| Literature DB >> 35479905 |
Abdelsamed I Elshamy1,2, Tarik A Mohamed3, Mahmoud A A Ibrahim4, Mohamed A M Atia5, Tatsuro Yoneyama1, Akemi Umeyama1, Mohamed-Elamir F Hegazy3,6.
Abstract
The chemical characterization of the extract of the aerial parts of Paronychia arabica afforded two oxetane containing lignans, paronychiarabicine A (1) and B (2), and one new megastigmane, paronychiarabicastigmane A (3), alongside a known lignan (4), eight known phenolic compounds (5-12), one known elemene sesquiterpene (13) and one steroid glycoside (14). The chemical structures of the isolated compounds were constructed based upon the HRMS, 1D, and 2D-NMR results. The absolute configurations were established via NOESY experiments as well as experimental and TDDFT-calculated electronic circular dichroism (ECD). Utilizing molecular docking, the binding scores and modes of compounds 1-3 towards the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro), papain-like protease (PLpro), and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) were revealed. Compound 3 exhibited a promising docking score (-9.8 kcal mol-1) against SARS-CoV-2 Mpro by forming seven hydrogen bonds inside the active site with the key amino acids. The reactome pathway enrichment analysis revealed a correlation between the inhibition of GSK3 and GSK3B genes (identified as the main targets of megastigmane treatment) and significant inhibition of SARS-CoV-1 viral replication in infected Vero E6 cells. Our results manifest a novel understanding of genes, proteins and corresponding pathways against SARS-CoV-2 infection and could facilitate the identification and characterization of novel therapeutic targets as treatments of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35479905 PMCID: PMC9033657 DOI: 10.1039/d1ra02486h
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Fig. 1Structures of the isolated compounds (1–14).
1H and 13C NMR data of 1 and 2 (CD3OD, 500 MHz)a
| No. | Paronychiarabicine A (1) | Paronychiarabicine B (2) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| 1 | — | 131.3 | s | — | 132.0 | s |
| 2 | 6.46 br s | 117.7 | d | 6.48 br s | 116.9 | d |
| 3 | — | 128.6 | s | — | 128.8 | s |
| 4 | — | 146.9 | s | — | 146.7 | s |
| 5 | — | 147.7 | s | — | 147.7 | s |
| 6 | 6.58 d (1.3) | 113.5 | d | 6.65 d (2.0) | 112.9 | d |
| 7a | 2.83 dd (14.0, 5.5) | 34.2 | t | 2.76 dd (14.1, 5.4) | 34.0 | t |
| 7b | 2.74 dd (14.0, 5.5) | 2.59 dd (14.1, 5.4) | ||||
| 8 | 2.59 m | 46.5 | d | 2.58 m | 46.4 | d |
| 9 | — | 180.2 | s | — | 180.3 | s |
| 10a | 3.83 dd (7.3, 1.6) | 71.5 | t | 3.84 t (16.9) | 71.5 | t |
| 10b | 4.09 dd (7.3, 1.6) | 4.11 dd (7.6, 1.4) | ||||
| 11 | 2.42 m | 41.3 | d | 2.43 m | 41.1 | d |
| 12 | 2.41 m | 37.5 | t | 2.49 d (1.6), 2.42 d (1.6) | 37.7 | t |
| 13 | — | 130.1 | s | — | 129.9 | s |
| 14 | 6.50 d (1.9) | 112.0 | d | 6.46 d (1.9) | 112.6 | d |
| 15 | — | 144.0 | s | — | 145.0 | s |
| 16 | — | 144.9 | s | — | 144.0 | s |
| 17 | 6.65 dd (8.2, 2.0) | 114.7 | d | 6.66 dd (8.1, 1.9) | 114.7 | d |
| 18 | 6.42 dd (8.0, 2.0) | 120.9 | d | 6.58 d (8.0) | 121.7 | d |
| 1′ | — | 133.4 | s | — | 133.2 | s |
| 2′ | 6.82 d (1.9) | 108.9 | d | 6.85 d (2.0) | 109.1 | d |
| 3′ | — | 147.7 | s | — | 147.6 | s |
| 4′ | — | 146.1 | s | — | 146.2 | s |
| 5′ | 6.65 dd (8.2, 2.0) | 114.8 | d | 6.66 dd (8.1, 1.9) | 114.7 | d |
| 6′ | 6.72 dd (8.2, 2.0) | 118.3 | d | 6.73 dd (8.3, 1.9) | 118.3 | d |
| 7′ | 5.41 d (6.9) | 87.7 | d | 5.39 d (6.4) | 87.7 | d |
| 8′ | 3.34 dd (7.5, 11.4) | 54.0 | d | 3.35 m | 53.9 | d |
| 9′a | 3.71 ddd (7.5, 3.8, 2.0) | 63.6 | t | 3.69 ddd (8.0, 3.9, 2.6) | 63.4 | t |
| 9′b | 3.61 ddd (7.5, 3.8, 2.0) | 3.64 ddd (7.0, 4.3, 1.3) | ||||
| 5-OMe | 3.64 s | 54.9 | q | 3.67 s | 55.0 | q |
| 15-OMe | — | — | 3.71 s | 55.3 | q | |
| 16-OMe | 3.72 s | 55.3 | q | — | — | |
| 3′-OMe | 3.64 s | 54.9 | q | 3.70 s | 55.0 | q |
s: quaternary, d: methine, t: methylene, q: methyl.
