| Literature DB >> 35889399 |
Sabbir Ahmed1, Md Chayan Ali1, Rumana Akter Ruma1, Shafi Mahmud2, Gobindo Kumar Paul3, Md Abu Saleh3, Mohammed Merae Alshahrani4, Ahmad J Obaidullah5,6, Sudhangshu Kumar Biswas1, Md Mafizur Rahman1, Md Mizanur Rahman1, Md Rezuanul Islam1.
Abstract
Piper betle L. is widely distributed and commonly used medicinally important herb. It can also be used as a medication for type 2 diabetes patients. In this study, compounds of P. betle were screened to investigate the inhibitory action of alpha-amylase and alpha-glucosidase against type 2 diabetes through molecular docking, molecular dynamics simulation, and ADMET (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity) analysis. The molecule apigenin-7-O-glucoside showed the highest binding affinity among 123 (one hundred twenty-three) tested compounds. This compound simultaneously bound with the two-target proteins alpha-amylase and alpha-glucosidase, with high molecular mechanics-generalized born surface area (MM/GBSA) values (ΔG Bind = -45.02 kcal mol-1 for alpha-amylase and -38.288 for alpha-glucosidase) compared with control inhibitor acarbose, which had binding affinities of -36.796 kcal mol-1 for alpha-amylase and -29.622 kcal mol-1 for alpha-glucosidase. The apigenin-7-O-glucoside was revealed to be the most stable molecule with the highest binding free energy through molecular dynamics simulation, indicating that it could compete with the inhibitors' native ligand. Based on ADMET analysis, this phytochemical exhibited a wide range of physicochemical, pharmacokinetic, and drug-like qualities and had no significant side effects, making them prospective drug candidates for type 2 diabetes. Additional in vitro, in vivo, and clinical investigations are needed to determine the precise efficacy of drugs.Entities:
Keywords: Piper betle L.; antidiabetic drugs; apigenin-7-O-glucoside; in silico analysis; type 2 diabetes
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35889399 PMCID: PMC9316265 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27144526
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1Molecular interactions of the selected compound with alpha-amylase, (a) apigenin-7-O-glucoside with alpha-amylase, (b) control acarbose with alpha-amylase.
Data for the molecular docking of apigenin-7-O-glucoside, luteolin-7-O-glucoside, quercetin, and control acarbose with alpha-amylase (3BAJ).
| Compounds | Interaction | Residues in Contact | Distance in Å |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apigenin-7- | Conventional hydrogen bond | ASP-300 | 2.41 |
| GLU-233 | 1.87 | ||
| ASP-197 | 1.86, 1.59 | ||
| HIS-305 | 2.65 | ||
| GLY-306 | 2.89 | ||
| GLN-63 | 2.87 | ||
| Carbon hydrogen bond | ASP-300 | 2.44 | |
| Unfavourable donor-donor | ARG-195 | 2.42 | |
| Pi-Pi stacked | TRP-59 | ||
| Luteolin-7- | Conventional hydrogen bond | ASP-300 | 1.68 |
| GLU-233 | 1.97 | ||
| HIS-299 | 2.35 | ||
| ASP-356 | 2.26, 2.82 | ||
| ARG-195 | 2.16 | ||
| GLN-63 | 2.27, 2.73, 2.89 | ||
| Carbon hydrogen bond | ASP-197 | 2.37 | |
| ASP-300 | 2.23 | ||
| HIS-305 | 2.54 | ||
| Pi-cation | HIS-305 | 2.52 | |
| Pi-Pi stacked | TRP-95 | 4.92, 5.55 | |
| 4.03, 4.29 | |||
| Quercetin | Conventional hydrogen bond | ASP-300 | 2.22 |
| ASP-197 | 1.78 | ||
| HIS-305 | 2.19, 2.84 | ||
| THR-163 | 2.09 | ||
| Carbon hydrogen bond | HIS-101 | 2.4 | |
| Acarbose | Conventional hydrogen bond | GLU-240 | 2.20, 2.02 |
| GLY-306 | 1.99, 1.73 | ||
| HIS-305 | 2.93, 2.11 | ||
| ASP-197 | 1.81 | ||
| ASP-300 | 1.68 | ||
| THR-163 | 3.01, 2.19 | ||
| Carbon hydrogen bond | GLY-306 | 2.54 | |
| ASP-300 | 2.51 | ||
| Pi-Pi stacked | TYR-151 | 3.84 |
Figure 2Molecular interactions of the selected compound with alpha-glucosidase, (a) apigenin-7-O-glucoside with alpha-glucosidase, (b) control acarbose with alpha-glucosidase.
