| Literature DB >> 34202092 |
Luis Daniel Goyzueta-Mamani1, Haruna Luz Barazorda-Ccahuana1, Karel Mena-Ulecia2,3, Miguel Angel Chávez-Fumagalli1.
Abstract
(1) Background: The COVID-19 pandemic lacks treatments; for tEntities:
Keywords: Bioinformatics; Peru; Rutin; SARS-CoV-2; drug discovery; in silico; natural products
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34202092 PMCID: PMC8270280 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26133882
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Bibliometric map created by VOSviewer based on MeSH terms co-occurrence.
Natural compounds description of S. sonchilofolius.
| PubChem ID | Structure | Name | Part of the Plant/Extract | TMW | cLogP | HBA | HBB | TPSA | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 689043 |
| Caffeic acid | Roots/Methanolic extract | 180.16 | 0.78 | 4 | 3 | 136.56 | [ |
| 1794427 |
| Chlorogenic acid | Roots/Methanolic extract | 354.31 | −0.768 | 9 | 6 | 245.29 | [ |
| 445858 |
| Ferulic acid | Roots | 194.19 | 1.06 | 4 | 2 | 152.47 | [ |
| 131753040 |
| Sonchifolin | Leaves/Methanolic extract | 374.43 | 4.06 | 6 | 0 | 294.45 | [ |
| 101324862 |
| Polymatin B | Leaves/NA | 432.47 | 3.52 | 8 | 0 | 333.2 | [ |
| 92043370 |
| Uvedalin | Leaves/dichloromethane extract | 448.47 | 2.09 | 9 | 0 | 335.55 | [ |
| 101250074 |
| Fluctuanin | Leaves/dichloromethane extract | 448.47 | 2.09 | 9 | 0 | 335.55 | [ |
| 73062 |
| Kaurenoic acid | Leaves/NA | 302.46 | 4.12 | 2 | 1 | 223.44 | [ |
| 370 |
| Gallic acid | Leaves/NA | 170.12 | 0.11 | 5 | 4 | 116.41 | [ |
| 5280805 |
| Rutin | Leaves/NA | 610.52 | -1.26 | 16 | 10 | 397.71 | [ |
| 5281672 |
| Myricetin | Leaves/NA | 318.24 | 1.14 | 8 | 6 | 208.29 | [ |
| 5280863 |
| Kaempferol | Leaves/NA | 286.24 | 1.84 | 6 | 4 | 195.59 | [ |
| 5280343 |
| Quercetin | Leaves/NA | 302.24 | 1.49 | 7 | 5 | 201.94 | [ |
TMW: Total Molecular weight; iLOGP: octanol/water partition coefficient, HBAs: Number of H-Bond acceptors; HBDs: Number of H-bond Donors; TPSA: molecular polar surface area.
Natural compounds description of L. meyenii.
| PubChemID | Structure | Name | Part of the Plant/Extract | TMW | cLogP | HBA | HBB | TPSA | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 656498 |
| Glucotropaeolin | Hypocotyl, roots/ethanol extract | 409.44 | −0.75 | 10 | 5 | 270.57 | [ |
| 6602400 |
| Glucosinalbin | Hypocotyl/methanol extract | 425.43 | −1.09 | 11 | 6 | 276.92 | [ |
| 5485207 |
| Glucobrassicanapin | Hypocotyl/methanol extract | 387.43 | −0.559 | 10 | 5 | 262.87 | [ |
| 5317667 |
| Glucobrassicin | Hypocotyl/methanol extract | 447.46 | −1.957 | 11 | 5 | 295.92 | [ |
| 11198769 |
| Hypocotyl/hexane-ethanol extract | 345.57 | 7.43 | 2 | 1 | 321.13 | [ | |
| 220495 |
| Hypocotyl/hexane-ethanol extract | 373.62 | 8.34 | 2 | 1 | 348.65 | [ | |
| 68742556 |
| Hypocotyl/hexane-ethanol extract | 369.59 | 7.84 | 2 | 1 | 346.61 | [ | |
| 68741582 |
| Hypocotyl/hexane-ethanol extract | 367.58 | 7.59 | 2 | 1 | 345.59 | [ | |
| 5280450 |
| Linoleic acid | Hypocotyl/ether extracts | 280.45 | 6.47 | 2 | 1 | 267.98 | [ |
| 445639 |
| Oleic acid | Hypocotyl/ether extracts | 282.47 | 6.72 | 2 | 1 | 269 | [ |
| 71386083 |
| 7-Tridecanoic acid | Hypocotyl/hexane extracts | 212.33 | 4.45 | 2 | 1 | 200.2 | [ |
TMW: Total Molecular weight; iLOGP: octanol/water partition coefficient, HBAs: Number of H-Bond acceptors; HBDs: Number of H-bond Donors; TPSA: molecular polar surface area.
