Advertisement

Identification of adaptive inhibitors of Cryptosporidium parvum fatty acyl-coenzyme A synthetase isoforms by virtual screening

  • Somdeb Chattopadhyay
  • Rajani Kanta MahapatraEmail author
Treatment and Prophylaxis - Original Paper
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

Cryptosporidiosis is a significant cause of gastroenteritis in both humans and livestock in developing countries. The only FDA-approved drug available against the same is nitazoxanide, with questionable efficacy in malnourished children and immunocompromised patients. Recent in vitro studies have indicated the viability of Triacsin C as a potential drug candidate, which targets the parasite’s long-chain fatty acyl coenzyme A synthetase enzyme (LC-FACS), a critical component of the fatty acid metabolism pathway. We have used this molecule as a baseline to propose more potent versions thereof. We have applied a combined approach of substructure replacement, literature search, and database screening to come up with 514 analogs of Triacsin C. A virtual screening protocol was carried out which lead us to identify a potential hit compound. This was further subjected to a 100-ns molecular dynamics simulation in complex to determine its stability and binding characteristics. After which, the ADME/tox properties were predicted to assess its viability as a drug. The molecule R134 was identified as the best hit due to its highest average binding affinity, stability in complex when subjected to MD simulations, and reasonable predicted ADMET (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion and Toxicity) properties comparable to those of the Triacsin C parent molecule. We have proposed R134 as a putative drug candidate against the Cryptosporidium parvum LC-FACS enzyme isoforms, following an in silico protocol. We hope the results will be helpful when planning future in vitro experiments for identifying drugs against Cryptosporidium.

Keywords

Cryptosporidium Fatty acyl coenzyme A synthetase Cheminformatics Virtual screening Molecular dynamics simulation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the Bioinformatics Lab Facility of School of Biotechnology, KIIT deemed to be university during the course of the study. The authors would like to thank Dr. Nivedita Jena of KIIT TBI (Technology Business Incubator) for her proposal of the structure of the MCD1 molecule.

Supplementary material

436_2019_6445_MOESM1_ESM.docx (10.1 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 10372 kb)

