Bangladesh J Pharmacol. 2014; 9: 225-229.

DOI:10.3329/bjp.v9i2.18270

| Research | Article |

Arabinosyl transferase inhibitor design against Mycobacterium tuberculosis using ligand based drug design approach

Bhaskor Kolita1, Dhrubajyoti Gogoi2, Partha Pratim Dutta3, Manobjyoti Bordoloi3 and Rajib Lochan Bezbaruah2

1Centre for Bioinformatics Studies, Dibrugarh University, Dibrugarh, Assam, India; 2DBT-Bioinformatics Infrastructure Facility, Biotechnology Division, North East Institute of Science and Technology (Formerly Regional Research Laboratory), CSIR, Government of India, Jorhat, Assam, India; 3Natural Product Chemistry Division, North East Institute of Science and Technology (Formerly Regional Research Laboratory), CSIR, Government of India, Jorhat, Assam, India.

Principal Contact

Abstract

Antibiotic resistance is a major challenge to combat tuberculosis. Several reports of antibiotic resistance strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis is strongly demanding the need of new and alternative antibiotics for its inhibition. Therefore, current investigation is an attempt to screen few lead molecules for the inhibition of arbinosyl transferase enzyme of M. tuberculosis. The inhibi-tion of this enzyme is an established target of many antibiotics especially ethambutol. Herein, we have considered the structure of ethambutol as a starting point to screen active compound then ethambutol. Similar compounds were searched in chemical database and six compounds were identified and considered as selective arbinosyl transferase inhibitor based on physiochemi-cal properties, bioactivity and ADME with least docking score. The compounds viz. ZINC00388344, ZINC003884, Chemspider2057082, ZINC-00388344, ZINC0038846, Chemspider2057082, Etha17 (analog) and Etha10 (analog) were finally screened and recommended for in vitro investigation.


Introduction

Tuberculosis is a common as well as one of the deadly infectious diseases caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis. It affects most of the world’s population, mainly in developing countries (Harries and Dye, 2006; Lopez and Mathers, 2006) Antibiotics were prescribed but effective treatment is challenging due to the complicated structure and chemical composition of the mycobacterium cell wall. The unusual structure of the bacterial cell wall makes many antibiotics ineffective and check the entry of drugs (Jain and Mondal, 2008).

Isoniazid and ethambutol have been used for the decades as frontline drugs to inhibit M. tuberculosis, but the rise of multidrug resistant and extensively drug resistant strains poses a serious threat to present treatment of tuberculosis (Burris, 2004; McIlleron, et al., 2009; Zhang, et al., 2014). Ethambutol inhibits the synthesis of essential components of the mycobacterial cell wall. Ethambutol targets the biosynthesis of the cell wall, inhibiting the synthesis of both arabinogalactan and lipoarabinomannan. It is assumed to act via inhibition of arabinosyl transferases (Amin, et al., 2008). An arabinosyltransferase is a transferase enzyme acting upon arabinose belongs to the family of glycosyl transferases. Ethambutol has been also reported for several toxic effects such as optic neuritis, color blindness, etc (Kumar, et al., 1993). Therefore, the need of new and alternative drug candidate for tuberculosis is obvious and current approaches is aim to screened lead molecule from chemical database using Computer aided screening methodology based of known chemical structure of ethambutol.


Materials and Methods

Receptor and ligand retrieval and analogs design for ethambutol:

The 3-D structure of arabinosyl transferase (3PTY) was retrieved from Protein Data Bank. The structure of ethambutol was also retrieved from Drug Bank. Structural similarity, substructure, identity (70%) search were performed and carried out for ethambutol like compounds using Molsoft ICM Browser 3.5-1p and ChemBioDraw Ultra 12.0 software (Gogoi, et al., 2012; Lagunin, et al., 2000). Compounds library were collected from ZINC Database, PubChem, Chemspider, ChemBank cheminformatics site in sdf format. Ethambutol structure based analogs were also designed manually using Chem Sketch software. Around 100,000 compounds were considered and screened for ethambutol like candidate lead compound. Open BabelGUI tool was used for chemical file conversion purposes.

Ligand structure optimization and physiochemical properties calculation:

Screened lignads were optimized before docking using MM2 force field of ChemBio 3D ultra. Physiochemical properties (Hydrogen bond acceptor, hydrogen bond donor, number of rotatable bond, calculated log P, molecular weight, etc) were predicted and checked for non-violation of drug like and Lipinski’s rules using PreADMET server.

