| Literature DB >> 34277698 |
Sankar Muthumanickam1, Arumugam Kamaladevi2, Pandi Boomi1, Shanmugaraj Gowrishankar3, Shunmugiah Karutha Pandian3.
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2, an etiological agent of COVID-19, has been the reason for the unexpected global pandemic, causing severe mortality and imposing devastative effects on public health. Despite extensive research work put forward by scientist around globe, so far, no suitable drug or vaccine (safe, affordable, and efficacious) has been identified to treat SARS-CoV-2. As an alternative way of improvising the COVID-19 treatment strategy, that is, strengthening of host immune system, a great deal of attention has been given to phytocompounds from medicinal herbs worldwide. In a similar fashion, the present study deliberately focuses on the phytochemicals of three Indian herbal medicinal plants viz., Mentha arvensis, Coriandrum sativum, and Ocimum sanctum for their efficacy to target well-recognized viral receptor protein through molecular docking and dynamic analyses. Nucleocapsid phosphoprotein (N) of SARS-CoV-2, being a pivotal player in replication, transcription, and viral genome assembly, has been recognized as one of the most attractive viral receptor protein targets for controlling the viral multiplication in the host. Out of 127 phytochemicals screened, nine (linarin, eudesmol, cadinene, geranyl acetate, alpha-thujene, germacrene A, kaempferol-3-O-glucuronide, kaempferide, and baicalin) were found to be phenomenal in terms of exhibiting high binding affinity toward the catalytic pocket of target N-protein. Further, the ADMET prediction analysis unveiled the non-tumorigenic, noncarcinogenic, nontoxic, non-mutagenic, and nonreproductive nature of the identified bioactive molecules. Furthermore, the data of molecular dynamic simulation validated the conformational and dynamic stability of the docked complexes. Concomitantly, the data of the present study validated the anti-COVID efficacy of the bioactives from selected medicinal plants of Indian origin.Entities:
Keywords: ADMET profiles; SARS-CoV-2; medicinal plants; molecular docking; molecular dynamic simulation; nucleocapsid phosphoprotein
Year: 2021 PMID: 34277698 PMCID: PMC8283196 DOI: 10.3389/fmolb.2021.637329
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Mol Biosci ISSN: 2296-889X
List of top three hit phytochemicals from each of the three selected plants (Mentha arvensis, Coriandrum sativum, and Ocimum tenuiflorum) along with their binding energy and interaction residues against the N protein as predicted through molecular docking.
| Compound name | Binding affinity | Interaction residues |
|---|---|---|
| Interaction diagram of | ||
| Eudesmol | −10.1 | ALA264, PHE274, ARG277, PHE286, TRP301 |
| Linarin | −8.4 | PHE274, ARG277, THR282, GLY284, PHE286 |
| (−)−Gamma-cadinene | -7.5 | ALA264, VAL270, PHE271, LEU291, TRP301 |
|
| ||
| (+)−Germacrene | −7.1 | PHE314, TYR333 |
| Alpha-thujene | −6.5 | ALA264, VAL270, PHE286, LEU291, TRP301 |
| Geranyl acetate | −6.2 | ALA264, VAL270, ARG277, GLU284, PHE286 |
|
| ||
| Baicalin | −9.6 | GLN260, GLN281,THR282, GLY284 |
| Kaempferol-3-o-Glucuronide | −9.2 | GLN260, PHE314, THY333 |
| Kaempferol | −9.1 | PHE274, GLN281, LEU291 |
FIGURE 1Binding patterns of the top phytoligands from Mentha arvensis against the N protein.
FIGURE 2Binding patterns of the top phytoligands from Coriandrum sativum against the N protein.
FIGURE 3Binding patterns of the top phytoligands from Ocimum tenuiflorum against the N protein.
