4.7 Article

Computational Selectivity Assessment of Protease Inhibitors against SARS-CoV-2

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22042065

Keywords

coronavirus; SARS; protease; selectivity; structure-based design

Funding

  1. NVIDIA Corporation
  2. PL-Grid Infrastructure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Research assessed the selectivity of 33 reported non-covalent inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 M-pro against eight proteases and 16 anti-targets, revealing off-target binding of some compounds to multiple proteases and anti-targets, with a high risk especially in chymase and cathepsin G.
The pandemic of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) poses a serious global health threat. Since no specific therapeutics are available, researchers around the world screened compounds to inhibit various molecular targets of SARS-CoV-2 including its main protease (M-pro) essential for viral replication. Due to the high urgency of these discovery efforts, off-target binding, which is one of the major reasons for drug-induced toxicity and safety-related drug attrition, was neglected. Here, we used molecular docking, toxicity profiling, and multiple molecular dynamics (MD) protocols to assess the selectivity of 33 reported non-covalent inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 M-pro against eight proteases and 16 anti-targets. The panel of proteases included SARS-CoV M-pro, cathepsin G, caspase-3, ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCHL1), thrombin, factor Xa, chymase, and prostasin. Several of the assessed compounds presented considerable off-target binding towards the panel of proteases, as well as the selected anti-targets. Our results further suggest a high risk of off-target binding to chymase and cathepsin G. Thus, in future discovery projects, experimental selectivity assessment should be directed toward these proteases. A systematic selectivity assessment of SARS-CoV-2 M-pro inhibitors, as we report it, was not previously conducted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available