| Literature DB >> 34834107 |
Md Ruhul Amin1, Farhana Yasmin1, Mohammed Anowar Hosen1, Sujan Dey2, Shafi Mahmud3, Md Abu Saleh3, Talha Bin Emran4, Imtiaj Hasan5, Yuki Fujii6, Masao Yamada7, Yasuhiro Ozeki7, Sarkar Mohammad Abe Kawsar1.
Abstract
A series of methyl β-D-galactopyranoside (MGP, 1) analogs were selectively acylated with cinnamoyl chloride in anhydrous N,N-dimethylformamide/triethylamine to yield 6-O-substitution products, which was subsequently converted into 2,3,4-tri-O-acyl analogs with different acyl halides. Analysis of the physicochemical, elemental, and spectroscopic data of these analogs revealed their chemical structures. In vitro antimicrobial testing against five bacteria and two fungi and the prediction of activity spectra for substances (PASS) showed promising antifungal functionality comparing to their antibacterial activities. Minimum inhibition concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) tests were conducted for four compounds (4, 5, 6, and 9) based on their activity. MTT assay showed low antiproliferative activity of compound 9 against Ehrlich's ascites carcinoma (EAC) cells with an IC50 value of 2961.06 µg/mL. Density functional theory (DFT) was used to calculate the thermodynamic and physicochemical properties whereas molecular docking identified potential inhibitors of the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (6Y84). A 150-ns molecular dynamics simulation study revealed the stable conformation and binding patterns in a stimulating environment. In-silico ADMET study suggested all the designed molecules to be non-carcinogenic, with low aquatic and non-aquatic toxicity. In summary, all these antimicrobial, anticancer and in silico studies revealed that newly synthesized MGP analogs possess promising antiviral activity, to serve as a therapeutic target for COVID-19.Entities:
Keywords: PASS; Pharmacokinetic; methyl β-D-galactopyranoside; molecular docking; molecular dynamics; synthesis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34834107 PMCID: PMC8621697 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26227016
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Scheme 1Reagents and conditions: (a) stirrer; DMAP, (b) dry DMF, several acyl halides 0 °C to rt, stirred for 6 h (3–10).
Zone of inhibition was observed against Gram-positive bacteria by the test analogs.
| Compound | Zone of Inhibition in mm | |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
|
| 15 ± 0.3 | NI |
|
| NI | 25 ± 0.3 * |
|
| 13 ± 0.2 | 22 ± 0.3 * |
|
| 13 ± 0.2 | 33 ± 0.4 * |
|
| 21 ± 0.3 * | 15 ± 0.3 |
|
| NI | 10 ± 0.1 |
|
| NI | 15 ± 0.3 |
|
| 22 ± 0.3 * | 30 ± 0.4 * |
|
| 20 ± 0.3 * | 23 ± 0.3 * |
|
| 19 ± 0.3 ** | 18 ± 0.3 ** |
The data are presented as mean ± SD and the values are represented for triplicate experiments. Statistically significant inhibition (p < 0.05) is marked with an asterisk (*) for test compounds and a double asterisk (**) for the reference antibiotic azithromycin. NI = No inhibition.
Zone of inhibition observed against Gram-negative bacteria by the test analogs.
| Compound | Zone of Inhibition in mm | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 10 ± 0.1 | NI | NI |
|
| 16 ± 0.3 | 20 ± 0.3 * | 10 ± 0.1 |
|
| 16 ± 0.3 | 14 ± 0.3 | 18 ± 0.3 * |
|
| 21 ± 0.3 * | 27 ± 0.4 * | 26 ± 0.4 * |
|
| 26 ± 0.4 * | 12 ± 0.2 | 15 ± 0.3 |
|
| NI | 11 ± 0.1 | NI |
|
| NI | NI | 15 ± 0.3 |
|
| 18 ± 0.3 * | 9 ± 0.1 | 13 ± 0.2 |
|
| 10 ± 0.1 | 10 ± 0.1 | NI |
|
| 17 ± 0.3 ** | 19 ± 0.3 ** | 17 ± 0.3 ** |
The data are presented as mean ± SD, and the values are represented for triplicate experiments. Statistically significant inhibition (p < 0.05) is marked with an asterisk (*) for test compounds and a double asterisk (**) for the reference antibiotic azithromycin. NI = No inhibition.
