Molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation study of inositol phosphorylceramide synthase – inhibitor complex in leishmaniasis: Insight into the structure based drug design

Vineetha Mandlik; Shailza Singh

doi:10.12688/f1000research.9151.1

Home Browse Molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation study of inositol...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation study of inositol phosphorylceramide synthase – inhibitor complex in leishmaniasis: Insight into the structure based drug design

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]

Vineetha Mandlik¹, Shailza Singh ¹

PUBLISHED 08 Jul 2016

Author details Author details

¹ National Centre for Cell Science, NCCS Complex, Pune University Campus, Pune, India

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Cheminformatics gateway.

This article is included in the Neglected Tropical Diseases collection.

Abstract

Inositol phosphorylceramide synthase (IPCS) has emerged as an important, interesting and attractive target in the sphingolipid metabolism of Leishmania. IPCS catalyzes the conversion of ceramide to IPC which forms the most predominant sphingolipid in Leishmania. IPCS has no mammalian equivalent and also plays an important role in maintaining the infectivity and viability of the parasite. The present study explores the possibility of targeting IPCS; development of suitable inhibitors for the same would serve as a treatment strategy for the infectious disease leishmaniasis. Five coumarin derivatives were developed as inhibitors of IPCS protein. Molecular dynamics simulations of the complexes of IPCS with these inhibitors were performed which provided insights into the binding modes of the inhibitors. In vitro screening of the top three compounds has resulted in the identification of one of the compounds (compound 3) which shows little cytotoxic effects. This compound therefore represents a good starting point for further in vivo experimentation and could possibly serve as an important drug candidate for the treatment of leishmaniasis.

Keywords

IPCS (Inositol phosphorylceramide synthase), Sphingolipid metabolism, Leishmania, Leishmaniasis, Drug Inhibitor design, Coumarin derivatives, Molecular docking, Molecular dynamics simulation

Corresponding author: Shailza Singh

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The present work is being funded by the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) Project No: BT/PR 6037/GBD/27/372/2012Acknowledgement: The authors would like to thank the Director, National Center for Cell Science (NCCS) for supporting the Bioinformatics and High Performance Computing Facility (BHPCF) at NCCS, Pune, India.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2016 Mandlik V and Singh S. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

How to cite: Mandlik V and Singh S. Molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation study of inositol phosphorylceramide synthase – inhibitor complex in leishmaniasis: Insight into the structure based drug design [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2016, 5:1610 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.9151.1) First published: 08 Jul 2016, 5:1610 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.9151.1) Latest published: 01 Sep 2016, 5:1610 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.9151.2)

Abbreviations

IPCS – Inositol phosphorylceramide synthase, IPC – Inositol phosphorylceramide, AUR1 – Aureobasidin 1, DAG – Diacylglycerol, RMSD – Root Mean Square Deviation, LINCS – Linear constraint solver, PME – Particle Mesh Ewald.

Introduction

Infectious disease, leishmaniasis, is the major cause of parasitic diseases affecting 12 million people worldwide. Most of the anti-leishmanial compounds do not have well-defined mechanisms. The first line treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis involves the administration of antimony based compounds. Treatment of L. major amastigotes with Sb(V) has been found to induce apoptosis by the induction of oxidative-stress and increase in intracellular calcium¹. Non-antimony based treatments such as miltefosine, and topical formulations of paromomycin are cost effective, convenient and less toxic than antimony based compounds. Amphotericin B being a liposomal formulation is expensive, has a low therapeutic index and is difficult to administer². Newer formulations for the treatment of this disease include the administration of miltefosine. Miltefosine (hexadecylphosphocholine), originally an anticancer drug has been reported to induce apoptosis of L. major amastigotes in the infected macrophages³. Development of newer treatment modalities arise from the problem of drug resistance and quick adaptability of the parasite to the host immune response^4–6.

Sphingolipids like IPC, form an important component of the parasitic membranes⁷. IPCS (inositol phosphorylceramide synthase) is an enzyme involved in the sphingolipid metabolism of protozoans and other fungal species⁸. The relative importance of IPCS in Leishmania has been identified through biochemical network modeling⁹. IPCS catalyzes the conversion of ceramide to IPC which forms the most predominant sphingolipid of the parasite¹⁰ (Figure 1). IPCS also maintains the concentration of DAG and ceramide, both of which serve as secondary messengers in several signal transduction events¹¹. IPCS localizes into the lipid rafts of the Golgi complex¹². Lipid rafts have been proposed to involve in a wide array of events like trafficking of lipid modified proteins in addition to playing an important role in the formation of signal transduction complexes¹³. IPCS has been important for maintaining the viability and the infectivity of several fungal species like Cryptococcus neoformans, Candida albicans and pathogens like Leishmania^14–17. Interestingly there is no mammalian equivalent of this enzyme and the major sphingolipid in the host is sphingomyelin instead of IPC. Hence IPCS has been considered as a choke point enzyme in the sphingolipid metabolism of Leishmania thereby serving as a druggable target for the treatment of several fungal and protozoan diseases like leishmaniasis. LmjIPCS comprises of 338 amino acids and has 6 transmembrane domains and belongs to the PAP2c family⁹. IPCS is encoded by the AUR1 gene. IPCS protein present in fungi exhibits sensitivity to antifungal agents like galbonolide A, aureobasidin A, macrolidegalbonolide and khafrefungin^18,19. IPCS has been recently discovered in Leishmania and to the best of our knowledge there are no reports of inhibitor design against this protein. This paper explores the possibility of targeting IPCS for the development of anti-protozoan compounds. An in silico approach for drug design has led to the development of five novel coumarin derivatives. The refinement and validation of the docked complexes has been done using molecular dynamics simulations to map the protein ligand interactions. Based on the in silico findings, the promising candidates were considered for further experimental evaluation and validation.

Figure 1. Role of IPCS in the sphingolipid metabolism of Leishmania.