References

  1. Abad-Zapatero C, Metz JT (2005) Ligand efficiency indices as guideposts for drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 10(7):464–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abraham MJ, Murtola T, Schulz R, Páll S, Smith JC, Hess B, Lindahl E (2015) GROMACS: high performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX 1:19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azam A, Peerzada MN, Ahmad K (2015) Parasitic diarrheal disease: drug development and targets. Front Microbiol 6:1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beisken S, Meinl T, Wiswedel B, de Figueiredo LF, Berthold M, Steinbeck C (2013) KNIME-CDK: workflow-driven cheminformatics. BMC bioinformatics 14(1):257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borowski H, Thompson RCA, Armstrong T, Clode PL (2010) Morphological characterization of Cryptosporidium parvum life-cycle stages in an in vitro model system. Parasitology 137(1):13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chellan P, Sadler PJ, Land KM (2017) Recent developments in drug discovery against the protozoal parasites Cryptosporidium and Toxoplasma. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 27(7):1491–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corso PS, Kramer MH, Blair KA, Addiss DG, Davis JP, Haddix AC (2003) Costs of illness in the 1993 waterborne Cryptosporidium outbreak, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Emerg Infect Dis 9(4):426–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. da Silva AWS, Vranken WF (2012) ACPYPE-antechamber python parser interface. BMC Res Notes 5(1):367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daina A, Michielin O, Zoete V (2017) SwissADME: a free web tool to evaluate pharmacokinetics, drug-likeness and medicinal chemistry friendliness of small molecules. Sci Rep 7:42717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ertl P, Schuffenhauer A (2009) Estimation of synthetic accessibility score of drug-like molecules based on molecular complexity and fragment contributions. J Cheminformatics 1(1):8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eswar N, Webb B, Marti-Renom MA, Madhusudhan MS, Eramian D, Shen MY et al (2006) Comparative protein structure modeling using Modeller. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics 15(1):5–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gfeller D, Grosdidier A, Wirth M, Daina A, Michielin O, Zoete V (2014) SwissTargetPrediction: a web server for target prediction of bioactive small molecules. Nucleic Acids Res 42(W1):W32–W38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guerrant RL (1997) Cryptosporidiosis: an emerging, highly infectious threat. Emerg Infect Dis 3(1):51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guo, F., 2014. Long chain fatty acyl-coenzyme A synthetase as novel drug targets in Cryptosporidium parvum (doctoral dissertation)Google Scholar
  15. Guo F, Zhang H, Fritzler JM, Rider SD Jr, Xiang L, McNair NN et al (2013) Amelioration of Cryptosporidium parvum infection in vitro and in vivo by targeting parasite fatty acyl-coenzyme A synthetases. J Infect Dis 209(8):1279–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hayes EB, Matte TD, O'Brien TR, McKinley TW, Logsdon GS, Rose JB et al (1989) Large community outbreak of cryptosporidiosis due to contamination of a filtered public water supply. N Engl J Med 320(21):1372–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heo L, Park H, Seok C (2013) GalaxyRefine: protein structure refinement driven by side-chain repacking. Nucleic Acids Res 41(W1):W384–W388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hewitt RG, Yiannoutsos CT, Higgs ES, Carey JT, Geiseler PJ, Soave R et al (2000) Paromomycin: no more effective than placebo for treatment of cryptosporidiosis in patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. Clin Infect Dis 31(4):1084–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hiroshi T, Kazuaki I, Satoshi O (1987) Inhibition of acyl-CoA synthetase by triacsins. Biochim Biophys Acta (BBA)-Lipids Lipid Metabol 921(3):595–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hunter PR, Nichols G (2002) Epidemiology and clinical features of Cryptosporidium infection in immunocompromised patients. Clin Microbiol Rev 15(1):145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim Y, George D, Prior AM, Prasain K, Hao S, Le DD et al (2012) Novel triacsin C analogs as potential antivirals against rotavirus infections. Eur J Med Chem 50:311–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Konc J, Janežič D (2010) ProBiS algorithm for detection of structurally similar protein binding sites by local structural alignment. Bioinformatics 26(9):1160–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krieger E, Koraimann G, Vriend G (2002) Increasing the precision of comparative models with YASARA NOVA—a self-parameterizing force field. Proteins 47(3):393–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mac Kenzie WR, Hoxie NJ, Proctor ME, Gradus MS, Blair KA, Peterson DE, Kazmierczak JJ, Addiss DG, Fox KR, Rose JB, Davis JP (1994) A massive outbreak in Milwaukee of Cryptosporidium infection transmitted through the public water supply. N Engl J Med 331(3):161–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O'Boyle NM, Banck M, James CA, Morley C, Vandermeersch T, Hutchison GR (2011) Open Babel: an open chemical toolbox. J Cheminformatics 3(1):33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. O'Donoghue PJ (1995) Cryptosporidium and cryptosporidiosis in man and animals. Int J Parasitol 25(2):139–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Puleston RL, Mallaghan CM, Modha DE, Hunter PR, Nguyen-Van-Tam JS, Regan CM et al (2014) The first recorded outbreak of cryptosporidiosis due to Cryptosporidium cuniculus (formerly rabbit genotype), following a water quality incident. J Water Health 12(1):41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rotz LD, Khan AS, Lillibridge SR, Ostroff SM, Hughes JM (2002) Public health assessment of potential biological terrorism agents. Emerg Infect Dis 8(2):225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roy A, Kucukural A, Zhang Y (2010) I-TASSER: a unified platform for automated protein structure and function prediction. Nat Protoc 5(4):725–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ryan U, Hijjawi N (2015) New developments in Cryptosporidium research. Int J Parasitol 45(6):367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Salentin S, Schreiber S, Haupt VJ, Adasme MF, Schroeder M (2015) PLIP: fully automated protein–ligand interaction profiler. Nucleic Acids Res 43(W1):W443–W447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Samie A, Al-Qahtani A, El Bakri A, Ehdaie B (2015) Challenges and innovative strategies to interrupt cryptosporidium transmission in resource-limited settings. Curr Trop Med Rep 2(3):161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Trott O, Olson AJ (2010) AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J Comput Chem 31(2):455–461Google Scholar
  34. Tzipori S, Ward H (2002) Cryptosporidiosis: biology, pathogenesis and disease. Microbes Infect 4(10):1047–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Walters WP, Murcko MA (2002) Prediction of ‘drug-likeness’. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 54(3):255–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wanyiri J, Ward H (2006) Molecular basis of Cryptosporidium–host cell interactions: recent advances and future prospects. Future Med 1:201–208Google Scholar
  37. Wass MN, Kelley LA, Sternberg MJ (2010) 3DLigandSite: predicting ligand-binding sites using similar structures. Nucleic Acids Res 38(suppl_2):W469–W473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yang H, Lou C, Sun L, Li J, Cai Y, Wang Z et al (2019) admetSAR 2.0: web-service for prediction and optimization of chemical ADMET properties. Bioinformatics 35(6):1067–1069Google Scholar
  39. Yoshida K, Okamoto M, Umehara K, Iwami M, Kohsaka M, Aoki H, Imanaka H (1982) Studies on new vasodilators, WS-1228 A and B. J Antibiotics 35(2):151–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BiotechnologyKIIT Deemed to be UniversityBhubaneswarIndia

Personalised recommendations