| Literature DB >> 35514923 |
Seham S El Hawary1, Amira R Khattab2, Hanan S Marzouk3, Amira S El Senousy1, Mariam G A Alex3, Omar M Aly4, Mohamed Teleb5, Usama Ramadan Abdelmohsen6,7.
Abstract
Coronavirus (CoV) is a positive RNA genome virus causing a global panic nowadays. Tecoma is a medicinally-valuable genus in the Bignoniaceae family, with some of its species exhibiting anti-HIV activity. This encouraged us to conduct an in silico exploration of some phytocompounds in Tecoma species cultivated in Egypt, namely Tecoma capensis and its four varieties i.e. yellow, harmony, pink and red, T. grandiflora Loisel., T. radicans L., and one hybrid i.e. Tecoma × smithii W. Watson. LC/MS-based metabolite profiling of the studied Tecoma plants resulted in the dereplication of 12 compounds (1-12) belonging to different phytochemical classes viz. alkaloids, iridoids, flavonoids and fatty acid esters. The in silico inhibitory action of these compounds against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein C-terminal domain in complex with human ACE2 was assessed via molecular docking. Succinic acid decyl-3-oxobut-2-yl ester (10), a fatty acid ester, possessed the best binding affinity (-6.77 kcal mol-1), as compared to hesperidin (13) (-7.10 kcal mol-1). This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 35514923 PMCID: PMC9058143 DOI: 10.1039/d0ra08997d
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
List of the identified metabolites in leaf methanolic extracts of 8 Tecoma plants under study using LC-HRESIMS
| # | Compound name |
| [M − H]− | Molecular formula | Error (0.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Octanoic acid, 4-benzyloxyphenyl ester | 1.32 | 325.1835 | C21H26O3 | 0.0134 | + | − | + | + | − | + | + | + |
| 2 | Fumaric acid, 3,4-dimethoxyphenyl heptyl ester | 1.82 | 349.1141 | C19H26O6 | −0.0495 | + | + | − | + | − | + | + | + |
| 3 | Boschniakine | 2.07 | 160.5217 | C10H11NO | 0.0446 | + | + | + | + | + | − | − | + |
| 4 | Luteolin 7- | 2.18 | 447.1537 | C21H20O11 | 0.0604 | − | − | − | + | + | − | − | + |
| 5 | Actinidine | 2.89 | 147.9783 | C10H13N | 0.0109 | + | + | + | + | + | − | + | + |
| 6 | Skytanthine | 3.16 | 166.3757 | C11H21N | 0.02156 | + | − | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| 7 | Tecomanine (syn. tecomine) | 3.35 | 178.0705 | C11H17NO | 0.0013 | + | − | − | + | + | − | + | + |
| 8 | 7- | 3.38 | 521.1938 | C25H30O12 | 0.0973 | − | − | + | + | − | + | − | + |
| 9 | 7- | 3.60 | 535.2093 | C26H32O12 | 0.0122 | − | − | + | + | + | + | − | + |
| 10 | Succinic acid, decyl 3-oxobut-2-yl ester | 3.78 | 327.2163 | C18H32O5 | 0.0134 | + | − | + | + | − | + | + | + |
| 11 | 7- | 4.96 | 495.2212 | C23H28O12 | 0.0267 | − | − | + | + | + | − | − | − |
| 12 | Valeric acid, pentadecyl ester | 6.78 | 311.1672 | C20H40O2 | 0.0537 | + | + | − | + | − | + | + | + |
Docking simulations results of the studied Tecoma phytocompounds
| No. | Name of phytoligands | Δ | Interactions at the binding interface | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| hACE2 residues | SARSCoV-2-CTD residues | |||
| 1 | Octanoic acid, 4-benzyloxyphenyl ester | −6.66 | No interaction | Gln493 |
| 2 | Fumaric acid, 3,4-dimethoxyphenyl heptyl ester | −5.28 | No interaction | Glu406, Arg408, |
| 3 | Boschniakine | −3.76 |
| Gln493 |
| 4 | Luteolin 7- | −4.84 | Glu37, | Glu406, Gln493 |
| 5 | Actinidine | −4.80 | No interaction | No interaction |
| 6 | Skytanthine | −4.47 | No interaction | Arg403 |
| 7 | Tecomanine (syn. tecomine) | −4.64 |
|
|
| 8 | 7- | −6.73 | No interaction | Glu406, Gln409 |
| 9 | 7- | −5.44 |
| Arg403 |
| 10 | Succinic acid, decyl 3-oxobut-2-yl ester | −6.77 |
| Gln493 |
| 11 | 7- | −6.48 | Glu37, | Asp405, Arg408, |
| 12 | Valeric acid, pentadecyl ester | −6.73 |
|
|
| 13 | Hesperidin | −7.10 |
| Gln409, |
The ligand–receptor complex binding free energy at RMSD < 2 Å.
The key residues involved in the SARS-CoV-2-CTD–2hACE complex formation are listed in bold.
Fig. 1(A) 3D binding mode of 1 (cyan sticks), (B) 2D binding mode of 1, (C) 3D binding mode of 2 (yellow sticks), (D) 2D binding mode of 2, (E) 3D binding mode of 3 (magenta sticks), (F) 2D binding mode of 3, (G) 3D binding mode of 4 (orange sticks), (H) 2D binding mode of 4, (I) 3D binding mode of 6 (light pink sticks), (J) 2D binding mode of 6, (K) 3D binding mode of 7 (green sticks), (L) 2D binding mode of 7, (M) 3D binding mode of 8 (deep pink sticks), (N) 2D binding mode of 8, (O) 3D binding mode of 9 (white sticks), (P) 2D binding mode of 9, (Q) 3D binding mode of 10 (red sticks), (R) 2D binding mode of 10, (S) 3D binding mode of 11 (deep yellow sticks), (T) 2D binding mode of 11, (U) 3D binding mode of 12 (pink sticks), (V) 2D binding mode of 12 (W) 3D binding mode of 13 (blue sticks), (X) 2D binding mode of 13 in the binding interface of SARS-CoV-2-CTD in complex with hACE2 (PDB ID 6LZG).
Fig. 2Overlay of 1 (cyan sticks), 2 (yellow sticks), 3 (magenta sticks), 4 (orange sticks), 6 (light pink sticks), 7 (green sticks), 8 (deep pink sticks), 9 (white sticks), 10 (red sticks), 11 (deep yellow sticks), 12 (pink sticks) and 13 (blue sticks) in the binding interface of SARS-CoV-2-CTD in complex with hACE2 (PDB ID 6LZG).