IPCS catalyzes the reaction involving the conversion of ceramide to IPC (Inositolphosphorylceramide). IPC forms the most predominant sphingolipid in Leishmania. IPCS plays an important role in maintaining the viability of the parasite.

Materials and methods

Generation of the lead compounds

A set of coumarin derivatives were prepared by the assembly of pharmacophoric groups. The 2D structures of the inhibitors were drawn and edited using Chemsketch version 12.01²⁰ (Figure 2). The SMILES format for all the compounds was generated using Open Babel version 2.3.1²¹. Inhibitors were designed and filtered using the “Lipinski rules of five”²² and Veber’s rules²³ using the Molinspiration Property Calculation Service (www.molinspiration.com).

Figure 2. 2D representation of the IPCS inhibitors.

The designed inhibitors are Coumarin derivatives. Coumarin increases the phagocytic activity of the macrophages.

Pharmacophore generation

The pharmacophore models describing the inherent chemical features of the inhibitors were generated using the “Feature mapping protocol” available in Discovery Studio version 3.0. (www.accelyrs.com). Pharmacophore models of the inhibitors indicated that the ligand had at least a maximum of 5 pharmacophoric features i.e. Hydrogen bond acceptors (HBA), Hydrogen bond donors (HBD), positive ionizable groups (PI), Ring aromatic groups (RA) and the Hydrophobic groups (HY) present in the ligand.

Molecular docking

IPCS is one of the emerging drug targets for the treatment of leishmaniasis. The crystal structure of the IPCS protein has not been solved and hence the 3D structure for the IPCS protein developed by our group before has been used for the inhibitor design. The model was developed using the I-TASSER server (http://zhanglab.ccmb.med.umich.edu/I-TASSER/). The predicted model has a total of 338 amino acid residues and has 7 transmembrane helices⁹. The 3D structure of IPCS was energy minimized by the steepest gradient method of energy minimization using the GROMACS 4.0 package²⁴. Mol2 file format of the inhibitors was converted to PDBQT format using MGL tools prior to docking. All the water and solvent atoms of the protein were removed prior to docking and the polar hydrogens were added. The protein was kept rigid while the ligand was allowed to rotate and explore more flexible binding pockets. Docking of the inhibitors onto the IPCS protein was performed using Auto Dock 4 version 1.5.6 and Auto Dock vina. version 1.1.2. The grid box size dimensions were 40X40X40, the default scoring function was used for docking^25,26. Binding modes of the docked complexes were obtained and the amino acid residues present at a distance of 5Å were considered as the binding partners of the ligands. The interaction diagrams representing the docked complexes have been generated using Pymol v 1.3.

Molecular dynamics simulation of the docked complexes

Molecular dynamics simulation is a computational method that provides information regarding the time dependent behavior of any molecular system by integrating Newton’s laws of motion. The docked complexes (IPCS-inhibitor complex) were subjected to MD simulation using Desmond version 4.4 (Schodinger Biosuite). MD simulation of both the IPCS protein and IPCS –ligand complexes were performed for a time period of 10ns by using the OPLS force field. The complex was centered in a cubic box and filled with TIP3P water molecules. The system was neutralized and the initial energy minimization for the system was done using the conjugant gradient algorithm. The Martyna-Tobias-Klein scheme was used for pressure coupling. Electrostatic forces were calculated using the PME algorithm²⁷. All runs were performed at 300K at constant volume and temperature (NPT ensemble) under certain periodic boundary conditions. RMSD plots for the backbone atoms for both the protein and ligand bound protein were generated to understand the relative stability of the ligand inside its binding pocket and the IPCS-inhibitor complexes were visualized.

Flow cytometry

Macrophage cell population was collected post 24 h treatment with the compound 3, washed and suspended in 1XPBS. Cells were stained with 10µl of 10μg/mL of propidium iodide (PI) dye (Invitrogen) and acquired on FACS. Total macrophage population was gated based on their forward scatter (FSC) and side scatter (SSC) after excluding the cell debris. A minimum of 10,000 events were acquired for each sample on FACS Canto II (Beckon Dickson, San Jose, California) and analyzed using FACS Diva Software (version 6.2.1) (Beckon Dikson, San Jose, California).

Results

Dataset 1.Raw data for ‘Molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation study of inositol phosphorylceramide synthase – inhibitor complex in leishmaniasis: Insight into the structure based drug design’.

A description of each file is provided in ‘Dataset descriptions’.

A group of coumarin derivatives were prepared as inhibitors of the IPCS protein belonging to L. major. Assessment of the drug like properties indicated that all the inhibitors were found to comply with the Lipinski’s “Rule of five” (molecular weight (M_wt) ≤ 500, clogP ≤ 5, H-bond donors (HBD) ≤ 5, and acceptors (HBA) ≤ 10) and Verber’s rules (no. of rotatable bonds < 10, PSA ≤ 140A²) (Table 1).

Table 1. Molecular descriptors of the lead compounds.

HBA – Hydrogen bond acceptor, HBD – Hydrogen bond donor, HY – Hydrophobic, RA – Ring aromatic, MR – Molar refractivity, NROTB – No. of rotatable bonds, cLogP – log octanol/water partition coefficient, PSA – Polar surface area, NSC – No. of stereo centers.

S.No	Mwt	cLogP	HBA	HBD	HY	RA	MR	NROTB	PSA(A²)	NSC
1	324	2.8	8	0	2	4	83.82	3	74.98	0
2	281	2.46	5	2	2	4	76.92	1	74.70	0
3	359	4.22	7	0	3	6	78.47	4	73.84	1
4	358	3.86	6	1	3	6	100.70	1	77.36	1
5	311	3.15	9	0	2	4	78.65	2	94.50	0

Molecular docking

Molecular docking studies reveal the binding modes of the ligand with the IPCS protein giving an insight into the crucial amino acid residues that are involved during the binding. A comparison of the binding energies of all the compounds indicates that compound 3 has the least binding energy among all and hence exhibits maximum affinity towards the IPCS protein (Table 2). The interaction modes of all the IPCS inhibitors post docking along with their pharmacophoric features have been presented [Figure 3]. Binding mode analysis reveals that hydrophilic amino acids like Arg299 and His220 were found to be involved in hydrogen or π bonding with most of the ligands (Table 3). The relative stability of the compounds within the binding site was maintained due to the van der Waal’s interaction between the hydrophobic amino acids of the IPCS protein and the ligand (Table 4).

