| Literature DB >> 33068917 |
Ritika Srivastava1, Sunil K Gupta1, Farha Naaz1, Parth Sarthi Sen Gupta2, Madhu Yadav1, Vishal Kumar Singh1, Anuradha Singh1, Malay Kumar Rana2, Satish Kumar Gupta3, Dominique Schols4, Ramendra K Singh5.
Abstract
A series of alkylated benzimidazole derivatives was synthesized and screened for their anti-Entities:
Keywords: Antiviral profile; DFT; Docking; HIV; Molecular dynamics; YFV
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33068917 PMCID: PMC7537607 DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2020.107400
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Biol Chem ISSN: 1476-9271 Impact factor: 2.877
Fig. 1General structure of nevirapine and new designed benzimidazole derivatives.
Fig. 2Flow chart of processes involved in the development of benzimidazole derivatives.
Physiochemical data of compounds 1( -) - 4( -).
| Compound | MW | Log P | TPSA | H-A | H-D | N | Rotatable bonds | Log S | Log Kp | SAS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| < 500 | ≤ 5 | ≤ 140 | ≤ 10 | ≤ 5 | ≤ 1 | ≤ 10 | ≤ 5 | ≤ 5 | ≤ 10 | |
| 196.64 | 1.86 | 38.05 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | −2.06 | −4.87 | 1.72 | |
| 210.66 | 2.13 | 38.05 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 3 | −2.44 | −4.68 | 1.74 | |
| 241.63 | 1.80 | 83.88 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 3 | −2.32 | −4.55 | 2.15 | |
| 255.66 | 2.07 | 83.88 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 4 | −2.73 | −4.15 | 2.19 | |
| 354.43 | 3.39 | 38.05 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | −2.57 | −4.31 | 2.00 | |
| 368.46 | 3.66 | 38.05 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 3 | −2.79 | −4.08 | 2.05 | |
| 286.63 | 1.69 | 129.70 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 4 | −1.69 | −4.89 | 2.35 | |
| 300.66 | 1.96 | 129.70 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 5 | −2.09 | −4.77 | 2.40 | |
| 266.31 | 1.38 | 63.58 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −4.51 | −2.99 | 2.30 |
MW = Molecular weight, TPSA = Total polar surface area, H-A = no. of H-bond acceptors, H-D = no. of H-bond donor, N = no. of violations to Lipinski’s rule of five, Log S = Predicted aqueous solubility, Log K = Predicted skin permeability coefficient, SAS (Synthetic accessibility score) = From 1 (very easy) to 10 (very difficult).
In Silico ADMET properties of compounds 1( -) - 4( -).
| Compound | Absorption | Distribution | Metabolism | Excretion | Toxicity | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water solubi lity (log mol/L) | (human) (% absorbed) | Blood brain barrier Permeabi lity (log BB) | CNS permeab ility (log PS) | CYP | Total Clearance (log/mL/min/kg) | Oral rat chronic toxicity (LOAEL) | Hepatotoxicity (Yes/No) | |||||||
| 2D6 | 3A4 | (log mg/kg_bw/day)1A2 | 2C19 | 2C9 | 2D6 | 3A4 | ||||||||
| Substrate (Yes/No) | Inhibitor (Yes/No) | |||||||||||||
| −2.603 | 89.150 | 0.547 | −2.413 | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | 0.896 | 1.244 | No | |
| −2.682 | 89.355 | 0.201 | −2.410 | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | 0.947 | 1.055 | No | |
| −2.881 | 86.566 | −0.441 | −2.510 | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | 0.626 | 1.387 | No | |
| −2.932 | 86.821 | −0.546 | −2.517 | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | 0.665 | 1.413 | No | |
| −2.566 | 87.429 | 0.467 | −2.544 | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | 0.412 | 1.226 | No | |
| −2.671 | 87.467 | 0.132 | −2.541 | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | 0.402 | 1.253 | No | |
| −3.046 | 83.401 | −0.775 | −2.741 | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | 0.276 | 1.196 | No | |
| −3.051 | 84.231 | −0.879 | −2.757 | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | 0.313 | 1.192 | Yes | |
| −3.510 | 90.421 | −0.112 | −2.881 | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | 0.183 | 1.015 | Yes | |
Water Solubility = < -4 soluble; Intestinal absorption = Below 30 % indicates poor absorbance; Blood brain barrier Permeability = < -1considered poorly distributed to the brain; CNS (Central Nervous System) permeability = > -2 considered to penetrate the CNS; Total Clearance (logCLtot) = Lower value indicates high drug half lifetime; LOAEL (Lowest Observed Adverse Effect) = Lower value predicts minimum toxicity.