Figure 1MIC values of some compounds against tested organisms.
Figure 2MBC values of some compounds against tested organisms.
Antifungal activities of the synthesized test analogs in (%) of inhibition.
| Compound | Percentage (%) of Inhibition | |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
|
| 0 | 67.77 ± 1.0 |
|
| 83.39 ± 1.2 * | 66.67 ± 1.0 |
|
| 86.67 ± 1.2 * | 79.44 ± 1.1 * |
|
| 81.11 ± 1.2 * | 64.44 ± 1.0 |
|
| 77.22 ± 1.1 * | 68.89 ± 1.0 |
|
| 0 | 0 |
|
| 73.81 ± 1.1 | 0 |
|
| 84.44 ± 1.2 * | 56 |
|
| 91.67 ± 1.2 * | 82.77 ± 1.2 * |
|
| 66.4 ± 1.0 ** | 63.1 ± 1.0 ** |
The data are presented as mean ± SD, and the values are represented for triplicate experiments. Statistically significant inhibition (p < 0.05) is marked with an asterisk (*) for test compounds and a double asterisk (**) for the reference antibiotic azithromycin. NI = No inhibition.
Figure 3Anticancer screening of compound 9.
Figure 4Molecular orbital distribution plots of HOMO-LUMO, including the density of MGP analog (7) states at DFT/B3LYP/3-21G.
Binding energy of the MGP analogs against Mpro 6Y84.
| Compound | Binding Affinity | Interaction Types | Compound | Binding Affinity | Interaction Types |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −5.9 | H |
| −8.7 | H, C, PPS, A, PA |
|
| −6.8 | H, C, PPS |
| −6.7 | H, C, A, PA |
|
| −8.5 | H. C, A, PA |
| −8.7 | H, PAn, PDH, PA |
|
| −8.5 | H. C, A, PA |
| −8.8 | H. C, A, PA |
|
| −7.6 | H. C, PPS, A, PA |
| −10.5 | H, A, PA |
|
| −7.8 | H, C, PPS, A, PA |
H = Conventional Hydrogen Bond; C = Carbon Hydrogen Bond; A = Alkyl; PA = Pi-Alkyl; PAn = Pi-Anion; PCa = Pi-Cation; PDH = Pi-Donor Hydrogen Bond; PPS = Pi-Pi Stacked.
Figure 5Docked conformation of analog (3) at inhibition bounding site of 6Y84 (a) and Docked conformation of analog (10) at inhibition bounding site of 6Y84 (b).
Figure 6Non-bonding interactions of compound (3, 4, 9, and 10) with the amino acid residues of 6Y84 generated by Discovery Studio.
Non-bonding interaction data of MGP analogs against Mpro 6Y84.
