| Literature DB >> 34727985 |
Suchitra Maheswari Ajjarapu1,2, Apoorv Tiwari1,3, Gohar Taj1, Dev Bukhsh Singh4, Sakshi Singh5, Sundip Kumar6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the world's dreaded disease and its prevalence is expanding globally. The study of integrated molecular networks is crucial for the basic mechanism of cancer cells and their progression. During the present investigation, we have examined different flavonoids that target protein kinases B (AKT1) protein which exerts their anticancer efficiency intriguing the role in cross-talk cell signalling, by metabolic processes through in-silico approaches.Entities:
Keywords: ADME; AKT1; Dynamic simulations; Point mutation; QSAR; Virtual docking
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34727985 PMCID: PMC8564994 DOI: 10.1186/s40360-021-00512-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pharmacol Toxicol ISSN: 2050-6511 Impact factor: 2.483
Comparison of primary sequence analysis using the ProtParam tool between AKT1 (wild) and W80R (mutant)
| S.No | Parameters | AKT1 | W80R |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Molecular weight | 5586.7kD | 5565.4kD |
| 2 | pI | 5.75 | 5.99 |
| 3 | Aliphatic Index | 71.69 | 71.69 |
| 4 | Instability Index | 35.47 | 35.76 |
| 5 | GRAVY | −0.575 | −0.583 |
| 6 | Atoms | 7772 | 7776 |
| 7 | Total number of Asp+Glu residues in a protein content | 77 | 76 |
| 8 | Total number of Arg + Lysresidues in a protein content | 66 | 68 |
Comparison of secondary structure using RAMPAGE server between AKT1and W80R mutants
| S.No | Protein Properties | AKT1(wild) | W80R(mutant) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Total amino acids | 480 | 480 |
| 2 | Number of residues in favoured region (−98.0% expected) | 388 (81.2%) | 379 (79.3%) |
| Number of residues in allowed region(−2.0% expected) | 61 (12.8%) | 66 (13.8%) | |
| 3 | Number of residues in outlier region | 29 (6.1%) | 33 (6.9%) |
Fig. 1Protein structure analysis (ProSA) of the W80R (mutant) on the left side and AKT1(wild) on the right side. (A) The overall quality of the W80R model represents a Z score of −7.9Kcal/mol (B) Overall quality of the wild protein AKT1 represents a Z score of − 7.2Kcal/mol
Detailed analysis of ADME properties of ligands using QIKPROP software
*SASA: total solvent accessible surface area in square angstroms using a probe with a 1.4A radius; FISA: hydrophilic component of the SASA (SASA on N, O, and H on heteroatom); FOSA: hydrophobic component of the SASA (saturated carbon and attached hydrogen); CID ID: compound Id from PubChem database.
Detailed analysis of ADME properties of ligands using QIKPROP software
*.Donor HB: it is the calculated number of hydrogen bonds that would be donated by the solute to water molecules in an aqueous solution, values are averages take over many configurations, so they can be non-integer; Acceptor HB: it is estimated as the number of hydrogen bonds that would be accepted by the solute from water molecules in aqueous solution; dip2/v: square of the dipole moment divided by the molecular volume. This is the key term given in Kirkwood-Onsager equation for the free energy described of solvation of a dipole moment with volume V; AC*DN: index of cohesive interaction in solids; Volume: total solvent-accessible volume in the cubic angstroms using a probe with 1.4 A radius.