Scheme 1Reagents & conditions: (i) Conc. HNO3, Conc. H2SO4, reflux for 1 h; (ii) Br2/MeOH, H2O, rt, 18 h; (iii) Conc. HNO3, Conc. H2SO4, reflux for 4–5 h.
Scheme 2Reagents & conditions: Alkyl halide, K2CO3, acetonitrile, Temp 40-50 °C for 3 - 4 h.
Docking interaction of compounds 1 within NNIBP of RT protein in ligand - receptor complex.
| Compound | No. of H - B | Amino acid in H-B | Type of H-B | D(Å) | D-A | A-A | No. of π - B | Amino acid in π -B | ‘π- π’ monitor | ‘π-cation’ monitor | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bond | D(Å) | End1 | End2 | Bond | D(Å) | End1 | End2 | |||||||||
| 2 | Lys 103 | Lys 103: N - | 2.9 2.6 | N O13 | O13 O | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 2 | Lys 103 | Lys 103: N - | 2.7 2.5 | N O14 | O14 O | 1 | Tyr 188 (‘π-π’) | 5.2 | Tyr 188 | – | – | – | – | |||
| 3 | Lys 103 Pro 236 | Lys 103: N - | 2.8 2.9 2.6 | N O16 O16 | O16 O O | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 2 | Lys 103 Trp 229 | Lys 103: N - | 3.0 3.0 | N N | O12 O17 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 1 | Trp 229 | Trp 229: N - | 3.1 | N | O13 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 1 | Lys 103 | 2.6 | O13 | O | 3 | Phe 227 (‘π-cation’) Trp 229 (‘π- cation’) | – | – | – | – | Phe 227 - | 6.3 5.9 6.7 | Phe 227 Trp 229 Trp 229 | |||
| 3 | Lys 101 Lys 103 Pro 236 | Lys 101: N - | 3.0 2.9 2.6 | N N O20 | O13 O20 O | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | Tyr 181 (‘π-π’) Tyr 188 (‘π-π’) | Tyr 181 - ref. Tyr 188 - ref. | 6.0 5.1 | Tyr 181 Tyr 188 | ref. ref. | – | – | – | – | |
H-B = Hydrogen bond; D = Distance (Å) ; D-A = Donor Atom; A-A = Acceptor Atom; π - B = Pi bond; π-cation = Pi cation.
Fig. 3a) Docked poses with key contacts and expanded views of molecular docking interactions of compounds 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 4a and 4b within NNIBP of RT protein. b) Surface view of compound 3a and reference drug nevirapine within NNIBP of RT protein.
Docking scores of compounds 1 within NNIBP of RT protein in ligand - receptor complex.
