| Literature DB >> 36036155 |
Adnan A Bekhit1,2,3, Eskedar T Lodebo3,4, Ariaya Hymete3, Hanan M Ragab1, Salma A Bekhit5, Kikuko Amagase6, Afnan Batubara7, Mohammed A S Abourehab8,9, Alaa El-Din A Bekhit10, Tamer M Ibrahim11.
Abstract
Promising inhibitory activities of the parasite multiplication were obtained upon evaluation of in vivo antimalarial activities of new pyrazolylpyrazoline derivatives against Plasmodium berghei infected mice. Further evaluation of 5b and 6a against chloroquine-resistant strain (RKL9) of P. falciparum showed higher potency than chloroquine. In vitro antileishmanial activity testing against Leishmania aethiopica promastigote and amastigote forms indicated that 5b, 6a and 7b possessed promising activity compared to miltefosine and amphotericin B deoxycholate. Moreover, antileishmanial activity reversal of the active compounds via folic and folinic acids showed comparable results to the positive control trimethoprim, indicating an antifolate mechanism via targeting leishmanial DHFR and PTR1. The compounds were non-toxic at 125, 250 and 500 mg/kg. In addition, docking of the most active compound against putative malarial target Pf-DHFR-TS and leishmanial PTR1 rationalised the observed activities. Molecular dynamics simulations confirmed a stable and high potential binding of 7a against leishmanial PTR1.Entities:
Keywords: Pyrazoline derivatives; antifolate mechanism; antileishmanial evaluation; antimalarial evaluation; molecular docking; molecular dynamics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36036155 PMCID: PMC9427035 DOI: 10.1080/14756366.2022.2117316
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem ISSN: 1475-6366 Impact factor: 5.756
Figure 1.Some previously reported pyrazoline derivatives (I and II) and pyrazole hybrids with other heterocyclic moieties (III) with dual antimalarial and antileishmanial activity. Compounds (IV) represent our target compounds.
Scheme 1.General synthetic route of the target compounds.
Antiplasmodial activities of the synthesised compounds at 20 mg/kg.
| Test substance | Dose (mg/kg) | % Parasitaemia* | % Suppression |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 20 | 54.3 ± 1.4 | −3.8 |
|
| 20 | 53.1 ± 1.3 | −1.9 |
|
| 20 | 18.8 ± 2.6 | 66.7 |
|
| 20 | 30.3 ± 2.8 | 42.3 |
|
| 20 | 33.0 ± 1.9 | 36.5 |
| Chloroquine P. | 20 | 0.0 | 100 |
| NC** | 1 ml/100 g | 52.2 ± 3.1 | 0.0 |
*Values are M ± SD, P < 0.05, ** Negative control.
Antiplasmodial activities of the synthesised compounds at 30 mg/kg.
| Test substance | Dose (mg/kg) | % Parasitaemia* | % Suppression |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 30 | 17.4 ± 1.2 | 71.2 |
|
| 30 | 28.3 ± 2.8 | 52.4 |
|
| 30 | 41.1 ± 3.1 | 30.3 |
| NC** | 1 ml/100 g | 59.3 ± 3.1 | 0.0 |
*Values are M ± SD, P < 0.05, **Negative control.
In vitro anti-plasmodial activity against chloroquine-resistant (RKL9) strain of P. falciparum.
| Comp. No. | IC50, µM ± SD* |
|---|---|
|
| 0.0368 ± 0.006 |
|
| 0.0946 ± 0.002 |
| Chloroquine | 0.1920 ± 0.003 |
| Pyrimethamine | 0.01246 ± 0.002 |
*Results of two separate determinations.
Antileishmanial activity is expressed as antipromastigote and antiamastigote activities of the test compounds and reference standards.