Potential protein binding sites prediction and molecular docking study:

The potential ligand binding site of arabinosyl transferase receptor was computed at MVD workspace. Volume and Surface of the binding site were computed and optimum binding site was selected to perform docking. The screened compounds were imported in the Molegro Virtual Docker workspace. The bonds flexibility of the ligands was set and the side chain flexibility of the amino acids in the binding cavity was set with a tolerance of 1.10 and strength of 0.90 for docking simulations. RMSD threshold for multiple cluster poses was set at <2.00 Å. The docking algorithm was set at a maximum iteration of 1500 with a simplex evolution size of 50 and a minimum of 20 runs. Molecular docking was carried out using Molegro Virtual Docker (MVD) (Molegro APS: MVD 5.0) (Thomsen and Christensen, 2006). MVD is molecular visualization and molecular docking software which is based on a differential evolution algorithm; the solution of the algorithm takes into account the sum of the intermolecular interaction energy between the ligand and the protein and the intramolecular interaction energy of the ligand. The docking energy scoring function is based on the modified piecewise linear potential (PLP) with new hydrogen bonding and electrostatic terms included. Interaction of Ligands with recetor was studied to know the best binding orientation of receptor-ligand complex in terms of minimum energy score.

ADME and toxicity prediction:

Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion and Toxicity were studied for top ranking compounds were computed using PASS (Prediction of Activity Spectra for Substances) Inet and Pre ADMET server (Gogoi, et al., 2012; Lagunin, et al., 2000). PASS Inet predicts 3678 pharmacological effects, mechanisms of action, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity and embryotoxicity. MDCK cell permeability, human intestinal absorption, blood-brain barrier penetration and plasma protein binding scores were studied and compared (Norinder and Bergstrom, 2006).


Results and Discutions

Herein, we have screened out 3148 compounds structurally similar with ethambutol from 11,74,583 compounds based on chemical similarity (structural) using ZINC database. We have also retrieved ethambutol like 5 compounds from Chemspider on the basic of calculated property, 10 from ChemBank on the basic of substructure and 3 from Pubchem on the basic of property. We calculated physicochemical property for 222 compounds in Molsoft ICM-Browser software and observe that most of the compounds follows Lipinski’s rule of Five as presented in the Table I including few analogues of ethambutol.

Table I
Physicochemical property of top ranking database compounds

Compound ID

Formula

HBA

HBD

Rot B

MW

ClogP

ZINC00388344

C7H16NO

1

1

1

130.123

0.796

ZINC20441875

C11H23N2O

1

3

4

199.181

0.57

ZINC01690002

C8H16NO

1

1

4

142.123

0.600

ZINC17316804

C8H16NO

1

1

4

142.123

0.600

ZINC19889071

C18H37N3O

2

1

4

311.293

1.04

ZINC19889073

C15H33N3O

2

1

5

271.262

0.037

ZINC20441963

C16H35N3O

0

1

7

269.283

2.99

ZINCO1688588

C8H18NO2

2

3

3

199.181

0.44

ZINC19976556

C10H21N3O

2

2

5

199.168

0.399

ZINC37049708

C12H29N3O

2

3

6

231.231

-0.134

ZINC37049709

C12H29N3O

2

3

6

231.231

-0.134

Pubchem1793372

C9H2ON203

3

3

10

204.147

1.00

Pubchem18542010

C9H16O5

5

2

9

204.099

0.201

Pubchem21811791

C10H20O4

4

2

10

204.136

-0.028

Chemspider8464931

C12H16N2O3S

4

3

7

268.088

0.558

Chemspider8464933

C12H16N2O3S

4

3

7

268.088

0.558

Chemspider16740754

C11H19N3

1

4

6

193.157

0.135

ChemBank1036

C20H28N2O5

6

2

11

376.199

0.666

ChemBank1176

C10H24N2O2

4

4

9

204.183

0.118

ChemBank1608

C21H31N3O5

7

5

13

405.226

-1.822

ChemBank1000260

C10H24N2O2

4

4

9

204.183

0.118

ChemBank1049255

C14H28N2O2

4

4

5

256.205

1.246

The compounds with the predicted drug likeness of more than 80% with Lipinski’s qualification were used to study their ADME properties. 222 compounds were checked for absorption and distribution in human body using PreADMET as given in Table II. Each compound was checked for carcinogenic, embryo toxin and teratogenic and 31 non-toxic compounds were chosen for molecular docking analysis.