| Compound | I.E. | DS | Ludi_2 | ΔG (kcal⁄ mol) | LIG | Ludi_3 | Predicted EC50 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −35.83 | 35.63 | 320 | −4.54 | −3.91 | 326 | 0.55 × 10−5 | |
| −38.12 | 39.57 | 331 | −4.68 | −3.96 | 339 | 0.41 × 10−5 | |
| −41.39 | 40.84 | 362 | −5.13 | −4.51 | 344 | 0.45 × 10−5 | |
| −44.26 | 43.76 | 373 | −5.29 | −5.12 | 349 | 0.32 × 10−5 | |
| −45.71 | 44.15 | 397 | −5.63 | −5.24 | 354 | 0.28 × 10−5 | |
| −42.48 | 43.26 | 379 | −5.37 | −4.98 | 347 | 0.34 × 10−5 | |
| −45.12 | 44.98 | 395 | −5.60 | −5.19 | 359 | 0.26 × 10−5 | |
| −45.56 | 47.05 | 384 | −5.45 | −5.21 | 363 | 0.24 × 10−5 | |
| −45.79 | 40.60 | 393 | −5.57 | −5.35 | 557 | 0.27 × 10−5 |
I.E. = Interaction energy, DS = Dock score, Ludi_2 and Ludi_3 = empirical scoring functions, ΔG = Binding energy, LIG = Lig-Internal_Energy, Predicted EC = Predicted 50 % effective concentration of given compounds essential to reduce HIV-1 replication (μM).
Anti-HIV-1 activity of compounds 1 evaluated in TZM-b1 Cell culture.
| Compound | Anti-HIV-1 activity | IC50 (μg/mL) | Cytotoxicity | CC50 (μg/mL) | SI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conc. (μg/mL) | % Inhibition | Conc. (μg/mL) | % Viability | ||||||
| Exp - 1 | Exp - 2 | Exp - 1 | Exp - 2 | ||||||
| 10 | 2.06 | -- | 100 | 53.64 | -- | -- | |||
| 1 | 0.27 | -- | 10 | 90.08 | -- | -- | |||
| 10 | 4.56 | -- | 100 | 58.57 | -- | -- | |||
| 1 | 1.02 | -- | 10 | 92.63 | -- | -- | |||
| 10 | 15.55 | -- | 100 | 40.41 | -- | -- | |||
| 1 | 1.11 | -- | 10 | 103.57 | -- | -- | |||
| 10 | −1.10 | -- | 100 | 69.12 | -- | -- | |||
| 1 | −0.47 | -- | 10 | 91.23 | -- | -- | |||
| 10 | 100.47 | -- | 1.37 (0.386 × 10−5μM) | 100 | 0.96 | -- | 3.74 (1.05 × 10−5μM) | 2.73 | |
| 1 | 14.91 | -- | 10 | 18.49 | 13.72 | ||||
| 10 | -- | 105.39 | 5 | -- | 49.00 | ||||
| 5 | -- | 88.54 | 1 | -- | 83.69 | ||||
| 2.5 | -- | 65.73 | -- | -- | -- | ||||
| 1.25 | -- | 33.31 | -- | -- | -- | ||||
| 10 | −4.50 | -- | 100 | 79.79 | -- | -- | |||
| 1 | −0.63 | -- | 10 | 101.81 | -- | -- | |||
| 10 | −6.28 | -- | 100 | 11.25 | -- | -- | |||
| 1 | −3.95 | -- | 10 | 99.91 | -- | -- | |||
| 10 | 0.11 | -- | 100 | 90.86 | -- | -- | |||
| 1 | −0.46 | -- | 10 | 92.09 | -- | -- | |||
| -- | -- | -- | 1.33 × 10−9 (0.00050 × 10−5 μM) | -- | -- | -- | >2.66 (>10 μM) | >200 | |
IC = 50 % inhibitory concentration, which is the concentration required in 50 % inhibition in HIV infection.
CC = 50 % cytotoxic concentration, which is the concentration required to reduce TZM-bl cell viability by 50 %.
SI = Selectivity index ratio CC.
Fig. 4Anti-HIV activity and cytotoxicity of compound 3a at different concentrations used in assay.
Fig. 5SAR derived from screening of test compounds against HIV-1.
Antiviral activity of compounds 1 evaluated in Vero cell culture.
| Compound | Concentration unit | Minimum cytotoxic concentration | EC50 | SI | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Para-influenza-3 virus | Reovirus-1 | Sindbis virus | Coxsackie virus B4 | Punta Toro virus | Yellow Fever virus | ||||
| >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | 1 | ||
| >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | 1 | ||
| ≥100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | 1 | ||
| >100 (> 0.391μM) | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | 6.0 (0.0234μM) | > 16.64 | ||
| ≥100 (≥ 0.391μM) | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | 2.0 (0.7824 × 10−2μM) | ≥ 50 | ||
| 100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | 1 | ||
| >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | 1 | ||
| >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | 1 | ||
| ≥100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | 1 | ||
| >100 (0.01μM) | >100 | >100 | 20 | 1.8 | 72 | 0.8 (8 × 10−5 μM) | 125 | ||
| >250 | 250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | 1 | ||
| >100 | 0.6 | 6.0 | 8.9 | >100 | 14 | 0.8 | 125 | ||
Required to cause a microscopically detectable alteration of normal cell morphology.
Required to reduce virus-induced cytopathogenicity by 50 %.
Selectivity Index (ratio of MCC to EC50).
Fig. 6RMSD plots of the HIV-RT complexes of nevirapine and compound 3a, (shown in black and red, respectively), as a function of time.
Fig. 7Rg (radius of gyration) plots of RT:nevirapine (black) and RT:compound 3a (red) complexes, as a function of time.
Fig. 8a) The binding mode of compound 3a and reference drug in hydrophobic pocket of RT allosteric site after 50 ns MD simulation. (Hydrogen bond and pi-pi interactions are shown by the green colour line in compound 3a and reference drug, respectively). b) Superimposition of compound 3a at different time intervals; 10, 20 and 50 ns during MD simulations and its superimposed image with nevirapine after 50 ns.
Molecular energy data of RT:nevirapine and RT:3a complexes.
| Energy components (kJ/mol) | RT:nevirapine | RT:3a |
|---|---|---|
| van der Waal energy (ΔGvdW) | −162.89 ± 36.07 | −173.32 ± 37.49 |
| Electrostatic energy (ΔGele) | −30.67 ± 13.97 | −31.63 ± 11.03 |
| Polar solvation energy (ΔGps) | 120.46 ± 21.84 | 135.262 ± 31.88 |
| SASA energy (ΔGsasa) | −15.24 ± 6.49 | −13.42 ± 5.94 |
| Binding energy (ΔGbinding) | −88.33 ± 32.80 | −85.31 ± 35.49 |
Fig. 9Error bar plot showing the van der Waals (ΔEvdW), electrostatic (ΔEelec), polar solvation, solvent accessible surface area (SASA) energies and binding free-energy (ΔGbind) in kJ/mol for all the two complexes.
Fig. 10Energy contributions of individual amino acid residues to the binding free energy (ΔGbind) shown for RT:compound 3a in red, and RT:nevirapine in black color. Residues actively contributing either positive or negative to the binding energies (ΔGbind) are presented.
Natural bond orbital analysis of orbital overlap between the Trp 229 residue of RT and compound 3a suggesting hydrogen bonding.
| Protein-ligand complex | Type of interaction | Interaction | Energy (Kcal/mol) | Software |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trp 229: | n→σ* | ( | 2.94 | G09 |
Fig. 11NBO view showing the hydrogen bonding interaction n→⌠* (N) between the Trp 229 residue of RT and compound 3a.
Fig. 12Bond critical point (bcp) and bond path between the Trp 229 residue of RT and compound 3a. (brown line denotes bond path and orange sphere between them correspond to bcp).
Parameters of the bcp observed between the Trp 229 residue of RT and compound 3a: distance, hydrogen bond interaction energy, electron density and the Laplacian of electron density.
| Protein-ligand complex | Interaction | Distance (Å) | Energy of HBI (Kcal/mol) | Electron density (ρ) (a.u.) | Laplacian of electron density (∇2ρ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trp 229: | ( | 2.0916 | 4.2031 | 0.0198 | 0.0765 |
Fig. 13a)Plot of reduced density gradient (s) versus the electron density multiplied by the sign of the second Hessian eigen value for Trp 229 residue of RT and compound 3a complex. b)Reduced density gradient (RDG)-based NCI isosurfaces between the Trp 229 residue of RT and compound 3a. (The blue isosurfaces unambiguously characterize the short contacts with bcps as hydrogen bond interactions).