4.7 Article

Benchmarking the ability of novel compounds to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 main protease using steered molecular dynamics simulations

期刊

COMPUTERS IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 146, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.105572

关键词

1,2,3-Triazole; Umbrella sampling simulation; MM-PBSA; Free energy landscape; MD simulation

资金

  1. DBT
  2. CSIR [MLP:0201, OLP:0043]
  3. Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, India
  4. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation [075-15-2020-777]
  5. CSIR-IHBT [5058]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the potential binding mechanisms of 1,2,3-triazole scaffolds with SARS-CoV-2 M-pro using molecular dynamics and enhanced sampling simulations. The results showed interactions between the scaffolds and key residues of M-pro, with comparable binding free energy to experimental inhibitors.
Background: The SARS-CoV-2 main protease (M-pro) is an attractive target in the COVID-19 drug development process. It catalyzes the polyprotein's translation from viral RNA and specifies a particular cleavage site. Due to the absence of identical cleavage specificity in human cell proteases, targeting M-pro with chemical compounds can obstruct the replication of the virus. Methods: To explore the potential binding mechanisms of 1,2,3-triazole scaffolds in comparison to co-crystallized inhibitors 11a and 11b towards M-pro, we herein utilized molecular dynamics and enhanced sampling simulation studies. Results and conclusion: All the 1,2,3-triazole scaffolds interacted with catalytic residues (Cys145 and His41) and binding pocket residues of M-pro involving Met165, Glu166, Ser144, Gln189, His163, and Met49. Furthermore, the adequate binding free energy and potential mean force of the topmost compound 3h was comparable to the experimental inhibitors 11a and 11b of M-pro. Overall, the current analysis could be beneficial in developing the SARS-CoV-2 M-pro potential inhibitors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据