Table II
ADME of compounds

Compounds

Absorption

Distribution

 HIA
 (%)

IVCEL 
(nm/sec)

INVMCM
  (nm/sec)

IVSP
 (logkp, cm/hour)

IVPPB
  (%)

IVBBBP
  (%)

Chem2057082

92.492

53.79

77.47

-2.45

62.111

0.172

Chemspider6763024

91.515

1.430

73.606

-3.216

60.233

0.019

ZINC0568632

99.302

49.650

177.164

-1.771

60.233

0.019

ZINC0038846

99.027

25.796

264.592

-3.555

0.00

0.9054

ZINC05105206

99.039

50.917

173.184

-2.635

0.00

1.115

Pubchem1793372

78.811

21.325

8.355

-3.54

30.154

0.060

ZINC17353697

87.424

37.884

227.952

-4.869

7.397

0.406

Etha11

87.280

21.959

30.751

2.266

85.488

5.110

Etha17

70.69

0.410

1.71

-5.002

0.000

0.482

ZINC00388344

99.039

25.79

264.59

-3.02

0.00

0.905

Etha10

82.468

19.289

0.478

-4.203

38.100

0.365

HIA: Human intestinal absorption; IVCEL: In vitro Caco-2 cell permeability; INVMCM: In vitro MDCK cell permeability; IVSP: In vitro skin permeability; IVPPB: In vitro plasma protein binding; IVBBBP: In vivo blood-brain barrier penetration

Receptor model was exported and potential bindings sites were predicted in the Molegro Virtual Docker workspace as presented in the Table III with their coordinate position in the workspace. Missing coordinates of receptor was checked before loading. Amino acid residues around the binding cavity were given in the Table IV.

Table III
Predicted binding sites of the receptor

Cavity

Position

Volume
(Å3)

Surface
(Å2)

X

Y

Z

1

95.116

-6.436

6.514

97.28

368.64

2

90.257

-18.415

1.179

74.24

240.64

3

70.877

-0.667

16.219

25.6

111.36

4

70.877

-0.667

16.219

19.968

84.48

Table IV
Amino acid residues around the potential binding site

Ser739

Asn740

Leu743

Ala743

Leu744

Ala745

Lys747

Gly750

Leu751

Ala752

Glu753

Asp754

Val755

Leu756

Lys1050

Asp1051

Asp1052

Arg1055

Trp1057

 

Molecular docking is a novel approach to study small compound inhibition to receptor protein. We docked 31 non toxic compounds with receptor model of M. tuberculosis arabinosyl transferase using Molegro Virtual Docker (MVD) software. MVD is molecular visualization and molecular docking software which is based on a differential evolution algorithm; the solution of the algorithm takes into account the sum of the intermolecular interaction energy between the ligand and the protein and the intramolecular interaction energy of the ligand. The docking energy scoring function is based on the modified piecewise linear potential (PLP) with new hydrogen bonding and electrostatic terms included.

The ligands were optimized before docking for proper structural stabilization. We calculated stretch, bend, steth bend, torsion, non-1,4 VDW, 1,4 VDW, total energy (Kcal/mol) using MM2 module of Chembio office tool. Docking computation was done based on the parameters mentioned in the methodology.

While docking the receptor was set rigid and docked with the receptor binding site inside the constraint where, bond flexibility of lignds was set as “on”. The docking result has predicted two database compounds and two analogues of ethambutol based on least energy score of rerank, moldock and H bond values as presented in the Table V. Dock poses were further inspected for hydrogen bonding interaction with the receptor.

Table V
Docking result

Ligand

MolDock score

Rerank score

HBond

Chemspider20572082

-117.902

-93.096

-22.399

Zinc00388344

-107.278

-80.301

-08.963

Etha9

-104.055

-76.741

-05.465

Etha17

-94.996

-45.846

-05.651

Etha10

-61.488

-44.818

-04.162

Ethambutol

-55.620

-39.980

-12.403

The compound Chemspider20572082 and Zinc00388344 showed highest rerank score of -117.902 and -107.278 with optimum hydrogen bonding with the receptor including two analogue of ethambutol as shown in the Table VI.

