sciphy Volume 1, Issue 2, Page 1-10, 2022
e-ISSN 2962-553X
p-ISSN 2962-5793
DOI 10.58920/sciphy01020001
Chikame Dawa Sangma1, Dipak Chetia1, Dubom Tayeng1, Malita Sarma Borthakur2, Lima Patowary3
1Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Dibrugarh University; 2Department of pharmaceutical Sciences, Dibrugarh University; 3Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Girijananda Chowdhury Institute of Pharmaceutical Science, Guwahati 781017, Assam, India
Corresponding: tayengdubom@gmail.com (Dubom Tayeng).
Antibiotics
are substances that kill or inhibit the growth of living organisms. Antibiotics
operate by killing bacteria, blocking essential bacterial processes, preventing
them from proliferating, and allowing the immune system to fight bacterial
infection [1]. Antibiotics have been used in the health care system for many
years and recently, it was found that some bacterial infections were resistant
to the current antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance is a major global problem as
it is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates [2]. Resistance of
bacterial pathogens to multiple antimicrobial therapies is increasing at an
alarming rate and this is known as multidrug resistance. Antibiotic resistance
rises rapidly with poor infection control practices and these resistant
bacteria spread easily to other patients [3]. The current shortage of effective
drugs, lack of successful prevention measures, and only a few new antibiotics
in the clinical pipeline have necessitated the need to develop novel treatment
options to fight drug-resistant bacteria [3].
Cephalosporins
(Figure 1) belonged to the class of broad-spectrum beta-lactam antibiotics.
They have been in clinical use since their discovery during the 1960s [4]. In
comparison to other drugs, cephalosporins have a low rate of drug-related adverse
effects and their pharmacokinetic characteristics are favorable [4].
Cephalosporins are commonly utilized as the first-line treatment for pneumonia,
meningitis, gonorrhea, and other microbial infections [4]. The basic structure
of cephalosporins (C15H21N3O7S)
consists of a four-member beta-lactam ring. In cephalosporin, the ring is
condensed with a six-member sulfur ring (the dihydrothiazine ring) [5]. The
substituent position 7 determines stability while the group at position 3 determines
metabolic stability and pharmacokinetic characteristics [6].
Figure 1 Basic
structure of Cephalosporin
Cephalosporins
work by interfering with the synthesis of peptidoglycan which is a major
structural component of the bacterial cell wall [4]. Carboxypeptidases,
endopeptidases, and transpeptidases cross the cytoplasmic membrane and insert
themselves into the cross-linked peptidoglycans. These enzymes are known as
penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs) and are the targets of beta-lactam medicines.
The cephalosporin amide group is identical to the peptidoglycan pentapeptide.
Cephalosporin attaches covalently to the PBPs, renders them inert,
significantly compromises the structural integrity of the peptidoglycan, and
kills the bacteria [4]. In this study, we will virtually design a few
derivatives of cephalosporins and use in-silico
techniques to evaluate their inhibitory potential against the PBP 4 complexed
with the novel beta-lactam (FMZ) of H.
influenza.
The device used for the
study was a personal laptop Device name: LAPTOP-KM8A50JS, Processor: AMD 3020e
with Radeon Graphics, System type: 64-bit operating system x64-based processor.
The protein selected
for the study bears a PDB ID: 3A3F. It is a crystal structure of PBP-4 from Haemophilus influenza, complexed with the
novel beta-lactam (FMZ). The protein has a resolution of 2.10 Å with two chains
i.e., chain A and chain B. There are 453 amino acids (total sequence length)
and the organism is H. influenza.
The crystal
structure of the PBP-4 from H. influenza
complexed with novel beta-lactam (FMZ) was downloaded in the PDB file format
from the RSCB website (https://www.rcsb.org/).
The Biovia Discovery Studio software was used to prepare the protein. Water
molecules, hetero atoms, and chain B were removed from the protein. Polar
hydrogens were added to the protein. The prepared protein was saved in the PDB file
format. The 2D crystal structure of the prepared protein is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 The 2D crystal structure of the prepared protein
The original target
protein complexed with FMZ was loaded into the PyRx virtual screening platform.
