| Literature DB >> 32807915 |
Amit Lather1, Sunil Sharma2, Anurag Khatkar3.
Abstract
G-6-P synthase enzyme has been involved in the synthesis of the microbial cell wall, and its inhibition may lead to the antimicrobial effect. In the present study, we designed a library of amygdalin derivatives, and two most active derivatives selected on the basis of various parameters viz. dock score, binding energy, and ADMET data using molecular docking software (Schrodinger's Maestro). The selected derivatives were synthesized and evaluated for their antioxidant and antimicrobial potential against several Gram (+ ve), Gram (-ve), as well as fungal strains. The results indicated that synthesized compounds exhibited good antioxidant, antimicrobial, and better preservative efficacy in food preparation as compared to the standard compounds. No significant differences were observed in different parameters as confirmed by Kruskal-Wallis test (p < 0.05). Docking results have been found in good correlation with experimental wet-lab data. Moreover, the mechanistic insight into the docking poses has also been explored by binding interactions of amygdalin derivative inside the dynamic site of G-6-P synthase.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32807915 PMCID: PMC7431536 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-70895-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Design strategy and Scheme used for the synthesis of amygdalin derivatives.
Figure 2Interaction patterns of ligands within the G-6-P synthase pocket.
Docking parameters, ADMET profile and pMIC value of selected amygdalin derivatives.
| Compound(s) | G-6-P synthase binding affinity | ADMET profile | pMIC values in μM | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Docking score | Energy | No. of rotatable bond | DonorHB | AcceptHB | QplogPo/w | QplogBB | QPPMDCK | QPPCaco | ||||||||
| Compound 1 | − 9.65 | − 71.40 | 8 | 6 | 20 | − 2.01 | − 4.41 | 0.84 | 2.70 | 2.02 | 1.72 | 1.42 | 1.42 | 2.02 | 1.72 | 2.02 |
| Compound 2 | − 6.97 | − 51.31 | 10 | 7 | 22 | − 1.97 | − 4.34 | 0.92 | 3.0 | 1.39 | 1.39 | 1.69 | 1.39 | 1.69 | 1.39 | 1.39 |
| Amygdalin | − 6.60 | − 57.22 | 6 | 5 | 18 | − 1.02 | − 3.35 | 0.98 | 4 | 0.86 | 1.06 | 1.76 | 1.06 | 0.96 | 0.76 | 0.86 |
| Streptomycin | − 5.44 | − 40.20 | 9 | 12 | 15 | − 2.06 | − 4.20 | 0.78 | 3 | 1.96 | 1.06 | 1.36 | 1.06 | 1.96 | – | – |
| Ciprofloxacin | − 5.18 | − 37.16 | 3 | 2 | 6 | − 1.02 | 2.23 | 0.80 | 4 | 2.02 | 1.12 | 1.42 | 1.12 | 1.42 | – | – |
| Ampicillin | − 5.06 | − 25.41 | 4 | 3 | 5 | − 1.35 | 0.99 | 0.90 | 0.89 | 2.04 | 1.14 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 1.74 | – | – |
| Fluconazole | − 5.12 | − 23.15 | 5 | 1 | 5 | − 2.32 | 0.88 | 0.87 | 0.93 | – | – | – | – | – | 1.08 | 1.38 |
Log CFU/ml values of the selected compound 1 in Aloe vera juice and White lotion USP.
