4.4 Article

Imidazole and nitroimidazole derivatives as NADH-fumarate reductase inhibitors: Density functional theory studies, homology modeling, and molecular docking

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY
卷 43, 期 23, 页码 1573-1595

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcc.26959

关键词

Chagas disease; DFT calculations; homology modeling; molecular docking; NADH-fumarate reductase

资金

  1. DGAPA-UNAM [PAPIIT-IN230419]
  2. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACYT) [727184]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used quantum chemistry methods to design and characterize the electronic structure of imidazole and nitroimidazole derivatives, and analyze the molecular docking and interactions of NADH-fumarate reductase. Molecules with the best physicochemical properties and lowest toxicity were selected, and a high-quality three-dimensional structure of NADH-fumarate reductase was obtained through homology modeling.
Chagas disease is caused by Trypanosoma cruzi. Benznidazole and nifurtimox are drugs used for its therapy; nevertheless, they have collateral effects. NADH-fumarate (FUM) reductase is a potential pharmacological target since it is essential for survival of parasite and is not found in humans. The objectives are to design and characterize the electronic structure of imidazole and nitroimidazole derivatives at DFT-M06-2X level in aqueous solution; also, to model the NADH-FUM reductase and analyze its intermolecular interactions by molecular docking. Quantum-chemical descriptors allowed to select the molecules with the best physicochemical properties and lowest toxicity. A high-quality three-dimensional structure of NADH-FUM reductase was obtained by homology modeling. Water molecules do not have influence in the interaction between FUM and NADH-FUM reductase. The main hydrogen-binding interactions for FUM were identified in NADH, Lys172, and Arg89; while hydrophobic interactions in Phe479, Thr174, Met63. The molecules S3-8, S2-8, and S1-8 could be inhibitors of NADH-FUM reductase.

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

4.4
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