| Literature DB >> 35567159 |
Mohammad Khalid1, Mohammed H Alqarni1, Ambreen Shoaib2, Shadma Wahab3, Ahmed I Foudah1, Tariq M Aljarba1, Juber Akhtar4, Mubarak A Alamri5, Sarfaraz Ahmad2.
Abstract
Obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular illnesses have known risk factors in the pathophysiology of an unhealthy diet. Obesity now affects almost a third of the world's population and is widely seen as a side effect of the Industrial Revolution. The current study aimed to determine natural phytoconstituents that have a significant role in the management of obesity. In this view, we have selected the plant Boerhavia diffusa which has different pharmacological actions and is traditionally used to treat sickness caused by lifestyle modification. The methanolic extract of the plant material was prepared and then further fractionated by means of solvents (n-hexane, chloroform, n-butanol, and water). The absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) analysis was done by taking the active constituent of the plant (Punarnavine, Boeravinone B, and Eupalitin). The molecular docking analysis of these compounds is also performed by targeting the cannabinoid receptor (CR). Structural analysis of the best complex was done using the Discovery Studio visualizer tool. High-performance thin-layer chromatography (HPTLC) analysis was done by using a solvent system (chloroform and methanol in a ratio of 8:2). The in vivo study was done on the Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats treated with a high-fat diet to induce obesity and different parameters such as body weight, behavioral activity, organ fat pad weight, lipid profile, and liver biomarkers (AST, ALT, BUN, and creatinine) were estimated. The result of the study suggested that the phytoconstituents of B. diffusa upon molecular docking revealed the possible binding mechanisms with the CR and thus show potent anti-obesity action.Entities:
Keywords: Boerhavia diffusa; Eupalitin; boeravinone B; cannabinoid receptors; obesity; punarnavine
Year: 2022 PMID: 35567159 PMCID: PMC9105516 DOI: 10.3390/plants11091158
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Rf values and area of each spot of HPTLC fingerprinting of methanolic extract.
| S. No. | Extract | λ (nm) | Rf Values | Area |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| 254 | 0.11, 0.28 | 625.52, 4821.79 |
| 366 | 0.61, 0.90 | 6647.29, 1029.34 |
Figure 1(A) HPTLC fingerprinting profile of B. diffusa extract. The peaks obtained after HPTLC fingerprinting of B. diffusa extract were similar to the peaks of phytoconstituents (Punarnavine and boeravinone B). Some additional peaks were also obtained; these may be a mixture of alkaloids. (B) HPTLC fingerprinting of B. diffusa extract. At 366 nm, the peaks obtained were nearly similar to the peaks of phytoconstituents studied before.
Absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) analyses of the selected bioactive compounds.
| Molecule | Eupalitin | Boeravinone B | Punarnavine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Formula | C17H14O7 | C17H12O6 | C18H15NO4 |
| Molecular weight | 330.29 g/mol | 312.27 g/mol | 309.32 g/mol |
| No. of heavy atoms | 24 | 23 | 23 |
| No. Aromatic atoms | 16 | 16 | 16 |
| Fraction Csp3 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.17 |
| No. rotatable bonds | 3 | 0 | 2 |
| No. H-bond acceptors | 7 | 6 | 4 |
| No. H-bond donors | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Mol. Refractivity | 86.97 | 82.63 | 87.46 |
| TPSA | 109.36 Å2 | 100.13Å2 | 49.69 Å2 |
| iLOGP | 2.27 | 2.47 | 3.14 |
| XLOGP | 2.82 | 2.39 | 3.12 |
| WLOGP | 2.59 | 2.24 | 2.94 |
| MLOGP | 0.07 | 0.87 | 1.65 |
| SILICOS -IT Log P | 2.59 | 2.62 | 3.47 |
| Log | 2.59 | 2.12 | 2.87 |
| ESOL Log S | −3.96 | −3.80 | −4.11 |
| Solubility (mg/mL) | 3.62 × 10−2 | 4.99 × 10−2 | 2.42 × 10−2 |
| Solubility (mol/L) | 1.10 × 10−4 | 1.60 × 10−4 | 7.83 × 10−5 |
| Class | Soluble | Soluble | Moderately soluble |
| Log S (Ali clss) | −4.77 | −4.13 | −3.83 |
| Solubility (mg/mL) | 5.56 × 10−3 | 2.29 × 10−2 | 4.55 × 10−2 |
| Solubility (mol/L) | 1.68 × 10−5 | 7.34 × 10−5 | 1.47 × 10−4 |
| Class | Moderately soluble | Moderately Soluble | Soluble |
| SILICOS-IT | −4.63 | −4.56 | −5.55 |
| Silicos-IT Class | Moderately soluble | Moderately soluble | Moderately soluble |
Pharmacokinetics profile of the selected bioactive compounds.