Solubility prediction parameters for molecular descriptors
| CID | QPlogpC1 | QPlogPW | Qplogpoct | QPlogPw | QPlogPo | QPlogS | ClQPlogS | QPlogHER | QPPCaco | QPPMDCK | QPlogKp |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5,318,278.0 | 27.1 | 6.7 | 11.8 | 5.4 | 2.9 | −4.5 | −3.0 | − 4.1 | 1992.1 | 1042.1 | − 2.8 |
| 5,469,422.0 | 22.7 | 5.0 | 8.7 | 5.1 | 1.8 | −2.8 | −1.9 | − 4.0 | 3923.3 | 2167.8 | −2.3 |
| 5,469,423.0 | 25.8 | 6.3 | 14.3 | 10.0 | 1.5 | −3.3 | −2.2 | − 3.9 | 3923.0 | 2167.6 | −2.3 |
| 5,907,705.0 | 25.8 | 6.3 | 13.7 | 10.0 | 1.5 | −3.3 | −2.2 | −3.9 | 3923.1 | 2167.7 | −2.3 |
| 443,637.0 | 30.4 | 6.9 | 10.9 | 5.1 | 3.1 | −5.8 | −2.6 | −5.4 | 2297.1 | 1215.5 | −2.8 |
| 44,264,122.0 | 27.4 | 6.7 | 11.7 | 5.5 | 3.0 | −4.8 | − 3.0 | − 4.5 | 1992.2 | 1042.1 | −2.8 |
| 71,424,203.0 | 30.4 | 7.3 | 15.4 | 10.2 | 2.1 | −4.3 | − 2.2 | − 4.4 | 4024.7 | 2228.4 | −2.3 |
| 10,852,057.0 | 24.6 | 5.5 | 10.6 | 5.1 | 2.1 | −3.2 | −2.3 | −4.0 | 3923.3 | 2167.8 | −2.3 |
| 14,407,192.0 | 25.4 | 6.2 | 10.8 | 5.4 | 2.6 | −4.3 | −2.6 | −4.3 | 1853.1 | 963.6 | −2.8 |
| 19,792,482.0 | 29.5 | 7.5 | 18.3 | 5.3 | 3.3 | −5.1 | − 3.4 | − 4.6 | 3892.8 | 10,000.0 | −2.3 |
| 19,792,563.0 | 29.7 | 6.6 | 11.1 | 5.3 | 2.9 | −4.6 | −2.4 | − 4.6 | 3892.8 | 2149.6 | −2.3 |
| 22,321,203.0 | 25.1 | 6.3 | 11.1 | 5.1 | 2.7 | −4.5 | −2.9 | −4.6 | 1338.3 | 677.9 | −3.0 |
| 24,952,793.0 | 30.3 | −7.7 | 13.7 | 8.4 | 2.4 | −4.9 | −3.3 | −18.3 | 1409.6 | 717.0 | −2.7 |
| 24,952,797.0 | 26.6 | −9.3 | 22.7 | 7.5 | 2.3 | −4.3 | −3.9 | −17.7 | 1441.8 | 2759.8 | −3.1 |
| 24,966,389.0 | 29.5 | −8.5 | 13.8 | 7.6 | 2.4 | −4.9 | −2.9 | −17.7 | 1441.8 | 734.7 | −3.1 |
| 44,538,447.0 | 27.1 | −8.6 | 14.0 | 7.6 | 2.4 | −4.8 | −3.4 | −17.7 | 1387.8 | 2852.3 | −3.1 |
| 44,560,954.0 | 24.9 | −10.9 | 10.4 | 5.4 | 2.5 | −4.0 | −2.6 | −17.7 | 1853.1 | 963.7 | −2.8 |
| 44,610,342.0 | 32.4 | −7.3 | 14.7 | 7.7 | 2.8 | −5.8 | −2.5 | −17.7 | 1436.1 | 731.6 | −3.1 |
| 53,693,682.0 | 26.1 | −9.8 | 11.0 | 5.4 | 2.7 | −4.8 | −2.7 | −17.7 | 2084.0 | 1094.1 | −2.739 |
*QPlogPoct: predictedoctanol/gas partition coefficient;QPlogPw:predicted water/gas partition coefficient;QPlogPo/w: predicted octanol/water partition coefficient;ClQPlogS: conformation –independent predicted aqueous solubility, logs. S in mol dm− 3 is the concentration of the solute in a saturated solution that is in equilibrium with the crystalline solid; QPlogHERG: predicted IC 50value for blockage of HERG K+ channels;QPPCaCo: predicted apparent CaCo-2 cell permeability in nm/sec; Caco-2 cells are a model for the gut blood barrier;QPlogKp: predicted skin permeability, logKp; QPlogS: Predicted aqueous solubility, log S, S in mol dm− 3 is the concentration of solute in the saturated solution that is in equilibrium with the crystalline solid; QPPMDCK: Predicted apparent MDCK cell permeability in nm/sec, MDCK cells are considered to be a good mimic for the blood- barrier;QPlogpCl:Predicted hexadecane/gas partition coefficient
Fig. 2(A) Scatter plot diagram between actual activity and predicted activity showing QSAR results of all molecular descriptors (B) Activity predicted between only training set chemical descriptors(C) Predicted activity between test set of chemical descriptor
