| Literature DB >> 34286142 |
K Velmurugan1, Derin Don1, Rajesh Kannan2, C Selvaraj3, S VishnuPriya4, G Selvaraj5, S K Singh3, R Nandhakumar1.
Abstract
Quinoline andEntities:
Keywords: 2-Chloro-3-formylquinolines; Antibacterial; Antioxidant; Chloro-imidazoquinolines; Hydroxy-imidazoquinolines; Molecular docking; Multidrug-resistant; Thio-imidazoquinolines
Year: 2021 PMID: 34286142 PMCID: PMC8273425 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07484
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Synthesis of various imidazoquinolines. (a) 4N HCl, reflux, 4h, (b) & (c) OPD, TEA, EtOH, reflux, 10 h, (d) Na2S, DMF, RT, Stir, 5 h.
Figure 2In vitro antibacterial activity of imidazoquinoline derivatives by disc-diffusion assay. (a) 3(a–f) (mg/disc), (b) 4(a–f) (mg/disc), (c) 5(a–f) (mg/disc). Ofloxacin was used as a control and error bars represent the standard deviation (SD) from three independent analyses. Insets show the statistical analysis of the differences between zone of inhibitions of all compounds 3–5(a-f). Analyzed results are displayed as mean ± SD (∗p value: 0.05–0.01; ∗∗p value: <0.001; ∗∗∗p value: <0.0001).
Figure 3(a, b) MIC and MBC of the selected imidazoquinolines (3f, 4e, 4f, 5e, and 5f) were compared with standard Ofloxacin. Error bars represent the SD from three independent analyses. Insets show the MIC and MBC of selected bacterial strains activity against imidazoquinolines (3f, 4e, 4f, 5e and 5f). Results are presented as mean ± SD (∗p value: 0.05–0.01; ∗∗p value: <0.001; ∗∗∗p value: <0.0001).
Figure 4Anti-oxidant activity of imidazoquinolines 3–5(a–f), (a) 1 mg/mL, (b) 10 mg/mL. BHT acts as a control and error bars represent the SD of three independent analyses. Insets shows the anti-oxidant activity of 3-5(a–f) against the FRAP. Values are mean of three determinations, the ranges of which are mean ± SD (∗p value: 0.05–0.01; ∗∗p value: <0.001; ∗∗∗p value: <0.0001).
Molecular docking scores of 3f, 4f, and 5f with various proteins are obtained via Glide docking.
| 1JIJ | 1EI1 | 4OR7 | 1PRE | 6SE1 | 1WVG | 2OZ5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Docking Score (kcal/mol) | |||||||
| -5.856 | -5.75 | -7.092 | -3.254 | -5.34 | -5.681 | -7.09 | |
| -4.746 | -5.62 | -7.271 | -3.527 | -4.085 | -4.522 | -4.998 | |
| -3.719 | -5.50 | -7.333 | -3.658 | -2.944 | -5.036 | -7.087 | |
| Docking Energy (kcal/mol) | |||||||
| -42.631 | -42.15 | -38.027 | -32.417 | -21.946 | -38.217 | -30.993 | |
| -38.106 | -42.13 | -34.736 | -28.773 | -20.645 | -35.474 | -34.333 | |
| -47.912 | -41.51 | -36.696 | -29.34 | -9.108 | -40.007 | -31.662 | |
| Glide Emodel (kcal/mol) | |||||||
| -60.326 | -57.34 | -46.985 | -39.417 | -5.063 | -45.29 | -41.582 | |
| -54.606 | -56.20 | -44.643 | -38.413 | -3.656 | -36.034 | -43.70 | |
| -62.649 | -56.24 | -47.257 | -36.846 | -2.327 | -36.596 | -44.246 | |
| Binding Energy (MM/GBSA) kcal/mol | |||||||
| -27.94 | -46.9 | -32.86 | -40.8 | -27.04 | -30.42 | -40.60 | |
| -40.16 | -47.25 | -33.43 | -34.13 | -24.9 | -31.31 | -40.22 | |
| -40.16 | -51.33 | -31.24 | -31.34 | -25.44 | -29.08 | -45.01 | |
| Number of Hydrogen Bonds | |||||||
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| π-π and π-cation Interactions (Numbers) | |||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
Figure 5Docking interaction between imidazoquinoline derivative 3f and selected targets; a) 3f-1JIJ complex; b) 3f-1EI1 complex; c) 3f-4OR7 complex; d) 3f-1PRE complex; e) 3f-6SE1 complex; f) 3f-1WVG complex; g) 3f-2OZ5 complex. Hydrogen bonding (pink arrow), π-π stacking (green arrow), and π-cation (red arrow).
Figure 6Docking interaction between imidazoquinoline derivative 4f and selected targets; a) 4f-1JIJ complex; b) 4f-1EI1 complex; c) 4f-4OR7 complex; d) 4f-1PRE complex; e) 4f-6SE1 complex; f) 4f-1WVG complex; g) 4f-2OZ5 complex. Hydrogen bonding (pink arrow), π-π stacking (green arrow), and π-cation (red arrow).
Figure 7Docking interaction between imidazoquinoline derivative 5f and selected targets; a) 5f-1JIJ complex; b) 5f-1EI1 complex; c) 5f-4OR7 complex; d) 5f-1PRE complex; e) 5f-6SE1 complex; f) 5f-1WVG complex; g) 5f-2OZ5 complex. Hydrogen bonding (pink arrow), π-π stacking (green arrow), and π-cation (red arrow).
Re-docking profiles of crystal bound ligands taken for the study with XP docking methodology.
| PDB ID | Name of the Co-crystal Structures | Docking Score (kcal/mol) | Docking energy (kcal/mol) | Glide Emodel (kcal/mol) | Binding energy (kcal/mol) | RMSD (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1JIJ | SB-239629 | 5.412 | -34.963 | -48.822 | -31.21 | 0.012 |
| 1EI1 | ANP | -5.290 | -38.067 | -54.99 | -50.07 | 0.009 |
| 1WVG | CXY | -4.302 | -41.660 | -38.739 | -34.003 | 0.018 |
| 2OZ5 | OMTS | -6.811 | -32.392 | -40.221 | -41.020 | 0.093 |
| 4OR7 | 25U | -5.309 | -41.720 | -51.342 | -34.293 | 0.037 |
Figure 8Re-docking interactions of the selected targets with ligands in the respective structures: (a) SB-239629, (b) ANP, (c) CXY, (d) OMTS and (e) 25U.