skip to main content
10.1145/3586139.3586152acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicbbbConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Pharmacodynamics of Phytocompound from Dimocarpus Longan Against Breast Cancer Biomarkers

Published:09 August 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

The leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women is breast cancer. Breast cancer indicators can be blocked by natural plant chemicals with anti-cancer potential, but they must be carefully chosen to prevent negative side effects. In this study, the molecular interaction between the breast cancer biomarkers and phytocompound from Dimocarpus longan; and its stability were studied using the molecular docking and dynamic simulation approaches. α-terpineol (ID:442501), corilagin (ID:73568), isoscopoletin (ID:69894), protocatechuic acid (ID:72) and rutin (ID: 5280805) (plant compounds) from longan and estrogen receptor (1ERR) and progesterone receptor (3D90) (target proteins) that were involved in breast cancer were retrieved from the PubChem database and RCSB Protein Data Bank (PDB) respectively. The pharmacokinetics and toxicity analysis of natural compounds were also performed to find a safe and suitable drug for breast cancer treatment using SwissADME and admetSAR tools. Then, The SwissDock server was used to dock them. A molecular dynamics simulation approach was used to determine the stability of the target protein interaction between phytocompound using Gromacs version 4.6.3 software. Corilagin and rutin violated Lipinski's Rule of 5. Moreover, toxicity prediction analysis has demonstrated that α-terpineol did not show any properties that may cause harmful effects to humans when compared with the other four phytocompounds. The docking results show that 1ERR and 3D90 had a negative binding affinity with the α-terpineol at the value of -6.0 and -6.1 kcal/mol respectively. α- terpineol had a stable interaction with 1ERR and 3D90 with the root mean square deviation (RMSD) value of 0.20nm. Therefore, α- terpineol was chosen to use as a safe drug and potential to be a lead compound. It also could be a multi-target inhibitor for estrogen and progesterone receptors. The results of this investigation should help pharmaceutical researchers locate drugs containing longan.