Table 2. The approximate free energies of binding (ΔG_b) of the compounds calculated by Autodock vina.

S.No	Compound Name	Binding energy (Kcal/mol)
1.	(3-(1,3-Benzodioxol-5-yl)-2oxo-2H-chromen-6-yl-acetate)	-9.0
2.	(6-Amino-3-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2H-chromen-2-one)	-8.4
3.	3-(1,3-Benzodioxol-5-yl)-6-{[(1E)-2- furylmethylene]amino}-2H-chromen-2-one	-9.8
4.	3-(1,3-Benzodioxol-5-yl)-6-{[(1E)-1H-pyrrol-2- ylmethylene]amino}-2H-chromene-2-one	-9.5
5.	(3-(1,3-Benzodioxol-5-yl)-6-nitro-2H-chromen-2-one	-9.0

Table 3. IPCS –inhibitor interactions post docking.

Compound	Amino acid	Ligand	Type of interaction
1	His220	1,3 benzodioxol group	Hydrogen bonding
1	Asn183	1,3 benzodioxol group	Hydrogen bonding
3	Phe129	1,3 benzodioxol group	Sigma bond formation
4	Arg299	1,3 benzodioxol group	Hydrogen bonding
5	His220	1,3 benzodioxol group	Hydrogen bonding
5	Glu192	Chromene group	Sigma bond formation
5	Arg299	Chromene group	Pi bonding

Table 4. Comparison of the interacting residues both pre and post MD simulation.

Compound	Binding interactions post docking (pre MD simulation)	Binding interactions post MD simulation
1.	Ile223, Met222, Asn183, Asp182, Pro252, Tyr255, Val195, Pro188, Glu192, Leu196	Tyr256, Prot188, Glue192, Tyr255, Leu196
2.	Arg299, Asp214, Thr6, Ala7, Leu138, Thr323, Ala325, Asp61, Met59, Pro62, Ala57	Arg299, Met59, Ala57, Leu138, Ala7, Pro62, Asp61, Thr323
3.	Arg132, Ala51, Leu130, Val172, Gly49, Met46, Val150	Met46, Phe129, Asn131, Arg132
4.	Pro62, Tyr178, Asp214, Thr6, Ala7, Trp23, Asp19, Ile298, Val5, Leu138, Thr323	Glu63, Val321, Gln322, Arg299, Asp61, Val5, Ile298, Leu270, Ala55, Leu138, Pro62, Met59, Thr323, Asp19, Val10
5.	Tyr255, Asp182, Pro252, Asn187, Gln189	Ile256, Leu259, Leu196, Ile199, Glu192, Asn187, Tyr256, Tyr255

Figure 3. Pharmacophore models of the inhibitors.

The pharmacophoric features such as hydrogen bond acceptors (green), hydrogen bond donors (pink), hydrophobic regions (blue) and the aromatic rings in yellow are shown in the figure.

Molecular dynamics simulation of the docked complexes

Protein backbone RMSD plots indicate the stability of the IPCS-inhibitor complex. The drug backbone RMSD plots indicate that compounds 2 and 3 maintained their interactions with the IPCS protein (Figure 4). Binding modes of compounds 1 to 5 post MD simulation have been shown in Figure 5a–e.

Figure 4. RMSD of the IPCS-ligand complexes.

Backbone RMSD of a) Compound 1 and b) Compound 2 c) Compound 3 d) Compound 4 e) Compound 5 is shown in the figure. Compound 1, 2 and 3 appear to maintain their stability within the binding pocket as they show lower RMSD fluctuations.

Figure 5a–e. Binding modes of IPCS-ligand complexes.

The interaction of the ligand within the IPCS inhibitor complex post MD simulation is shown the figure a) IPCS - compound 1 complex b) IPCS - compound 2 complex c) IPCS - compound 3 complex d) IPCS - compound 4 complex and e) IPCS - compound 5 complex. MD simulation was performed for a time period of 10ns. Interacting residues are represented in red.

Cytotoxicity of the proposed inhibitors

The cytotoxicity profile of compound 3 was checked over the macrophage cell line. Of all five compounds, compound 3 had the highest viability. The viability of C3 treated macrophages (67.3%) was slightly lesser than the control (73.5%).

Discussion

IPCS (Inositol phosphorylceramide synthase) has been identified as an important drug target in the sphingolipid metabolism of several organisms like fungi, yeast and protozoans like Leishmania and Trypanosoma²⁸. Systems biology has played a major role in defining the relative importance of IPCS in the sphingolipid metabolism of Leishmania, a protozoan responsible for causing an infectious disease leishmaniasis. The quest for developing new inhibitors for any target protein relies mainly on in silico approaches like computer based docking which involves the generation of a comprehensive set of ligand conformations that are eventually scored and ranked according to their stability and affinity for the protein. Coumarin has been shown to simulate the macrophages, enhancing their phagocytic ability²⁹. A total of five ligands were developed as inhibitors for the IPCS protein. Molecular docking of the inhibitors with the IPCS protein revealed the binding modes of inhibitors. To account for the flexibility of the protein and ligand and to determine the binding affinity of the inhibitors with the IPCS protein, a 10 ns molecular dynamics simulation of the docked complexes was carried out. Binding mode analysis revealed that the binding modes obtained after MD simulation were more or less similar to that obtained post docking (Table 4). The presence of a large number of H bond acceptors, H bond donors as well as hydrophobic groups in the ligands account for the stability of the ligand inside the binding pocket of IPCS. Based on the RMSD of the ligand-protein complex, it was observed that compounds 1, 2 and 3 maintained their interaction with the protein with lower RMSD fluctuations. Out of these, compound 3 showed the highest binding affinity and its cytotoxicity was assessed using flow cytometry. Cytotoxicity of compound 3 was lesser as compared to other compound. A comparison of compound 3 treated macrophages along with the untreated macrophages has been made in Figure 6.