Table VI
Hydrogen bonding between ligands and receptor

 

Ligands

Distance
(Å)

Protein

Ligand name

Atom name

Atom ID

Atom Name

Atom ID

Amino Acid

Etha 9

H(1)

17

3.25

O(8)

1934

Val 1054

H(1)

17

2.54

N(7)

1943

Scr 1047

H(1)

17

2.24

O(8)

1948

Scr 1047

H(1)

23

2.24

O(8)

2036

Asp1056

Chem2057082

H(1)

25

2.43

O(8)

2055

Gly1058

H(1)

30

2.35

O(8)

1989

Asp1052

H(1)

26

1.99

O(8)

2036

Asp1056

ZINCOO388344

H(1)

22

2.12

O(8)

1934

Val1045

H(1)

22

2.22

O(8)

2061

Leu1060

H(1)

22

2.26

O(8)

2064

Leu1060

Ethambutol

H(1)

20

2.03

O(8)

1948

Ser1047

H(1)

29

2.32

O(8)

2055

Gly1058

H(1)

29

3.01

O(8)

2036

Asp1056

The compound Chemspider20572082 interacts with the amino acid residue Gly1058, Asp1052 and Asp1056 and forming three hydrogen bond interaction at the distance of 2.43, 2.35 and 1.99 Å respectively. ZINCOO388344 is forming three hydrogen bonds with Val1045 and Leu1060 and clearly reflecting its novelty as a inhibitor of M. tuberculosis arabinosyl transferase in compared with ethambutol having poor reranking score of -39.980.

Screening for alternative and effective drug is urgently needed to combat the drug resistance straings of M. tuburculosis (Burris, 2004; McIlleron, et al., 2009; Zhang, et al., 2014). The failure of ethambutol is another challenge. Therefore to meet the present challenges for inhibition of M. tuberculosis arabinosyl transferase by these compounds would be a useful starting point to design better therapeutics of M. tuberculosis and in vitro experiment on compounds, viz. Chem2057082 and ZINCOO388344 is recommended.

In this investigation, virtual screening has been perfor-med using various filters. The screened compounds are subjected to molecular docking and result are analysis on the basic of rerank score and hydrogen bond interaction and it was found that 3 compounds showed better result out of 31 docked compound than the control drug. Further ADME and pharmacological effects of these compounds observed comparatively better bioavailability, distribution, absorption, drug likeness, and pharmacological effects than ethambutol. Hence, it could be concluded that these three compounds could be considered as potent drug candidate of M. tuberculosis.

Click to see

Acknowledgment

The authors thankfully acknowledge the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Govt. of India for providing the Bioinformatics Infrastructure Facility (BIF) to CSIR-NEIST, Jorhat under the project “Creation of BIF for the promotion of biology teaching through bioinformatics, 2008”.




References

Amin AG, Goude R, Shi L, Zhang J, Chatterjee D, Parish T. EmbA is an essential arabinosyltransferase in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Microbiology 2008: 154, 240-48

Burris HA. Dual kinase inhibition in the treatment of breast cancer: Initial experience with the EGFR/ErbB-2 inhibitor lapatinib. Oncologist 2004: 9(Suppl 3): 10-15.

Gogoi D, Bezbaruah RL, Bordoloi M, Sarmah R, Bora TC. Insights from the docking analysis of biologically active compounds from plant Litsea Genus as potential COX-2 inhibitors. Bioinformation 2012; 8: 812-15.

Harries AD, Dye C. Tuberculosis. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2006; 100: 415-31.

Jain A, Mondal R. Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis: Current challenges and threats. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2008; 53: 145-50.

Kumar A, Sandramouli S, Verma L, Tewari HK, Khosla PK. Ocular ethambutol toxicity: Is it reversible? J Clin Neuro-ophthalmol. 1993; 13: 15-17.

Lagunin A, Stepanchikova A, Filimonov D, Poroikov V. PASS: Prediction of activity spectra for biologically active substances. Bioinformatics 2000; 16: 747-48.

Lopez AD, Mathers CD. Measuring the global burden of disease and epidemiological transitions: 2002-2030. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2006; 100: 481-99.

McIlleron H, Willemse M, Werely CJ, Hussey GD, Schaaf HS, Smith PJ, Donald PR. Isoniazid plasma concentrations in a cohort of South African children with tuberculosis: Implications for international pediatric dosing guidelines. Clin Infect Dis. 2009; 48: 1547-53.

Norinder U, Bergstrom CA. Prediction of ADMET properties. Chem Med Chem. 2006; 1: 920-37.

Thomsen R, Christensen MH. MolDock: A new technique for high-accuracy molecular docking. J Med Chem. 2006; 49: 3315-21.

Zhang Z, Wang Y, Pang Y, Kam KM. Ethambutol resistance as determined by broth dilution method correlates better than sequencing results with embB mutations in multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates. J Clin Microbiol. 2014; 52: 638-41.