| Literature DB >> 35889451 |
Md Amjad Beg1, Obaid Afzal2, Md Sayeed Akhtar3, Abdulmalik S A Altamimi2, Afzal Hussain4, Md Ali Imam1, Mohammad Naiyaz Ahmad5,6, Sidharth Chopra5,6, Fareeda Athar1.
Abstract
The emergence of drug resistance and the limited number of approved antitubercular drugs prompted identification and development of new antitubercular compounds to cure Tuberculosis (TB). In this work, an attempt was made to identify potential natural compounds that target mycobacterial proteins. Three plant extracts (A. aspera, C. gigantea and C. procera) were investigated. The ethyl acetate fraction of the aerial part of A. aspera and the flower ash of C. gigantea were found to be effective against M. tuberculosis H37Rv. Furthermore, the GC-MS analysis of the plant fractions confirmed the presence of active compounds in the extracts. The Mycobacterium target proteins, i.e., available PDB dataset proteins and proteins classified in virulence, detoxification, and adaptation, were investigated. A total of ten target proteins were shortlisted for further study, identified as follows: BpoC, RipA, MazF4, RipD, TB15.3, VapC15, VapC20, VapC21, TB31.7, and MazF9. Molecular docking studies showed that β-amyrin interacted with most of these proteins and its highest binding affinity was observed with Mycobacterium Rv1636 (TB15.3) protein. The stability of the protein-ligand complex was assessed by molecular dynamic simulation, which confirmed that β-amyrin most firmly interacted with Rv1636 protein. Rv1636 is a universal stress protein, which regulates Mycobacterium growth in different stress conditions and, thus, targeting Rv1636 makes M. tuberculosis vulnerable to host-derived stress conditions.Entities:
Keywords: A. aspera; C. gigantea; C. procera; GC-MS; MD simulations; Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC); Molecular docking; Tuberculosis (TB); β-amyrin
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35889451 PMCID: PMC9320329 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27144581
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Total yield of the extractable components (EC) from A. aspera (aerial and root parts) C. procera (flower), C. gigantea (flower) and C. gigantea (flower ash).
| S. No. | Extracted Fractions of | EC (in g) | Extracted Fractions | EC (in g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Methanol | 58.85 | Methanol | 39.93 |
| 2 | Aqueous | 54.60 | Aqueous | 35.86 |
| 3 | Hexane | 7.14 | Hexane | 1.82 |
| 4 | Ethyl acetate | 3.18 | Ethyl acetate | 0.93 |
| 5 | Ethanol | 1.73 | Ethanol | 0.46 |
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 | Methanol | 13.26 | Methanol | 11.33 |
| 2 | Aqueous | 10.83 | Aqueous | 9.66 |
| 3 | Hexane | 1.02 | Hexane | 3.82 |
| 4 | Ethyl acetate | 3.56 | Ethyl acetate | 3.33 |
| 5 | Ethanol | 1.20 | Ethanol | 1.26 |
|
|
| |||
| 1 | Methanol | 12.56 | ||
| 2 | Aqueous | 9.89 | ||
| 3 | Ethyl acetate | 3.69 |
Phytochemical screening of alkaloids, tannins, saponins, and terpenoids present in the various plant fractions.
| S. No. | Phytochemicals | Methanol | Aqueous | Ethanol | EtOAc | Hexane |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aerial Part Extracts of | ||||||
| 1 | Alkaloids | + | − | + | − | − |
| 2 | Tannins | + | − | − | + | − |
| 3 | Saponins | − | − | + | + | − |
| 4 | Terpenoids | + | − | + | − | − |
|
| ||||||
| 1 | Alkaloids | + | + | − | + | − |
| 2 | Tannins | + | − | + | + | − |
| 3 | Saponins | + | + | + | − | − |
| 4 | Terpenoids | − | + | − | + | − |
|
| ||||||
| 1 | Alkaloids | + | + | + | − | − |
| 2 | Tannins | + | + | + | + | + |
| 3 | Saponins | + | − | − | − | + |
| 4 | Terpenoids | − | + | − | + | + |
|
| ||||||
| 1 | Alkaloids | − | + | + | + | − |
| 2 | Tannins | + | − | − | − | − |
| 3 | Saponins | + | + | − | − | + |
| 4 | Terpenoids | + | − | − | + | − |
Figure 1Total flavonoid content determination (a) A. aspera (b) C. gigantea and C. procera.
Figure 2Total Flavonoid content determination (a) A. aspera (b) C. gigantea and C. procera.
Figure 3GC-MS chromatogram of ethyl acetate fractions of (a) A. aspera (aerial) and (b) C. gigantea (flower ash). TIC* indicates Total Ion Chromatogram.
