SuperNatural inhibitors to reverse multidrug resistance emerged by ABCB1 transporter: Database mining, lipid-mediated molecular dynamics, and pharmacokinetics study

Mahmoud A. A. Ibrahim; Khlood A. A. Abdeljawaad; Alaa H. M. Abdelrahman; Mahmoud M. H. Abdelhamid; Mohamed Ahmed Naeem; Gamal A. H. Mekhemer; Peter A. Sidhom; Shaban R. M. Sayed; Paul W. Paré; Mohamed-Elamir F. Hegazy

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288919

Abstract

An effective approach to reverse multidrug resistance (MDR) is P-glycoprotein (P-gp, ABCB1) transport inhibition. To identify such molecular regulators, the SuperNatural II database, which comprises > 326,000 compounds, was virtually screened for ABCB1 transporter inhibitors. The Lipinski rule was utilized to initially screen the SuperNatural II database, identifying 128,126 compounds. Those natural compounds were docked against the ABCB1 transporter, and those with docking scores less than zosuquidar (ZQU) inhibitor were subjected to molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. Based on MM-GBA binding energy (ΔG_binding) estimations, UMHSN00009999 and UMHSN00097206 demonstrated ΔG_binding values of –68.3 and –64.1 kcal/mol, respectively, compared to ZQU with a ΔG_binding value of –49.8 kcal/mol. For an investigation of stability, structural and energetic analyses for UMHSN00009999- and UMHSN00097206-ABCB1 complexes were performed and proved the high steadiness of these complexes throughout 100 ns MD simulations. Pharmacokinetic properties of the identified compounds were also predicted. To mimic the physiological conditions, MD simulations in POPC membrane surroundings were applied to the UMHSN00009999- and UMHSN00097206-ABCB1 complexes. These results demonstrated that UMHSN00009999 and UMHSN00097206 are promising ABCB1 inhibitors for reversing MDR in cancer and warrant additional in-vitro/in-vivo studies.

Citation: Ibrahim MAA, Abdeljawaad KAA, Abdelrahman AHM, Abdelhamid MMH, Naeem MA, Mekhemer GAH, et al. (2023) SuperNatural inhibitors to reverse multidrug resistance emerged by ABCB1 transporter: Database mining, lipid-mediated molecular dynamics, and pharmacokinetics study. PLoS ONE 18(7): e0288919. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288919

Editor: Syed Hani Abidi, Nazarbayev University School of Medicine, PAKISTAN

Received: May 18, 2023; Accepted: July 6, 2023; Published: July 26, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Ibrahim et al. 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 author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding: This study was financially supported by the Researchers Supporting Project, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in the form of an award (RSPD2023R743). No additional external funding was received for this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Carcinoma is often an incurable disease, with approximately two million cases reported in 2020 alone [1]. Chemotherapy is one of the most widely used treatments [2], even though remission is observed in only 10% of cancer cases because neoplasm cells rapidly evolve resistant to most anticarcinoma drugs. Tumor cell excretion of chemotherapeutic medications is greatly aided by ATP-binding cassettes (ABC) and other membrane proteins that are powered by ATP hydrolysis [3, 4]. P-glycoprotein (P-gp), also known as ABCB1 (ATP-binding cassette), is among the most effective ABC proteins for drug export [5]. ABCB1 transporter has been recognized as a key component in the emergence of MDR tumor lines [6]. The ABCB1 transporter is encoded by an MDR1 gene having a molecular weight of 170 kilodaltons [7]. The ABCB1 transporter is observed to be expressed at high levels in colorectal cancer [8]. Two nucleotide-binding domains (NBDs) and two transmembrane domains (TMDs) work jointly for ABCB1 activation [9]. ABCB1 is activated when a substrate (Oncodrugs) binds to the protein TMD. A closed dimer is formed, and ATP binds to the two NBDs. ATP hydrolysis catalyzes a conformation change in the protein with the bound drug pumped out of the cell [10–13]. Therapeutic tumor treatments are anticipated with the discovery of new/effective ABCB1 blockers or modulators [16]. Indeed, several generations of ABCB1 blockers have been discovered using combinatorial chemistry [14, 15]. Unfortunately, such inhibitors have been ineffective due to high general toxicity and other complications facing cancer patients [16, 17]. Therefore, screening of new inhibitors against ABCB1 transporter is essential to reverse the MDR process.

