| Literature DB >> 34026798 |
V Umashankar1, Sanjay H Deshpande1, Harsha V Hegde1, Ishwar Singh1, Debprasad Chattopadhyay1.
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2 infection across the world has led to immense turbulence in the treatment modality, thus demanding a swift drug discovery process. Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 binds to ACE2 receptor of human to initiate host invasion. Plethora of studies demonstrate the inhibition of Spike-ACE2 interactions to impair infection. The ancient Indian traditional medicine has been of great interest of Virologists worldwide to decipher potential antivirals. Hence, in this study, phytochemicals (1,952 compounds) from eight potential medicinal plants used in Indian traditional medicine were meticulously collated, based on their usage in respiratory disorders, along with immunomodulatory and anti-viral potential from contemporary literature. Further, these compounds were virtually screened against Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) of Spike protein. The potential compounds from each plant were prioritized based on the binding affinity, key hotspot interactions at ACE2 binding region and glycosylation sites. Finally, the potential hits in complex with spike protein were subjected to Molecular Dynamics simulation (450 ns), to infer the stability of complex formation. Among the compounds screened, Tellimagrandin-II (binding energy of -8.2 kcal/mol and binding free energy of -32.08 kcal/mol) from Syzygium aromaticum L. and O-Demethyl-demethoxy-curcumin (binding energy of -8.0 kcal/mol and binding free energy of -12.48 kcal/mol) from Curcuma longa L. were found to be highly potential due to their higher binding affinity and significant binding free energy (MM-PBSA), along with favorable ADMET properties and stable intermolecular interactions with hotspots (including the ASN343 glycosylation site). The proposed hits are highly promising, as these are resultant of stringent in silico checkpoints, traditionally used, and are documented through contemporary literature. Hence, could serve as promising leads for subsequent experimental validations.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; docking; drug design; molecular dynamics; traditional medicine
Year: 2021 PMID: 34026798 PMCID: PMC8137902 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.672629
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
Figure 1Illustration of SARS-CoV-2 in complex with Human ACE2 receptor.
Figure 2S1 and S2 region of spike glycoprotein and ACE2 receptor [Blue, S1 Domain; Pink, S2 Domain; Green, S1 Receptor binding domain (RBD); Red, ACE2 Receptor] (PDB ID 7KJ2).
Figure 3Receptor binding Domain of spike glycoprotein (Molecular Surface View) (PDB ID 7BZ5).
Figure 4A schematic representation of methodologies implemented in this study.
Figure 5Represents the region of docking grid fixation (yellow surface) based on the documented active site residues and P2RANK prediction including glycosylation site (PDB ID 7BZ5).
Compounds from each plant with best binding energy/score.
| NITM1 | Rutaecarpine | −7.9 | −6.15 | SER371 (3.23), SER373 (3.14) | PHE342 (3.16), VAL367 (3.39), LEU368 (3.67), PHE374 (3.64) | TRP436 | |
| NITM2 | Licoagrodin | −8.7 | −9.45 | GLY339 (3.13), ASP364 (3.49), VAL367 (4.06), SER371 (3.13) | PHE338 (3.89), GLU340 (3.71), ASP364 (2.93), VAL367 (3.69), LEU368 (3.46), PHE374 (3.93), TRP436 (3.83) | ||
| NITM3 | 3-O-Galloylepicatechin-(4Beta-6)-Epicatechin-3-O-Gallate | −8.3 | −10.95 | PHE338 (2.46), ASN370 (2.17), SER71 (2.57), SER373 (2.21), ASN437 (3.44), ASN440 (2.67) | PHE338 (3.77), PHE342 (3.63), VAL367 (3.58) | ||
| NITM4 | Daucosterol | −7.6 | −12.77 | PHE342 (3.23), SER373 (3.72), TRP436 (3.13) ARG509 (2.94) | LEU335 (3.41), PHE338 (3.55), PHE342 (3.51), ASP364 (3.94), VAL367 (3.72), PHE374 (3.80) | ||
| NITM5 | Caryophyllene | −8.1 | −13.77 | PHE338 (2.87), GLY339 (2.88), SER373 (2.70) | LEU335 (3.00), PHE338 (3.75), PHE342 (3.89), ASP364 (3.30), VAL367 (3.62), LEU368 (3.19), PHE374 (3.72) | ||
| NITM6 | Geraniin | −8.2 | −9.40 | VAL362 (3.79), ASP364 (3.04), VAL367 (3.29), SER371 (3.81) | LEU368 (3.68) | ||
| NITM7 | O-Demethyl demethoxycurcumin | −8.0 | −7.84 | CYS336 (3.04), ASP364 (3.84) | LEU335 (3.70), PHE338 (3.42), ASP364 (3.67), VAL367 (3.55), LEU368 (3.95), PHE374 (3.85) | PHE374, TRP436 | |
| NITM8 | Tellimagrandin-II | −8.2 | −15.68 | CYS336 (2.90), PRO337 (3.52), GLY339 (3.72), GLU340 (3.37), ASN343 (3.15), ASP364 (3.73), VAL367 (3.72), SER371 (2.91), SER373 (2.93) | PHE338 (3.28), VAL367 (3.47), LEU368 (3.39) | ||
Binding energy—Autodock binding score; KDeep ΔG—absolute protein ligand binding affinity calculated using KDeep tool.
Figure 63D diagram of RBD of Spike Glycoprotein in complex with (A) Rutaecarpine, (B) Licoagrodin, (C) 3-O-Galloylepicatechin-(4Beta-6)-Epicatechin-3-O-Gallate, (D) Daucosterol, (E) Caryophyllene, (F) Geraniin, (G) O-Demethyldemethoxycurcumin, and (H) Tellimagrandin-II.
Figure 7Protein Backbone RMSD plots from Molecular dynamics for all the 8 top ranking protein-ligand complexes.
Figure 8Ligand RMSD plot from Molecular dynamics for all the 8 molecules.
Figure 9Protein-Ligand RMSD plot of Spike protein O-Demethyldemethoxycurcumin complex.
Figure 10(A) Protein-ligand contact map for 50ns duration for Spike protein and O-Demethyl-demethoxycurcumin complex. (B) Protein -ligand contacts of Spike protein-O-Demethyl-demethoxycurcumin complex simulation (Blue, water bridges; Green, Hbonds; Violet, Hydrophobic).
Figure 11Protein-Ligand RMSD plots of Spike protein Tellimagrandin-II complex.
Figure 12(A) Protein-ligand contact map for 50ns duration for Spike protein and Tellimagrandin-II complex. (B) Protein - ligand contacts of Spike protein Tellimagrandin-II complex simulation (Blue, water bridges; Green, Hbonds; Violet, Hydrophobic).