| Literature DB >> 36101882 |
Manmeet Singh1, Himanshu Verma1, Priyanka Bhandu1, Manoj Kumar1, Gera Narendra1, Shalki Choudhary1, Pankaj Kumar Singh2, Om Silakari1.
Abstract
During the ongoing pandemic, there have been increasing reports of invasive fungal disease (IFD), particularly among immunocompromised populations. Candida albicans is one of the most common clinical pathogenic microorganisms which have become a serious health threat to population either infected with Covid-19 or on treatment with immunosuppressant's/broad-range antibiotics. Currently, benzothiazole is a well explored scaffold for anti-fungal activity, especially mercapto substituted benzothiazoles. It is reported that exploring the 2nd position of benzothiazoles yield improved anti-fungal molecules. Therefore, in the current study, lead optimization approach using bioisosteric replacement protocol was followed to improve the anti-fungal activity of an already reported benzothiazole derivative, N-(1,3-benzothiazole-2-yl)-2-(pyridine-3-ylformohydrazido) acetamide. To rationally identify the putative anti-candida targets of this derivative, network analysis was carried out. Complexes of designed compounds and identified putative targets were further analyzed for the docking interactions and their consequent retention after the completion of exhaustive MD simulations. Top seven designed compounds were synthesized and evaluated for in-vitro anti-fungal property against Candida, which indicated that compounds 1.2c and 1.2f possess improved and comparable anti-fungal activity to N-(1,3-benzothiazole-2-yl)-2-(pyridine-3-ylformohydrazido) acetamide and Nystatin, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: 2-aminobenzothiazole; Molecular docking; Molecular dynamics; Network analysis
Year: 2022 PMID: 36101882 PMCID: PMC9458262 DOI: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2022.134128
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Mol Struct ISSN: 0022-2860 Impact factor: 3.841
Fig. 1Triggering stimuli for C. albicans pathogenicity.
Fig. 2Commercial medication with their chemical structures (A) and the mechanism of anti-fungal action (B).
Fig. 3Synthetic route for the synthesis of designed compounds.
Fig. 4Structures of the known antifungal agents having the common benzo or 2-aminobenzo thiazole scaffold along with their reported inhibitory activity.
The list depicting the common four targets along with their Uniprot ID.
| Sr. No. | Common Targets as Gene Name | Protein Name (Uniprot ID) | Reference linked to 2-Aminobenzothiazole |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ERG11 | Lanosterol 14-alpha demethylase (P10613) | ( |
| 2 | NMT1 | Glycylpeptide N-tetradecanoyltransferase (N-Myrsitosyltransferase P30418) | (Zhao and Ma 2014; Mishra, Ghanavatkar et al. 2019) |
| 3 | DFR1 | Dihydrofolatereductase (P22906) | (Thakkar, Thakor et al. 2017; Mishra, Ghanavatkar et al. 2019) |
| 4 | TPS1 | Alpha,alpha-trehalose-phosphate synthase (Trehalose-6-phosphate synthase Q92410) | ( |
Fig. 5The primary network defining for the protein targets for 2-aminobenzothiazole as S-DTAR (left) and C. albicans as Ca-DTAR (right). The central diamonds represent the common targets for the both.
Description of the biological pathways to which the targets belong.
| Pathway | Pathway Name | Targets |
|---|---|---|
| cal01100 | Metabolic Pathways | ERG11, TPS1, DFR1, ERG1-7, ERG9, ERG24-27, PGM2, UGP1, ERG20, NTH1, TPS2, TPS3, GSY1, ADE8, ADE17 and DUT1 |
| cal01110 | Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites | ERG11, TPS1, ERG1-7, ERG9, ERG24-27, PGM2, UGP1, ERG20, NTH1, TPS2, TPS3, GSY1, ADE8 and ADE17 |
| cal00100 | Steroid biosynthesis | ERG11, ERG1-7, ERG9, ERG24-27 and ERG20 |
| cal00500 | Starch and sucrose metabolism | TPS1, TPS2, TPS3, PGM2, UGP1, NTH1 and GSY1 |
| cal00670 | One carbon pool by folate | DFR1 and ADE8 |
| cal01240 | Biosynthesis of co-factors | DFR1 and UGP1 |
| cal00790 | Folate biosynthesis | DFR1 and AKR1 |
| GO:0018193 | Peptidyl-amino acid modification | PTHR11377 – NMT1 |
| GO:0006497 | Protein lipidation | PTHR11377 – NMT1 |
| GO:0043543 | Protein acylation | PTHR11377 – NMT1 |
| cal00230 | Purine metabolism | ADE8, ADE17 and PGM2 |
| cal00909 | Sesquiterpenoid and triterpenoid biosynthesis | ERG1 and ERG9 |
| cal00520 | Amino sugar and nucleotide sugar metabolism | UGP1 and PGM2 |
| cal00052 | Galactose metabolism | UGP1 and PGM2 |
| cal04144 | Endocytosis | ARF1 |
| cal00730 | Thiamine metabolism | THI5 |
| cal04213 | Longevity regulating pathway-multiple species | HSP104 |
| cal00010 | Glycolysis/Gluconeogenesis | PGM2 |
| cal00030 | Pentose phosphate pathway | PGM2 |
| cal00040 | Pentose and glucuronateinterconversions | UGP1 |
| cal00240 | Pyrimidine metabolism | DUT1 |
Fig. 6The secondary network consisting of central octagonal shape scaffold, followed by the targets of C.albicans in a diamond shape, V and triangle-shaped indirect targets as the PPI and the ellipsoidal shaped physio-chemical pathways.