List of statistical analysis generated using field-based QSAR
Fig. 3The CoMFA steric field with 2 Å grid spacing is displayed for the compound CID: 5482167, which depicts hydrophobicity via contour mapping and demonstrates the C7 substituted group was in the solvent accessible hydrophobic pocket. Steric fields are considered as most favorable regions with high glide score
Fig. 4A docked complex of W80R protein in ribbon model with inhibitor CID ID 443637 (Taxifolin) at an active site of binding pocket with XP score − 9.63 kcal/mol
Fig. 5Representation of W80R receptor molecule with CID ID-443637 as a ligand interaction with protein residues LEU156, GLU234, and ASP274 of hydroxyl group (−OH) and 1 pi-cation interaction with LYS276 with noticeable solvent exposure sites observed at some residue locations with highest Glide XP score of −9.63Kcal/ mol
Fig. 6Representation of W80R protein-inhibitor complex of CID 44264122 with three hydrogen bonds of a hydroxyl group (−OH) interacting with THR211, ILE290, and THR291 and oxy bond with residue LYS268 with Glide XP score: −9.43Kcal/mol
Fig. 7Representation of W80R receptor molecule with inhibitor at the active site showing protein-ligand hydrogen bond interaction with residues as TYR474, SER215, THR211, with 1 pi-pi interaction at TRP80 residue, and 1 pi-cationic interaction bonding with LYS265 with G score − 9.36Kcal/mol
Top-ranked hit compounds of docking with protein W80R obtained using XP visualize
*G Score-total G score along with the sum of XP terms(G score = a*vdW + b*Coul + Lipo + Hbond + Metal + BuryP + RotB + Site, where vdW is van der Waals energy, Coloumb energy, Lipo is lipophilic contact, Hbond is hydrogen bonding, Metal, is metal-binding, BuryPis penalty for buried polar groups, RotBis penalty for freezing rotatable bonds, the site is polar interactions in the active site and a = 0.065 while b = 0.130 were the coefficients of vdW and Coul
Dock score: Vanderwaals + Coulombic + HBonds represent the potentiality of bonding. In simple rigid systems, the ligand is searched in a 6 dimensional rotational or translational space to fit in the binding site, which can serve as a marvel compound for drug design [64]. The lipophilic term is derived from the hydrophobic grid potential and the fraction of the total protein-ligand vdWenergy, PhobEn- can be as hydrophobic enclosure reward for the penalty for ligands with large hydrophobic contacts and low hydrogenbond scores phobic penal for the penalty for exposed hydrophobic ligand groups, Rot Penal for the rotatable bond penalty.
Fig. 8(A) Root mean square deviation (RMSD) of the C-alpha backbone of the W80R protein complex and ligand taxifolin (X-axis time scale in ps and Y-axis in RMSD in nm). (B) Root mean square fluctuation (RMSF) for C-alpha backbone atom of a W80R protein complex with ligand taxifolin (X-axis shows amino acid residue number and Y-axis shows RMSF in nm)
Fig. 9Visualisation of the residual network of a W80R protein complex
Validation of 4GV1 receptor with co crystallised inhibitors with the obtained marvel compound