Natural products (NPs) have been deemed as an essential source of pharmaceutical drugs [18]. Several vastly-utilized anticarcinoma therapeutics have been obtained from natural sources, including paclitaxel, vincristine, etoposide, and irinotecan [19]. SuperNatural II database provides a classification based on the characterization of structures like alkaloids, amino acids, or fatty acids. The SuperNatural II database contains > 326,000 compounds, which are compiled from 16 suppliers [20–24]. This study was set to discover effective compounds from the SuperNatural II database that can inhibit the ABCB1 transporter using in-silico approaches. Thus, virtual screening, docking computations, and MD simulations were performed. Additionally, the binding affinities of the SuperNatural II inhibitors against the ABCB1 transporter were estimated employing the MM-GBSA approach. Stabilization of the structure and energy of the predicted natural inhibitors complexed with the ABCB1 transporter were examined over 100 ns MD simulations. Additionally, the identified SuperNatural II compounds complexed with ABCB1 transporter were simulated in POPC membrane to mimic physiologic circumstances. A schematic diagram for the utilized in-silico methods during the filtration of the database is represented in Fig 1. The pharmacokinetic characteristics of the identified ABCB1 inhibitors were predicted. The current work may be useful as a good starting point for identifying potent inhibitors against the ABCB1 transporter to reverse MDR.

Download:

Fig 1. Schematic diagram of the in-silico techniques and filtration of the SuperNatural II database.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288919.g001

Computational methods

ABCB1 preparation

The RCSB PDB database was used to retrieve the structure of the ABCB1 transporter [25]. The 3d structure of the ABCB1 transporter complexed with the zosuquidar ((2R)-1-(4-((1aR,10bS)-1,1-difluoro-1,1a,6,10b-tetrahydrodibenzo[a,e]cyclopropa[c][7]annulen-6-yl)piperazin-1-yl)-3-(quinolin-5-yloxy)propan-2-ol) (ZQU) inhibitor (PDB ID: 6QEE, resolution: 3.90 Å [26]) was used for all in-silico approaches. Modeller software was utilized to build the missing residues [27]. Preparing the protein involved assigning bonds in the correct order, orienting disoriented groups, and removing co-crystalized water molecules and inhibitors. The protonation states of residues were determined, and the missing hydrogens were inserted using the H++ web server [28].

SuperNatural II preparation

The SuperNatural II database containing > 326,000 compounds was obtained in SDF format from Prof. Encinar’s website (http://docking.umh.es/downloaddb) [29]. All compounds were converted into 3D with the aid of Omega2 software, with a maximum of 200 conformers generated within a 10 kcal/mol energy window [30, 31]. All generated 3D structures were energetically minimized using MMFF94S force field within SZYBKI software [32, 33]. To study the protonation states of the database compounds, the fixpk_a implemented within QUACPAC software was applied [34]. The Gasteiger method was applied to assign the charges of the database compounds [35]. The prepared database is available via www.compchem.net/ccdb.

Database filtration

The database was first filtered on the basis of Lipinski’s rule of five [29]. The filtration criteria were as follows: i) nOHNH (number of hydrogen bond donors) was appointed to ≤ 5, ii) nON (number of hydrogen bond acceptors) was set to ≤ 10, iii) MWt (molecular weight) of each compound was selected to be ≤ 500, iv), TPSA (topological polar surface area) was assigned to be ≤ 140, and v) LogP (partition coefficient) was appointed to ≤ 5. All compounds that obey Lipinski’s rule of five were then subjected to in-silico computation to evaluate their potency as ABCB1 inhibitors.

Molecular docking

Molecular docking computations were carried out using AutoDock4.2.6 software [36]. The pdbqt file for the ABCB1 transporter was generated using MGL tools [37]. The receptor was kept rigid for docking. All docking parameters were set to default, with an exception to the GA (number of genetic algorithms run) and eval (maximum number of energy evaluations) values. Three docking levels were used, named standard, moderate, and expensive docking computations, with GA and eval values of 25 and 2,500,000, 100 and 10,000,000, and 250 and 25,000,000, respectively. The binding pocket for the ABCB1 transporter was specified by a grid box with 60 Å × 60 Å × 60 Å in the 3-dimensions with a spacing value of 0.375 Å. The built-in clustering analysis was used to group the anticipated docking poses for each compound using an RMSD tolerance of 1.0 Å.