Top ten hits after Bioisosteric replacement.
| Sr.No. | Compound Structure | BIF% | Score | Field Score | Shape Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 77 | 0.768 | 0.783 | 0.753 | |
| 2. | 76 | 0.760 | 0.757 | 0.763 | |
| 3. | 74 | 0.759 | 0.756 | 0.761 | |
| 4. | 72 | 0.713 | 0.700 | 0.726 | |
| 5. | 71 | 0.711 | 0.706 | 0.717 | |
| 6. | 70 | 0.704 | 0.704 | 0.703 | |
| 7. | 70 | 0.694 | 0.700 | 0.688 | |
| 8. | 69 | 0.689 | 0.703 | 0.676 | |
| 9. | 69 | 0.699 | 0.686 | 0.711 | |
| 10. | 68 | 0.697 | 0.689 | 0.706 |
(the overall score in percentile, scaled such that no replacement (i.e. just capping with hydrogen)gets a scpre of 0)
(average score for field and steric (shape))
(predicted similarity in the electronic fields). ⁎⁎⁎⁎(predicted similarity in the shape)
Fig. 7The overall outline for the rationale of the designed molecules.
Fig. 8The bioisosteric replacement structure depicting the site of substitution and the list of the designed compounds.
The docking scores for the compounds 1.2a to 1.2f with each target of 5TZ1 (A), 1AI9 (B), 1IYL (C) and 5HUT (D).
| Sr.No. | PDB ID | Compounds | LF Rank score | LF dG | LF VSscore | LF LE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (kcal/mol) | (kcal/mol) | (kcal/mol) | (kcal/mol) | |||
| A. | 5TZ1 | 1.2a | -9.288 | -7.053 | -7.626 | -0.415 |
| 1.2b | -10.146 | -7.348 | -8.096 | -0.408 | ||
| 1.2c | -10.114 | -7.709 | -8.451 | -0.406 | ||
| 1.2d | -10.477 | -8.620 | -9.128 | -0.454 | ||
| B. | 1AI9 | 1.2a | -10.993 | -7.063 | -7.987 | -0.415 |
| 1.2b | -11.409 | -7.8 | -8.586 | -0.433 | ||
| 1.2c | -11.988 | -7.965 | -9.179 | -0.419 | ||
| 1.2d | -11.937 | -8.552 | -9.460 | -0.450 | ||
| C. | 5HUT | 1.2a | -9.412 | -6.514 | -7.532 | -0.383 |
| 1.2b | -9.727 | -5.609 | -7.029 | -0.312 | ||
| 1.2c | -10.136 | -5.650 | -7.260 | -0.297 | ||
| 1.2d | -10.388 | -6.344 | -7.786 | -0.334 | ||
| D. | 1IYL | 1.2a | -11.357 | -6.980 | -7.738 | -0.411 |
| 1.2b | -11.771 | -7.852 | -8.537 | -0.436 | ||
| 1.2c | -12.224 | -8.215 | -8.930 | -0.432 | ||
| 1.2d | -12.578 | -9.337 | -9.774 | -0.491 | ||
The enlisted data signify the anti-fungal activities corresponding to the inhibitory MIC (µg/ml) dilution.
| Antifungal Activity Table | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimal Inhibitory Concentration [µg/ml] | ||||
| Test | Compound Code | |||
| 1 | 1.2a | 125 | 500 | 500 |
| 2 | 1.2b | 100 | 500 | 1000 |
| 3 | 1.2c | 250 | 1000 | 500 |
| 4 | 1.2d | 500 | 1000 | >1000 |
| 5 | 1.2e | 100 | 250 | 500 |
| 6 | 1.2f | 250 | 500 | 500 |
| Standard♣ | Fluconazole | 64 | 100 | 100 |
| Standard♣ | Nystatin | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Standard♣ | Griseofulvin | 500 | 100 | 100 |
| Standard♠ | Trimethoprim | >50 | - | - |
♣ Experimentally calculated MIC value
♠Reported MIC value (Chan et al. 1995)
Fig. 11The 3-Dimentional graph representing the anti-fungal activity for all the species along with the standard drugs.