| Literature DB >> 35742569 |
Roqayah H Kadi1, Khadijah A Altammar2, Mohamed M Hassan3, Abdullah F Shater4, Fayez M Saleh5, Hattan Gattan6,7, Bassam M Al-Ahmadi8, Qwait AlGabbani9, Zuhair M Mohammedsaleh4.
Abstract
Chlamydia pneumonia, a species of the family Chlamydiacea, is a leading cause of pneumonia. Failure to eradicate C. pneumoniae can lead to chronic infection, which is why it is also considered responsible for chronic inflammatory disorders such as asthma, arthritis, etc. There is an urgent need to tackle the major concerns arising due to persistent infections caused by C. pneumoniae as no FDA-approved drug is available against this chronic infection. In the present study, an approach named subtractive proteomics was employed to the core proteomes of five strains of C. pneumonia using various bioinformatic tools, servers, and software. However, 958 non-redundant proteins were predicted from the 4754 core proteins of the core proteome. BLASTp was used to analyze the non-redundant genes against the proteome of humans, and the number of potential genes was reduced to 681. Furthermore, based on subcellular localization prediction, 313 proteins with cytoplasmic localization were selected for metabolic pathway analysis. Upon subsequent analysis, only three cytoplasmic proteins, namely 30S ribosomal protein S4, 4-hydroxybenzoate decarboxylase subunit C, and oligopeptide binding protein, were identified, which have the potential to be novel drug target candidates. The Swiss Model server was used to predict the target proteins' three-dimensional (3D) structure. The molecular docking technique was employed using MOE software for the virtual screening of a library of 15,000 phytochemicals against the interacting residues of the target proteins. Molecular docking experiments were also evaluated using molecular dynamics simulations and the widely used MM-GBSA and MM-PBSA binding free energy techniques. The findings revealed a promising candidate as a novel target against C. pneumonia infections.Entities:
Keywords: drug candidates; molecular docking; molecular dynamic simulation; phytochemicals
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35742569 PMCID: PMC9223490 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19127306
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Graphical synopsis representing the overall methodology used in the current analysis.
Metabolic pathways of predicted proteins.
| Protein Name | Common Pathways within Human | Unique Pathways |
|---|---|---|
|
|
Metabolic pathways |
Beta-Lactam resistance Peptidoglycan biosynthesis |
|
|
Metabolic pathways Biosynthesis of amino acids Carbon metabolism Glycolysis/Gluconeogenesis Pentose phosphate pathway Fructose and mannose metabolism RNA degradation |
Microbial metabolism in diverse environments Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites Methane metabolism |
|
|
Metabolic pathways Biosynthesis of nucleotide sugars Amino sugar and nucleotide sugar metabolism |
Peptidoglycan biosynthesis |
|
|
Metabolic pathways |
Peptidoglycan biosynthesis |
|
|
Sulfur relay system Biosynthesis of cofactors Metabolic pathways Thiamine metabolism | |
|
|
Fatty acid biosynthesis Fatty acid metabolism Metabolic pathways | |
|
|
Metabolic pathways |
Microbial metabolism in diverse environments Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites |
|
|
Fatty acid biosynthesis Fatty acid metabolism Metabolic pathways Carbon metabolism Pyruvate metabolism Propanoate metabolism |
Microbial metabolism in diverse environments Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites |
|
|
Lipoic acid metabolism Metabolic pathways Biosynthesis of cofactors | |
|
|
Two-component system Flagellar assembly | |
|
|
Metabolic pathways |
Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites |
|
|
Microbial metabolism in diverse environments | |
|
|
Quorum sensing |
Figure 2Graphical representation of 3D Structures of the Proteins.
Depicting the quality and the refinement of the predicted structure using different computational tools.
| Receptors | 30S Ribosomal | 4-hydroxybenzoate Decarboxylase Subunit C | Oligopeptide Binding Protein |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.75 | 0.51 | 0.68 |
|
| 0.71 | 0.60 | 0.66 |
|
| |||
|
| 94.7% | 87.1% | 89.0% |
|
| 4.5% | 11.1% | 9.0% |
|
| 0.8% | 1.2% | 1.2% |
|
| 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.7% |
|
| |||
|
| 79.59% | 79.97% | 87.74% |
|
| |||
|
| 97.1223 | 78.3249 | 78.1182 |
|
| |||
|
| −5.18 | −5.64 | −8.26 |
Top drug candidates' binding affinity along with interacting residues.