Fig. 21H–1H COSY and HMBC of 1–3.
Fig. 3Key NOESY results of 1–3.
Fig. 4(a) Experimental electronic circular dichroism (ECD) in methanol of 1 (in black) and 2 (in blue), compared with the TDDFT-simulated ECD spectra of 1-7′R,8′R (in red) and 2-7′S,8′R (in green). (b) Experimental ECD in methanol of compound 3 (in black), compared with the TDDFT-simulated ECD spectra of 3-6S,9R, 3-6R,9R and 3-6R,9S.
1H and 13C NMR data of 3 (CD3OD, 500 MHz)a
| No. | Paronychiarabicastigmane A (1) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| 1 | — | 41.0 | s | 1′′ | — | 122.7 | s |
| 2a | 2.16 d (16.8) | 49.3 | t | 2′′ | 7.58 br s | 112.4 | d |
| 2b | 2.53 d (20.0) | 3′′ | — | 147.2 | s | ||
| 3 | — | 199.8 | s | 4′′ | — | 150.9 | s |
| 4 | 5.88 d (2.0) | 125.8 | d | 5′′ | 6.84 d (8.1) | 114.3 | d |
| 5 | — | 165.9 | s | 6′′ | 7.55 d (8.3) | 123.8 | d |
| 6 | — | 78.6 | s | 3′′-OMe | 3.91 s | 55.0 | q |
| 7 | 5.87 d (6.6) | 130.1 | d | ||||
| 8 | 5.87 d (6.6) | 133.9 | d | ||||
| 9 | 4.43 m | 75.9 | d | ||||
| 10 | 1.31 d (6.4) | 19.8 | q | ||||
| 11 | 1.93 d (1.2) | 18.2 | q | ||||
| 12 | 1.05 s | 22.0 | q | ||||
| 13 | 1.05 s | 22.3 | q | ||||
| 1′ | 4.36 d (7.8) | 101.3 | d | ||||
| 2′ | 3.18 m | 73.8 | d | ||||
| 3′ | 3.25 m | 76.6 | d | ||||
| 4′ | 3.28 m | 70.2 | d | ||||
| 5′ | 3.35 m | 76.7 | d | ||||
| 6′ | 3.67 m | ||||||
| 3.87 d (1.8) | 61.4 | t | |||||
| 7′ | — | 167.0 | s | ||||
s: quaternary, d: methine, t: methylene, q: methyl.
Fig. 5STRING protein–protein interaction (PPI) network for the top 20 targets for megastigmane (3) as a potent SARS inhibitor.
Fig. 6(A) The reactome map illustration of disease pathways influenced by the top 20 gene targets responding to megastigmane (3) in terms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The colours denote over-representation of that pathway in the input dataset. Light grey signifies pathways which are not significantly over-represented.
Top ten pathways of megastigmane (3) targets resulting from pathway enrichment analysis (PEA)
| Pathway | Pathway size | Number of targets in the pathway |
| FDR | Targets in pathway (hit genes) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cytokine signaling in the immune system | 780 | 12 | 7.19 × 10−9 | 6.87 × 10−7 |
|
| Signaling by receptor tyrosine kinases | 421 | 10 | 4.22 × 10−9 | 6.87 × 10−7 |
|
| Signaling by interleukins | 435 | 10 | 5.78 × 10−9 | 6.87 × 10−7 |
|
| Axon guidance | 492 | 10 | 1.87 × 10−8 | 1.20 × 10−6 |
|
| Signaling by NTRK1 (TRKA) | 73 | 6 | 8.48 × 10−9 | 6.87 × 10−7 |
|
| VEGFA–VEGFR2 pathway | 86 | 6 | 2.23 × 10−8 | 1.20 × 10−6 |
|
| Signaling by NTRKs | 92 | 6 | 3.31 × 10−8 | 1.50 × 10−6 |
|
| Signaling by VEGF | 94 | 6 | 3.76 × 10−8 | 1.50 × 10−6 |
|
|
| 18 | 4 | 6.85 × 10−8 | 2.19 × 10−6 |
|
| Gastrin–CREB signalling pathway | 18 | 4 | 6.85 × 10−8 | 2.19 × 10−6 |
|
Fig. 7SARS-CoV-2 infection pathway showing the targets (GSK3B; highlighted in dark yellow) in response to megastigmane (3) as a potent SARS-CoV-2 inhibitor. The interactor genes were highlighted in blue.
Fig. 8Predicted docking score and binding mode of compounds 1–3 inside the active site of SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro), papain-like protease (PLpro) and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp). Interactions: conventional hydrogen bond (green), carbon–hydrogen bond (pale green), pi–sigma and pi–pi (violet), pi–sulfur (yellow), alkyl and pi–alkyl (pale violet), unfavorable donor–donor (red), pi–lone-pair (lemon yellow).