| Main Protease 6Y84 | Main Protease 6Y84 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hydrogen Bond | Hydrophobic Bond | Hydrogen Bond | Hydrophobic Bond | ||||||
| Compound | Residues | Distance | Residues | Distance | Compound | Residues | Distance | Residues | Distance |
|
| THR111 | 3.085 |
| ASP153 | 5.079 | PHE294 | 3.481 | ||
| THR111 | 2.244 | CYS145 | 2.927 | HIS41 | 4.094 | ||||
| GLY143 | 3.363 | GLY143 | 2.790 | PRO293 | 4.284 | ||||
| HIS41 | 2.078 | ARG298 | 2.843 | PHE294 | 4.029 | ||||
| CYS145 | 2.990 | ASP153 | 2.588 | PHE294 | 5.168 | ||||
| CYS145 | 2.872 | ||||||||
|
| LEU287 | 2.320 | LEU287 | 3.555 |
| ASN151 | 2.781 | PRO293 | 3.862 |
| ASP289 | 3.070 | ARG298 | 2.351 | ILE200 | 5.043 | ||||
| THR199 | 2.482 | CYS145 | 2.279 | VAL202 | 4.935 | ||||
| CYS145 | 3.110 | ILE152 | 3.334 | HIS246 | 4.247 | ||||
| ASP197 | 3.540 | GLN110 | 3.730 | PHE294 | 5.241 | ||||
| ASP295 | 3.681 | PHE294 | 4.434 | ||||||
| PHE294 | 4.246 | PHE294 | 4.531 | ||||||
|
| GLY143 | 2.257 | CYS145 | 5.498 |
| LEU75 | 3.025 | HIS41 | 2.028 |
| THR26 | 3.750 | HIS41 | 5.148 | GLN110 | 3.520 | PHE294 | 3.308 | ||
|
| HIS41 | 3.330 | MET165 | 3.644 |
| CYS145 | 3.330 | HIS41 | 3.644 |
| ASN142 | 3.329 | CYS145 | 5.085 | CYS145 | 3.329 | MET49 | 5.085 | ||
| THR26 | 3.252 | HIS41 | 5.165 | THR199 | 3.252 | LYS137 | 5.165 | ||
| HIS41 | 3.572 | GLU166 | 3.572 | ||||||
| HIS41 | 3.715 | GLY143 | 3.715 | ||||||
|
| SER158 | 2.331 | PHE294 | 3.887 |
| PHE294 | 2.816 | CYS145 | 4.741 |
| CYS145 | 2.464 | ILE106 | 3.478 | GLU166 | 3.789 | HIS41 | 5.280 | ||
| ARG298 | 2.046 | PRO293 | 4.459 | MET49 | 4.776 | ||||
| ASP153 | 3.063 | HIS41 | 4.617 | TYR237 | 4.768 | ||||
| VAL104 | 5.079 | ||||||||
|
| ASP295 | 2.334 | ASP295 | 4.223 | |||||
| CYS145 | 2.698 | ||||||||
| GLN110 | 2.268 | ||||||||
| THR111 | 2.203 | ||||||||
| THR111 | 2.358 | ||||||||
Figure 7The molecular dynamics simulation trajectories from 150-ns simulation time, here (a) root mean square deviation of the C-alpha atoms; (b) solvent accessible surface area of the docked complex to understand the change in protein area; (c) Radius of the gyration of the complexes (d) root mean square fluctuation and (e) hydrogen bond of the complexes.
Prediction of in silico absorption of MGP analogs.
| Compound | Water Solubility (log mol/L) | Caco-2 Permeability | Intestinal Absorption | Skin Permeability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.067 | −0.211 | 32.866 | −3.391 |
|
| −1.874 | 0.508 | 49.613 | −2.793 |
|
| −5.009 | 1.025 | 89.256 | −2.733 |
|
| −4.106 | 1.031 | 94.430 | −2.735 |
|
| −2.919 | 0.854 | 100 | −2.735 |
|
| −2.896 | 0.782 | 100 | −2.735 |
|
| −2.892 | 0.709 | 100 | −2.735 |
|
| −2.892 | 0.488 | 100 | −2.735 |
|
| −2.898 | −0.181 | 79.877 | −2.735 |
|
| −3.043 | 1.200 | 90.898 | −2.735 |
Prediction in silico of distribution and execration of MGP analogs.
| Compound no. | Distribution | Execration | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vdss | BBB Permeability | CNS Permeability | Total Clearance | Renal OCT2 Substrate | |
|
| 0.035 | −0.881 | −4.670 | 0.686 | No |
|
| −0.403 | −0.799 | −3.671 | 0.499 | No |
|
| 0.253 | −1.682 | −2.849 | 1.408 | No |
|
| 0.359 | −1.807 | −2.389 | 1.520 | No |
|
| −1.151 | −2.194 | −1.840 | 1.187 | No |
|
| −1.582 | −2.323 | −1.770 | 1.913 | No |
|
| −1.646 | −2.453 | −1.700 | 2.009 | No |
|
| 0.010 | −1.296 | −3.252 | −0.122 | No |
|
| −0.759 | −3.094 | −3.492 | 0.649 | No |
|
| −0.149 | −2.148 | −3.269 | −0.273 | No |