First of all, chain B was removed from the scene. The prepared protein was also
loaded onto the virtual screening platform. The amino acid residues which made
up the original protein were revealed by expanding the protein. The position of
the native ligand was identified and the 3D binding affinity grid box was
adjusted to cover the entire active site residues. Following this, the original
protein was removed from the scene.
The compounds were
loaded and their energy was minimized with the PyRx virtual tool. As we had
already identified the active binding site, docking was executed. The results were
saved as comma-separated values (CSV) files.
SWISS ADME was used to study the Lipinski rule of 5 along with
gastrointestinal (GI) absorption and blood-brain barrier permeant. The SMILE
CODES of all the derivatives were uploaded and all the information displayed was
copied to an MS Excel file. The purpose of this assessment was to find out
whether the compounds follow the Lipinski rule of 5 (Molecular weight less than
500 Daltons, hydrogen bond donors less than 5, hydrogen bond acceptors no more
than 10, Octanol-water partition coefficient/log P not greater than 5).
Toxicity analysis
was done to assess the safety of a particular compound. It helps us to
determine whether a compound or molecule, negatively impacts the normal
biological function of an organism. OSIRIS
Data warrior v5.5.0 was used for this process. The SMILES CODE of all
the derivatives prepared was uploaded into the Data Warrior software, and each
derivative was checked for mutagenicity, tumorigenicity, reproductive
effective, and skin irritation. The toxic compounds were eliminated.
BIOVIA Discovery Studios Visualizer v21.1.0.20298 was opened and the
prepared protein was loaded. The protein was defined as the receptor and the cephalosporin
derivatives were defined as the ligand. The molecular interaction was observed
in the form of a 2D diagram. The process was repeated for all the other
derivatives.
The
crystal structure of chain A of PBP protein was retrieved from the RCSB-PDB
website, shown in Figure 3. Cephalosporins, like other beta-lactam medicines,
work by interfering with the synthesis of peptidoglycan, which is a major
structural component of the bacterial cell wall. Modifications in the molecule were
made at the R3 position. A total of 17 Cephalosporin derivatives were prepared.
The SMILES ID of all the compounds was generated with the Chem Draw
Professionals 16.0 software. Their 2D chemical structures along with their
respective compound code are listed in Table 1.
Figure 3 Chain A of the penicillin-binding protein with
co-crystal ligand
Table 1 List of Cephalosporin Derivatives
Compound code |
Compound Structure |
C1 |
|
C2 |
|
C3 |
|
C4 |
|
C5 |
|
C6 |
|
C7 |
|
C8 |
|
C9 |
|
C10 |
|
C11 |
|
C12 |
|
C13 |
|
C14 |
|
C15 |
|
C16 |
|
C17 |
|
Molecular
docking is an efficient tool for in-silico
drug screening. To rate the binding potential of ligands to a protein, the PyRx
tool can produce the binding affinity values (kcal/mol) for each ligand, and
the binding potential of test ligands toward a protein can be ranked
respectively by using the binding affinity of the native ligand as the
benchmark. The binding affinity of the compounds is shown in Table 2.
Table 2 The
binding energy of compound derivatives
Compounds |
Binding Affinity (kcal/mol) |
Cephalosporin |
-7.4 |
Native
ligand (FMZ) |
-7.1 |
C1 |
-7.4 |
C2 |
-6.8 |
C3 |
-6.2 |
C4 |
-6.2 |
C5 |
-6.9 |
C6 |
-7.1 |
C7 |
-6.4 |
C8 |
-6.3 |
C9 |
-6.3 |
C10 |
-6.8 |
C11 |
-5.8 |
C12 |
-7.1 |
C13 |
-6.3 |
C14 |
-6.5 |
C15 |
-5.8 |
C16 |
-6.7 |
C17 |
-6.3 |
After determining
the binding affinity of the cephalosporin derivatives, the ADME properties of
the compounds were determined. Compounds that are active under in-vitro settings can show lower
activity under in-vivo conditions due
to poor ADME properties. Therefore, the bioavailability of a compound needs to
be studied [9, 10]. Lipinski’s rule of five also known as Pfizer’s rule of five
or rule of five is a rule of thumb to evaluate drug-likeness or to determine if
the chemical compound with certain pharmacological or biological activity has
chemical properties and physical properties that would make it a likely orally
active drug in human.