Molecular dynamics (MD)

MD simulations were executed with the assistance of AMBER16 software [38]. Detailed information about the applied MD protocol is described elsewhere [39–42]. Briefly, GAFF2 (general AMBER force field) was employed for the ligand parameterization [43]. On the other hand, ABCB1 transporter was characterized by AMBER force field 14SB [44]. RESP (restrained electrostatic potential) fitting approach was utilized to compute the charges of the inspected compounds at the HF/6-31G* level employing Gaussian09 software [45, 46]. For complex preparation, all inhibitor-ABCB1 complexes were centered in an octahedral box with a distance of 12 Å between the edge of the box and atoms of the inhibitor-ABCB1 complexes and solvated with TIP3P water molecules [47]. Charge neutralization was performed by inserting sodium and chloride counterions. Besides, a salt concentration was adjusted at 0.15 M NaCl. Subsequently, the prepared complexes were submitted to energetical minimization for 5,000 cycles. The minimized complexes were then heated up to 310 K under NVT ensemble. Heating stages were executed through 50 ps. The equilibration phase was then executed over 10 ns. Production stages were performed using NPT ensemble for 5, 25 and 100 ns. Berendsen barostat and Langevin dynamics were employed to control both pressure and temperature, respectively [48, 49]. The trajectories were recorded every 10 ps for structural and energetical analyses. Molecular visualizations were performed with BIOVIA discovery studio visualizer [50].

MD simulations in the lipid bilayer

CHARMM-GUI web interface was used to construct ABCB1-lipid bilayer systems [51]. The ABCB1 transporter was embedded in a 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-phosphatidylcholine (POPC) bilayer with a preset TIP3P solvent was used for computations. Cl⁻and Na⁺ ions were employed to neutralize the systems under investigation. Furthermore, the inhibitor-ABCB1 systems were positioned in the middle of the POPC membrane. The Lipid14 force field, implemented within the AMBER16 software, was utilized to describe the POPC membrane [52]. Ultimately, the MD simulations regarding the constructed systems were carried out using the same computational framework discussed in Section 2.5.

Binding energy computations

Binding energy calculations for compounds in complex with ABCB1 transporter were estimated using an MM-GBSA (molecular mechanical-generalized Born surface area) approach [53]. The MM-GBSA approach was evaluated on the basis of uncorrelated snapshots gathered throughout the MD simulations. Herein, a modified generalized Born (GB) model proposed by Onufriev was utilized [54]. The ΔG_binding was computed according to the following equation: (1) where the G term is: (2) E_ele, E_vdW, G_GB, and G_SA stand for electrostatic, van der Waals, electrostatic-solvation free energy, and nonpolar solvation-free energy, respectively. The entropy (S) evaluation was ignored because of its high computation need [55, 56]. In the lipid bilayer, the POPC was preserved in the MM-GBSA estimations over the MD simulations. All in-silico computations in this study were executed using the hybrid cluster of CompChem GPU/CPU (hpc.compchem.net).

Pharmacokinetic characteristics

The pkCSM was employed to estimate the pharmacokinetic characteristics, involving absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) [57]. The Caco-2 permeability and human intestine absorption (HIA) were utilized to predict absorption (A). Furthermore, the distribution (D) property was clarified via a steady-state volume distribution (VDss). A metabolism (M) property was predicted on the basis of CYP3A4 inhibitor, and the excretion (E) property was estimated based on the drug’s total clearance. AMES toxicity was employed to evaluate the toxicity (T) property of the investigated inhibitors.

Results and discussion

SuperNatural II database pre-screening

Prior to virtual screening against the ABCB1 transporter, the database was initially filtrated based on Lipinski’s rule of five. Only 128,126 out of > 326,000 natural compounds followed Lipinski’s rules. Thus, these compounds were prepared and screened against the ABCB1 transporter.

Virtual screening of the SuperNatural II database

The outperformance of AutoDock4.2.6 software in predicting the ZQU-ABCB1 binding pose has been previously reported [39]. According to the published results, the calculated RMSD value between the predicted and experimental binding modes was 0.18 Å, with a docking score of −8.3 kcal/mol. Utilizing the validated docking protocol, the 128,126 pre-screened compounds were virtually screened towards the ABCB1 transporter utilizing standard parameters. According to the standard docking scores, 3,751 natural compounds demonstrated docking scores less than ZQU (calc. −8.4 kcal/mol against the ABCB1 transporter). Accordingly, these 3,751 compounds were re-docked against the ABCB1 transporter utilizing moderate docking parameters. The predicted docking scores for these 3,751 compounds (S1 Table). According to results listed in S1 Table, 376 natural compounds demonstrated docking scores ≤ –10.5 kcal/mol. Thus, these 376 natural compounds were subjected to more expensive computations. The corresponding docking scores are summarized in S2 Table. Based on data listed in S2 Table, only 39 natural compounds revealed docking scores ≤ –11.0 kcal/mol. Notably, the docking scores of –10.5 and –11.0 kcal/mol were selected as threshold values to shortlist the most potent inhibitors. The anticipated docking scores of these 39 natural compounds are compiled in Table 1. As well, the 2-dimensional interactions of these natural compounds with key ABCB1 binding residues are depicted in S1 Fig.

