| Literature DB >> 32561274 |
Yogesh Kumar1, Harvijay Singh2, Chirag N Patel3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rapidly eene">nlargingEntities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Coronavirus; Docking; Drug repurposing; SARS-CoV-2
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32561274 PMCID: PMC7297718 DOI: 10.1016/j.jiph.2020.06.016
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Infect Public Health ISSN: 1876-0341 Impact factor: 3.718
Fig. 1(A) Structural features of the main protease of SARS-CoV-2 monomer. A SARS-CoV-2 main protease consists of three domains. The active site of protein lies at the interface of domain I and domain II and composed of a characteristic Cys–His dyad. A linker joins domain II to domain III, which is critical for the dimerization of protein. (B) Sphere representation of Main protease monomer, α-ketoamide 13b, is shown bound in the active site groove.
Fig. 2The phylogenetic tree generated for the SARS-CoV-2 complete genome, with different neighboring complete genomes of MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and Bat-SL-CoV. The tree is majorly showing three clades; clade I, II, and Clade III.
Fig. 3Multiple sequence alignment analysis of the amino acid sequence of SARS_CoV-2 Mpro. Amino acids marked underneath with * represent the catalytic residues and residues marked underneath with # represent substrate-binding residues of various subsites.
Fig. 4(A) Different S1’, S1, S2, S3 & S4 subsites groups in the substrate-binding subsites of SARS-CoV-2MPro(PDB ID: 6Y2F). (B) Re-docked α-ketoamide 13b in the active site of MPro (purple) and crystallized α-ketoamide (orange).
Fig. 5Molecular docking interaction of docked antiviral drugs with SARS-CoV-2 Mpro. (A) Lopinavir–Ritonavir. (B) Tipranavir. (C) Raltegravir and (D) Improvedα-ketoamide (13b). These top three drug compounds show a higher binding affinity than the bound α-ketoamide compound.
Showing the top10 drug compounds 2-dimensional representation of docking poses interacting with amino acids of target SAR-CoV-2 Mpro (COVID-19) X-ray crystal structure, including co-crystal bound ligand (improved α-ketoamide).
| S. no. | Ligand with a binding affinity (kcal/mol) | Schematic of intermolecular interactions |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Lopinavir–Ritonavir (−10.6) | |
| 2. | Tipranavir (−8.7) | |
| 3. | Raltegravir (−8.3) | |
| 4. | α-Ketoamide13b (−8.3) | |
| 5. | Nelfinavir (−8.2) | |
| 6. | Dolutegravir (−8.1) | |
| 7. | Tenofovir-disoproxil (−8.1) | |
| 8. | Baloxavir-marboxil (−8.1) | |
| 9. | Letermovir (−8.0) | |
| 10. | Maraviroc (−8.0) |
Fig. 6RMSD calculations showing the conformational deviation of drugs-protein complexes: the drugs were represented in different colors as (Lopinavir–Ritonavir (blue), Raltegravir (red), and Tipranavir (green).
Fig. 7The molecular motions of the SARS-COV-2 Mpro protein structure: the drugs interaction energy (kJ/mol) was represented in different colors as a function of time (Lopinavir–Ritonavir (blue), Raltegravir (red), and Tipranavir (green)).
Fig. 8RMSF calculation of complexes (A) Lopinavir–Ritonavir, (B) Tipranavir, and (C) Raltegravir.
Fig. 9Substrate binding cleft of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro harboring the docked inhibitors. Top three docked inhibitors. (A) Tipranavir, (B) Lopinavir–Ritonavir, and (C) Raltegravir occupy the active site region with independent confirmation as the originally (D) bound α-ketoamide 13b ligand in the co-crystallized structure (PDB ID: 6Y2F).
In silico inhibition constant (K) obtained by molecular docking for the top 10 drugs.
| S. no. | Ligands | |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Lopinavir–Ritonavir | 1.6754 × 10−8 |
| 2. | Tipranavir | 4.1487 × 10−7 |
| 3. | Raltegravir | 8.1265 × 10−7 |
| 4. | Improved-α-ketoamide 13b | 8.1535 × 10−7 |
| 5. | Nelfinavir | 9.6539 × 10−7 |
| 6. | Dolutegravir | 1.1230 × 10−6 |
| 7. | Tenofovir-disoproxil | 1.1430 × 10−6 |
| 8. | Baloxavir-marboxil | 1.1435 × 10−6 |
| 9. | Letermovir | 1.3533 × 10−6 |
| 10. | Maraviroc | 1.3236 × 10−6 |