Lipinski’s rule of 5
is:
1)
Not more than 5 hydrogen bond donors
2)
Not more than 10 hydrogen bond acceptors
3)
Molecular mass less than 500 Daltons
4) Log P does not exceed 5
The ADME
properties of the cephalosporin derivatives are given in Table 3. All the
compounds corroborate to specified parameters of Lipinski’s rule of 5. It is
assumed that they will most likely be bioavailable. Since there were no
Lipinski violations, therefore, the cephalosporin derivatives that were free
from bioavailability issues were subjected to further studies.
Table 3 Swiss ADME against Lipinski’s rule of five
Compounds |
MW |
#H-bond
acceptors |
#H-bond
donors |
GI
absorption |
BBB
permeant |
Lipinski
#violations |
Leadlikeness
#violations |
C1 |
260.24 |
5 |
2 |
High |
No |
0 |
0 |
C2 |
276.7 |
4 |
2 |
High |
No |
0 |
0 |
C3 |
321.15 |
4 |
2 |
High |
No |
0 |
0 |
C4 |
368.15 |
4 |
2 |
High |
No |
0 |
1 |
C5 |
287.25 |
6 |
2 |
Low |
No |
0 |
0 |
C6 |
286.26 |
4 |
2 |
High |
No |
0 |
0 |
C7 |
267.26 |
4 |
2 |
High |
No |
0 |
0 |
C8 |
270.26 |
4 |
2 |
High |
No |
0 |
0 |
C9 |
257.27 |
5 |
2 |
High |
No |
0 |
0 |
C10 |
271.29 |
5 |
2 |
High |
No |
0 |
0 |
C11 |
285.32 |
4 |
2 |
High |
No |
0 |
0 |
C12 |
258.25 |
6 |
3 |
Low |
No |
0 |
0 |
C 13 |
272.28 |
4 |
3 |
Low |
No |
0 |
0 |
C14 |
256.28 |
4 |
3 |
High |
No |
0 |
0 |
C 15 |
270.3 |
4 |
2 |
High |
No |
0 |
0 |
C16 |
268.29 |
5 |
2 |
Low |
No |
0 |
0 |
C17 |
266.27 |
4 |
2 |
High |
No |
0 |
0 |
Toxicity
often leads to the withdrawal of drugs from clinical use [7]. Data Warrior is a
reliable software used by many researchers to predict the toxicity of compounds
[8, 9]. So, for the next step in designing the cephalosporin derivatives, we
carried out an in-silico toxicity study to determine the toxicity of the
compounds. Out of 17 compounds, C2, C3, C4, C5, and C6 showed no signs of
toxicity. The results of the toxicity analysis of the Cephalosporin derivatives
are given in Table 4.
Table 4 Toxicity Analysis of 17 compounds
Compounds |
Mutagenicity |
Carcinogenicity |
Hepatotoxicity |
Immunotoxicity |
Cytotoxicity |
C1 |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Active |
Active |
Inactive |
C2 |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Inactive |
C3 |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Inactive |
C4 |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Inactive |
C5 |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Inactive |
C6 |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Inactive |
C7 |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Active |
Active |
Inactive |
C8 |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Active |
Active |
Inactive |
C9 |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Active |
Active |
Inactive |
C10 |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Active |
Active |
Inactive |
C11 |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Active |
Active |
Inactive |
C12 |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Active |
Active |
Inactive |
C13 |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Active |
Active |
Inactive |
C14 |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Active |
Active |
Inactive |
C15 |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Active |
Active |
Inactive |
C16 |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Active |
Active |
Inactive |
C17 |
Inactive |
Inactive |
Active |
Active |
Inactive |
After
comparing the binding energy of the original cephalosporin and the native
ligand with the Compounds, it was found that C1, C6, and C12 compound
derivatives have a better binding affinity than cephalosporin and the native ligand.
The binding energy comparison between the
original cephalosporin, native ligand, C1, C6, and C12 is shown in Table 5.