Download:

Table 1. Standard, moderate, and expensive docking scores of the top potent 39 SuperNatural II compounds against the ABCB1 transporter^{^a}.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288919.t001

Compound UMHSN00009999 manifested the lowest docking score with a value of –12.6 kcal/mol against the ABCB1 transporter (Table 1). Examining its docking mode demonstrated that the nitrogen atom of the 1,5-dimethyl-1H-tetrazole ring formed a hydrogen bond with TYR306 residue (1.73 Å) (Fig 2). Dimethylamine groups of the 1,3-dimethylurea formed two hydrogen bonds with the oxygen atom of the acetamide group of the GLN989 residue with lengths of 2.11 and 2.06 Å, respectively (Fig 2). The oxygen atom of the 1,3-dimethylurea contributed to another bond with the 1H-indole group of TRP231 residue (2.76 Å). Besides, compound UMHSN00009999 interacted with PHE727 and PHE981 residues by pi-pi interactions (Fig 2).

Download:

Fig 2. 3-Dimensional and 2-Dimensional interactions of (a) UMHSN00009999, (b) UMHSN00097206, and (c) ZQU with the ABCB1 transporter.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288919.g002

Compound UMHSN00097206 showed the second-lowest ABCB1 docking score with a value of –12.5 kcal/mol. Investigating the docking mode of UMHSN00097206 demonstrated that the nitrogen atom of the 6-methyl-1,5-naphthyridin-2(1H)-one participated in a hydrogen bond with GLN989 residue (2.16 Å). Besides, compound UMHSN00097206 displayed pi-pi interactions with TRP231, PHE342, and PHE982 residues of the ABCB1 binding pocket (Fig 2). ZQU did not exhibit any hydrogen bond inside the ABCB1 binding pocket, so the relatively strong docking score of –8.4 kcal/mol could be assigned to pi-pi interactions with PHE302 and PHE335 residues.

Molecular dynamics (MD)

To verify the docking results and investigate the stability of identified compounds within the ABCB1 binding pocket, MD simulations combined with binding energy computations were executed. The top 39 compounds that showed ABCB1 docking scores ≤ –11.0 kcal/mol were submitted to MD simulations over 5 ns, pursued by estimating the binding energy utilizing MM-GBSA approach (S3 Table). Based on the evaluated MM-GBSA energies, only four compounds exhibited outstanding binding energy (ΔG_binding) lower than –60.0 kcal/mol. Consequently, 25 ns MD simulations were conducted for these compounds to establish more reliable binding affinities within the binding pocket. Strikingly, out of the four identified natural compounds as prospective ABCB1 inhibitors, UMHSN00097206 and UMHSN00009999 demonstrated constancy binding energies with ΔG_binding values of −68.6 and −68.1 and −67.3 and −66.3 kcal/mol over 5 ns and 25 ns MD course, respectively (Fig 3). However, UMHSN00054807 and UMHSN00054684 complexed with ABCB1 transporter displayed a significant increase with an approximate value of –10.0 kcal/mol in the ΔG_binding over 25 ns, with respect to the ΔG_binding over 5 ns MD simulations (Fig 3). For this reason, UMHSN00054807 and UMHSN00054684 were excluded from the data set.

Download:

Fig 3. Calculated binding energies (in kcal/mol) throughout 5, 25, and 100 ns MD simulations for the promising SuperNatural II compounds against the ABCB1 transporter.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288919.g003

MD simulations were then extended to 100 ns for UMHSN00097206 and UMHSN00009999 complexed with ABCB1 to improve the predicted reliability. The estimated MM-GBSA binding energies over this extended MD simulation (Fig 3).

No variances between the estimated binding energies during the 25 and 100 ns MD simulations for UMHSN00009999, UMHSN00097206, and ZQU were observed (Fig 3). Compared to ZQU (calc. –49.8 kcal/mol), UMHSN00009999 and UMHSN0097206 showed superior ABCB1 binding affinities during the 100 ns MD simulations with average ΔG_binding values of –68.3 and –64.1 kcal/mol, respectively (Fig 3).

Decomposing the MM-GBSA binding affinities was conducted to point out the nature of interactions between the inspected compounds and the ABCB1 transporter. E_vdW was the main contributor to the UMHSN00009999-, UMHSN00097206-, and ZQU-ABCB1 binding affinities with average values of –71.6, –67.9, and –66.7 kcal/mol, respectively. E_ele forces were also favorable for UMHSN00009999, UMHSN00097206, and ZQU complexed with ABCB1 transporter with average values of –51.1, –35.4, and –15.6 kcal/mol, respectively (Fig 4).