| Target Receptors | Compounds I’D | Compounds Name | Compounds Structure | Binding Affinity | RMSD | Interacting Residues |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 442813 | Ononin |
| −9.10 | 1.31 | Lys 7 |
| 88708 | Gentiopicroside |
| −8.12 | 1.08 | Lys 11 | |
|
| 156707 | Sanggenon A |
| −12.49 | 1.65 | Arg 107 |
| 44260021 | Flaccidine |
| −12.19 | 1.72 | His 119 | |
|
| 6072 | Andromedotoxin |
| −11.33 | 0.99 | Ser 321 |
| 6427838 | Sophorose |
| −10.39 | 1.50 | Gln 354 |
Figure 3Three-dimensional representation of molecular docking analysis and the interaction of Ononin and Gentiopicroside inhibitors with 30S ribosomal protein S4.
Figure 4Three-dimensional representation of molecular docking analysis and the interaction of Sanggenon A and Flaccidine inhibitors with 4-hydroxybenzoate decarboxylase subunit C.
Figure 5Three-dimensional representation of molecular docking analysis and the interaction of Andromedotoxin and Sophorose inhibitors with Oligopeptide Binding Protein.
The top six phytochemicals were determined following Lipinski’s Rule of Five molecular properties and drug-likeness.
| Table. | Compounds I’D | Molecular Weight | Hydrogen Bond Donner | Hydrogen Bond Acceptor | MiLogP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 442813 | 428.39 | 2 | 9 | −1.48 |
| 88708 | 354.31 | 2 | 9 | −3.68 | |
|
| 156707 | 436.46 | 7 | 3 | 4.60 |
| 44260021 | 442.42 | 9 | 2 | 3.32 | |
|
| 6072 | 434.40 | 5 | 10 | −2.38 |
| 6427838 | 454.51 | 10 | 0 | −0.29 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 442813 | 428.39 | 2 | 9 | −1.48 |
| 88708 | 354.31 | 2 | 9 | −3.68 | |
|
| 156707 | 436.46 | 7 | 3 | 4.60 |
| 44260021 | 442.42 | 9 | 2 | 3.32 | |
|
| 6072 | 434.40 | 5 | 10 | −2.38 |
| 6427838 | 454.51 | 10 | 0 | −0.29 |
The top anticipated drug candidates for the C. pneumonia protein’s pharmacokinetic characteristics.
| Compounds | 442813 | 88708 | 156707 | 44260021 | 6072 | 6427838 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
|
| No | No | No | No | No | No |
|
| No | Yes | No | No | No | No |
|
| No | No | No | No | No | No |
|
| No | No | No | No | No | No |
|
| No | No | No | No | No | No |
|
| No | No | No | No | No | No |
|
| Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes |
|
| ||||||
|
| Non-Toxic | Non-Toxic | Non-Toxic | Non-Toxic | Non-Toxic | Non-Toxic |
|
| Non-Cytotoxic | Non-Cytotoxic | Non-Cytotoxic | Non-Cytotoxic | Non-Cytotoxic | Non-Cytotoxic |
|
| No | No | No | No | No | No |
Figure 6(a–c) Statistical investigation of the intermolecular stability and dynamics of the complexes based on molecular dynamics simulations.
Figure 7(a–c) RMSF plot of compounds showing stability index. (a) Ononin/30S ribosomal protein S4 complex; (b) Sanggenon A/4-hydroxybenzoate decarboxylase subunit C; (c) Andromedotoxin/Oligopeptide Binding Protein.
Target proteins’ binding energies calculations.
| Energy Parameters | 30S Ribosomal Protein S4/Ononin | 4-hydroxybenzoate Decarboxylase Subunit C/Sanggenon A | Oligopeptide Binding Protein/Andromedotoxin |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
|
| −32.45 kcal mol−1 | −23.87 kcal mol−1 | −30.72 kcal mol−1 |
|
| −37.34 kcal mol−1 | −33.75 kcal mol−1 | −25.37 kcal mol−1 |
|
| 10.20 kcal mol−1 | 9.70 kcal mol−1 | 15.09 kcal mol−1 |
|
| −27.04 kcal mol−1 | −22.43 kcal mol−1 | −24.58 kcal mol−1 |
|
| |||
|
| −32.45 kcal mol−1 | −23.87 kcal mol−1 | −30.72 kcal mol−1 |
|
| −37.34 kcal mol−1 | −33.75 kcal mol−1 | −25.37 kcal mol−1 |
|
| 7.23 kcal mol−1 | 4.26 kcal mol−1 | 8.67 kcal mol−1 |
|
| −29.46 kcal mol−1 | −30.39 kcal mol−1 | −26.08 kcal mol−1 |