Figure 6. FACS analysis for measuring macrophage cell viability.

Macrophages were treated with compound 3 for 24h. a) Control cell population displayed a percentage viability of 73.5% b) Compound 3 (1mg/ml) treated macrophages displayed a viability of 67.3% post 24hr treatment.

Conclusion

There is an urgent need to design and develop novel anti-leishmanial compounds due to various problems associated with the current chemotherapeutics for the treatment of this disease. IPCS has been proposed to be a probable drug target in the sphingolipid pathway of Leishmania. We have designed a few novel coumarin derivatives using in silico approaches. MD simulation post docking studies reveal the interactions between the IPCS protein and ligands. Binding modes obtained after docking and after MD simulation reveal almost identical binding modes which is suggestive of the selectivity and selectivity of the ligand towards the active site of the IPCS protein.

Data availability

F1000Research: Dataset 1. Raw data for ‘Molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation study of inositol phosphorylceramide synthase – inhibitor complex in leishmaniasis: Insight into the structure based drug design’, 10.5256/f1000research.9151.d128337³⁰

Author contributions

SS designed and conceptualized the experiments. VM carried out the experiments. SS and VM wrote the manuscript. All the authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The present work is being funded by the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) Project No: BT/PR 6037/GBD/27/372/2012.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the Director, National Center for Cell Science (NCCS) for supporting the Bioinformatics and High Performance Computing Facility (BHPCF) at NCCS, Pune, India.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Haldar AK, Sen P, Roy S: Use of antimony in the treatment of leishmaniasis: current status and future directions. Mol Biol Int. 2011; 2011: 23, 571242. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
2. Yardley V, Croft SL: Activity of liposomal amphotericin B against experimental cutaneous leishmaniasis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997; 41(4): 752–756. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text
3. Khademvatan S, Gharavi MJ, Rahim F, et al.: Miltefosine-Induced Apoptotic Cell Death on Leishmania major and L. tropica Strains. Korean J Parasitol. 2011; 49(1): 17–23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
4. Hadighi R, Mohebali M, Boucher P, et al.: Unresponsiveness to Glucantime treatment in Iranian cutaneous leishmaniasis due to drug-resistant Leishmania tropica parasites. PLoS Med. 2006; 3(5): e162. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. Mishra BB, Kale RR, Singh RK, et al.: Alkaloids: future prospective to combat leishmaniasis. Fitoterapia. 2009; 80(2): 81–90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Croft SL, Barrett MP, Urbina JA: Chemotherapy of trypanosomiases and leishmaniasis. Trends Parasitol. 2005; 21(11): 508–512. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Heung LJ, Luberto C, Del Poeta M: Role of sphingolipids in microbial pathogenesis. Infect Immun. 2006; 74(1): 28–39. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
8. Lester RL, Dickson RC: Sphingolipids with inositolphosphate-containing head groups. Adv Lipid Res. 1993; 26: 253–274. PubMed Abstract
9. Mandlik V, Shinde S, Chaudhary A, et al.: Biological network modeling identifies IPCS in Leishmania as a therapeutic target. Integr Biol (Camb). 2012; 4(9): 1130–1142. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. Dickson RC: Sphingolipid functions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: comparison to mammals. Annu Rev Biochem. 1998; 67: 27–48. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Cerbón J, Falcon A, Hernández-Luna C, et al.: Inositol phosphoceramide synthase is a regulator of intracellular levels of diacylglycerol and ceramide during the G₁ to S transition in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biochem J. 2005; 388(Pt 1): 169–176. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
12. Denny PW, Shams-Eldin H, Price HP, et al.: The protozoan inositol phosphorylceramide synthase: a novel drug target that defines a new class of sphingolipid synthase. J Biol Chem. 2006; 281(38): 28200–28209. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
13. Simons K, Sampaio JL: Membrane organization and lipid rafts. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2011; 3(10): a004697. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
14. Henry J, Guillotte A, Luberto C, et al.: Characterization of inositol phospho-sphingolipid-phospholipase C 1 (Isc1) in Cryptococcus neoformans reveals unique biochemical features. FEBS Lett. 2011; 585(4): 635–640. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
15. Wells GB, Dickson RC, Lester RL: Isolation and composition of inositolphosphorylceramide-type sphingolipids of hyphal forms of Candida albicans. J Bacteriol. 1996; 178(21): 6223–6226. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text
16. Levine TP, Wiggins CA, Munro S: Inositol phosphorylceramide synthase is located in the Golgi apparatus of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Biol Cell. 2000; 11(7): 2267–2281. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
17. Güther ML, Lee S, Tetley L, et al.: GPI-anchored proteins and free GPI glycolipids of procyclic form Trypanosoma brucei are nonessential for growth, are required for colonization of the tsetse fly, and are not the only components of the surface coat. Mol Biol Cell. 2006; 17(12): 5265–5274. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
18. Nagiec MM, Nagiec EE, Baltisberger JA, et al.: Sphingolipid synthesis as a target for antifungal drugs. Complementation of the inositol phosphorylceramide synthase defect in a mutant strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae by the AUR1 gene. J Biol Chem. 1997; 272(15): 9809–9817. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Yano T, Aoyagi A, Kozuma S, et al.: Pleofungins, novel inositol phosphorylceramide synthase inhibitors, from Phoma sp. SANK 13899. I. Taxonomy, fermentation, isolation, and biological activities. J Antibiot (Tokyo). 2007; 60: 136–142. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
20. ACD/Chemsketch, version 5.12. Advanced Chemistry Development, Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada. Reference Source
21. O'Boyle NM, Banck M, James CA, et al.: Open Babel: An open chemical toolbox. J Cheminform. 2011; 3: 33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
22. Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, et al.: Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 1997; 23(1-3): 3–25. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Veber DF, Johnson SR, Cheng HY, et al.: Molecular properties that Influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J Med Chem. 2002; 45(12): 2615–2623. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
24. Berendsen HJ, van der Spoel D, van Drunen R: GROMACS: a message-passing parallel molecular dynamics implementation. Comp Phys Comm. 1995; 91(1–3): 43–56. Publisher Full Text
25. Morris GM, Goodsell DS, Halliday RS, et al.: Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J Computational Chemistry. 1998; 19(14): 1639–1662. Publisher Full Text
26. 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. 2010; 31(2): 455–461. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
27. Darden T, York D, Pedersen L: Particle mesh Ewald: an N-log(N) method for Ewald sums in large systems. J Chem Phys. 1993; 98(12): 10089–10092. Publisher Full Text
28. Zhang K, Beverley SM: Phospholipid and sphingolipid metabolism in Leishmania. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2010; 170(2): 55–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
29. Piller NB: A morphological assessment of the stimulatory effect of coumarin on macrophages. Br J Exp Pathol. 1978; 59(1): 93–96. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text
30. Mandlik V, Singh S: Dataset 1 in: Molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation study of inositol phosphorylceramide synthase – inhibitor complex in leishmaniasis: Insight into the structure based drug design. F1000Research. 2016. Data Source