Download:

Fig 4. Decomposition of binding energies of UMHSN00009999, UMHSN00097206, and ZQU with the ABCB1 transporter.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288919.g004

To identify specific residues that bind the inhibitor to the transporter over the course of the MD simulations, per-residue decomposition analysis was examined (Fig 5). It is noteworthy that only residues with ΔG_binding lower than –0.5 kcal/mol were under consideration in per-residue energy decomposition analysis. As depicted in Fig 5, VAL990, ILE339, and GLN989 residues participated in interactions < –0.5 kcal/mol with UMHSN00009999, UMHSN00097206, and ZQU. GLN989 residue strongly affected the potential binding affinity with values of –4.7, –2.7, and –2.3 kcal/mol for UMHSN00009999-, UMHSN00097206-, and ZQU-ABCB1 complexes, respectively.

Download:

Fig 5. Energy participation of the key residues to the total binding energy (in kcal/mol) of UMHSN00009999, UMHSN00097206, and ZQU in complex with the ABCB1 transporter throughout 100 ns MD simulations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288919.g005

Post-dynamics analyses

Compounds UMHSN00009999 and UMHSN00097206 complexed with ABCB1 transporter were further examined for stability using structural and energetical analyses throughout 100 ns MD simulations and compared with ZQU inhibitor.

Binding energy per-frame.

Using the correlation between binding energy and time, the energetical stability of ABCB1 complexed with UMHSN00009999, UMHSN00097206, and ZQU was inspected over the 100 ns MD simulations (Fig 6). As depicted in Fig 6, overall stability was observed for UMHSN00009999, UMHSN00097206, and ZQU complexed with ABCB1 with average ΔG_binding values of –68.3, –64.1, and –49.8 kcal/mol, respectively. On the basis of this investigation, the studied complexes preserved stabilization thoughout the 100 ns MD simulations.

Download:

Fig 6. Binding energies per-frame for UMHSN00009999 (in black), UMHSN00097206 (in red), and ZQU (in blue) in complex with the ABCB1 transporter throughout 100 ns MD simulations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288919.g006

Hydrogen bond analysis.

Identified compounds and ZQU hydrogen bonding was assessed in Table 2. Table 2 lists distances, occupancy, and hydrogen bond angles for critical ABCB1 residues. Compound UMHSN0009999 formed two stabled hydrogen bonds with GLN989 residue with occupancies and bond lengths of 93.5% and 2.8 Å and 86.2% and 2.8 Å, respectively (Table 2). UMHSN00097206 displayed one hydrogen bond with GLN989 residue (2.8 Å and 91.9% occupancy). This remarkably high hydrogen bond occupancy revealed the importance of GLN989 residue inside the ABCB1 binding pocket, which was in conformity with the per residue decomposition data. On the other hand, ZQU demonstrated one hydrogen bond with GLN989 residue (2.9 Å and 59.8% occupancy). It is worth noting that this bond was absent in the docked pose of ZQU within the ABCB1 binding pocket. Compared to ZQU-ABCB1 complex, intermolecular hydrogen bonding demonstrated that the UMHSN00009999- and UMHSN00097206- ABCB1 complexes are more stable.

Download:

Table 2. Hydrogen bond distances, occupancies, and angles between ABCB1 transporter amino acids, identified compounds and ZQU.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288919.t002

Center-of-mass distance (CoM).

The CoM distance between the inspected natural compounds and GLN989 residue was measured to better understand the persistence of the inhibitor-ABCB1 complexes over 100 ns MD simulations (Fig 7). CoM graph shows average values of 6.3, 6.5, and 6.3 Å for UMHSN00009999, UMHSN00097206, and ZQU, respectively. Distances were more consistent for UMHSN00009999 and UMHSN00097206 than for the ZQU. These results again indicate that ABCB1 binds more strongly to the identified compounds than ZQU.

Download:

Fig 7. CoM distances (in Å) between UMHSN00009999 (in black), UMHSN00097206 (in red), and ZQU (in blue) and GLN989 residue of the ABCB1 transporter over 100 ns MD simulations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288919.g007

Root-mean-square deviation (RMSD).

To investigate the conformational variations, the RMSD of the entire complex backbone atoms was estimated (Fig 8). Estimated RMSD values were 0.2, 0.2, and 0.6 nm for UMHSN00009999-, UMHSN00097206-, and ZQU-ABCB1 complexes, respectively. According to RMSD analysis, the systems stabilized at 10 ns and remained stable throughout the termination of the simulation. Inferred from these findings is the tight compound binding with the ABCB1 transporter occurs without disturbance to the overall structure.

