Abstract
Introduction: Intermediate covalent complex of DNA-Topoisomerase II enzyme is the most promising target of the anticancer drugs to induce apoptosis in cancer cells. Currently, anticancer drug and chemotherapy are facing major challenges i.e., drug resistance, chemical instability and, dose-limiting side effect. Therefore, in this study, natural therapeutic agents (series of Ganoderic acids) were used for the molecular docking simulation against Human DNATopoisomerase II beta complex (PDB ID:3QX3).
Methods: Molecular docking studies were performed on a 50 series of ganoderic acids reported in the NCBI-PubChem database and FDA approved anti-cancer drugs, to find out binding energy, an interacting residue at the active site of Human DNA-Topoisomerase II beta and compare with the molecular arrangements of the interacting residue of etoposide with the Human DNA topoisomerase II beta. The autodock 4.2 was used for the molecular docking and pharmacokinetic and toxicity studies were performed for the analysis of physicochemical properties and to check the toxicity effects. Discovery studio software was used for the visualization and analysis of docked pose.
Results and Conclusion: Ganoderic acids (GS-1, A and DM) were found to be a more suitable competitor inhibitor among the ganoderic acid series with appropriate binding energy, pharmacokinetic profile and no toxicity effects. The interacting residue (Met782, DC-8, DC-11 and DA-12) shared a chemical resemblance with the interacting residue of etoposide present at the active site of human topoisomerase II beta receptor.
Keywords: Molecular docking, human topoisomerase II β, ganoderic acids, Autodock 4.2, anti-cancer property, natural therapeutic agents.
Graphical Abstract
[PMID: 22479231]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep01445] [PMID: 23486013]
[PMID: 19949937] [http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-416-6_21]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70023-9] [PMID: 25639368]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/157489211793980114] [PMID: 21110820]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20244] [PMID: 19225573]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12551-016-0240-8] [PMID: 28510219]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt238] [PMID: 23580548]
[http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/joa.12416] [PMID: 26612825]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms15033403] [PMID: 24573252]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11912-013-0303-y] [PMID: 23435854]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules23030649]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fitote.2011.12.004] [PMID: 22178684]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00281-x] [PMID: 28336949]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lfs.2006.09.001] [PMID: 17007887]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1204117] [PMID: 21778401]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/28.1.235] [PMID: 10592235]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1166/jmihi.2015.1358]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJCBDD.2015.073671]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ddtec.2004.11.007] [PMID: 24981612]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2012.07.014] [PMID: 22841979]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrc2607] [PMID: 19377506]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky072] [PMID: 29447373]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phymed. 2018.04.062] [PMID: 30195884]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers 6031769] [PMID: 25198391]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lfs.2004.09.045] [PMID: 15878354]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2017.7048] [PMID: 28731159]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1389200219666180305154119] [PMID: 29512450]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1517/17460441.2012.714363] [PMID: 22992175]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/092986707779941050] [PMID: 17305542]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/cc9800071] [PMID: 10746014]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1602/neurorx.2.4.541] [PMID: 16489364]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4781(98)00132-8]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4781(98)00129-8]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1042/BCJ20160583] [PMID: 29363591]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/bi700272u] [PMID: 17580961]