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 08 Jul 2016

Author details Author details

¹ National Centre for Cell Science, NCCS Complex, Pune University Campus, Pune, India

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The present work is being funded by the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) Project No: BT/PR 6037/GBD/27/372/2012Acknowledgement: The authors would like to thank the Director, National Center for Cell Science (NCCS) for supporting the Bioinformatics and High Performance Computing Facility (BHPCF) at NCCS, Pune, India.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 01 Sep 2016, 5:1610

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.9151.2

version 1

Published: 08 Jul 2016, 5:1610

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.9151.1

© 2016 Mandlik V and Singh S. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Mandlik V and Singh S. Molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation study of inositol phosphorylceramide synthase – inhibitor complex in leishmaniasis: Insight into the structure based drug design [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2016, 5:1610 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.9151.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 08 Jul 2016

Views

Reviewer Report 20 Jul 2016

François Ferron, UMR 7257, Architecture and Functions of Biological Macromolecules Laboratory, CNRS-Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.9848.r14858

Mandlik and Singh are presenting a very interesting study against Leishmania. Using in silico methods they have identified promising compounds.

They chose with great reason IPCS as a target for its uniqueness to the pathogens the study very interesting ... Continue reading

As there is no structure the authors have done a model, the model should be presented here and I feel a previous reference from 2012 won't do. The reader needs to be introduced to it and at least to have a clear understanding of the catalytic site and docking site.
In the material and methods it would be appreciated to have an idea where is the center of the grid (may be with a figure).
Can you explain why you chose a grid with large dimensions?
The analysis of the viability raises a question. Why the surface p1 is not the same between control and compound? To compare the stats it should be the same size here it is half. Also from fig 6 compound 3 it seems that a lot of data were excluded from P1 area? Can you explain?
As perspective are you planning on testing in vitro the efficiency of compound 3 and have an idea of binding affinity?

Minor comment on figure 2: structures of compounds are distorted and could you put all the compound in same orientation 1 (and 2 are upside down). It will help to compare the geometry and differences between molecules.

Figure 5: description of interactions could be better represented ma be with LigPlot, as it is it is not clear.

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 01 Sep 2016

Shailza Singh, National Centre for Cell Science, NCCS Complex, Pune University Campus, Pune, India

01 Sep 2016

Author Response
1. As there is no structure the authors have done a model, the model should be presented here and I feel a previous reference from 2012 won't do. The reader
... Continue reading
As there is no structure the authors have done a model, the model should be presented here and I feel a previous reference from 2012 won't do. The reader needs to be introduced to it and at least to have a clear understanding of the catalytic site and docking site.

Author’s response: The authors have accepted the suggestion made and have now included a figure showing the binding cavity that was predicted for the IPCS protein around which the grid box was centered during docking.

In the material and methods it would be appreciated to have an idea where the center of the grid is (may be with a figure).

Author’s response: Figure 3 has been included keeping in mind the suggestion made.

Can you explain why you chose a grid with large dimensions?

Author’s response: The inhibitors designed have not yet been reported. As there are no studies indicating the exact binding site in the IPCS protein, we have made binding site prediction and the grid box dimensions have been adjusted to incorporate most of the amino acids that fall in the binding site.

The analysis of the viability raises a question. Why the surface p1 is not the same between control and compound? To compare the stats it should be the same size here it is half. Also from fig 6 compound 3 it seems that a lot of data were excluded from P1 area? Can you explain?

Author’s response: The P1 area has been demarcated as per the untreated macrophages (control). As was a decrease in granularity of macrophages post treatment, the cells had lower SSC, however the viability of the cells has not decreased. As per the author’s knowledge about flow cytometry, the P1 area has to remain the same both for the control and treated samples.

As perspective are you planning on testing in vitro the efficiency of compound 3 and have an idea of binding affinity?

Author’s response: At present, the authors don’t have idea of the binding affinity of compound 3. Such studies can be done in future.

Minor comment on figure 2: structures of compounds are distorted and could you put all the compound in same orientation 1 (and 2 are upside down). It will help to compare the geometry and differences between molecules.

Author’s response: Changes suggested have been made in the Figure 2.

Figure 5: description of interactions could be better represented maybe with LigPlot, as it is it is not clear.

Author’s response: Changes suggested have been made in the Figure 6.