| Compound | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cfu/ml after days | 14 days | 28 days | 14 days | 28 days | 14 days | 28 days | 14 days | 28 days | 14 days | 28 days | |
| Compound 1 | # | 2.25 ± 0.10a | 2.19 ± 0.14b | 2.31 ± 0.12c | 2.19 ± 0.12d | 2.4 ± 0.14e | 2.28 ± 0.15f. | 2.16 ± 0.15g | 2.3 ± 0.11h | 2.13 ± 0.12i | 2.12 ± 0.17j |
| @ | 3.22 ± 0.12a | 3.20 ± 0.13b | 3.31 ± 0.12c | 3.22 ± 0.22d | 3.11 ± 0.14e | 3.62 ± 0.13f. | 3.22 ± 0.16g | 3.12 ± 0.21h | 3.14 ± 0.22i | 3.64 ± 0.12j | |
| Sodium Benzoate | # | 2.26 ± 0.11a | 2.19 ± 0.12b | 2.32 ± 0.13c | 2.27 ± 0.22d | 2.35 ± 0.23e | 2.3 ± 0.21f. | 2.18 ± 0.16g | 2.09 ± 0.18h | 2.19 ± 0.17i | 2.12 ± 0.15j |
| @ | 3.13 ± 0.21a | 3.23 ± 0.22b | 3.21 ± 0.16c | 3.22 ± 0.13d | 3.54 ± 0.24e | 3.26 ± 0.12f. | 3.17 ± 0.08g | 2.22 ± 0.28h | 3.17 ± 0.13i | 3.13 ± 0.12j | |
| Propyl Paraben | # | 2.19 ± 0.15a | 2.24 ± 0.16b | 2.24 ± 0.2c | 2.19 ± 0.15d | 2.66 ± 0.14e | 2.41 ± 0.15f. | 2.4 ± 0.16g | 2.22 ± 0.16h | 2.11 ± 0.18i | 2.02 ± 0.18j |
| @ | 3.22 ± 0.51a | 3.22 ± 0.26b | 3.32 ± 0.34c | 3.33 ± 0.16d | 3.23 ± 0.22e | 3.22 ± 0.23f. | 3.29 ± 0.13g | 3.22 ± 0.21h | 3.19 ± 0.16i | 3.10 ± 0.18j | |
| Ethyl Paraben | # | 2.2 ± 0.18a | 2.09 ± 0.18b | 2.24 ± 0.16c | 2.22 ± 0.14d | 2.16 ± 0.15e | 2.11.18f. | 2.56 ± 0.2g | 2.29 ± 0.19h | 2.04 ± 0.17i | 2.02 ± 0.12j |
| @ | 3.39 ± 0.12a | 3.10 ± 0.17b | 3.23 ± 0.36c | 3.39 ± 0.12d | 3.12 ± 0.13e | 3.19 ± 0.12f. | 3.50 ± 0.21g | 3.20 ± 0.41h | 3.17 ± 0.54i | 3.09 ± 0.28j | |
| Control | |||||||||||
# Aloe vera juice; @White lotion USP.
CFU Colony forming unit, all experiments were conducted in triplicate (n = 5) and the mean values are presented. Different letters mean p < 0.05 in each line by Kruskal–Wallis test.
Figure 3Preservative efficacy results of compound 1 in Aloe vera juice and degree of microbial log reduction. Data are means of five replicates; standard deviation is shown as error bars. Chart indicates statistically significant differences between groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 4Preservative efficacy results of compound 1 in White Lotion USP and degree of microbial log reduction. Data are means of five replicates; standard deviation is shown as error bars. Chart indicates statistically significant differences between groups (p < 0.05).
Stability studies of compound 1 in Aloe vera juice and White Lotion USP for pH.
| Compound(s) | Change in pH with time | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 month | 1 month | 2 month | 3 month | 4 month | 5 month | 6 month | ||
| Compound 1 | # | 7.9 ± 0.32a | 8.2 ± 0.34b | 7.4 ± 0.14c | 7.8 ± 0.24d | 7.3 ± 0.30e | 7.8 ± 0.22f. | 7.6 ± 0.34g |
| @ | 7.8 ± 0.25a | 7.8 ± 0.22b | 7.9 ± 0.33c | 7.7 ± 0.33d | 7.6 ± 0.32e | 7.7 ± 0.22f. | 8.1 ± 0.23g | |
| Sodium benzoate | # | 8.8 ± 0.14a | 9.2 ± 0.39b | 9.2 ± 0.21c | 9.4 ± 0.39d | 9.1 ± 0.42e | 9.2 ± 0.22f. | 9.2 ± 0.56g |
| @ | 9.2 ± 0.54a | 9.2 ± 0.84b | 9.4 ± 0.33c | 9.7 ± 0.43d | 9.2 ± 0.50e | 9.1 ± 0.94f. | 9.2 ± 0.17g | |
| Propyl paraben | # | 7.3 ± 0.21a | 7.5 ± 0.25b | 7.5 ± 0.25c | 7.5 ± 0.25d | 7.8 ± 0.28e | 7.3 ± 0.33f. | 7.2 ± 0.54g |
| @ | 8.2 ± 0.04a | 8.5 ± 0.69b | 8.8 ± 0.68c | 8.7 ± 0.76d | 8.5 ± 0.32e | 8.3 ± 0.39f. | 8.7 ± 0.26g | |
| Ethyl paraben | # | 8.2 ± 0.02a | 8.4 ± 0.44b | 8.4 ± 0.26c | 8.5 ± 0.24d | 8.4 ± 0.21e | 8.3 ± 0.49f. | 8.4 ± 0.28g |
| @ | 8.4 ± 0.35a | 8.6 ± 0.36b | 8.0 ± 0.66c | 8.2 ± 0.18d | 8.1 ± 0.14e | 8.1 ± 0.69f. | 8.4 ± 0.32g | |
| Control | # 8.0 ± 23; @ 8.2 ± 0.08 | |||||||
#Aloe vera juice; @White lotion USP.
All pH values were recorded in triplicate (n = 5) and the mean values are presented. Different letters mean p < 0.05 in each line by Kruskal–Wallis test.