| Literature DB >> 34885751 |
Haya Hussain1, Shujaat Ahmad1, Syed Wadood Ali Shah2, Mehreen Ghias2, Abid Ullah1, Shafiq Ur Rahman1, Zul Kamal1, Farman Ali Khan3, Nasir Mehmood Khan4, Juma Muhammad5, Mazen Almehmadi6, Osama Abdulaziz6, Saad Alghamdi7.
Abstract
Cognitive decline in dementia is associated with deficiency of the cholinergic system. In this study, five mono-carbonyl curcumin analogs were synthesized, and on the basis of their promising in vitro anticholinesterase activities, they were further investigated for in vivo neuroprotective and memory enhancing effects in scopolamine-induced amnesia using elevated plus maze (EPM) and novel object recognition (NOR) behavioral mice models. The effects of the synthesized compounds on the cholinergic system involvement in the brain hippocampus and their binding mode in the active site of cholinesterases were also determined. Compound h2 (p < 0.001) and h3 (p < 0.001) significantly inhibited the cholinesterases and reversed the effects of scopolamine by significantly reducing TLT (p < 0.001) in EPM, while (p < 0.001) increased the time exploring the novel object. The % discrimination index (DI) was significantly increased (p < 0.001) in the novel object recognition test. The mechanism of cholinesterase inhibition was further validated through molecular docking study using MOE software. The results obtained from the in vitro, in vivo and ex vivo studies showed that the synthesized curcumin analogs exhibited significantly higher memory-enhancing potential, and h3 could be an effective neuroprotective agent. However, more study is suggested to explore its exact mechanism of action.Entities:
Keywords: EPM; NORT; amnesia; cholinesterases; hippocampus; molecular docking; mono-carbonyl curcumin analogs; scopolamine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34885751 PMCID: PMC8659060 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26237168
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Mono-carbonyl curcumin analogs used in this study for memory enhancing effect.
Figure 2Dark pink: co-crystallized ligand; green: dock ligand.
Figure 33D binding mode of compound h3 against AChE (A) and BChE (B) proteins.
Compound codes, molecular structures, IC50 values, docking scores and binding affinity of the synthesized compounds against AChE and BChE.
| Comp. | AChEI (IC50) | Docking Score | Binding Energy (GBVI/WSA) | BChEI (IC50) | Docking Score | Binding Energy (GBVI/WSA) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| h1 | 104.72 | –8.354 | –14.164 | 243.12 | –7.874 | –13.491 |
| h2 | 93.27 | –10.176 | –17.317 | 147.92 | –8.360 | –15.082 |
| h3 | 29.39 | –12.412 | –21.543 | 67.35 | –11.537 | –19.728 |
| h4 | 294.77 | –7.954 | –13.674 | 512.77 | –7.612 | –14.011 |
| h5 | 632.37 | –7.018 | –13.006 | 988.35 | –6.603 | –11.225 |
Note: GBVI/WSA (Generalized-Born Volume Integral/Weighted Surface Area) is a scoring function of the estimated free energy from a given pose of a binding ligand. Lower scores indicate a more favorable pose in all scoring functions. In the molecular docking studies, the choice of active and non-active molecules was based on binding energies and docking scores.
In vitro cholinesterase inhibition potential of curcumin analogs.
