | 50 | 2.00 ± 0.45 | 3.80 ± 0.73 (13.85) | 8.20 ± 1.71 (47.69) | 10.00 ± 0.55 (61.54) |
| Group II | 100 | 2.40 ± 0.51 | 9.60 ± 0.93∗∗∗(57.14) | 11.00 ± 0.95∗∗(68.25) | 10.40 ± 0.68 (63.49) |
| Group III | 150 | 2.40 ± 0.51 | 11.20 ± 0.73∗∗∗(69.84) | 10.00 ± 1.00∗∗(60.32) | 9.40 ± 1.02 (55.56) |
Data values are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 5); MPE, Maximum possible effect; Numbers in parentheses indicates %MPE compared to control; ∗p ˂ 0.05, ∗∗p ˂ 0.01 and ∗∗∗p ˂ 0.001 compared with control group (One way ANOVA with post hoc Dunnett's test).
Molecular docking score and bond interactions analysis of the best docked ligands and celecoxib against COX-1.
| Molecule | Docking score (kcal/mol) | Hydrogen bonds interactions | Hydrophobic interactions | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Residue (interaction type) | Distance (Å) | Residue (interaction type) | Distance (Å) | ||
| Conimine | -4.930 | TYR355 (Pi-Alkyl) | 5.24 | ||
| TYR355 (Pi-Alkyl) | 5.10 | ||||
| LEU93 (Alkyl) | 5.49 | ||||
| ILE89 (Alkyl) | 5.30 | ||||
| ALA527 (Alkyl) | 4.04 | ||||
| ALA527 (Alkyl) | 4.35 | ||||
| VAL349 (Alkyl) | 5.13 | ||||
| VAL116 (Alkyl) | 4.10 | ||||
| Conarrhimin | -4.815 | GLU524 (Salt Bridge) | 1.58 | VAL119 (Alkyl) | 4.18 |
| ILE89 (Alkyl) | 4.41 | ||||
| ILE89 (Alkyl) | 4.53 | ||||
| ILE89 (Alkyl) | 5.18 | ||||
| Conessine | -4.773 | TYR355 (Pi-Cation) | 4.92 | VAL116 (Alkyl) | 4.17 |
| VAL349 (Alkyl) | 5.19 | ||||
| ALA527 (Alkyl) | 4.17 | ||||
| ALA527 (Alkyl) | 4.68 | ||||
| LEU93 (Alkyl) | 5.45 | ||||
| ILE89 (Alkyl) | 5.32 | ||||
| TYR355 (Pi-Alkyl) | 5.33 | ||||
| TYR355 (Pi-Alkyl) | 5.40 | ||||
| TYR355 (Pi-Alkyl) | 4.88 | ||||
| Funtudienine | -4.517 | GLU524 (Attractive Charge) | 3.47 | VAL116 (Alkyl) | 4.00 |
| LEU93 (Alkyl) | 5.23 | ||||
| LEU115 (Alkyl) | 4.46 | ||||
| ILE89 (Alkyl) | 5.00 | ||||
| ILE89 (Alkyl) | 3.39 | ||||
| ILE89 (Alkyl) | 5.25 | ||||
| Diclofenac | -8.207 | GLY526 (Pi-Pi T-shaped) | 4.14 | ||
| TYR385 (Pi-Pi T-shaped) | 5.10 | ||||
| TRP387 (Pi-Pi T-shaped) | 5.08 | ||||
| ILE523 (Alkyl) | 4.93 | ||||
| PHE518 (Pi-Alkyl) | 4.36 | ||||
| ILE523 (Pi-Alkyl) | 5.19 | ||||
| ALA527 (Pi-Alkyl) | 4.65 | ||||
| VAL349 (Pi-Alkyl) | 5.19 | ||||
| LEU352 (Pi-Alkyl) | 5.14 | ||||
Figure 2Best ranked pose of Conimine; 2D (A) and 3D (B) interactions in the binding pocket of COX-1 (PDB ID: 2OYE).
Figure 3Best ranked pose of Diclofenac; 2D (A) and 3D (B) interactions in the binding pocket of COX-1 (PDB ID: 2OYE).
Figure 4Best ranked pose of Conarrhimin; 2D (A) and 3D (B) interactions in the binding pocket of COX-1 (PDB ID: 2OYE).
Figure 5Best ranked pose of Conessine; 2D (A) and 3D (B) interactions in the binding pocket of COX-1 (PDB ID: 2OYE).
Figure 6Best ranked pose of Funtudienine; 2D (A) and 3D (B) interactions in the binding pocket of COX-1 (PDB ID: 2OYE).
Physicochemical properties of the compounds by SwissADME.
| Compounds | PID | Lipinski rules | Lipinski's violations | Veber rules | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MW | HBA | HBD | Log P | MR | NRB | TPSA | |||
| Rule | - | <500 | <5 | ≤10 | ≤5 | 40–130 | ≤1 | ≤10 | ≤140 Å2 |
| Conimine | 101686 | 328.53 | 2 | 2 | 3.84 | 105.82 | 0 | 1 | 24.06 |
| Conarrhimin | 12303820 | 314.51 | 2 | 2 | 3.48 | 100.92 | 0 | 0 | 38.05 |
| Conessine | 441082 | 356.59 | 2 | 0 | 4.35 | 115.63 | 0 | 1 | 6.48 |
| Funtudienine | 102093828 | 325.49 | 2 | 0 | 3.85 | 102.84 | 0 | 0 | 20.31 |
PID = Pubchem ID; MW = Molecular weight; g/mol; HBD = Hydrogen bond donor; HBA = Hydrogen bond acceptor; Log P= Lipophilicity; MR = Molar refractivity; NRB = Number of rotatable bond; TPSA = Topological polar surface area.