We thank the reviewer for his valuable suggestions which went a long way in improving the said manuscript.
As there is no structure the authors have done a model, the model should be presented here and I feel a previous reference from 2012 won't do. The reader needs to be introduced to it and at least to have a clear understanding of the catalytic site and docking site.

Author’s response: The authors have accepted the suggestion made and have now included a figure showing the binding cavity that was predicted for the IPCS protein around which the grid box was centered during docking.

In the material and methods it would be appreciated to have an idea where the center of the grid is (may be with a figure).

Author’s response: Figure 3 has been included keeping in mind the suggestion made.

Can you explain why you chose a grid with large dimensions?

Author’s response: The inhibitors designed have not yet been reported. As there are no studies indicating the exact binding site in the IPCS protein, we have made binding site prediction and the grid box dimensions have been adjusted to incorporate most of the amino acids that fall in the binding site.

The analysis of the viability raises a question. Why the surface p1 is not the same between control and compound? To compare the stats it should be the same size here it is half. Also from fig 6 compound 3 it seems that a lot of data were excluded from P1 area? Can you explain?

Author’s response: The P1 area has been demarcated as per the untreated macrophages (control). As was a decrease in granularity of macrophages post treatment, the cells had lower SSC, however the viability of the cells has not decreased. As per the author’s knowledge about flow cytometry, the P1 area has to remain the same both for the control and treated samples.

As perspective are you planning on testing in vitro the efficiency of compound 3 and have an idea of binding affinity?

Author’s response: At present, the authors don’t have idea of the binding affinity of compound 3. Such studies can be done in future.

Minor comment on figure 2: structures of compounds are distorted and could you put all the compound in same orientation 1 (and 2 are upside down). It will help to compare the geometry and differences between molecules.

Author’s response: Changes suggested have been made in the Figure 2.

Figure 5: description of interactions could be better represented maybe with LigPlot, as it is it is not clear.

Author’s response: Changes suggested have been made in the Figure 6.

We thank the reviewer for his valuable suggestions which went a long way in improving the said manuscript.
Competing Interests: No competing interests Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 01 Sep 2016

Shailza Singh, National Centre for Cell Science, NCCS Complex, Pune University Campus, Pune, India

01 Sep 2016

Author Response
1. As there is no structure the authors have done a model, the model should be presented here and I feel a previous reference from 2012 won't do. The reader
... Continue reading
As there is no structure the authors have done a model, the model should be presented here and I feel a previous reference from 2012 won't do. The reader needs to be introduced to it and at least to have a clear understanding of the catalytic site and docking site.

Author’s response: The authors have accepted the suggestion made and have now included a figure showing the binding cavity that was predicted for the IPCS protein around which the grid box was centered during docking.

In the material and methods it would be appreciated to have an idea where the center of the grid is (may be with a figure).

Author’s response: Figure 3 has been included keeping in mind the suggestion made.

Can you explain why you chose a grid with large dimensions?

Author’s response: The inhibitors designed have not yet been reported. As there are no studies indicating the exact binding site in the IPCS protein, we have made binding site prediction and the grid box dimensions have been adjusted to incorporate most of the amino acids that fall in the binding site.

The analysis of the viability raises a question. Why the surface p1 is not the same between control and compound? To compare the stats it should be the same size here it is half. Also from fig 6 compound 3 it seems that a lot of data were excluded from P1 area? Can you explain?

Author’s response: The P1 area has been demarcated as per the untreated macrophages (control). As was a decrease in granularity of macrophages post treatment, the cells had lower SSC, however the viability of the cells has not decreased. As per the author’s knowledge about flow cytometry, the P1 area has to remain the same both for the control and treated samples.

As perspective are you planning on testing in vitro the efficiency of compound 3 and have an idea of binding affinity?

Author’s response: At present, the authors don’t have idea of the binding affinity of compound 3. Such studies can be done in future.

Minor comment on figure 2: structures of compounds are distorted and could you put all the compound in same orientation 1 (and 2 are upside down). It will help to compare the geometry and differences between molecules.

Author’s response: Changes suggested have been made in the Figure 2.

Figure 5: description of interactions could be better represented maybe with LigPlot, as it is it is not clear.

Author’s response: Changes suggested have been made in the Figure 6.

We thank the reviewer for his valuable suggestions which went a long way in improving the said manuscript.
As there is no structure the authors have done a model, the model should be presented here and I feel a previous reference from 2012 won't do. The reader needs to be introduced to it and at least to have a clear understanding of the catalytic site and docking site.

Author’s response: The authors have accepted the suggestion made and have now included a figure showing the binding cavity that was predicted for the IPCS protein around which the grid box was centered during docking.

In the material and methods it would be appreciated to have an idea where the center of the grid is (may be with a figure).

Author’s response: Figure 3 has been included keeping in mind the suggestion made.

Can you explain why you chose a grid with large dimensions?

Author’s response: The inhibitors designed have not yet been reported. As there are no studies indicating the exact binding site in the IPCS protein, we have made binding site prediction and the grid box dimensions have been adjusted to incorporate most of the amino acids that fall in the binding site.

The analysis of the viability raises a question. Why the surface p1 is not the same between control and compound? To compare the stats it should be the same size here it is half. Also from fig 6 compound 3 it seems that a lot of data were excluded from P1 area? Can you explain?

Author’s response: The P1 area has been demarcated as per the untreated macrophages (control). As was a decrease in granularity of macrophages post treatment, the cells had lower SSC, however the viability of the cells has not decreased. As per the author’s knowledge about flow cytometry, the P1 area has to remain the same both for the control and treated samples.

As perspective are you planning on testing in vitro the efficiency of compound 3 and have an idea of binding affinity?

Author’s response: At present, the authors don’t have idea of the binding affinity of compound 3. Such studies can be done in future.

Minor comment on figure 2: structures of compounds are distorted and could you put all the compound in same orientation 1 (and 2 are upside down). It will help to compare the geometry and differences between molecules.