Download:

Fig 8. RMSD of UMHSN00009999 (in black), UMHSN00097206 (in red), and ZQU (in blue) with the ABCB1 transporter over 100 ns MD simulations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288919.g008

Pharmacokinetic characteristics

Clinical trial failures of candidate drugs can be prevented by identifying drug similarities and pharmacokinetic properties during drug design [58]. The predicted pharmacokinetic properties for UMHSN00009999, UMHSN00097206, and ZQU are listed in Table 3. For evaluating the effectiveness of metabolites for oral administration, absorption is predicted based on HIA and Caco-2 permeability. If Caco-2 permeability is > 0.90, the molecule is highly absorbed. Additionally, a compound with an HIA of less than 30% is considered to be poorly absorbed. The current work demonstrated that the Caco-2 permeability for UMHSN00009999, UMHSN11197206, and ZQU is highly absorbed, with values of 0.96, 1.1, and 1.3 cm/s, respectively (Table 3). According to the predicted HIA, UMHSN00009999, UMHSN11197206 and ZQU demonstrated plausible absorbance with values of 89.4, 98.5, and 92.4%, respectively (Table 3).

Download:

Table 3. Predicted pharmacokinetic properties of the candidate inhibitors UMHSN00009999 and UMHSN00097206 compared to ZQU utilizing pkCSM server.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288919.t003

Similarly, VDss was utilized for determining the internal distribution within the human body. Compound UMHSN00009999 and ZQU showed faster diffusion than UMHSN00097206, with VDss values of 0.59, 0.82, and 0.08 L/kg, respectively. A VDss score of less than –0.15 L/kg is viewed negatively, while VDss values greater than 0.45 L/kg are interpreted as good diffusion. The cytochrome model CYP3A4 was used to assess the predicted because this enzyme is crucial for the metabolism of many drugs. From Table 3, UMHSN00009999, UMHSN00097206, and ZQU demonstrated their potentialities as CYP3A4 inhibitors. Moreover, UMHSN00009999, UMHSN00097206, and ZQU showed total clearance of 0.47, 0.61, and 0.78 log ml/min/kg, respectively. Besides, UMHSN00009999 and UMHSN00097206 did not show AMES toxicity rates. In contrast, ZQU was toxic according to the AMES toxicity (Table 3). The ADMET investigations indicated that the identified compounds have a high probability of being an effective therapeutic candidate for reversing MDR process.

MD simulation in the lipid bilayer

To mimic physiological conditions, compound stability was further investigated with the transporter immersed in a POPC bilayer. The ΔG_binding values were –61.4, –55.2, and –48.7 kcal/mol for UMHSN00009999, UMHSN00097206, and ZQU, respectively (Fig 9). Compared to no POPC-based results, the POPC bilayer existence demonstrated no significant impact on the binding energies of the identified natural compounds inside the ABCB1 binding pocket (Fig 9).

Download:

Fig 9. Binding energies for UMHSN00009999, UMHSN00097206, and ZQU within the ABCB1 binding pocket with and without the POPC membrane throughout the 100 ns MD simulations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288919.g009

Conclusions

Inhibiting the ABCB1 transporter is one of the most effective mechanisms for reversing multidrug resistance (MDR). Herein, in-silico techniques were used for screening the SuperNatural II database to point out potential compounds towards the ABCB1 transporter. On the basis of the docking scores, the potent natural compounds with docking scores ≤ –11.0 kcal/mol were subjected to MD simulations, pursued by MM-GBSA binding energy computations. In accordance with the MM-GBSA results, UMHSN00009999 and UMHSN00097206 showed superior binding energies with average ΔG_binding values of –68.3 and –64.1 kcal/mol over 100 ns MD simulations, respectively, compared to the ZQU (calc. –49.8 kcal/mol). The structural and energetical analyses confirmed inhibitor stability over the 100 ns MD simulation. According to pharmacokinetic properties, UMHSN000099999 and UMHSN00097206 demonstrated good oral bioavailability. In addition, MD simulations executed in a POPC environment revealed no significant change in inhibitor binding affinities. In summary, these findings revealed promising, novel, and effective ABCB1 inhibitors that can reverse MDR and can be deemed as a starting point for lead optimization.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. The anticipated binding modes of the top 39 scoring compounds within the active site of the ABCB1 transporter.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288919.s001

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Calculated standard and moderate docking scores (in kcal/mol) for the top 3751 SuperNatural II compounds and ZQU against the ABCB1 transporter protein.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288919.s002

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Estimated standard, moderate, and expensive docking scores (in kcal/mol) for the top 376 compounds and ZQU within the ABCB1 binding pocket.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288919.s003

