4.7 Article

Identification of potential inhibitors of Fasciola gigantica thioredoxin1: computational screening, molecular dynamics simulation, and binding free energy studies

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMOLECULAR STRUCTURE & DYNAMICS
卷 36, 期 8, 页码 2147-2162

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/07391102.2017.1344141

关键词

Fasciola gigantica; thioredoxin; virtual screening; drug target; molecular dynamic simulation; natural compounds; molecular docking; binding energy

资金

  1. UGC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fasciola gigantica is the causative organism of fascioliasis and is responsible for major economic losses in livestock production globally. F. gigantica thioredoxin1 (FgTrx1) is an important redox-active enzyme involved in maintaining the redox homeostasis in the cell.To identify a potential anti-fasciolid compound, we conducted a structure-based virtual screening of natural compounds from the ZINC database (n=1,67,740) against the FgTrx1 structure. The ligands were docked against FgTrx1 and 309 ligands were found to have better docking score. These compounds were evaluated for Lipinski and ADMET prediction, and 30 compounds were found to fit well for re-docking studies. After refinement by molecular docking and drug-likeness analysis, three potential inhibitors (ZINC15970091, ZINC9312362, and ZINC9312661) were identified. These three ligands were further subjected to molecular dynamics simulation (MDS) to compare the dynamics and stability of the protein structure after binding of the ligands. The binding free energy analyses were calculated to determine the intermolecular interactions. The results suggested that the two compounds had a binding free energy of -82.237, and -109.52 kJ.mol(-1) for compounds with IDs ZINC9312362 and ZINC9312661, respectively. These predicted compounds displayed considerable pharmacological and structural properties to be drug candidates. We concluded that these two compounds could be potential drug candidates to fight against F. gigantica parasites.

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