| Literature DB >> 35956550 |
Yerlan M Suleimen1,2, Rani A Jose3,4, Gulnur K Mamytbekova5, Raigul N Suleimen5, Margarita Y Ishmuratova6, Wim Dehaen3, Bshra A Alsfouk7, Eslam B Elkaeed8, Ibrahim H Eissa9, Ahmed M Metwaly10,11.
Abstract
The phytochemical constituents of Calligonum tetrapterum Jaub. & Spach (Family Polygonaceae) were studied for the first time. The study resulted in the isolation of the rare flavonol glycoside, kaempferol 3-O-(6″-O-acetyl)-glucoside,(K3G-A). The potential inhibitive activity of K3G-A toward SARS-CoV-2 was investigated utilizing several in silico approaches. First, molecular fingerprints and structural similarity experiments were carried out for K3G-A against nine co-crystallized ligands of nine proteins of SARS-CoV-2 to reveal if there is a structural similarity with any of them. The conducted studies showed the high similarity of K3G-A and remdesivir, the co-crystallized ligand of SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (PDB ID: 7BV2), RdRp. To validate these findings, a DFT study was conducted and confirmed the proposed similarity on the electronic and orbital levels. The binding of K3G-A against RdRp was confirmed through molecular docking studies exhibiting a binding energy of -27.43 kcal/mol, which was higher than that of remdesivir. Moreover, the RdRp-K3G-A complex was subjected to several MD studies at 100 ns that authenticated the accurate mode of binding and the correct dynamic behavior. Finally, in silico ADMET and toxicity evaluation of K3G-A was conducted and denoted the safety and the drug-likeness of K3G-A. In addition to K3G-A, two other metabolites were isolated and identified to be kaempferol (K) and β-sitosterol (β-S).Entities:
Keywords: ADMET; Calligonum tetrapterum; DFT; MD simulations; SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase; molecular docking; structural similarity
Year: 2022 PMID: 35956550 PMCID: PMC9370365 DOI: 10.3390/plants11152072
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1The isolated compounds.
1H and 13C spectral data of K3G-A (DMSO).
| Position | δ1H ( | δ13C | Position | δ1H ( | δ13C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | - | 156.4 | 1″ | 5.34 d (7.3) | 101.2 |
| 3 | - | 133.12 | 2″ | 3.20 | 74.1 |
| 4 | - | 177.4 | 3″ | 3.24 | 76.2 |
| 5 | - | 161.2 | 4″ | 3.13 t | 69.8 |
| 6 | 6.21 d (1.8) | 98.7 | 5″ | 3.30 | 73.9 |
| 7 | - | 164.3 | 6″ a | 4.09 d | 62.8 |
| 8 | 6.45 d (1.8) | 93.7 | 6″ b | 3.94 dd | |
| 9 | - | 156.6 | 7″ | - | 169.8 |
| 10 | - | 103.9 | 8″ | 1.73 s | 20.2 |
| 1′ | - | 120.8 | 5-OH | 12.56 s | - |
| 2′, 6′ | 8.00 d (8.08) | 130.9 | |||
| 3′, 5′ | 6.87 d (8.08) | 115.1 | |||
| 4′ | - | 160.0 | |||
| 5′ | 6.87 d (8.08) | 115.1 | |||
| 6′ | 8.00 d (8.08) | 130.9 | |||
Figure 2Main HMBC relations of K3G-A.
Figure 3The chemical structures of the compared co-crystallized ligands of SARS-CoV-2 proteins and K3G-A (flavonoid derivative).
Figure 4Similarity analysis results: K3G-A (green sphere) appears close to remdesivir (red sphere).
Structural properties of K3G-A and remdesivir, F86.
| Compound | M. WT | HB-A | HB-D | R-B | R | A-R | MFPSA | Minimum Distance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remdesivir | 371.243 | 11 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0.612 | 0.811009 |
| K3G-A | 490.414 | 12 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0.429 | - |
Figure 5Spatial distribution remdesivir (A) and K3G-A (B).
Molecular orbital spatial distribution of remdesivir and K3G-A.
| Total Energy a | Binding | HOMO | LUMO | Dipole Mag | Band Gap | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remdesivir | −1595.39 | −6.7804 | −0.2001 | −0.1547 | 0.8313 | 0.0454 |
| K3G-A | −1777.81 | −11.4455 | −0.1548 | −0.0841 | 2.0613 | 0.0707 |
a Unite = Ha.
Figure 6Molecular electrostatic potential maps of remdesivir (A) and K3G-A (B).
Figure 7(A) 3D image (B) 2D image, and (C) surface mapping of K3G-A docked into the active site of RdRp.
Predicted ADMET for K3G-A and remdesivir.
| Compound | BBB Level | Sol. Level | Abs. Level | CYP2D6 Inhibition | PPB Binding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remdesivir | V. low | Low | V. poor | Not inhibitor | lower than 90%, |
| K3G-A | V. low | Low | V. poor | Not inhibitor | lower than 90%, |
Figure 8The ADMET study of K3G-A and remdesivir.
Toxicity properties for K3G-A and remdesivir.
| Comp. | FDA Rat Carcinogenic Potential | Carcinogenic Potential TD50 | Maximum Tolerated Dose | Oral LD50 b (in Rats) | Chronic LOAEL b | Ocular | Skin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remdesivir | Not carcinogen | 1.012 | 0.235 | 0.309 | 0.004 | Mild | Mild |
| K3G-A | Not carcinogen | 0.544 | 0.718 | 1.041 | 0.080 | Moderate | None |
a Unit: mg/kg /day b Unit: g/kg.
Figure 9Molecular dynamics simulation results: (A) RMSD values, (B) RMSF, (C) Rg, (D) SASA, (E) H-bonding of the RdRp-K3G-A complex.