| Molecule | Eupalitin | Boeravinone B | Punarnavine |
|---|---|---|---|
| GI absorption | High | High | High |
| BBB permeant | No | NO | Yes |
| Pgp substrate | No | NO | No |
| CYP1A2 inhibitor | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| CYP2C19 inhibitor | No inhibitor | No inhibitor | No inhibitor |
| CYP2C9 inhibitor | Yes | No | Yes |
| CYP2D6 inhibitor | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| CYP3A4 inhibitor | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Log | −6.31 | −6.51 | −5.97 |
| Lipinski No of violation | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GHOS | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Veber | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| EGAN No. violation | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| MUEGGE No violation | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Bioavailability Score | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 |
| PAINS | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BRENK | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lead likeness | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Synthetic accessibility | 3.40 | 3.82 | 2.78 |
The molecular docking revealed the possible binding mechanisms of Cannabinoid receptors with the selected compounds.
| Target | Ligands | Binding Energy Score (Kcal/Mol) | H-Bond Interaction | Hydrophobic Interaction | H-Bond Distance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cannabinoid Receptor | Sibutramine | +61.22 | Thr105, Tyr106, Lys107, Arg112, Asn235, Ala324, Glu325, Cys326 | ARGA:112: THR A:105 | 3.20207, 3.08945 |
| Boeravinone B | −3.11 | Thr105, Tyr106, Lys107, Arg112, Asn235, Glu325 | THR A: 105, GLY A:329, TYR A:106, LEU A:113, LYS A:107, GLU A:377, LYSA:107, ARG A:112, THR A:105, ARG A:11, THR A:105, ASN A:235, GLU A:325, ASN A:235 | 2.73705, 3.01712 | |
| Eupalitin | −4.28 kcal | Thr105, Tyr106, Lys107, Arg112 | LYS A:107, GLU A:377, ARG A:112, THR A:105, ARG A:112, GLU A:325, ASN A:235:O | 2.62171, 3.20207 | |
| Punarnavine | −0.91 | Arg96, Tyr106, Lys107, Tyr108 | A:ARG96:, A:ASN 205, A:TYR 106, GLU A:234, LYS A:107, GLU A:377,TYR A:108, THR A:111, GLU A:234, ARG A:322 | 2.2459, 2.33441 |
Figure 2The docked complexes of selected compounds (A) Sibutramine, (B) Boeravinone B, (C) Eupalitin, and (D) Punarvavine with Cannabinoid receptor.
Figure 3Pictorial representation of molecular docking analysis. (A) Binding orientation in the docked complex of CR with Eupalitin. (B) Surface representation of the CR binding pocket with the Eupalitin. The compound Eupalitin is represented in green. Images were generated using Discovery Studio visualizer.
Figure 4Pictorial representation of molecular docking analysis. (A) Binding orientation in the docked complex of CR with BB. (B) Surface representation of the CR binding pocket with the BB. The compound BB is represented in green. Images were generated using Discovery Studio visualizer.
Figure 5Pictorial representation of molecular docking analysis. (A) Binding orientation in the docked complex of CR with Punarnavine. (B) Surface representation of the CR binding pocket with the Punarnavine. The compound Punarnavine is represented in green. Images were generated using Discovery Studio visualizer.
Figure 6Pictorial representation of molecular docking analysis. (A) Binding orientation in the docked complex of CR with sibutramine. (B) is represented in green. Images were generated using Discovery Studio visualizer. Surface representation of the CR binding pocket with the sibutramine.
Figure 7Total potential energies (kJ/mol) of the apo CB1 protein and the CB1–ligand complexes during the total 20 ns simulation time.
Figure 8(A) The RMSD of the whole backbone atoms and alpha-carbon atoms (Cα) and for apo CB1 receptor and CB1–ligand complexes. (B) Several hydrogen bonds formed during the period of 20 ns MD simulation. (C) Residue flexibility analysis by RMSF per residue with a focus on 101–300 and in figure (D) at 333–410 residues.
Effects of Wt-F of B. diffusa extract on body weight in SD rats after 60 days of treatment.
| Groups | Treatments | Initial Body Weight (g) | Final Body Weight (g) | % Increase in Body Weight | % Decrease in Body Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | Normal Control (NC) | 135.30 ± 3.27 | 203.42 ± 2.24 | 50.35 | - |
| II | High Fat Diet (HFD) | 136.12 ± 2.47 | 320.00 ± 5.01 * | 135.09 | - |
| III | HFD + Sibutramine (5 mg/kg) | 135.23 ± 2.39 | 226.67 ± 2.01 # | 67.61 | 67.48 |
| IV | HFD + Hx-F (200 mg/kg) | 137.50 ± 1.71 | 294.27 ± 4.24 ns | 114.01 | 21.08 |
| V | HFD + chlo-F (200 mg/kg) | 137.50 ± 3.35 | 287.08 ± 4.67 ns | 108.78 | 26.31 |
| VI | HFD + n-but-F (200 mg/kg) | 136.40 ± 1.54 | 284.17 ± 3.21 ns | 108.34 | 26.75 |
| VII | HFD + wt-F (200 mg/kg) | 135.23 ± 2.38 | 228.73 ± 4.17 # | 69.14 | 65.95 |
Data are expressed as Mean ± SEM of 6 rats in each group. p-value = * < 0.01 showed significance compared with respective group I; p-value = # < 0.01 showed significance compared with respective group II and ns = non-significant compared with respective group I.
