Short Communication

Triple in silico targeting of IMPDH enzyme and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase of both SARS-CoV-2 and Rhizopus oryzae

Biochemistry Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt

Search for more papers by this author

Abdo A Elfiky

*Author for correspondence: Tel.: +20 100 326 0523;

E-mail Address: dr_abdo@cu.edu.eg

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4600-6240

Biophysics Department, Faculty of Sciences, Cairo University, Giza, Dokki, 12613, Egypt

Search for more papers by this author

Alaa M Elgohary

Biophysics Department, Faculty of Sciences, Cairo University, Giza, Dokki, 12613, Egypt

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:31 Jan 2024https://doi.org/10.2217/fmb-2023-0103

View article

Abstract

Aim: Mucormycosis has been associated with SARS-CoV-2 infections during the last year. The aim of this study was to triple-hit viral and fungal RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRps) and human inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase (IMPDH). Materials & methods: Molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation were used to test nucleotide inhibitors (NIs) against the RdRps of SARS-CoV-2 and Rhizopus oryzae RdRp. These same inhibitors targeted IMPDH. Results: Four NIs revealed a comparable binding affinity to the two drugs, remdesivir and sofosbuvir. Binding energies were calculated using the most abundant conformations of the RdRps after 100-ns molecular dynamics simulation. Conclusion: We suggest the triple-inhibition potential of four NIs against pathogenic RdRps and IMPDH, which is worth experimental validation.