Data for the molecular docking of apigenin-7-O-glucoside, luteolin-7-O-glucoside, quercetin, and control acarbose with alpha-glucosidase (3W37).
| Compounds | Interaction | Residues in Contact | Distance in Å |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apigenin-7- | Conventional hydrogen bond | ASP-60 | 1.7 |
| ASN-258 | 2.01 | ||
| ASP-327 | 2.27, 2.98 | ||
| ILE-143 | 1.75, 2.61 | ||
| ASP-382 | 1.77, 2.06 | ||
| Carbon | ARG-411 | 2.05 | |
| GLY-384 | 3.09 | ||
| GLY-410 | 2.67 | ||
| Pi-Anion | ASP-327 | 3.98, 4.56 | |
| Pi-Pi stacked | PHE-163 | 4.52 | |
| Pi-Pi T shaped | TYR-63 | 5.44 | |
| Luteolin-7- | Conventional hydrogen bond | HIS-103 | 2.96 |
| ASP-60 | 1.61, 1.80 | ||
| ILE-143 | 1.75, 2.58 | ||
| ASP-382 | 1.77, 2.07 | ||
| THR-409 | 2.45 | ||
| ASN-258 | 2.04 | ||
| ARG-411 | 1.79, 2.05 | ||
| Carbon hydrogen bond | ASP-327 | 2.93, 3.99 | |
| GLY-410 | 2.67 | ||
| GLY-384 | 3.09 | ||
| Pi-Anion | ASP-199 | 4.32 | |
| Pi-Alkyl | ALA-200 | 5.24 | |
| Pi-Pi T shaped | PHE-144 | 5.8 | |
| Pi-Pi stacked | PHE-163 | 4.26 | |
| Quercetin | Conventional hydrogen bond | HIS-203 | 2.07 |
| ASN-258 | 2.08, 2.89, 2.90 | ||
| ASP-382 | 2.02, 2.07 | ||
| Pi-cation | ARG-411 | 4.97 | |
| Pi-Pi T-shaped | PHE-163 | 5.13 | |
| Pi-Alkyl | ILE-143 | 5.04, 5.16 | |
| Acarbose | Conventional hydrogen bond | ASP-327 | 190 |
| ARG-411 | 2.56, 2.02 | ||
| ASP-60 | 1.48 | ||
| GLN-167 | 3.1 | ||
| HIS-103 | 2.78 | ||
| ASP-199 | 1.60, 1.92 | ||
| HIS-203 | 2.07, 1.89, 2.31 | ||
| GLY-384 | 1.95 | ||
| SER-145 | 2.14 | ||
| Carbon hydrogen bond | ASP-60 | 2.26 |
Figure 3Molecular interactions of selected compound luteolin-7-O-glucoside, (a) luteolin-7-O-glucoside with alpha-amylase, (b) luteolin-7-O-glucoside with alpha-glucosidase.
Pharmacokinetic and toxicological properties of apigenin-7-O-glucoside calculated from QikProp.
| Compound | Pubchem Id | Docking Score | MMGBSA Dg Bind * | Molecular Weight (MW) a | SASA b | Donor HB c | Accept HB d | Qplog Po/w e | QPlogS f | QPlog HERG g | Human Oral h |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apigenin-7- | 5280704 | −7.6 | −45.02 | 432.4 | 680.5 | 5 | 12.25 | −0.307 | −3.248 | −5.79 | 30.65 |
| Apigenin-7- | 5280704 | −10.2 | −38.28 | 432.4 | 680.5 | 5 | 12.25 | −0.307 | −3.248 | −5.79 | 30.65 |
* MM-GBSA, Molecular mechanics-generalized born and surface area; a Molecular weight (acceptable range: <500); b Total solvent accessible surface area in using a probe with a 1.4 radius (acceptable range: 300–1000); c Hydrogen bond donor (acceptable range: ≤5); d Hydrogen bond acceptor (acceptable range: ≤10); e Predicted octanol/water partition coefficient (acceptable range: −2 to 6.5); f Predicted aqueous solubility, S in mol dm−3 (acceptable range: −6.5 to 0.5); g Predicted IC50 value for blockage of HERG K+ channels (concern: below −5); h Predicted human oral absorption on 0 to 100% scale (<25% is poor and >80% is high).
Figure 4Molecular dynamics simulation for alpha-amylase. Analysis of (a) RMSD (Root Mean Square Deviation); (b) RMSF (Root Mean Square Fluctuations); (c) SASA (Solvent Accessible Surface Area) (d) Rg (Radius of Gyration); and (e) Binding free energy.
Figure 5Molecular dynamics simulation for alpha-glucosidase. Analysis of (a) RMSD (Root Mean Square Deviation); (b) RMSF (Root Mean Square Fluctuations); (c) SASA (Solvent Accessible Surface Area) (d) Rg (Radius of Gyration); and (e) Binding free energy.
Figure 6Schematic diagram of this study with molecular docking and dynamics simulation of natural compounds from Piper betle L.