| Literature DB >> 35431328 |
Gideon A Gyebi1, Oludare M Ogunyemi2, Adedotun A Adefolalu3, Alejandro Rodríguez-Martínez4, Juan F López-Pastor4, Antonio J Banegas-Luna4, Horacio Pérez-Sánchez4, Adegbenro P Adegunloye5, Olalekan B Ogunro6, Saheed O Afolabi7.
Abstract
Despite the ongoing vaccination against the life-threatening COVID-19, there is need for viable therapeutic interventions. The S-adenosyl-l-Methionine (SAM) dependent 2-O'-ribose methyltransferase (2'-O-MTase) of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) presents a therapeutic target against COVID-19 infection. In a bid to profile bioactive principles from natural sources, a custom-made library of 226 phytochemicals from African medicinal plants with especially anti-malarial activity was screened for direct interactions with SARS-CoV-2 2'-O-MTase (S2RMT) using molecular docking and molecular dynamics (MD) simulations as well as binding free energies methods. Based on minimal binding energy lower than sinefungin (a reference methyl-transferase inhibitor) and binding mode analysis at the catalytic site of S2RMT, a list of 26 hit phytocompounds was defined. The interaction of these phytocompounds was compared with the 2'-O-MTase of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Among these compounds, the lead phytocompounds (LPs) viz: mulberrofuran F, 24-methylene cycloartenol, ferulate, 3-benzoylhosloppone and 10-hydroxyusambarensine interacted strongly with the conserved KDKE tetrad within the substrate binding pocket of the 2'-O-MTase of the coronavirus strains which is critical for substrate binding. The thermodynamic parameters analyzed from the MD simulation trajectories of the LPs-S2RMT complexes presented an eminent structural stability and compactness. These LPs demonstrated favorable druggability and in silico ADMET properties over a diverse array of molecular computing descriptors. The LPs show promising prospects in the disruption of S2RMT capping machinery in silico. However, these LPs should be validated via in vitro and in vivo experimental models.Entities:
Keywords: 2-O’-ribosemethyltransferase; Coronavirus; Molecular docking; Molecular dynamics; Mulberrofuran F; Phytochemicals; SARS-CoV-2
Year: 2022 PMID: 35431328 PMCID: PMC9002684 DOI: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2022.133019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Mol Struct ISSN: 0022-2860 Impact factor: 3.841
Binding site coordinates of nsp16 protease of coronaviruses.
| Dimensions | SARS-CoV-2 (Å) | SARS-CoV (Å) | MERS-CoV (Å) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Center_x | 89.26 | 54.25 | 89.26 |
| Center_y | 16.92 | 60.82 | 16.92 |
| Center_z | 26.44 | 65.17 | 26.44 |
| Size x | 31.00 | 26.34 | 31.00 |
| Size y | 29.63 | 25.41 | 29.63 |
| Size z | 31.34 | 20.81 | 31.34 |
Structure of reference inhibitors (sinefungin and SAH) and the top docked BP with the active site residues of SAR CoV-2 2′-O-MTase.
| S/No | Bioactive Compounds | Class of compound | Plant species (Family) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | Sinefungin | Nucleoside | ||
| S2 | S-adenosyl- | Nucleoside | ||
| 1 | Mulberrofuran F | Isoprenylated flavonoids | Morusmesozygia (Moraceae) | |
| 2 | 24-Methylene cycloartenol ferulate | Pentacyclic triterpenes | Entandrophrag maangolense (Meliaceae) | |
| 3 | 10 -Hydroxyusambarensine | Indole alkaloids | ||
| 4 | 3- Benzoylhosloppone | Abietane diterpenes | Hoslundiaopposita (Lamiaceae) | |
Fig. 1Binding energies of the ten lead phytocompounds from the docking analysis of 226 phytocompounds and reference compounds docked to the active site of coronaviruses 2-O-methyltransferase. The red dotted line shows the top 4 docked compounds. 168 = 2, 3, 19 -trihydroxy-urs-12–20-en-28-oic acid.