References

  1. WHO. 2020. Age-standardized (World) incidence and mortality rates, top 10 cancers. Retrieved January 15, 2021 from https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/populations/458-malaysia-fact-sheets.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Zhang X, Guo S, Ho CT, Bai N. 2020. Phytochemical constituents and biological activities of longan (Dimocarpus longan Lour.) fruit: A review. Food Science and Human Wellness 9, 2, 95-102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Naeem MY. 2020. Medicinal potentials and health benefits of black mulberry. Eurasian Journal of Food Science and Technology 4, 1, 1-5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Taghizadeh MS, Niazi A, Moghadam A, Afsharifar A. 2022. Experimental, molecular docking and molecular dynamic studies of natural products targeting overexpressed receptors in breast cancer. Plos One 17, 5, e0267961.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Gurung AB, Ali MA, Lee J, Farah MA, Al-Anazi KM. 2021. Molecular docking and dynamics simulation study of bioactive compounds from Ficus carica L. with important anticancer drug targets. Plos One 216, 7, e0254035.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Jha V, Devkar S, Gharat K, Kasbe S, Matharoo DK, Pendse S, Bhosale A, Bhargava A. 2022. Screening of phytochemicals as potential inhibitors of breast cancer using structure based multitargeted molecular docking analysis. Phytomedicine Plus 2, 2, 100227.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Kim KH, Young BD, Bender JR. 2014. Endothelial estrogen receptor isoforms and cardiovascular disease. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology 389, (1-2), 65-70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Brooks BR, Brooks III CL, Mackerell Jr AD, Nilsson L, Petrella RJ, Roux B, Won Y, Archontis G, Bartels C, Boresch S, Caflisch A. 2009. CHARMM: the biomolecular simulation program. Journal of Computational Chemistry 30, 10, 1545-614.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Lipinski CA. 2004. Lead- and drug-like compounds: the rule-of-five revolution. Drug Discovery Today: Technologies 1, 337-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ddtec.2004.11.007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Veber DF, Johnson SR, Cheng HY, Smith BR, Ward KW, Kopple KD. 2002. Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 45, 2615-2623. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm020017n.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. [Jagtap N, Yadav A, Mohite S. 2020. Synthesis, molecular docking studies and anticancer activity of1,3,4-oxadiazole-3 (2h)-thione derivatives. Journal of University of Shanghai for Science and Technology 22, 535-550.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Rodrigues J, Hullatti KK, Jalalpure S, Khanal P. 2020. In-vitro Cytotoxicity and in silico Molecular docking of alkaloids from Tiliacora acuminata. Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Education and Research 54, s295-s300. https://doi.org/10.5530/ijper.54.2s.86.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Tantaw E, Amer A, Mohamed E, Alla M, Nafie M. 2020. Synthesis, characterization of some pyrazine derivatives as anticancer agents: In vitro and in Silico approaches. Journal of Molecular Structure 1210, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2020.128013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Ikwu F, Shallangwa G, Mamza P. 2020. QSAR, QSTR, and molecular docking studies of the anti-proliferative activity of phenylpiperazine derivatives against DU145 prostate cancer cell lines. Beni-Suef University Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 9, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43088-020-00054-y.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Berman HM, Henrick K, Nakamura H. 2003. Announcing the worldwide Protein Data Bank. Nature Structural Biology 10, 12, 980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Jayaram, B. 2011. SCFBIO: What is drug design.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Grosdidier A, Zoete V, Michielin O. 2011. SwissDock, a protein-small molecule docking web service based on EADock DSS. Nucleic Acids Research 39, W270-277. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr366.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Abd El-Sattar NEA, El‐Adl K, El-Hashash MA, Salama SA, Elhady MM. 2021. Design, synthesis, molecular docking and in silico ADMET profile of pyrano[2,3-d]pyrimidine derivatives as antimicrobial and anticancer agents. Bioorganic Chemistry 115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioorg.2021.105186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Parmar DR, Soni JY, Guduru R, Rayani RH, Kusurkar RV, Vala AG, Talukdar SN, Eissa IH, Metwaly AM, Khalil A, Zunjar V. 2021. Discovery of new anticancer thiourea-azetidine hybrids: Design, synthesis, in vitro antiproliferative, SAR, in silico molecular docking against VEGFR-2, ADMET, toxicity, and DFT studies. Bioorganic Chemistry 115, 105206.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Alam S, Nasreen S, Ahmad A, Darokar MP, Khan F. 2021. Detection of natural inhibitors against human liver cancer cell lines through QSAR, molecular docking and ADMET studies. Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry 21, 8, 686-695.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Ikwu FA, Shallangwa GA, Mamza PA. QSAR, QSTR, and molecular docking studies of the anti-proliferative activity of phenylpiperazine derivatives against DU145 prostate cancer cell lines. 2020. Beni-Suef University Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 9, 1, 1-2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Van Der Spoel D, Lindahl E, Hess B, Groenhof G, Mark AE, Berendsen HJ. 2005. GROMACS: fast, flexible, and free. Journal of Computational Chemistry 26, 16, 1701-1718.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Hitchcock SA, Pennington LD. 2006. Structure - Brain Exposure Relationships. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 49, 26, 7559-7583, doi:10.1021/jm060642i. PMID 17181137.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Smith DA, Di L, Kerns EH. 2010. The effect of plasma protein binding on in vivo efficacy: misconceptions in drug discovery. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 9, 929-939, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3287.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Garrido A, Lepailleur A, Mignani SM, Dallemagne P, Rochais C. 2020. hERG Toxicity assessment: Useful guidelines for drug design. European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 195, 112290.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Meyer JN, Leung MC, Rooney JP, Sendoel A, Hengartner MO, Kisby GE. 2013. Mitochondria as a target of environmental toxicants. Toxicology Science 134, 1–17. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kft102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. [Saravanan R, Raja K, Shanthi D. 2022. GC-MS Analysis, Molecular docking and pharmacokinetic properties of phytocompounds from Solanum torvum unripe fruits and its effect on breast cancer target protein. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 194, 1, 529-555.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Acharya R, Chacko S, Bose P, Lapenna A, Pattanayak SP. 2019. Structure based multitargeted molecular docking analysis of selected furanocoumarins against breast cancer. Scientific Reports 9, 1, 1-3.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Kaur B, Rolta R, Salaria D, Kumar B, Fadare OA, da Costa RA, Ahmad A, Al-Rawi MB, Raish M, Rather IA. 2022. An in silico investigation to explore anti-cancer potential of Foeniculum vulgare Mill. Phytoconstituents for the management of human breast cancer. Molecules 27, 13, 4077.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Pharmacodynamics of Phytocompound from Dimocarpus Longan Against Breast Cancer Biomarkers

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      ICBBB '23: Proceedings of the 2023 13th International Conference on Bioscience, Biochemistry and Bioinformatics
      January 2023
      136 pages
      ISBN:9781450398190
      DOI:10.1145/3586139

      Copyright © 2023 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 9 August 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)16
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format