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Evaluated standard, moderate, and expensive docking scores and MM-GBSA over 5 ns MD simulations (in kcal/mol) for the top 39 compounds and ZQU within the ABCB1 binding pocket.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288919.s004

(DOCX)

S1 Graphical abstract.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288919.s005

(TIF)

References

1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA: Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(1):7–34. pmid:30620402
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Lippert TH, Ruoff HJ, Volm M. Intrinsic and acquired drug resistance in malignant tumors. The main reason for therapeutic failure. Arzneimittelforschung. 2008;58(6):261–264. pmid:18677966
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Sun YL, Patel A, Kumar P, Chen ZS. Role of ABC transporters in cancer chemotherapy. Chin J Cancer. 2012;31(2):51–57. pmid:22257384
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. International Transporter C, Giacomini KM, Huang SM, Tweedie DJ, Benet LZ, Brouwer KL, et al. Membrane transporters in drug development. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(3):215–236. pmid:20190787
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Juliano RL, Ling V. A surface glycoprotein modulating drug permeability in Chinese hamster ovary cell mutants. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1976;455(1):152–162. pmid:990323
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Mishra J, Drummond J, Quazi SH, Karanki SS, Shaw JJ, Chen B, et al. Prospective of colon cancer treatments and scope for combinatorial approach to enhanced cancer cell apoptosis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2013;86(3):232–250. pmid:23098684
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Sharom FJ. Shedding light on drug transport: structure and function of the P-glycoprotein multidrug transporter (ABCB1). Biochem Cell Biol. 2006;84(6):979–992. pmid:17215884
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Linn SC, Giaccone G. MDR1/P-glycoprotein expression in colorectal cancer. Eur J cancer. 1995;31A(7–8):1291–1294. pmid:7577038
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Gutmann DA, Ward A, Urbatsch IL, Chang G, van Veen HW. Understanding polyspecificity of multidrug ABC transporters: closing in on the gaps in ABCB1. Trends Biochem Sci. 2010;35(1):36–42. pmid:19819701
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Urbatsch IL, Beaudet L, Carrier I, Gros P. Mutations in either nucleotide-binding site of P-glycoprotein (Mdr3) prevent vanadate trapping of nucleotide at both sites. Biochemistry. 1998;37(13):4592–4602. pmid:9521779
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Yang R, Cui L, Hou YX, Riordan JR, Chang XB. ATP binding to the first nucleotide binding domain of multidrug resistance-associated protein plays a regulatory role at low nucleotide concentration, whereas ATP hydrolysis at the second plays a dominant role in ATP-dependent leukotriene C4 transport. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(33):30764–30771. pmid:12783859
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Gottesman MM, Ambudkar SV, Xia D. Structure of a multidrug transporter. Nat Biotechnol. 2009;27(6):546–547. pmid:19513059
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Jones PM, George AM. A reciprocating twin-channel model for ABC transporters. Q Rev Biophys. 2014;47(3):189–220. pmid:24786414
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Palmeira A, Sousa E, Vasconcelos MH, Pinto MM. Three decades of P-gp inhibitors: skimming through several generations and scaffolds. Curr Med Chem. 2012;19(13):1946–2025. pmid:22257057
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Srivalli KMR, Lakshmi PK. Overview of P-glycoprotein inhibitors: a rational outlook. Braz J Pharm Sci. 2012;48(3):353–367.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
16. Dantzig AH, de Alwis DP, Burgess M. Considerations in the design and development of transport inhibitors as adjuncts to drug therapy. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2003;55(1):133–150. pmid:12535578
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Thomas H, Coley HM. Overcoming multidrug resistance in cancer: an update on the clinical strategy of inhibiting p-glycoprotein. Cancer Control. 2003;10(2):159–165. pmid:12712010
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Bent S. Herbal medicine in the United States: review of efficacy, safety, and regulation: grand rounds at University of California, San Francisco Medical Center. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(6):854–859. pmid:18415652
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Newman DJ, Cragg GM. Natural products as sources of new drugs over the 30 years from 1981 to 2010. J Nat Prod. 2012;75(3):311–335. pmid:22316239
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Kanehisa M, Goto S, Sato Y, Kawashima M, Furumichi M, Tanabe M. Data, information, knowledge and principle: back to metabolism in KEGG. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(Database issue):D199–205. pmid:24214961