Interactions of top docked compounds and reference inhibitors with active site residues of coronaviruses 2′-O-MTase.
| Compounds | Coronavirus | Hydrogen bonds (Bond distance) | Other interactions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sinefungin | SARS-Cov-2 | ||
| TYR6930(3.36) ASP6912(3.00, 2.97) ASP6897(2.29) SER6872 MET6929(3.37) TYR6930 (2.01) ASP6928(2.71, 2.83, 2.01) GLY6869(2.78) ASP6897(2.61, 2.70) CYS6913(2.91) | CYS6913MET6929 | ||
| S-Adenosyl- | TYR6930(3.29) ASP6912(3.00, 2.79) ASP6897(2.29) ASP6928(2.65, 2.83, 2.01) GLY6869(2.36) ASP6897(1.98) | SER6872 MET6929 ASP6897 TYR6930 | |
| Mulberrofuran F | SER6872(2.41) GLY6869 (2.13) ASP6897(2.80) | ASP6897 ASP6899 PHE6947 PRO6932 LEU6898 MET6929 CYS6913 | |
| 24-Methylene cycloartenol ferulate | SER6999(3.31) GLU6971(2.81) HIS6972(3.37) TYR6930(3.56) THR6934(3.56) LYS6935(3.72) SER7000 (3.50) | LYS6935 LEU6898 MET6929TYR6930 HIS6972 | |
| 10 -Hydroxyusambarensine | ASP6897(2.27) TYR6930(2.16) ASP6912(2.54) ASN6899(3.60) | PRO6932 MET6929 PHE6947 LEU6898 | |
| 3- Benzoylhosloppone | LYS6968(3.05) ASP6928(2.79) GLY6869(3.61) ASP6897(3.76) | TYR6930 PRO6932 LEY6898 MET6929 | |
| Sinefungin | SARS-COV | GLY75(2.77) GLY71(2.39) ASP73(2.54) ASP130 (2.18, 1.87) SER74(3.25) ASP99(3.32) TYR132(3.23) | LEU100 (2.95, 3.52,4.80) |
| S-Adenosyl- | TYR132(3.22) ASP114(2.65) ASP130(2.13) ASN43(2.70) ASP99(2.11) | SER74 PRO80 ASP99 TYR132 | |
| Mulberrofuran F | SER201(2.73) SER202(3.21) GLY71(2.40) | TYR132 PRO134 MET42 | |
| 24-Methylene cycloartenol ferulate | ASP133(2.04) | GLY71 ASP114 PRO134 TYR132 LEU100 | |
| 10 -Hydroxyusambarensine | ASP99(2.41) GLY71(2.35) | ASP75 ASP99 ASP130 LEU100 PRO134 TYR132 MET131 CYS115 | |
| 3- Benzoylhosloppone | LYS170(2.81) ASP130(2.60) | GLY71 PRO134 LEU100MET131 | |
| Sinefungin | MERS-CoV | ASN101(2.07) ASN98 (2.51) ASP75(3.02) ASP99(1.92, 3.36) ASP130(3.72) GLY71 (2.35) GLY73 (3.72, 3.133) | LYS170 ASN43 |
| S-Adenosyl- | ASN43(2.48) TYR47(2.78) GLY81(2.99) CYS111(2.96) GLY71(2.81) ASP130(2.85) GLY73(2.98) ASP99(2.75) | MET131(3.60) LEU100 (3.60) | |
| Mulberrofuran F | TYR132(2.74) ASN101(3.72) ASP99(3.72) | PRO134MET131ASP75 PHE149LEU100 | |
| 24-Methylene cycloartenol ferulate | ASP114(3.44) TYR132(2.74) LEU100 (3.25) | PRO134 PHE149 LEU100 LYS76 HIS41 CYS115 | |
| 10 -Hydroxyusambarensine | TYR132(2.54) ASP114(3.07) ASP99(2.37) LEU100 (3.75) | PRO134 MET131 PHE149 | |
| 3- Benzoylhosloppone | TYR132(2.74) GLY71(3.25) ASP99(3.72) ASP130(3.72) LEU130(3.72) LYS170 | MET131 PHE149 | |
Fig. 2Amino acid interactions of top lead phytocompounds from the docking analysis and reference inhibitors in substrate binding cavity SARS-CoV-2 2′-O-MTase. (S) solvent-accessible surface view. The top four ranked phytocompounds in sticks representation are represented by colors: (a) cyan: sinefungin (b) orange: SAM (c) gold: mulberrofuran F (d) red: 24-methylene cycloartenol ferulate (e) blue: 10–hydroxyusambarensine (f) Green: 3-benzoylhosloppone. Types of interactions are represented by light purple-dotted line: Green-dotted lines: H-bonds; hydrophobic interactions (Pi-Alkyl, Alkyl and pi-stacking); yellow-dotted lines: purple-dotted line: Pi-Pi T Shaped; Pi-sulfur interactions, pi-stacking interactions, with three-letter abbreviations of amino acids.
