| Literature DB >> 33786727 |
Anshul Shakya1, Rupesh V Chikhale2, Hans Raj Bhat1, Fatmah Ali Alasmary3, Tahani Mazyad Almutairi3, Surajit Kumar Ghosh1, Hassna Mohammed Alhajri3, Siham A Alissa4, Shuchi Nagar5, Md Ataul Islam6,7,8.
Abstract
Transmembrane protease serine-2 (TMPRSS2) is a cell-surface protein expressed by epithelial cells of specific tissues including those in the aerodigestive tract. It helps the entry of novel coronavirus (n-CoV) or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the host cell. Successful inhibition of the TMPRSS2 can be one of the crucial strategies to stop the SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the present study, a set of bioactive molecules from Morus alba Linn. were screened against the TMPRSS2 through two widely used molecular docking engines such as Autodock vina and Glide. Molecules having a higher binding affinity toward the TMPRSS2 compared to Camostat and Ambroxol were considered for in-silico pharmacokinetic analyses. Based on acceptable pharmacokinetic parameters and drug-likeness, finally, five molecules were found to be important for the TMPRSS2 inhibition. A number of bonding interactions in terms of hydrogen bond and hydrophobic interactions were observed between the proposed molecules and ligand-interacting amino acids of the TMPRSS2. The dynamic behavior and stability of best-docked complex between TRMPRSS2 and proposed molecules were assessed through molecular dynamics (MD) simulation. Several parameters from MD simulation have suggested the stability between the protein and ligands. Binding free energy of each molecule calculated through MM-GBSA approach from the MD simulation trajectory suggested strong affection toward the TMPRSS2. Hence, proposed molecules might be crucial chemical components for the TMPRSS2 inhibition.Entities:
Keywords: Molecular docking; Morus alba Linn.; SARS-CoV-2; TMPRSS2; Virtual screening
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33786727 PMCID: PMC8009078 DOI: 10.1007/s11030-021-10209-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Divers ISSN: 1381-1991 Impact factor: 2.943
Fig. 1Virtual screening work of TMPRSS2 inhibitors
Fig. 2Two-dimensional representation of the selected bioactives compounds, A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 from the M. alba considered potential anti-TMPRSS2 activity
Dock score from Glide and Autodock vina, and binding energy from Prime-MMGBSA
| Compound | Prime-MMGBSA BE | Glide dock score | Vina dock score |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | − 70.472 | − 9.574 | − 8.80 |
| A2 | − 56.060 | − 7.980 | − 9.00 |
| A3 | − 50.510 | − 7.888 | − 8.90 |
| A4 | − 46.680 | − 7.807 | − 8.10 |
| A5 | − 60.830 | − 7.426 | − 9.30 |
| Ambroxol | − 25.000 | − 6.230 | − 7.20 |
| Camostat | − 44.480 | − 7.210 | − 7.90 |
Fig. 3The binding interaction of A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 with the active site of the TMPRSS2
Fig. 4The binding mode of A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 with the active site of the TMPRSS2
Pharmacokinetic and drug-likeness properties
| Compound | Violation of LoF | GI absorption | TPSA | BBB permeation | Veber’s rule violation | Synthetic accessibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 0 | High | 128.84 | No | 0 | 5.63 |
| A2 | 0 | High | 90.90 | No | 0 | 4.24 |
| A3 | 0 | High | 100.13 | No | 0 | 4.43 |
| A4 | 0 | High | 111.13 | No | 0 | 3.14 |
| A5 | 0 | High | 96.22 | No | 0 | 4.77 |
Fig. 5TMPRSS2 backbone RMSD bound with proposed molecules
Average, maximum and minimum values of MD simulation parameters
| Parameters | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TMPRSS2 (Ca, C and N) | |||||
| Average | 3.702 | 2.550 | 3.421 | 3.730 | 3.832 |
| Maximum | 5.286 | 3.811 | 4.446 | 5.437 | 5.887 |
| Minimum | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Ligand | |||||
| Average | 1.634 | 0.378 | 0.311 | 0.289 | 0.313 |
| Maximum | 2.734 | 1.375 | 1.238 | 1.310 | 0.688 |
| Minimum | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Average | 1.898 | 1.595 | 1.809 | 1.719 | 2.001 |
| Maximum | 13.293 | 9.379 | 9.486 | 8.344 | 12.260 |
| Minimum | 0.541 | 0.488 | 0.535 | 0.597 | 0.737 |
| Average | 24.280 | 23.965 | 24.624 | 23.791 | 24.677 |
| Maximum | 24.942 | 24.568 | 25.229 | 24.315 | 25.308 |
| Minimum | 23.779 | 23.525 | 23.915 | 23.373 | 24.005 |
Fig. 6RMSF of individual amino residue of TMPRSS2 bound with A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5
Fig. 7Radius of gyration against simulation time of TMPRSS2 bound with A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5
Fig. 8The number of HBs forming between TMPRSS2 and proposed ligands in due course of simulation time
Binding free energy of proposed TMPRSS2 inhibitors
| Molecule | Energy (Kcal/mol) | Standard error of | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| aElec | bvdW | |||
| A1 | − 37.317 | − 43.564 | − 36.546 | 4.726 |
| A2 | − 19.191 | − 51.521 | − 42.252 | 3.370 |
| A3 | − 18.494 | − 45.633 | − 36.534 | 2.617 |
| A4 | − 25.883 | − 35.702 | − 30.462 | 3.079 |
| A5 | − 25.566 | − 50.009 | − 42.916 | 3.845 |
aElectrostatic
bven der Waal’s