4.7 Article

Computational Analysis of SAM Analogs as Methyltransferase Inhibitors of nsp16/nsp10 Complex from SARS-CoV-2

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms232213972

Keywords

SARS-CoV-2; nsp16; nsp10; SAM analog; inhibition mechanism; MD simulations; binding free energy

Funding

  1. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development [88887.712684/2022-00, 88887.598552/2021-00]
  2. CAPES [2013/08293-7]
  3. FAPESP

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluates inhibitors of MTases enzymes for SARS-CoV-2 and provides structural and energetic analysis using computational modeling techniques. The most potent inhibitor shows lower binding free energy and higher potency than known inhibitors. Additionally, analysis of cell permeability suggests that the inhibitors suffer from poor cell permeability.
Methyltransferases (MTases) enzymes, responsible for RNA capping into severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), are emerging important targets for the design of new anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents. Here, analogs of S-adenosylmethionine (SAM), obtained from the bioisosteric substitution of the sulfonium and amino acid groups, were evaluated by rigorous computational modeling techniques such as molecular dynamics (MD) simulations followed by relative binding free analysis against nsp16/nsp10 complex from SARS-CoV-2. The most potent inhibitor (2a) shows the lowest binding free energy (-58.75 Kcal/mol) and more potency than Sinefungin (SFG) (-39.8 Kcal/mol), a pan-MTase inhibitor, which agrees with experimental observations. Besides, our results suggest that the total binding free energy of each evaluated SAM analog is driven by van der Waals interactions which can explain their poor cell permeability, as observed in experimental essays. Overall, we provide a structural and energetic analysis for the inhibition of the nsp16/nsp10 complex involving the evaluated SAM analogs as potential inhibitors.

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