4.1 Article

Virtual and In Vitro Antiviral Screening Revive Therapeutic Drugs for COVID-19

期刊

ACS PHARMACOLOGY & TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE
卷 3, 期 6, 页码 1278-1292

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsptsci.0c00131

关键词

COVID-19; drug repositioning; drug repurposing; virtual screening; zuclopenthixol; nebivolol; amodiaquine

资金

  1. NIH [U24 CA224370]
  2. UTHSC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The urgent need for a cure for early phase COVID-19 infected patients critically underlines drug repositioning strategies able to efficiently identify new and reliable treatments by merging computational, experimental, and pharmacokinetic expertise. Here we report new potential therapeutics for COVID-19 identified with a combined virtual and experimental screening strategy and selected among already approved drugs. We used hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), one of the most studied drugs in current clinical trials, as a reference template to screen for structural similarity against a library of almost 4000 approved drugs. The top-ranked drugs, based on structural similarity to HCQ, were selected for in vitro antiviral assessment. Among the selected drugs, both zuclopenthixol and nebivolol efficiently block SARS-CoV-2 infection with EC50 values in the low micromolar range, as confirmed by independent experiments. The anti-SARS-CoV-2 potential of ambroxol, amodiaquine, and its active metabolite (N-monodesethyl amodiaquine) is also discussed. In trying to understand the hydroxychloroquine mechanism of action, both pKa and the HCQ aromatic core may play a role. Further, we show that the amodiaquine metabolite and, to a lesser extent, zuclopenthixol and nebivolol are active in a SARS-CoV-2 titer reduction assay. Given the need for improved efficacy and safety, we propose zuclopenthixol, nebivolol, and amodiaquine as potential candidates for clinical trials against the early phase of the SARS-CoV-2 infection and discuss their potential use as adjuvant to the current (i.e., remdesivir and favipiravir) COVID-19 therapeutics.

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

4.1
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