Figure 2Binding affinities of the molecules selected from S. sonchilofolius and L. meyenii toward three main molecular targets of SARS-CoV2. Box plots with minimum and maximum values of binding affinities for targets. Main protease (A), Papain-like protease (B), and N-terminal RNA binding domain of nucleocapsid protein (C) are shown. Scatter plot showing binding affinities versus drug-likeness score for main protease (D), Papain-like protease (E), and N-terminal RNA binding domain of nucleocapsid protein (F) are shown.
Average values of the parameters root mean squared deviation (RMSD), and radii of gyration (Rg) analyzed for all trajectory (50 ns).
| Mpro | Mpro * | Plpro | PLpro * | N | N * | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMSD (nm) | 0.18 ± 0.04 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.52 ± 0.12 | 0.58 ± 0.14 | 0.17 ± 0.04 | 0.13 ± 0.02 |
| RG (nm) | 2.55 ± 0.01 | 2.55 ± 0.01 | 3.28 ± 0.05 | 3.24 ± 0.05 | 1.52 ± 0.01 | 1.53 ± 0.01 |
* Protein with Rutin.
Figure 3RMSF of C-alpha atoms per residue of protein with ligand (purple) and without ligand (green). (A) RMSF for Mpro; (B) RMSF for PLpro; (C) RMSF for N protein.
Binding free energies estimated for SARS-CoV-2 targets with Rutin by MM/GBSA method.
| Energy Component | Mpro-Rutin | Plpro-Rutin | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | Std Dev | Std Err of Mean | Average | Std Dev | Std Err of Mean | Average | Std Dev | Std Err of Mean | |
| VDWAALS | −53.481 | 4.310 | 0.193 | −21.713 | 6.213 | 0.278 | −34.342 | 3.510 | 0.157 |
| EEL | −33.983 | 10.924 | 0.488 | −47.024 | 23.706 | 1.059 | −19.027 | 7.432 | 0.332 |
| EGB | 53.900 | 7.243 | 0.324 | 60.491 | 18.393 | 0.822 | 31.047 | 5.453 | 0.244 |
| ESURF | −6.730 | 0.402 | 0.018 | −3.451 | 0.816 | 0.036 | −4.684 | 0.371 | 0.017 |
| Δ Ggas | −87.463 | 11.289 | 0.504 | −68.737 | 22.061 | 0.986 | −53.370 | 8.381 | 0.374 |
| Δ Gsolv | 47.170 | 7.075 | 0.316 | 57.041 | 18.012 | 0.805 | 26.363 | 5.246 | 0.234 |
| Δ TOTAL | −40.293 | 5.740 | 0.256 | −11.697 | 6.628 | 0.296 | −27.007 | 4.115 | 0.184 |
VDWAALS = Van Der Waals energy; EEL = Electrostatic energy; EGB = Electrostatic contribution free energy calculated by Generalized Born; ESURF = nonpolar contribution to the solvation free energy; Δ Ggas = estimated binding free energy phase gas; Δ Gsolv = estimates binding free energy solvent; Δ TOTAL = Estimated binding free energy. Values of energy in kcal/mol.
Figure 4Comparison of molecular dynamics simulation trajectory between Rutin and Lopinavir. (A) SARS-CoV-2 Mpro with Lopinavir in the last frame of the MD simulations. (B) SARS-CoV-2 with Rutin in the last frame of the MD simulations. (C) RMSD plotting of backbone of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro.