| Literature DB >> 35890200 |
Mira Syahfriena Amir Rawa1,2,3, Mohammad G Al-Thiabat1, Toshihiko Nogawa3,4, Yushi Futamura5, Akiko Okano5, Habibah A Wahab1,2,3.
Abstract
Despite much interest and studies toward the genus Podocarpus, the anti-malarial evaluation of Podocarpus polystachyus's phytoconstituents remains lacking. Herein, the phytoconstituents of P. polystachyus leaves and their anti-malarial effect against Plasmodium falciparum were investigated for the first time. One new natural product, 8ß,13ß-kaur-15-en-17-al (1), along with three known compounds, 8ß,13ß-kaur-15-en-17-ol (2) and 13ß-kaur-16-ene (3), and α-tocopherol hydroquinone (4) were isolated via HR-ESI-MS and NMR analyses. Compounds 1 and 2 inhibited P. falciparum growth at 12 and 52 µM of IC50, respectively. Their anti-malarial activity was associated with the in silico P. falciparum lactate dehydrogenase (PfLDH) inhibition. Molecular docking of ligands 1 and 2 with the putative target PfLDH revealed ~-2 kcal/mol of binding energies more negative than the control. Molecular dynamic simulations (100 ns) showed equal or smaller deviation values (RMSD, RMSF, Rg) and stronger interactions of PfLDH-1 and PfLDH-2 complexes via at least one consistent H-bond than the control. Additionally, a slightly increased PfLDH H-bond profile in their interactions improved the PfLDH dynamic and structural stabilities. Overall, this study supports the relevance of 1 and 2 as plasmodial growth inhibitors with their putative anti-PfLDH activity, which could be a potential scaffold for developing anti-malarial drugs.Entities:
Keywords: PfLDH; Plasmodium falciparum; Podocarpaceae; Podocarpus polystachyus; anti-malarial; isolation; kaurene; molecular docking; molecular dynamics; structure elucidation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35890200 PMCID: PMC9318793 DOI: 10.3390/ph15070902
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceuticals (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8247
Figure 1Structures of 1–4.
13C and 1H NMR spectral data of 1 and its diastereomer, ent-kaur-15-en-17-al (CDCl3 solution, δ values in ppm, J values in Hz).
| 13C | 1 | Calculated NMR | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 38.8 | 40.4 | 38.5 | ||
|
| 18.8 | 1.38, m | 18.5 | 19.2 | |
|
| 42.2 | 42.0 | 40.6 | ||
|
| 33.4 | 33.3 | 33.0 | ||
|
| 56.0 | 0.88, m | 55.9 | 0.80, dd (12,2) | 55.7 |
|
| 20.2 | 1.40, m | 18.7 | 21.2 | |
|
| 36.3 | 1.40, m | 38.2 | 36.3 | |
|
| 50.0 | 51.0 | 49.4 | ||
|
| 54.20 | 1.20, m | 46.8 | 1.06, bd (12) | 53.6 |
|
| 37.7 | 39.8 | 38.1 | ||
|
| 19.1 | 1.10, m | 18.4 | 19.7 | |
|
| 24.9 | 1.44, m | 25.3 | 24.5 | |
|
| 36.4 | 2.85, m | 38.0 | 3.01, bd (5) | 36.4 |
|
| 54.17 | 1.25, m | 43.0 | 1.36, dd (10.5,5) | 54.3 |
|
| 157.5 | 6.85, s | 162.3 | 6.55, s | 156.8 |
|
| 147.6 | 148.5 | 147.9 | ||
|
| 190.1 | 9.71, s | 189.5 | 9.70, s | 191.4 |
|
| 22.1 | 0.86, s | 33.5 | 0.85, s | 22.7 |
|
| 33.8 | 0.82, s | 21.5 | 0.79, s | 34.0 |
|
| 15.7 | 0.73, s | 17.7 | 1.04, s | 17.1 |
The docking scores for compounds 1, 2, and the co-crystallized ligand (3,5-dihydroxy-2-naphthoic acid) in the active binding site of PfLDH (1U5A.PDB) using AutoDock 4.2.
| Compound | *ΔGbind (kcal/mol) | Experimental IC50 (µM) |
|---|---|---|
|
| −8.03 | 12 |
|
| −7.97 | 52 |
| Control | −5.94 | --- |
Figure 2Two-dimensional interaction analysis of docked models of compounds 1 (a) and 2 (b) with PfLDH binding site.
Figure 3The root mean square deviation (RMSD) plots of the enzyme and ligand backbone atoms for the selected systems. Apo-PfLDH (black), PfLDH-control (red and orange), PfLDH-1 (Dark green and lime), and PfLDH-2 (blue and cyan).
Figure 4The RMSF graphs of the PfLDH backbone atoms throughout the 100 ns MD simulation time for all systems. The RMSF values indicate the residual atomic fluctuations of each amino acid residue when they interact with the ligands throughout the trajectory.
Figure 5Radius of gyration (Rg) plots of the PfLDH backbone atoms of all systems at MD interval time (0–100 ns); Apo-PfLDH (black), PfLDH-control (red), PfLDH-1 (dark green), and PfLDH-2 (blue).
The binding free energies (MM-PBSA) for complexes from MD simulation trajectories (90–100 ns). The molecular docking scores from AutoDock 4.2 for the complexes are compared in the table.
| Complex with | ΔGbind | VDW | EEL | Gpolar | Gnon-polar | AutoDock 4.2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −30.87 ± 0.15 | −30.33 ± 0.09 | −7.06 ± 0.81 | 9.87 ± 0.14 | −3.96 ± 0.01 | −8.03 |
|
| −24.70 ± 0.15 | −35.85 ± 0.09 | −7.37 ± 0.14 | 22.92 ± 0.11 | −4.40 ± 0.07 | −7.97 |
| Control | −16.64 ± 0.12 | −15.07 ± 0.14 | −116.83 ± 0.51 | 117.49 ± 0.47 | −2.23 ± 0.01 | −5.94 |
ΔGbind: binding free energy, VDW: van der Waals, EEL: electrostatic, Gpolar: polar solvation energy, Gnon-polar: non-polar solvation energy.
Figure 6Two-dimensional interaction models show how H-bonds are formed between PfLDH-1 (a) and PfLDH-2 (b) with the amino acid residues in the PfLDH active binding site at 100 ns (last snapshot) of MD time intervals.