4.6 Article

Computational quantum chemistry, molecular docking, and ADMET predictions of imidazole alkaloids of Pilocarpus microphyllus with schistosomicidal properties

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198476

关键词

-

资金

  1. Foundation for Scientific and Technological Research and Development of Maranhao FAPEMA
  2. State Government of Maranhao and Secretary of State for Science, Technology and Innovation - SECTI [BD-02239/16]
  3. FAPESP [2016/22488-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Schistosomiasis affects million people and its control is widely dependent on a single drug, praziquantel. Computational chemistry has led to the development of new tools that predict molecular properties related to pharmacological potential. We conducted a theoretical study of the imizadole alkaloids of Pilocarpus microphyllus (Rutaceae) with schistosomicidal properties. The molecules of epiisopiloturine, epiisopilosine, isopilosine, pilosine, and macaubine were evaluated using theory models (B3lyp/SDD, B3lyp/6-31+ G(d, p), B3lyp/6-311++ G(d, p)). Absorption, distribution, metabolization, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) predictions were used to determine the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the alkaloids. After optimization, the molecules were submitted to molecular docking calculations with the purine nucleoside phosphorylase, thioredoxin glutathione reductase, methylthioadenosine phosphorylase, arginase, uridine phosphorylase, Cathepsin B1 and histone deacetylase 8 enzymes, which are possible targets of Schistosoma mansoni. The results showed that B3lyp/6-311++ G(d, p) was the optimal model to describe the properties studied. Thermodynamic analysis showed that epiisopiloturine and epiisopilosine were the most stable isomers; however, the epiisopilosine ligand achieved a superior interaction with the enzymes studied in the molecular docking experiments, which corroborated the results of previous experimental studies on schistosomiasis.

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

4.6
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