Author’s response: Changes suggested have been made in the Figure 2.

Figure 5: description of interactions could be better represented maybe with LigPlot, as it is it is not clear.

Author’s response: Changes suggested have been made in the Figure 6.

We thank the reviewer for his valuable suggestions which went a long way in improving the said manuscript.
Competing Interests: No competing interests Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 08 Jul 2016

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 01 Sep 16	read	read
Version 1 08 Jul 16	read

François Ferron, CNRS-Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
Vigneshwaran Namasivayam, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

22 Views

25 Oct 2016 | for Version 2

Vigneshwaran Namasivayam, PharmaCenter Bonn, Pharmaceutical Institute, Pharmaceutical Chemistry I, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

22 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Mandlik and Singh have applied the pharmcophore model and physicochemical properties to select five coumarin derivatives as a starting point as inhibitors targeting inositol phosphorylceramide synthase a target selected to study sphingolipid metabolism of Leishmania. IPCS is an important target because there is no mammalian equivalent of this enzyme. The authors have utilized the state-of-the art computational techniques molecular docking and molecular dynamics to confirm the binding mode and its interaction with the enzyme. The analysis explain that the high number of H-bond acceptors, donors and hydrophobic groups introduce strong interactions of the ligand within the binding site of the enzyme. The cytotoxicity profile of the selected inhibitors provides additional information about the coumarin derivatives. Thus, this study is a good starting point for focusing coumarin derivatives as inhibitors targeting against Leishmania. In the future study, it can be extended to modify these molecules to further enhance the interaction with IPCS and other experimental studies to confirm the binding affinity.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

27 Views

26 Sep 2016 | for Version 2

François Ferron, UMR 7257, Architecture and Functions of Biological Macromolecules Laboratory, CNRS-Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France

27 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Authors have answered the Referee comments and improved the paper enough to be indexed.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

55 Views

20 Jul 2016 | for Version 1

François Ferron, UMR 7257, Architecture and Functions of Biological Macromolecules Laboratory, CNRS-Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France

55 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

As there is no structure the authors have done a model, the model should be presented here and I feel a previous reference from 2012 won't do. The reader needs to be introduced to it and at least to have a clear understanding of the catalytic site and docking site.
In the material and methods it would be appreciated to have an idea where is the center of the grid (may be with a figure).
Can you explain why you chose a grid with large dimensions?
The analysis of the viability raises a question. Why the surface p1 is not the same between control and compound? To compare the stats it should be the same size here it is half. Also from fig 6 compound 3 it seems that a lot of data were excluded from P1 area? Can you explain?
As perspective are you planning on testing in vitro the efficiency of compound 3 and have an idea of binding affinity?

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

01 Sep 2016

Shailza Singh, National Centre for Cell Science, NCCS Complex, Pune University Campus, Pune, India

As there is no structure the authors have done a model, the model should be presented here and I feel a previous reference from 2012 won't do. The reader needs to be introduced to it and at least to have a clear understanding of the catalytic site and docking site.

Author’s response: The authors have accepted the suggestion made and have now included a figure showing the binding cavity that was predicted for the IPCS protein around which the grid box was centered during docking.
In the material and methods it would be appreciated to have an idea where the center of the grid is (may be with a figure).

Author’s response: Figure 3 has been included keeping in mind the suggestion made.
Can you explain why you chose a grid with large dimensions?

Author’s response: The inhibitors designed have not yet been reported. As there are no studies indicating the exact binding site in the IPCS protein, we have made binding site prediction and the grid box dimensions have been adjusted to incorporate most of the amino acids that fall in the binding site.
The analysis of the viability raises a question. Why the surface p1 is not the same between control and compound? To compare the stats it should be the same size here it is half. Also from fig 6 compound 3 it seems that a lot of data were excluded from P1 area? Can you explain?

Author’s response: The P1 area has been demarcated as per the untreated macrophages (control). As was a decrease in granularity of macrophages post treatment, the cells had lower SSC, however the viability of the cells has not decreased. As per the author’s knowledge about flow cytometry, the P1 area has to remain the same both for the control and treated samples.
As perspective are you planning on testing in vitro the efficiency of compound 3 and have an idea of binding affinity?

Author’s response: At present, the authors don’t have idea of the binding affinity of compound 3. Such studies can be done in future.
Minor comment on figure 2: structures of compounds are distorted and could you put all the compound in same orientation 1 (and 2 are upside down). It will help to compare the geometry and differences between molecules.

Author’s response: Changes suggested have been made in the Figure 2.
Figure 5: description of interactions could be better represented maybe with LigPlot, as it is it is not clear.

Author’s response: Changes suggested have been made in the Figure 6.

We thank the reviewer for his valuable suggestions which went a long way in improving the said manuscript.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Click here to access the data.

Downloaded data do not display as expected? Download the data

[1] 1. Haldar AK, Sen P, Roy S: Use of antimony in the treatment of leishmaniasis: current status and future directions. Mol Biol Int. 2011; 2011: 23, 571242. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[2] 2. Yardley V, Croft SL: Activity of liposomal amphotericin B against experimental cutaneous leishmaniasis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997; 41(4): 752–756. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text

[3] 3. Khademvatan S, Gharavi MJ, Rahim F, et al.: Miltefosine-Induced Apoptotic Cell Death on Leishmania major and L. tropica Strains. Korean J Parasitol. 2011; 49(1): 17–23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[4] 4. Hadighi R, Mohebali M, Boucher P, et al.: Unresponsiveness to Glucantime treatment in Iranian cutaneous leishmaniasis due to drug-resistant Leishmania tropica parasites. PLoS Med. 2006; 3(5): e162. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[5] 5. Mishra BB, Kale RR, Singh RK, et al.: Alkaloids: future prospective to combat leishmaniasis. Fitoterapia. 2009; 80(2): 81–90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Croft SL, Barrett MP, Urbina JA: Chemotherapy of trypanosomiases and leishmaniasis. Trends Parasitol. 2005; 21(11): 508–512. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Heung LJ, Luberto C, Del Poeta M: Role of sphingolipids in microbial pathogenesis. Infect Immun. 2006; 74(1): 28–39. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[8] 8. Lester RL, Dickson RC: Sphingolipids with inositolphosphate-containing head groups. Adv Lipid Res. 1993; 26: 253–274. PubMed Abstract