Fig. 3Amino acid interactions of phytocompounds and reference inhibitors in substrate binding cavity SARS-CoV 2′-O-MTase. (S) solvent-accessible surface view. The top four ranked phytocompounds in sticks representation are represented by colors: (a) cyan: sinefungin (b) orange: SAM (III) gold: mulberrofuran F (d) red: 24-methylene cycloartenol ferulate (e) blue: 10–Hydroxyusambarensine (f) Green: 3-benzoylhosloppone.
Fig. 4Amino acid interactions of phytocompounds lead phytocompounds from the docking analysis and reference inhibitors in substrate binding cavity MERS-CoV2’-O-MTase. (S) solvent-accessible surface view. The top four ranked phytocompounds in sticks representation are represented by colors: (a) cyan: sinefungin (b) orange: SAM (c) gold: mulberrofuran F (d) red: 24-methylene cycloartenol ferulate (e) blue: 10–hydroxyusambarensine (f) green: 3-benzoylhosloppone.
Fig. 8The Radius of gyration (RoG) plots of molecular dynamics (MD) simulation of SARS-Cov-2 2′-O-MTase complexed to the four lead phytochemicals from the docking analysis.
Fig. 5Secondary structural analysis of SARS-Cov-2 2′-O-MTase during 100 ns MD simulation (a) SSE distribution by residue (b) summary of the SSE composition for each trajectory frame (c) residue and its SSE assignment over time.
Fig. 6The Backbone-Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) plots of molecular dynamics (MD) simulation of SARS-Cov-2 2′-O-MTase complexed to the four lead phytochemicals from the docking analysis.
Fig. 7Per residue Root Mean Square Fluctuations (RMSF) plots of molecular dynamics (MD) simulation of SARS-Cov-2 2′-O-MTase complexed to the four lead phytochemicals from the docking analysis.
Fig. 9The Surface Accessible Surface Area (SASA) plots of molecular dynamics (MD) simulation of SARS-Cov-2 2′-O-MTase complexed to the four lead phytochemicals from the docking analysis.
Fig. 10The changes in the number of H-bonds during the MDS trajectory of SARS-Cov-2 2′-O-MTase complexed to the four lead phytochemicals from the docking analysis.
Fig. 11(a) A schematic details of binding groups of mulberrofuran F interacting with the amino acid residues of SARS-Cov-2 2′-O-MTase (S2RMT) during the period of 100 ns MD simulation analysis. Interactions that occured more than 30.0% of the simulation time in the selected trajectory (0.00 through 100.00 ns), are shown (b) simulation interactions plot showing categorized S2RMT- mulberrofuran F interactions.
Fig. 12(a)A schematic details of binding groups of 24-Methylene cycloartenol ferulate interacting with the amino acid residues of SARS-Cov-2 2′-O-MTase (S2RMT) during the period of 100 ns MD simulation analysis. Interactions that occured more than 30.0% of the simulation time in the selected trajectory (0.00 through 100.00 ns) are shown (b) simulation interactions plot showing categorized S2RMT- 24-Methylene cycloartenol ferulate interactions.
Fig. 13(a) A schematic details of binding groups of 10 -Hydroxyusambarensine interacting with the amino acid residues of SARS-Cov-2 2′-O-MTase (S2RMT) during the period of 100 ns MD simulation analysis. Interactions that occurred more than 30.0% of the simulation time in the selected trajectory (0.00 through 100.00 ns) are shown (b) simulation interactions plot showing categorized S2RMT-10 -Hydroxyusambarensine interactions.
Fig. 14(a) A schematic details of binding groups of 3-Benzoylhosloppone interacting with the amino acid residues of SARS-Cov-2 2′-O-MTase (S2RMT) during the period of 100 ns MD simulation analysis. Interactions that occurred more than 30.0% of the simulation time in the selected trajectory (0.00 through 100.00 ns) are shown (b) simulation interactions plot showing categorized S2RMT-3-Benzoylhosloppone interactions.
MMGBSA obtained dG average values and their standard deviation for the four studied compounds.
| Compound | RMSD value at 100 ns (Å) | dG Average (kcal/mol) | dG Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10-Hydroxyusambarensine | 9.618 | −112.4300034 | 21.67643475 |
| Mulberrofuran F | 6.735 | −140.1412904 | 18.02256363 |
| 3-Benzoylhosloppone | 4.481 | −132.1901051 | 12.52935498 |
| 24-Methyono cycloartenol | 6.782 | −139.3845749 | 26.35954092 |
Fig. 15Free energy landscape (FEL) between first and second principal components (PC1, PC2) graph representation for SARS-Cov-2 2′-O-MTase complexed with (a) mulberrofuran F (b) 24-methylene cycloartenol ferulate (c) 10 –hydroxyusambarensine (d) 3- benzoylhosloppone and (e) without any compound systems.
