Advertisement

Examining pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of eleven analogues of saquinavir for HIV protease inhibition

  • Amit Jayaswal
  • Hirdyesh Mishra
  • Ankita Mishra
  • Kavita ShahEmail author
Original Article
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

HIV is one of the most lethal viral diseases in the human population. Patients often suffer from drug resistance, which hampers HIV therapy. Eleven different structural analogues of saquinavir (SQV), designed using ChemSketch™ and named S1 through S11, were compared with SQV with respect to their pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. Pharmacokinetic predictions were carried out using AutoDock, and molecular docking between macromolecule HIV protease (PDB ID: 3IXO) and analogues S1 – S11 as ligands was performed. Analogues S1, S3, S4, S9 and S11 had lower binding scores when compared with saquinavir, whereas that of analogue S5 was similar. Pharmacokinetic predictions made using ACDilab2, including the Lipinski profile, general physical features, absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion parameters, and toxicity values, for the eleven analogues and SQV suggested that S1 and S5 are pharmacodynamically and pharmacokinetically robust molecules that could be developed and established as lead molecules after in vitro and in vivo studies.

Notes

Acknowledgements

AJ acknowledges University Grants Commission, New Delhi, for financial support.

Funding

This study was funded by University Grants Commission, New Delhi, India, in the form of fellowship to AJ.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

KS, AJ, HM and AM declare that all authors have contributed equally to this research work and that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Patrick GL (2012) An introduction to medicinal chemistry, 4th edn. Oxford University Press Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oprea TI, Davis AM, Teague SJ, Leeson PD (2001) Is there a difference between leads and drugs? A historical perspective. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 41:1308–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lipinski CA (2016) A rule of five in 2015 and beyond: target and ligand structural limitations, ligand chemistry structure and drug discovery project decisions. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 101:34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morris GM, Huey R, Lindstrom W, Sanner MF, Belew RK, Goodsell DS, Olson AJ (2009) Autodock4 and AutoDockTools4: automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J Comput Chem 30:2785–2791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wishart DS, Feunang YD, Guo AC, Lo EJ, Marcu A, Grant JR, Sajed T, Johnson D, Li C, Sayeeda Z, Assempour N, Iynkkaran I, Liu Y, Maciejewski A, Gale N, Wilson A, Chin L, Cummings R, Le D, Pon A, Knox C, Wilson M (2017) DrugBank 5.0: a major update to the DrugBank database for 2018. Nucleic Acids Res 46:D1074–D1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Knox C, Law V, Jewison T, Liu P, Ly S, Frolkis A, Pon A, Banco K, Mak C, Neveu V, Djoumbou Y, Eisner R, Guo AC, Wishart DS (2011) DrugBank 3.0: a comprehensive resource for ‘omics’ research on drugs. Nucleic Acids Res 39:D1035–D1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    O’Boyle NM, Banck M, James CA, Morley C, Vandermeersch T, Hutchison GR (2011) Open Babel: an open chemical toolbox. J Cheminformatics 3:33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robbins AH, Coman RM, Bracho-Sanchez E, Fernandez MA, Gilliland CT, Li M, Agbandje-McKenna M, Wlodawer A, Dunn BM, McKenna R (2010) Structure of the unbound form of HIV-1 subtype A protease: comparison with unbound forms of proteases from other HIV subtypes. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr D66:233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE (2000) The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res 28:235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ACDiLab2 (2010) February 26. ACD/Chemsketch version 12.00. www.acdlabs.com
  11. 11.
    Pettersen EG, Goddard TD, Huang CC, Couch GS, Greenblatt DM, Meng EC, Ferrin TE (2004) UCSF Chimera–a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J Comput Chem 25:1605–1612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jayaswal A, Mishra A, Mishra H, Shah K (2014) Evaluation of novel SQV analogs for resistance mutation compatibility and potential as an HIV-Protease inhibitor drug. Bioinformation 10:227–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shah K, Gupta S, Mishra H, Sharma PK, Jayaswal A (2014) Examining structural analogs of elvitegravir as potential inhibitors of HIV-1 integrase. Adv Virol 159:2069–2080Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Charnley G (2002) Ames test. Encyclopedia of public health. eNotes.com. http://www.enotes.com/public-health-encyclopedia/ames-test. Retrieved 14 May 2018
  15. 15.
    Lu J, Lu D, Fu Z, Zheng M, Luo X (2018) Machine learning-based modeling of drug toxicity. In: Huang T (ed) Computational systems biology. Methods in molecular biology, vol 1754. Humana Press, New York, pp 247–264Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ertl P, Rohde B, Selzer P (2000) Fast calculation of molecular polar surface area as a sum of fragment-based contributions and its application to the prediction of drug transport properties. J Med Chem 43:3714–3717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shargel L, Stevens JA, Fuchs JE, Yu AB (1981) Effect of antacid on bioavailability of theophylline from rapid and timed-release drug products. J Pharm Sci 70:599–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ribeiro AR, Schmidt TC (2017) Determination of acid dissociation constants (pKa) of cephalosporin antibiotics: computational and experimental approaches. Chemosphere 169:524–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wendt MD (2012) The discovery of Navitoclax, a Bcl-2 family inhibitor, protein-protein interactions. Trop Med Chem 8:231–258Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2018) Silver Spring, Maryland. https://www.fda.gov/ForPatients/Illness/HIVAIDS/Treatment/ucm118915.htm Accessed 14 May 2018
  21. 21.
    Vazeux B (1991) AIDS encephalopathy and tropism of HIV for brain monocytes/macrophages and microglial cells. Pathobiology 59:214–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lanevskij K, Japertas P, Didziapetris R (2013) Improving the prediction of drug disposition in the brain. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 9:473–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lanevskij K, Dapkunas J, Juska L, Japertas P, Didziapetris R (2011) QSAR analysis of blood-brain distribution: the influence of plasma and brain tissue binding. J Pharm Sci 100(6):2147–2160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Didziapetris R, Lanevskij K (2016) Compilation and physicochemical classification analysis of a diverse hERG inhibition database. J Comp Aided Mol Des. 30:1175–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tait S, Perugini M, La Rocca C (2017) Relative toxicological ranking of eight polybrominated diphenyl ether congeners using cytotoxicity, chemical properties and exposure data. Food Chem Toxicol 108:74–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amit Jayaswal
    • 1
  • Hirdyesh Mishra
    • 2
  • Ankita Mishra
    • 1
  • Kavita Shah
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Bioinformatics Section, Mahila Maha VidyalayaBanaras Hindu UniversityVaranasiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Physics, Mahila Maha VidyalayaBanaras Hindu UniversityVaranasiIndia
  3. 3.Institute of Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentBanaras Hindu UniversityVaranasiIndia

Personalised recommendations