[9] 9. Mandlik V, Shinde S, Chaudhary A, et al.: Biological network modeling identifies IPCS in Leishmania as a therapeutic target. Integr Biol (Camb). 2012; 4(9): 1130–1142. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Dickson RC: Sphingolipid functions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: comparison to mammals. Annu Rev Biochem. 1998; 67: 27–48. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Cerbón J, Falcon A, Hernández-Luna C, et al.: Inositol phosphoceramide synthase is a regulator of intracellular levels of diacylglycerol and ceramide during the G₁ to S transition in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biochem J. 2005; 388(Pt 1): 169–176. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] 12. Denny PW, Shams-Eldin H, Price HP, et al.: The protozoan inositol phosphorylceramide synthase: a novel drug target that defines a new class of sphingolipid synthase. J Biol Chem. 2006; 281(38): 28200–28209. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[13] 13. Simons K, Sampaio JL: Membrane organization and lipid rafts. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2011; 3(10): a004697. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[14] 14. Henry J, Guillotte A, Luberto C, et al.: Characterization of inositol phospho-sphingolipid-phospholipase C 1 (Isc1) in Cryptococcus neoformans reveals unique biochemical features. FEBS Lett. 2011; 585(4): 635–640. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[15] 15. Wells GB, Dickson RC, Lester RL: Isolation and composition of inositolphosphorylceramide-type sphingolipids of hyphal forms of Candida albicans. J Bacteriol. 1996; 178(21): 6223–6226. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text

[16] 16. Levine TP, Wiggins CA, Munro S: Inositol phosphorylceramide synthase is located in the Golgi apparatus of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Biol Cell. 2000; 11(7): 2267–2281. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] 17. Güther ML, Lee S, Tetley L, et al.: GPI-anchored proteins and free GPI glycolipids of procyclic form Trypanosoma brucei are nonessential for growth, are required for colonization of the tsetse fly, and are not the only components of the surface coat. Mol Biol Cell. 2006; 17(12): 5265–5274. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[18] 18. Nagiec MM, Nagiec EE, Baltisberger JA, et al.: Sphingolipid synthesis as a target for antifungal drugs. Complementation of the inositol phosphorylceramide synthase defect in a mutant strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae by the AUR1 gene. J Biol Chem. 1997; 272(15): 9809–9817. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Yano T, Aoyagi A, Kozuma S, et al.: Pleofungins, novel inositol phosphorylceramide synthase inhibitors, from Phoma sp. SANK 13899. I. Taxonomy, fermentation, isolation, and biological activities. J Antibiot (Tokyo). 2007; 60: 136–142. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. ACD/Chemsketch, version 5.12. Advanced Chemistry Development, Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada. Reference Source

[21] 21. O'Boyle NM, Banck M, James CA, et al.: Open Babel: An open chemical toolbox. J Cheminform. 2011; 3: 33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[22] 22. Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, et al.: Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 1997; 23(1-3): 3–25. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Veber DF, Johnson SR, Cheng HY, et al.: Molecular properties that Influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J Med Chem. 2002; 45(12): 2615–2623. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Berendsen HJ, van der Spoel D, van Drunen R: GROMACS: a message-passing parallel molecular dynamics implementation. Comp Phys Comm. 1995; 91(1–3): 43–56. Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Morris GM, Goodsell DS, Halliday RS, et al.: Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J Computational Chemistry. 1998; 19(14): 1639–1662. Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. 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. 2010; 31(2): 455–461. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[27] 27. Darden T, York D, Pedersen L: Particle mesh Ewald: an N-log(N) method for Ewald sums in large systems. J Chem Phys. 1993; 98(12): 10089–10092. Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Zhang K, Beverley SM: Phospholipid and sphingolipid metabolism in Leishmania. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2010; 170(2): 55–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[29] 29. Piller NB: A morphological assessment of the stimulatory effect of coumarin on macrophages. Br J Exp Pathol. 1978; 59(1): 93–96. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text

[30] 30. Mandlik V, Singh S: Dataset 1 in: Molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation study of inositol phosphorylceramide synthase – inhibitor complex in leishmaniasis: Insight into the structure based drug design. F1000Research. 2016. Data Source

Molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation study of inositol phosphorylceramide synthase – inhibitor complex in leishmaniasis: Insight into the structure based drug design

Abstract

Keywords

Abbreviations

Introduction

Figure 1. Role of IPCS in the sphingolipid metabolism of Leishmania.

Materials and methods

Generation of the lead compounds

Figure 2. 2D representation of the IPCS inhibitors.

Pharmacophore generation

Molecular docking

Molecular dynamics simulation of the docked complexes

Flow cytometry

Results

Table 1. Molecular descriptors of the lead compounds.

Molecular docking

Table 2. The approximate free energies of binding (ΔGb) of the compounds calculated by Autodock vina.

Table 3. IPCS –inhibitor interactions post docking.

Table 4. Comparison of the interacting residues both pre and post MD simulation.

Figure 3. Pharmacophore models of the inhibitors.

Molecular dynamics simulation of the docked complexes

Figure 4. RMSD of the IPCS-ligand complexes.

Figure 5a–e. Binding modes of IPCS-ligand complexes.

Cytotoxicity of the proposed inhibitors

Discussion

Figure 6. FACS analysis for measuring macrophage cell viability.

Conclusion

Data availability

Author contributions

Competing interests

Grant information

Acknowledgement

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

The problem

How to fix it

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Table 2. The approximate free energies of binding (ΔG_b) of the compounds calculated by Autodock vina.