Trace of the covariance matrix for each SARS-Cov-2 2′-O-MTase-compound complex.
| Compound | Trace of covariance matrix (nm2) |
|---|---|
| No compound (Free protein) | 10.7905 |
| 10-Hydroxyusambarensine (16) | 10.9227 |
| Mulberrofuran F (113) | 8.35602 |
| 3-Benzoylhosloppone (119) | 10.9818 |
| 24-Methyono cycloartenol (164) | 18.2716 |
Physicochemical properties of the top-binding phytocompounds from African plants to SARS-CoV-2 2′-O-MTase.
| a) Physiochemical properties | Mulberrofuran F | 24-Methylene cycloartenol ferulate | 3- Benzoylhosloppone |
|---|---|---|---|
| Molecular weight (g/mol) | 630.68 | 630.68 | 418.52 |
| Num. heavy atoms | 47 | 44 | 31 |
| Num. arom. heavy atoms | 27 | 6 | 6 |
| Num. rotatable bonds | 4 | 9 | 4 |
| Num. H-bond acceptors | 8 | 4 | 4 |
| Hydrogen bond donor | 5 | 1 | 1 |
| cLogP | 4.55 | 4.55 | 2.61 |
| Molar Refractivity | 179 | 179 | 101.11 |
| TPSA (Ų) | 132.75 | 55.76 | |
| Lipinski violation | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Drug likeness | |||
| Lipinski | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Veber | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Bioavailability Score | 0.55 | 0.17 | 0.55 |
| (b) ADMET SAR | Absorption (Probability) | ||
| Blood-Brain Barrier | BBB+ (0.565) | BBB+ (0.649) | BBB+ (0.835) |
| Human Intestinal Absorption | HIA+ (0.984) | HIA+ (0.973) | HIA+ (0.974) |
| Caco-2 Permeability | Caco2+ (0.577) | Caco2+ (0.745) | Caco2+ (0.678 |
| P-glycoprotein Substrate | Non-substrate (0.727) | Substrate (0.795) | Substrate (0.752) |
| P-glycoprotein Inhibitor | Non-inhibitor (0.656) | Non-inhibitor (0.606) | Non-inhibitor (0.806) |
| Renal Organic Cation Transporter | Non-inhibitor (0.910) | Non-inhibitor (0.797) | Non-inhibitor (0.814) |
| Distribution (Probability) | |||
| Subcellular localization | Mitochondria (0.786) | Mitochondria (0.802) | Mitochondria (0.838) |
| Metabolism | Metabolism | Metabolism | |
| CYP450 2C9 Substrate | Non-substrate (0.780) | Non-substrate (0.758) | Non-substrate (0.777) |
| CYP450 2D6 Substrate | Non-substrate (0.852) | Non-substrate (0.812) | Non-substrate (0.912) |
| CYP450 3A4 Substrate | Non-substrate (0.567) | Non-substrate (0.822) | Non-substrate (0.813 |
| CYP450 1A2 Inhibitor | Non-inhibitor (0.5154) | Non-inhibitor (0.5814) | Non-inhibitor (0.5814) |
| CYP450 2C9 Inhibitor | Non-inhibitor (0.8197) | Non-inhibitor (0.500) | Non-inhibitor (0.539) |
| CYP Inhibitory Promiscuity | Low CYP Inhibitory Promiscuity (0.8818) | Low CYP Inhibitory Promiscuity (0.729) | Low CYP Inhibitory Promiscuity (0.815) |
| Toxicity | |||
| AMES Toxicity | Non-AMES toxic (0.506) | Non-AMES toxic (0.50) | Non-AMES toxic (0.882) |
| Carcinogens | Non-carcinogens (0.934) | Non-carcinogens (0.9712) | Non-carcinogens (0.912) |
| Acute Oral Toxicity | III (0.429) | IV (0.607) | III (0.749) |
| Rat Acute Toxicity LD50, mol/kg | 3.3280 | 1.4139 | 1.9882 |
| Aqueous solubility (LogS) | −4.3480 | −5.8146 | −4.7646 |
| Pharmacokinetics | |||
| GI absorption | low | High | High |
| Log | −4.53 | −1.42 | −1.42 |