Assessment of multitarget signature Mtb proteins based on virulence, detoxification, and adaptation category.
| S. No. | Rv No. | Name | PDB ID | Information | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0554 |
| 7LD8 | Possible peroxidase BpoC (Non-essential gene for in vitro growth of H37Rv) | [ |
| 2 | 1477 |
| 4Q4N | Peptidoglycan hydrolase; (essential gene for in vitro growth of H37Rv) | [ |
| 3 | 1495 |
| 5XE2 | Possible toxin MazF4 (non-essential gene for in vitro growth of H37Rv) | [ |
| 4 | 1566c |
| 4LJ1 | Possible | [ |
| 5 | 1636 |
| 1TQ8 | Iron-regulated universal stress protein family protein TB15.3 (non-essential gene for in vitro growth of H37Rv) | [ |
| 6 | 2010 |
| 4CHG | Toxin VapC15 (Non-essential gene for in vitro growth of H37Rv) | [ |
| 7 | 2549c |
| 5WZ4 | Possible toxin VapC20 (non-essential gene for in vitro growth of H37Rv) | [ |
| 8 | 2623 |
| 2JAX | Universal stress protein family protein TB31.7 (non-essential gene for in vitro growth of H37Rv) | [ |
| 9 | 2757c |
| 5SV2 | Possible toxin VapC21 (non-essential gene for in vitro growth of H37Rv) | [ |
| 10 | 2801c |
| 6L2A | Toxin MazF9 (non-essential gene for in vitro growth of H37Rv) | [ |
Figure 4The selected virulence, detoxification, adaptation (VDA) category of M. tuberculosis H37Rv proteins. (a) Physiochemical parameters of VDA proteins (b) Functional classification of VDA proteins (c) Subcellular localization of VDA proteins and (d) Secondary structure analysis of VDA proteins.
Figure 5Phylogenetic tree depicting the relationships between virulence categories proteins in M. tuberculosis H37Rv.
Figure 6Network analysis: (a) PPI network of the selected ten virulent genes which were involved in significant pathways comprised a total number of 93 nodes and 101 edges. (b) Venn plot showing the intersection of degree-based radiality category found 3 genes. (c) Venn plot showing the intersection degree-based stress category found 3 genes.
Ramachandran plot statistics of selected virulent category proteins.
| S. No. | Protein | Most Favoured Region | Additional Allowed Region | Generously Allowed Region | Disallowed Region |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rv0554 | 92.1% | 7.5% | 0.0% | 0.4% |
| 2 | Rv1477 | 92.5% | 6.9% | 0.0% | 0.6% |
| 3 | Rv1495 | 95.3% | 4.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 4 | Rv1566c | 98.0% | 2.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 5 | Rv1636 | 91.0% | 9.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 6 | Rv2010 | 94.2% | 5.0% | 0.0% | 0.7% |
| 7 | Rv2549c | 95.8% | 4.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 8 | Rv2623 | 74.5% | 22.7% | 1.8% | 0.9% |
| 9 | Rv2757c | 96.7% | 3.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 10 | Rv2801c | 94.8% | 5.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Figure 7Comparative docking score analysis of the VDA proteins against top hit phytoconstituents.
Figure 8Docking interaction analysis: 2D structural representation of Protein-ligand complexes having pi-Alkyl bonds (purple) and Hydrogen bond (green) along with interacted residues.
The physicochemical properties of the selected top hit compounds.
| PubChem ID | Name | #M.W. | #Rot. Bond | #HBA | #HBD | LogP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 225689 | Beta-Amyrin | 426 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4.74 |
| 500213 | Handianol | 426.72 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 5.17 |
| 584269 | - | 472.79 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5.88 |
| 6436660 | Dehydroergosterol | 394.63 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4.68 |
| 124061 | Olean-12-ene-3, 22-diol | 442.72 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4.65 |
| 605144 | - | 468.75 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 4.95 |
| 92158 | Lupenone | 424.70 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4.54 |
| 345510 | Beta-Amyrenyl acetate | 468.75 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 5.19 |
| 91537342 | 24-Norursa-3, 12-diene | 394.68 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.76 |
| 91692798 | Stigmasta-4,7,22-triene-3. alpha.-ol | 410.67 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 4.70 |
#M.W. (Molecular Weight (Da); #Rot. bond (Rotatable bond); #HBA (hydrogen bond acceptor); #HBD (hydrogen bond donor).
ADMET properties of the top hit selected compounds.
| PubChem ID | Absorption | Distribution | Metabolism | Excretion | Toxicity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GI abs. | W.S. | |||||
| 225689 | 93.733 | −6.531 | No | No | No | No |
| 500213 | 95.248 | −5.762 | No | No | No | No |
| 584269 | 97.43 | −4.664 | No | No | No | No |
| 6436660 | 94.999 | −7.112 | No | No | No | No |
| 124061 | 92.522 | −6.351 | No | No | No | No |
| 605144 | 98.182 | −5.878 | No | No | No | No |
| 92158 | 98.467 | −5.828 | No | No | No | No |
| 345510 | 97.342 | −6.649 | No | No | No | No |
| 91537342 | 95.778 | −6.925 | No | No | No | No |
| 91692798 | 95.604 | −6.696 | No | No | No | No |
GI abs. (Gastrointestinal absorption percentage); W.S. (Water Solubility (log mol/L); BBB/CNS permeation (blood brain barrier/central nervous system); Toxicity A/H/S (toxicity AMES/Hepatotoxicity/Skin sensitization).
Figure 9Structural dynamics of universal stress protein (Rv1636) upon β-amyrin binding as a function of time. (a) RMSD plot of Rv1636 in complex with β-amyrin. (b) RMSF plot of Rv1636 in complex with β-amyrin. (c) Structural compactness and folding Rv1636 upon β-amyrin. (d) SASA plot of Rv1636 as a function of time before and after β-amyrin binding. (e) The time evolution of projections of trajectories on both EVs. The free energy landscapes of free Rv1636 protein (f) The free energy landscapes of free Rv1636 with β-amyrin.