| Antileishmanial activity (IC50*) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comp. No. | Antipromastigote | Antiamastigote | ||
| μg/ml | μM | μg/ml | μM | |
|
| 3.06 ± 0.12 | 9.13 ± 0.30 | 1.10 ± 0.18 | 2.76 ± 0.45 |
|
| 4.11 ± 0.22 | 10.86 ± 0.58 | 2.82 ± 0.36 | 7.45 ± 0.95 |
|
| 3.84 ± 0.14 | 9.02 ± 0.33 | 2.64 ± 0.12 | 6.18 ± 0.28 |
|
| 3.64 ± 0.18 | 8.28 ± 0.41 | 1.89 ± 0.04 | 4.29 ± 0.09 |
|
| 0.03 ± 0.24 | 0.05 ± 0.57 | 0.42 ± 0.32 | 1.00 ± 0.76 |
|
| 0.42 ± 0.28 | 0.89 ± 0.60 | 0.68 ± 0.14 | 1.45 ± 0.30 |
|
| 0.04 ± 0.24 | 0.08 ± 0.48 | 0.44 ± 0.22 | 0.87 ± 0.44 |
| Miltefosine | 3.19 ± 14 | 7.83 ± 0.34 | 0.30 ± 0.04 | 0.74 ± 0.10 |
| Amphotericin B deoxycholate | 0.05 ± 0.002 | 0.04 ± 0.001 | 0.20 ± 0.02 | 0.15 ± 0.01 |
*IC50: values indicate the effective concentration of a compound required to achieve 50% growth inhibition in μg/ml.
Data from the acute toxicity studies.
| Test substances | Dose (mg/Kg) | Wt. before test* (Day 0) | Wt. after test* (Day 1) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 125 | 33.8 ± 1.2 | 33.3 ± 2.6 |
| 250 | 32.2 ± 2.5 | 32.4 ± 2.0 | |
| 500 | 32.8 ± 2.8 | 32.5 ± 1.4 | |
|
| 125 | 31.3 ± 2.5 | 31.5 ± 1.8 |
| 250 | 32.1 ± 1.7 | 31.8 ± 1.7 | |
| 500 | 32.2 ± 2.1 | 32.6 ± 1.3 | |
|
| 1 ml/100g | 32.1 ± 1.9 | 32.6 ± 2.1 |
*Values are M ± SD.
AutoDock Vina docking scores (kcal mol−1) of the most active compounds against Pf DHFR-TS (PDB: 1j3k) and PTR1 (PDB: 2bfm).
| Docking score | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Leishmanial PTR1 | |||
|
| −11.2 | −9.8 | −9.3 |
|
| −10.9 | −10.4 | −10.4 |
|
| −8.5 | −7.6 | −8.5 |
| Pyrimethaminec | −7.7 | −8.5 | – |
| Dihydropterined | – | – | −8.4 |
| Trimethoprimd | – | – | −7.4 |
aQuadruple mutant (N51I, C59R, S108N and I164L) Pf DHFR-TS structure. bWild-type Pf DHFR-TS structure. cPyrimethamine is a binder to Pf DHFR-TS. dDihydropterine and Trimethoprim are binders to PTR1.
Figure 2.The docking pose of the most active compound (5b) as cyan sticks in the binding site of the quadruple mutant Pf-DHFR-TS (PDB code: 1j3k). The hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions are in red and green coloured molecular surfaces, respectively. Non-polar hydrogen atoms were omitted for clarity. The label “NDP-610” represents the NADPH co-factor.
Figure 3.The docking pose of the most active compound (7a) as cyan sticks in the binding site of PTR1 (PDB code: 7pxx). The hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions are in red and green coloured molecular surfaces, respectively. Non-polar hydrogen atoms were omitted for clarity. The label “NDP-302” represents the NADPH co-factor.
Figure 4.MD simulations for the three systems, the apo leishmanial PTR1, 7a-PTR1 complex and co-crystal ligand – PTR1 complex systems. (A) Root mean square deviation (RMSD) of the protein alpha carbon atoms across the 50 ns simulation. (B) The radius of gyration (Rg) for the PTR1 protein across the 50 ns simulation time. The frame number (x-axis) 5000 indicates 50 ns simulation time. (C) Per residue, root means square fluctuation (RMSF). (D) Hydrogen bond counts during the MD simulation for 7a in the binding site during the 50 ns simulation. (E) RMSD of the ligand heavy atoms during the 50 ns simulation of the ligand-complexed systems.
Figure 5.The free energy landscape (FEL) of the simulated PTR1 systems is based on the principal component analysis. (A) Leishmanial PTR1. (B) 7a-PTR1 complex. (C) Co-crystal ligand – PTR1 complex. The colour bar represents the free energy value in kcal mol − 1. The colour ranges from red to yellow to blue spots indicate the energy minima and energetically favoured protein conformations to more unfavourable high-energy conformations.