Graphical abstract

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1. Werthman-Ehrenreich A. Mucormycosis with orbital compartment syndrome in a patient with COVID-19. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 42, 264.e265–264.e268 (2021). •• Refers to COVID-19 and mucormycosis coinfection during the 2021 pandemic.
Google Scholar
2. Vaidyanathan G. Coronavirus variants are spreading in India – what scientists know so far. Nature 332 (2021).
Google Scholar
3. Elgohary AM, Elfiky AA, Barakat K. GRP78: a possible relationship of COVID-19 and the mucormycosis; in silico perspective. Comp. Biol. Med. 139, 104956 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
4. Elfiky AA. Dual targeting of RdRps of SARS-CoV-2 and the mucormycosis-causing fungus: an in silico perspective. Future Microbiol. 17(10), 755–762 (2022).
CASGoogle Scholar
5. Abduljalil JM, Elfiky AA, Elgohary AM. Exploration of natural compounds against the human mpox virus DNA-dependent RNA polymerase in silico. J. Infect. Public Health 16(7), 996–1003 (2023).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. Sonousi A, Mahran HA, Ibrahim IM, Ibrahim MN, Elfiky AA, Elshemey WM. Novel adenosine derivatives against SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase: an in silico perspective. Pharmacol. Rep. 73(6), 1754–1764 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
7. Beigel JH, Tomashek KM, Dodd LE et al. Remdesivir for the treatment of Covid-19. N. Engl. J. Med. 383(19), 1813–1826 (2020). •• Refer to the use of remdesivir against COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
8. Elfiky AA, Elshemey WM. Molecular dynamics simulation revealed binding of nucleotide inhibitors to ZIKV polymerase over 444 nanoseconds. J. Med. Virol. 90(1), 13–18 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9. Elfiky AA. Novel guanosine derivatives against Zika virus polymerase in silico. J. Med. Virol. 92(1), 11–16 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10. Elfiky AA. The antiviral sofosbuvir against mucormycosis: an in silico perspective. Future Virol. 14(11), 739–744 (2019). • In this paper sofosbuvir was predicted to bind to RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) of Rhizopus oryzae.
CASGoogle Scholar
11. Burrell AL, Kollman JM. IMPDH dysregulation in disease: a mini review. Biochem. Soc. Transact. 50(1), 71–82 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
12. Valvezan AJ, Mcnamara MC, Miller SK et al. IMPDH inhibitors for antitumor therapy in tuberous sclerosis complex. JCI Insight 5(7), (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Shu Q, Nair V. Inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase (IMPDH) as a target in drug discovery. Med. Res. Rev. 28(2), 219–232 (2008). • This paper refers to the therapeutic potential of inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
14. Burrell AL, Kollman JM. IMPDH dysregulation in disease: a mini review. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 50(1), 71–82 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15. Hedstrom L. IMP dehydrogenase: structure, mechanism, and inhibition. Chem. Rev. 109(7), 2903–2928 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
16. Loustaud-Ratti V, Debette-Gratien M, Jacques J et al. Ribavirin: past, present and future. World J. Hepatol 8(2), 123–130 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Chen L, Wilson DJ, Xu Y et al. Triazole-linked inhibitors of inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase from human and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J. Med. Chem. 53(12), 4768–4778 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. Jouzani GS, Valijanian E, Sharafi R. Bacillus thuringiensis: a successful insecticide with new environmental features and tidings. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 101(7), 2691–2711 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
19. Abbas MST. Genetically engineered (modified) crops (Bacillus thuringiensis crops) and the world controversy on their safety. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 28(1), 52 (2018).
Google Scholar
20. Kim S, Thiessen PA, Bolton EE et al. PubChem substance and compound databases. Nucleic Acids Res. 44(D1), D1202–D1213 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
21. O'boyle NM, Banck M, James CA, Morley C, Vandermeersch T, Hutchison GR. Open Babel: an open chemical toolbox. J. Cheminform. 3(1), 33 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. Morris GM, Huey R, Lindstrom W et al. AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J. Comput. Chem. 30(16), 2785–2791 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23. Gao Y, Yan L, Huang Y et al. Structure of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase from COVID-19 virus. Science 368(6492), 779–782 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. Biasini M, Bienert S, Waterhouse A et al. SWISS-MODEL: modelling protein tertiary and quaternary structure using evolutionary information. Nucleic Acids Res. 42(Web Server issue), W252–W258 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
25. Pettersen EF, Goddard TD, Huang CC et al. UCSF Chimera-a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J. Computat. Chem. 25(13), 1605–1612 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26. Elfiky AA, Azzam EB, Shafaa MW. The anti-HCV, sofosbuvir, versus the anti-EBOV remdesivir against SARS-CoV-2 RNA dependent RNA polymerase in silico. Mol. Divers 26(1), 171–181 (2022). •• Refers to the effectiveness of sofosbuvir and remdesivir against SARS-CoV-2 RdRp.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27. Rauf MA, Zubair S, Azhar A. Ligand docking and binding site analysis with pymol and autodock/vina. Int. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 4(2), 168 (2015).
Google Scholar
28. Trott O, Olson AJ. AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J. Comput. Chem. 31(2), 455–461 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
29. Seeliger D, De Groot BL. Ligand docking and binding site analysis with PyMOL and Autodock/Vina. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des. 24(5), 417–422 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30. Schrödinger, LLC. The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, Version 2.4.1 Schrödinger, LLC. https://pymol.org/2/
Google Scholar
31. Jejurikar BL, Rohane SH. Drug designing in discovery studio. Asian J. Res. Chem. 14(2), 135–138 (2021).
Google Scholar
32. Elfiky AA. Zika virus: novel guanosine derivatives revealed strong binding and possible inhibition of the polymerase. Future Virol. 12(12), 721–728 (2017).
CASGoogle Scholar
33. Elfiky AA, Ismail A. Molecular dynamics and docking reveal the potency of novel GTP derivatives against RNA dependent RNA polymerase of genotype 4a HCV. Life Sci. 238, 116958 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34. Elfiky AA. Novel guanosine derivatives as anti-HCV NS5b polymerase: a QSAR and molecular docking study. Med. Chem. 15(2), 130–137 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35. Adem S, Eyupoglu V, Sarfraz I et al. Caffeic acid derivatives (CAFDs) as inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2: CAFDs-based functional foods as a potential alternative approach to combat COVID-19. Phytomedicine 85, 153310 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
36. Silver LL. Multi-targeting by monotherapeutic antibacterials. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 6(1), 41–55 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
37. Joshi RS, Jagdale SS, Bansode SB et al. Discovery of potential multi-target-directed ligands by targeting host-specific SARS-CoV-2 structurally conserved main protease. J. Biomolec. Struct. Dynam. 39(9), 3099–3114 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
38. Mishra P, Kumar A, Panda G. Anti-cholinesterase hybrids as multi-target-directed ligands against Alzheimer's disease (1998–2018). Bioorg. Med. Chem. 27(6), 895–930 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
39. Artasensi A, Pedretti A, Vistoli G, Fumagalli L. Type 2 diabetes mellitus: a review of multi-target drugs. Molecules 25(8), 1987 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
40. Trapero A, Pacitto A, Singh V et al. Fragment-based approach to targeting inosine-5′-monophosphate dehydrogenase (IMPDH) from Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J. Med. Chem. 61(7), 2806–2822 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
41. Eweas AF, Alhossary AA, Abdel-Moneim AS. Molecular docking reveals ivermectin and remdesivir as potential repurposed drugs against SARS-CoV-2. Front. Microbiol. 11, 592908 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
42. Patil SM, Maruthi KR, Bajpe SN et al. Comparative molecular docking and simulation analysis of molnupiravir and remdesivir with SARS-CoV-2 RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp). Bioinformation 17(11), 932–939 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
43. Gan CS, Lim SK, Chee CF, Yusof R, Heh CH. Sofosbuvir as treatment against dengue? Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 91(2), 448–455 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
44. Yang H, Huang Y, Wu D, Yan J, He J, Li H. In vitro investigation of the interaction between the hepatitis C virus drug sofosbuvir and human serum albumin through 1H NMR, molecular docking, and spectroscopic analyses. N. J. Chem. 40(3), 2530–2540 (2016).
CASGoogle Scholar
45. De Freitas CS, Higa LM, Sacramento CQ et al. Yellow fever virus is susceptible to sofosbuvir both in vitro and in vivo. PLOS Negl. Trop. Dis. 13(1), e0007072 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 19, No. 1

Metrics

Downloaded 29 times

History

Received 3 May 2023

Accepted 23 August 2023

Published online 31 January 2024

Published in print January 2024

Information

Keywords

Financial disclosure

This paper is based upon work supported by The Science and Technology Development Fund (STDF), grant no. 45696. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

Competing interests disclosure

The authors have no competing interests or relevant affiliations with any organization or entity with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Writing disclosure

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download