Effects of Wt-F of B. diffusa extract on the visceral fat pad in SD rats after 60 days of treatments.
| Groups | Treatments | Heart (g) | Kidney (g) | Liver (g) | Uterus (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | Normal Control (NC) | 1.75 ± 0.11 | 1.17 ± 0.09 | 1.54 ± 0.09 | 1.49 ± 0.07 |
| II | High Fat Diet (HFD) | 2.34 ± 0.14 * | 1.59 ± 0.18 * | 2.76 ± 0.16 * | 2.80 ± 0.06 * |
| III | HFD + Sibutramine (5 mg/kg) | 1.77 ± 0.14 # | 1.19 ± 0.09 # | 1.67 ± 0.13 # | 1.54 ± 0.08 # |
| IV | HFD + Hx-F (200 mg/kg) | 2.22 ± 0.17 ns | 1.28 ± 0.11 ns | 2.61± 0.17 ns | 2.15 ± 0.10 ns |
| V | HFD + chlo-F (200 mg/kg) | 2.12 ± 0.20 ns | 1.31 ± 0.12 ns | 2.49 ± 0.18 ns | 2.11± 0.11 ns |
| VI | HFD + n-but-F (200 mg/kg) | 2.29 ± 0.12 ns | 1.29 ± 0.04 ns | 2.71 ± 0.10 ns | 2.09 ± 0.13 ns |
| VII | HFD + wt-F (200 mg/kg) | 1.76 ± 0.09 # | 1.21 ± 0.08 # | 1.62 ± 0.07 # | 1.56 ± 0.11 # |
Data are expressed as Mean ± SEM of 6 rats in each group. p-value = * < 0.01 showed significance compared with respective group I, p-value = # < 0.01 showed significance compared with respective group II and ns = non-significant compared with respective group II.
Effects of Boerhavia diffusa root fractions (WT-F) on food intake in SD rats after seven days of treatment.
| Groups | Treatments | Initial Day (g) | The Final Day (g) |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Normal Control (NC) | 9.67 ± 1.23 | 10.33 ± 1.80 |
| II | High Fat Diet (HFD) | 8.17 ± 1.35 | 14.83 ± 3.61 * |
| III | HFD + Sibutramine (5 mg/kg) | 10.83 ± 2.12 | 11.50 ± 2.39 # |
| IV | HFD + Hx-F (200 mg/kg) | 8.01 ± 1.29 | 13.67 ± 2.55 ns |
| V | HFD + chlo-F (200 mg/kg) | 10.33 ± 1.43 | 13.17 ± 3.27 ns |
| VI | HFD + n-but-F (200 mg/kg) | 9.33 ± 1.28 | 13.33 ± 3.05 ns |
| VII | HFD + wt-F (200 mg/kg) | 9.67 ± 1.75 | 11.50 ± 2.43 # |
Data are expressed as Mean ± SEM of 6 rats in each group. p-value = * < 0.01 showed significance compared with respective group I, p-value = # < 0.01 showed significance compared with respective group II and ns = non-significant compared with respective group I.
Figure 9Effects of Wt-F of B. diffusa extract on lipid profile in SD rats after 60 days of treatment. Where TC = Total cholesterol; HDL = High density lipoprotein; LDL = Low density lipoprotein; VLDL = Very low-density lipoprotein; TG = Triglyceride. Data are expressed as Mean ± SEM of 6 rats in each group and p-value = * < 0.01 showed significance compared with respective group I, p-value = # < 0.01 showed significance compared respective with group II and ns = non-significant compared with respective group II.
Figure 10Effects of Wt-F of B. diffusa extract on AST and ALT levels in SD rats after 60 days of treatment. Where AST= Aspartate aminotransferase; ALT = Alanin pyrophosphate. Data are expressed as Mean ± SEM of 6 rats in each group. p-value = * < 0.01 showed significance compared with respective group I, p-value = # < 0.01 showed significance compared with respective group II and ns = non-significant compared with respective group II.
Figure 11Effects of Wt-F of B. diffusa extract on BUN and creatinine in SD rats after 60 days of treatment. Where BUN = Blood Urea Nitrogen. Data are expressed as Mean ± SEM of 6 rats in each group. p-value = * < 0.01 showed significance compared with respective group I, p-value = # < 0.01 showed significance compared with respective group II and ns = non-significant compared with respective group II.