Table 5 Binding energy
comparison between Cephalosporin, Native Ligand, and C1, C6, and C12
Code |
Binding energy (kcal/mol) |
Cephalosporin |
-7.4 |
Native
Ligand (FMZ) |
-7.1 |
C1 |
-7.4 |
C6 |
-7.1 |
C12 |
-7.1 |
Visualization
of the 2D ligand interactions was done with the Discovery Studio Visualizer
software. The summary of the ligand interactions of each compound with the
amino acids of the proteins is shown in Table 6. The images of the 2D ligand
interactions of the Compounds with protein are given in Figure 3.
Table 6 Summary of ligand
interaction with the active sites of penicillin-binding protein
Compound |
Conventional Hydrogen bond |
Other Interactive sites |
Cephalosporin |
ILE159 (1.84 Å, 2.85 Å), SER423 (3.06 Å), LEU362
(2.20 Å) |
ASN312 (3.79Å), SER69 (3.60Å) |
FMZ |
ASP162 (2.41 Å, 2.48 Å), LEU362 (2.95 Å), LYS425
(2.00 Å) |
PHE167 (5.07Å), LEU424 (5.37Å), ASP162 (3.41Å) |
C1 |
ILE159 (2.10Å, 2.34Å), ASN168 (2.78Å) |
ILE59 (4.93Å), LEU367 (3.44Å), LEU424 (4.33Å) |
C6 |
ILE159 (2.15Å), ASN168 (2.78) |
ILE159 (5.06Å), LEU362 (5.50Å), LEU424 (4.23Å),
LEU424 (3.44Å) |
C12 |
ASN168 (2.51Å), ARG364 (4.08), LYS425 (1.81Å,
2.73Å) |
PHE167 (4.89Å), LEU362 (4.80Å) |
Figure 4 Visualization of 2D
interaction of (A) Cephalosporin, (B) Native ligand and (C) Compound 1, (D) Compound
6, and (E) Compound 12
Molecular docking
is a computational technique to search for an appropriate ligand that fits both
energetically and geometrically at the binding site of a protein. A more
negative binding affinity value suggests a better binding between a compound
and a protein. A low binding affinity value also indicates the low energy
requirement for protein-ligand binding [11]. Since the initial position has the
highest binding affinity and the last pose has the lowest binding affinity to
the target protein, the first pose is always regarded as the optimal pose. Out
of all the cephalosporin derivatives, C1, C6, and C12 have shown a better
binding affinity towards Chain A of the protein as compared to the binding
affinity of the native ligand. C1 was found to have more binding affinity
compared to the other 2 derivatives. In a toxicity study of the compounds, C1
was found to have toxicity for immunotoxicity and hepatoxicity, and C6 and C12
passed the toxicity. But still, we consider C1 for further study as we believe
the benefit will outweigh the risks.
Nowadays,
researchers use innovative research techniques that deviate from the
conventional methods used to study synthetic drugs. To find promising
synthetic compounds for the treatment of various diseases, in-silico methods like molecular docking
and molecular dynamics simulations have been used more and more in drug
discovery research [9, 12, 13–16]. Some drugs, however, have a low oral
bioavailability. Many researchers have chosen innovative drug delivery systems
as the solution to the bioavailability problems related to drugs. Drug discovery
and development processes have also used artificial intelligence, unsupervised machine
learning, and supervised machine learning [11]. Pharmaceutical researchers are
utilizing novel methods in drug discovery programs as a result of scientific
advancements. To
identify a potent cephalosporin derivative against Haemophilus influenza, we have used
the in-silico methods that are
affordable, safe, and sustainable.
The rate at which antibiotic resistance develops among bacterial species continues to increase due to the continued improper use of antibiotics and gene transfer among different species. To discover and develop new cephalosporins similar to the original cephalosporin, we designed and optimized various cephalosporins analogs using virtual screening and molecular docking analysis and compared them against cephalosporin and FMZ as the standard drugs. We identified some analogs that were good candidates and displayed better in-silico activity against H. influenza. After analyzing all the parameters, including ADME properties, toxicity data, binding energy, drug-likeness, and drug score, cephalosporin with fluorine substitution at the 3rd position was identified as the best analog as this showed a good binding affinity with the target protein. In the future, the analog can be synthesized and evaluated for the in-vitro activity to confirm the in-silico antibacterial potency displayed by the compound.