| Comp. | Conc. µg/mL | Mean ± SEM | AChEI (IC50) | Mean ± SEM | BChEI (IC50) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| h1 | 1000 | 79.67 ± 0.21 ns | 104.72 | 62.16 ± 0.04 *** | 243.12 |
| 500 | 68.07 ± 0.18 *** | 56.42 ± 0.16 *** | |||
| 250 | 58.12 ± 0.16 *** | 51.91 ± 0.14 *** | |||
| 125 | 54.34 ± 0.17 *** | 46.25 ± 0.13 *** | |||
| 62.5 | 45.63 ± 0.13 *** | 37.16 ± 0.12 *** | |||
| h2 | 1000 | 76.23 ± 0.15 ns | 93.27 | 69.77 ± 0.03 *** | 147.92 |
| 500 | 73.79 ± 0.12 ns | 64.38 ± 0.06 *** | |||
| 250 | 61.21±0.18 *** | 57.22 ± 0.01 *** | |||
| 125 | 53.57 ± 0.17 *** | 48.61 ± 0.15 *** | |||
| 62.5 | 46.88 ± 0.15 *** | 41.82 ± 0.18 *** | |||
| h3 | 1000 | 83.31 ± 0.13 ns | 29.39 | 78.72 ± 0.16 * | 67.35 |
| 500 | 77.25 ± 0.11 ns | 69.52 ± 0.12 *** | |||
| 250 | 69.51 ± 0.13 ns | 62.41 ± 0.19 *** | |||
| 125 | 62.44 ± 0.16 ns | 58.33 ± 0.13 *** | |||
| 62.5 | 53.53±0.12 * | 49.25 ± 0.02 *** | |||
| h4 | 1000 | 63.51 ± 0.17 *** | 294.77 | 56.32 ± 0.18 *** | 512.77 |
| 500 | 58.16 ± 0.11 *** | 49.51 ± 0.16 *** | |||
| 250 | 46.32 ± 0.15 *** | 42.62 ± 0.12 *** | |||
| 125 | 39.45 ± 0.04 *** | 35.33 ± 0.19 *** | |||
| 62.5 | 31.41 ± 0.13 *** | 27.16 ± 0.11 *** | |||
| h5 | 1000 | 58.41 ± 0.13 *** | 632.37 | 51.82 ± 0.16 *** | 988.35 |
| 500 | 47.33 ± 0.16 *** | 43.51 ± 0.13 *** | |||
| 250 | 41.27 ± 0.04 *** | 32.73 ± 0.01 *** | |||
| 125 | 35.51 ± 0.06 *** | 20.26 ± 0.31 *** | |||
| 62.5 | 26.45 ± 0.18 *** | 16.22 ± 0.83 *** | |||
| Galanthamine | 1000 | 81.85 ± 0.18 | 26.58 | 83.53 ± 0.20 | 21.30 |
| 500 | 76.59 ± 0.30 | 78.62 ± 0.17 | |||
| 250 | 69.75 ± 0.14 | 73.42 ± 0.11 | |||
| 125 | 64.47 ± 0.49 | 66.20 ± 0.15 | |||
| 62.5 | 59.12 ± 0.34 | 61.35 ± 0.18 |
All values are presented as mean ± SEM, (n = 3). Galanthamine was used as standard control. Significantly different values are with reference to the standard control; p-value <0.001, <0.01, <0.05, >0.05 are expressed as ***, **, * and ‘ns’, respectively.
Effect of synthesized curcumin analogs h1–h5 on alteration behavior and transfer latency in mice.
| Samples | Treatment/Dose | Retention (sec) |
|---|---|---|
| Control | Normal saline, p.o | 36.42 ± 1.81 |
| Scopolamine (Scop) | 1 mg/kg, i.p negative control | 67.31 ± 1.24 *** |
| Donepezil (DZP) | 2 mg/kg p.o | 25.57 ± 1.93 *** |
| h1 | 7.5 mg/kg, p.o | 33.13 ± 2.16 * |
| 15 mg/kg, p.o | 26.18 ± 2.32 *** | |
| h2 | 7.5 mg/kg, p.o | 31.51 ± 2.73 ** |
| 15 mg/kg, p.o | 25.32 ± 2.42 *** | |
| h3 | 7.5 mg/kg, p.o | 25.26 ± 2.51 *** |
| 15 mg/kg, p.o | 21.27 ± 2.92 *** | |
| h4 | 7.5 mg/kg, p.o | 35.71 ± 1.13 * |
| 15 mg/kg, p.o | 30.42 ± 1.24 ** | |
| h5 | 7.5 mg/kg, p.o | 34.71 ± 1.37 * |
| 15 mg/kg, p.o | 31.51 ± 1.54 ** |
All values are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 6), p < 0.001 vs. normal control. Positive control and tested samples received Scopolamine 1 mg/kg i.p. Significantly different values are with reference to the scopolamine-treated group; p-value <0.001, <0.01, <0.05 are expressed as ***, **, * respectively. One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparison tests was applied on these data.
Figure 4The effect of the synthesized curcumin analogs (h1–h5) in NORT (A,D,G,J) sample phase, (B,E,H,K) test phase (C,F,I,L) % DI versus scopolamine-treated group for the evaluation of short- and long-term memory. All values are presented in mean ± SEM (n = 6), ### p < 0.001 vs. normal control. Significantly different values are with respect to the amnesic (scopolamine) group; p-value <0.001, <0.01, <0.05, >0.05 are expressed as ***, **, * and ‘ns’, respectively. One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparison tests was applied on this data.
Figure 5Ex vivo anticholinesterase effect of synthesized curcumin analogs (h1–h5) in AChE (A) and BChE (B) in the hippocampus region of mouse brain versus the scopolamine-treated group. All values are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 6), ### p < 0.001 vs. normal control. Significantly different values are with reference to the scopolamine-treated group; p-value <0.001, <0.01, <0.05 are expressed as ***, **, and *, respectively. One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparison tests was applied.