Pharmacodynamic profile of top three hit phytochemicals from each of the three selected plants (Mentha arvensis, Coriandrum sativum, and Ocimum tenuiflorum).
| Properties | Eudesmol | Linarin | (−)−Gamma-cadinene | (+)-Germacrene A | Alpha-thujene | Geranyl acetate | Baicalin | Kaempferol-3-O-glucuronide | Kaempferide | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Absorption | Blood–brain barrier | BBB+ | BBB− | BBB+ | BBB+ | BBB+ | BBB+ | BBB− | BBB− | BBB− |
| Human intestinal absorption | HIA+ | HIA+ | HIA+ | HIA+ | HIA+ | HIA+ | HIA+ | HIA+ | HIA+ | |
| Caco-2 permeability | Caco2+ | Caco2− | Caco2+ | Caco2+ | Caco2+ | Caco2+ | Caco2− | Caco2− | Caco2+ | |
| Renal organic transporter | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | |
| Aqueous solubility (LogS) | −3.6183 | −2.5665 | −5.3703 | −4.9808 | −4.1737 | −3.6996 | −3.4620 | −3.4620 | −3.2219 | |
| Distribution | Subcellular localization | Lysosome | Mitochondria | Lysosome | Lysosome | Lysosome | Mitochondria | Mitochondria | Mitochondria | Mitochondria |
| Metabolism | CYP450 2C9 Substrate | Non-substrate | Non-substrate | Non-substrate | Non-substrate | Non-substrate | Non-substrate | Non-substrate | Non-substrate | Non-substrate |
| CYP450 1A2 inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | |
| CYP450 2D6 inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | Non-inhibitor | |
| Toxicity | Human ether-a-go-go-related Gene inhibition | Weak inhibitor | Weak inhibitor | Weak inhibitor | Weak inhibitor | Weak inhibitor | Weak inhibitor | Weak inhibitor | Weak inhibitor | Weak inhibitor |
| AMES toxicity | Non AMES toxic | Non-AMES toxic | Non-AMES toxic | Non-AMES toxic | Non-AMES toxic | Non-AMES toxic | Non-AMES toxic | Non-AMES toxic | Non-AMES toxic | |
| Carcinogens | Noncarcinogens | Noncarcinogens | Noncarcinogens | Noncarcinogens | Noncarcinogens | Carcinogens | Noncarcinogens | Noncarcinogens | Non-carcinogens | |
| Acute oral toxicity | III | III | III | III | III | III | II | II | III | |
| Rat acute toxicity | 1.8911 | 2.6036 | 1.8911 | 1.5595 | 1.5330 | 1.5219 | 2.7357 | 2.7357 | 2.7192 | |
| Fish toxicity | −0.3218 | 0.9183 | −0.3218 | −0.7436 | −0.3500 | 0.2099 | 0.5766 | 0.5766 | 0.6628 |
In silico drug-likeness and molecular property prediction in top three hit phytochemicals from each of the three selected plants (Mentha arvensis, Coriandrum sativum, and Ocimum tenuiflorum).
| Phytoligands | MW | HBD | HBA | Log p[<5] | TPSA | nRO | nViol |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Endesmol | 222.37 | 1 | 1 | 4.01 | 20.23 | 1 | 0 |
| Linarin | 519.55 | 7 | 14 | 0.51 | 217.98 | 7 | 3 |
| (−)−Gamma-cadinene | 204.36 | 0 | 0 | 5.75 | 0.00 | 1 | 1 |
| (+)−Germacrene A | 204.36 | 0 | 0 | 5.46 | 0.00 | 1 | 1 |
| Alpha-thujene | 136.24 | 0 | 0 | 3.31 | 0.00 | 1 | 0 |
| Geranyl acetate | 196.29 | 0 | 0 | 3.91 | 26.30 | 6 | 0 |
| Baicalin | 187.12 | 6 | 11 | 0.55 | 187.12 | 4 | 2 |
| Kaempferol-3-O-glucuronide | 462.36 | 7 | 12 | 0.00 | 207.35 | 4 | 2 |
| Kaempferide | 300.27 | 3 | 6 | 2.71 | 100.13 | 2 | 0 |
MW: molecular weight, HBD: hydrogen bond donor, HBA: hydrogen bond acceptor, Log p, TPSA: total polar surface area, nRO: number of rotatable bond, nViol: number of violation.
FIGURE 4RMSD backbone plot for N-protein–inhibitor complexes (nine complexes) during 50 ns simulation as a function of timescale in ps.
FIGURE 5RMS fluctuation plot for N-protein–inhibitor complexes (nine complexes) during the 50 ns simulation as a function of the number of residues.
FIGURE 6Hydrogen bond plot for N-protein–inhibitor complexes (nine complexes) during the 50 ns simulation as a function of timescale in ps.