| Literature DB >> 33432258 |
Olfa Noureddine1, Noureddine Issaoui1, Mouna Medimagh1, Omar Al-Dossary2, Houda Marouani3.
Abstract
Structure-activity relationships for hydroxychloroquine compound and its derivatives resulted in a potent antiviral activity. Where hydroxychloroquine derivatives showed an apparent efficacy against coronavirus related pneumonia. For this reason, the current study is focused on the structural properties of hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine sulfate. Optimized structures of these molecules have been reported by using DFT method at B3LYP/6-31G* level of theory. The geometric were determined and compared with the experimental crystal structure. The intra and intermolecular interactions which exist within these compounds are analyzed by different methods namely the topological analysis AIM, ELF and the reduced gradient of the density. These approaches make it possible in particular to study the properties of hydrogen bonds. The highest occupied molecular orbital and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy levels are constructed and the corresponding frontier energy gaps are determined to realize the charge transfer within the molecule. The densities of state diagrams were determined to calculate contributions to the molecular orbitals. The molecular electrostatic potential surfaces are determined to give a visual representation of charge distribution of these ligands and to provide information linked to electrophilic and nucleophilic sites localization. Finally, these derivatives were evaluated for the inhibition of COVID-19 activity by using the molecular docking method.Entities:
Keywords: DFT method; HOMO-LUMO; MEP; Molecular docking calculations; Structural analysis
Year: 2021 PMID: 33432258 PMCID: PMC7787522 DOI: 10.1016/j.jksus.2020.101334
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J King Saud Univ Sci ISSN: 1018-3647
Fig. 1Optimized structures of the hydroxychloroquine (a) and the hydroxychloroquine sulfate by using DFT/B3LYP/6-31G* method.
Fig. 2Graphical representations of the AIM analysis of the hydroxychloroquine (A) and hydroxychloroquine sulfate (B).
Topological properties of chloroquine derivatives.
| Interactions | ρ (r) | ∇2 ρ (r) | H(r) | G(r) | V(r) | λ 1 | λ 2 | λ 3 | Ebond kJ.mol−1 | ELF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hydroxychloroquine | ||||||||||
| N4-H31…H45 | 0.0126 | 0.0542 | 0.0025 | 0.01106 | −0.0085 | 0.0766 | −0.0136 | −0.0087 | 11.158 | 0.0308 |
| C8-H28…H44 | 0.0105 | 0.0467 | 0.0028 | 0.0089 | −0.0060 | −0.0080 | −0.0021 | 0.0569 | 7.876 | 0.0259 |
| C14-H40…C17 | 0.0011 | 0.0035 | 0.0003 | 0.0006 | −0.0003 | −0.0006 | 0.0046 | −0.0004 | 0.393 | 0.0025 |
| Hydroxychloroquine sulfate | ||||||||||
| C47-H48…N13 | 0.0141 | 0.0583 | 0.0023 | 0.0122 | −0.0099 | 0.0723 | −0.0019 | −0.0121 | 12.996 | 0.0360 |
| C32-H14…N13 | 0.0396 | 0.0994 | −0.0024 | 0.0273 | −0.0298 | −0.0605 | −0.0582 | 0.2181 | 39.119 | 0.1892 |
| C47-H48…O5 | 0.0082 | 0.0310 | 0.0011 | 0.0066 | −0.0054 | −0.0032 | 0.0415 | −0.7288 | 7.088 | 0.0213 |
| N9- | 0.0635 | 0.1772 | −0.0060 | 0.0503 | −0.0563 | 0.4135 | −0.1155 | −0.1208 | 73.907 | 0.2500 |
| S1-H55…O5 | 0.0062 | 0.0245 | 0.0010 | 0.0051 | −0.0040 | −0.0056 | −0.0027 | 0.0329 | 0.525 | 0.0141 |
| C29-H31…O4 | 0.0154 | 0.0497 | 0.0002 | 0.0121 | −0.0118 | 0.0815 | −0.0167 | −0.0151 | 15.490 | 0.0488 |
| C26-H28…O4 | 0.0103 | 0.0389 | 0.0011 | 0.0085 | −0.0073 | −0.0086 | −0.0075 | 0.0550 | 9.583 | 0.0267 |
| C17-H19…O4 | 0.0107 | 0.0350 | 0.0006 | 0.0081 | −0.0074 | −0.0104 | 0.0553 | −0.0099 | 9.714 | 0.0326 |
| C34-H35…O3 | 0.0091 | 0.0394 | 0.0016 | 0.0081 | −0.0065 | −0.0074 | −0.0047 | 0.0516 | 8.532 | 0.0192 |
Fig. 3Graphical representation of the reduced density gradient versus the electron density (A, B) and the different types of interactions (C, D) of hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine sulfate compounds.
Fig. 4Shaded surface maps with projection effect of electron localization function (ELF) of hydroxychloroquine (a) and hydroxychloroquine sulfate (b).
Fig. 5Plots of the frontier molecular orbitals of hydroxychloroquine in gas phase (a) and in water (b) by using TD-DFT calculations.
Calculated of some global reactivity descriptors of chloroquine derivatives.
| Parameters | Hydroxychloroquine | Hydroxychloroquine sulfate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| In gas | In Water | In gas | In Water | |
| ELUMO | −1.052 | −1.139 | −1.271 | −1.843 |
| EHOMO | −5.553 | −5.515 | −5.618 | −6.094 |
| Energy band gap | −4.500 | −4.376 | −4.347 | −4.250 |
| Ionization potential (I) | 5.553 | 5.515 | 5.618 | 6.094 |
| Electron affinity (A) | 1.052 | 1.139 | 1.271 | 1.843 |
| Chemical hardness (η) | 4.501 | 2.188 | 4.347 | 2.125 |
| Chemical softness (ζ) | 2.250 | 1.094 | 2.173 | 1.062 |
| Electronegativity (χ) | 3.302 | 3.327 | 3.444 | 3.968 |
| Chemical potential (μ) | −3.302 | −3.327 | −3.444 | −3.968 |
| Electrophilicity index (ω) | 1.211 | 2.529 | 1.364 | 3.704 |
| Maximum charge transfer index (ΔNmax) | 0.733 | 1.520 | 1.012 | 1.867 |
I = –EHOMO, A = –ELUMO, η = (I–A)/2, ζ = 1/2 η, χ = (I + A)/2, μ = –(I + A)/2, ω = μ2/2 η and ΔNmax. = –μ/ η.
Fig. 6Molecular electrostatic potential (MEP) maps of hydroxychloroquine in gas phase (a) and in water (b).
Fig. 72D visual representation of hydroxychloroquine ligand-COVID-19 virus.
Docking results of hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine sulfate in COVID-19 protein.
| Ligands | Hydroxychloroquine | Hydroxychloroquine sulfate | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target protein | 5R7Y | 6M03 | 6LU7 | 5R7Y | 6LU7 | 6M03 |
| Total energy | −76.987 | −73.430 | −72.878 | −117.738 | −105.153 | −98.412 |
| VDW | −67.392 | −64.115 | −57.505 | −94.484 | −93.360 | −95.386 |
| H-bond | −9.595 | −9.315 | −15.373 | −18.717 | −12.361 | −3.026 |
| Electronic | 0 | 0 | 0 | −4.536 | 0.578 | 0 |
| Binding affinities | −7.1 | −6.6 | −6.1 | −2.8 | −2.8 | −2.4 |