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Caspi R, Billington R, Ferrer L, Foerster H, Fulcher CA, Keseler IM, et al. The MetaCyc database of metabolic pathways and enzymes and the BioCyc collection of pathway/genome databases. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(D1):D471–480. pmid:26527732
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Gu J, Gui Y, Chen L, Yuan G, Lu HZ, Xu X. Use of natural products as chemical library for drug discovery and network pharmacology. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e62839. pmid:23638153
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Wishart DS, Jewison T, Guo AC, Wilson M, Knox C, Liu Y, et al. HMDB 3.0—The Human Metabolome Database in 2013. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(Database issue):D801–807. pmid:23161693
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Irwin JJ, Sterling T, Mysinger MM, Bolstad ES, Coleman RG. ZINC: a free tool to discover chemistry for biology. J Chem Inf Model. 2012;52(7):1757–1768. pmid:22587354
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. ww PDBc. Protein Data Bank: the single global archive for 3D macromolecular structure data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47(D1):D520–D528. pmid:30357364
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Alam A, Kowal J, Broude E, Roninson I, Locher KP. Structural insight into substrate and inhibitor discrimination by human P-glycoprotein. Science. 2019;363(6428):753–756. pmid:30765569
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Marti-Renom MA, Stuart AC, Fiser A, Sanchez R, Melo F, Sali A. Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct. 2000;29(1):291–325. pmid:10940251
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Gordon JC, Myers JB, Folta T, Shoja V, Heath LS, Onufriev A. H++: a server for estimating pKas and adding missing hydrogens to macromolecules. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33(Web Server issue):W368–W371. pmid:15980491
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Banerjee P, Erehman J, Gohlke BO, Wilhelm T, Preissner R, Dunkel M. Super Natural II—a database of natural products. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(Database issue):D935–939. pmid:25300487
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Hawkins PC, Skillman AG, Warren GL, Ellingson BA, Stahl MT. Conformer generation with OMEGA: algorithm and validation using high quality structures from the Protein Databank and Cambridge Structural Database. J Chem Inf Model. 2010;50(4):572–584. pmid:20235588
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. OMEGA. 2.5.1.4 ed. Santa Fe, NM, USA: OpenEye Scientific Software; 2013.
32. SZYBKI 1.9.0.3. Santa Fe, NM, USA: OpenEye Scientific Software; 2016.
33. Halgren TA. MMFF VI. MMFF94s option for energy minimization studies. J Comput Chem. 1999;20(7):720–729. pmid:34376030
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. QUACPAC. 1.7.0.2 ed. Santa Fe, NM, USA: OpenEye Scientific Software; 2016.
35. Gasteiger J, Marsili M. Iterative partial equalization of orbital electronegativity—a rapid access to atomic charges. Tetrahedron. 1980;36(22):3219–3228.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. Morris GM, Huey R, Lindstrom W, Sanner MF, Belew RK, Goodsell DS, et al. AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J Comput Chem. 2009;30(16):2785–2791. pmid:19399780
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Forli S, Huey R, Pique ME, Sanner MF, Goodsell DS, Olson AJ. Computational protein-ligand docking and virtual drug screening with the AutoDock suite. Nat Protoc. 2016;11(5):905–919. pmid:27077332
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Case DA, Betz RM, Cerutti DS, Cheatham TE, Darden TA, Duke RE, et al. AMBER 2016. San Francisco, USA: University of California.
39. Ibrahim MAA, Abdeljawaad KAA, Abdelrahman AHM, Jaragh-Alhadad LA, Oraby HF, Elkaeed EB, et al. Exploring natural product activity and species source candidates for hunting ABCB1 transporter inhibitors: An in silico drug discovery study. Molecules. 2022;27(10):3104. pmid:35630581
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Ibrahim MAA, Abdelrahman AHM, Badr EAA, Almansour NM, Alzahrani OR, Ahmed MN, et al. Naturally occurring plant-based anticancerous candidates as prospective ABCG2 inhibitors: an in silico drug discovery study. Mol Divers. 2022. pmid:35224675
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Ibrahim MAA, Badr EAA, Abdelrahman AHM, Almansour NM, Mekhemer GAH, Shawky AM, et al. In Silico targeting human multidrug transporter ABCG2 in breast cancer: Database screening, molecular docking, and molecular dynamics study. Mol Inform. 2022;41(2):e2060039. pmid:34491628
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Ibrahim MAA, Abdeljawaad KAA, Jaragh-Alhadad LA, Oraby HF, Atia MAM, Alzahrani OR, et al. Potential drug candidates as P-glycoprotein inhibitors to reverse multidrug resistance in cancer: an in silico drug discovery study. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2023:1–16. pmid:36883864
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Wang J, Wolf RM, Caldwell JW, Kollman PA, Case DA. Development and testing of a general amber force field. J Comput Chem. 2004;25(9):1157–1174. pmid:15116359
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Maier JA, Martinez C, Kasavajhala K, Wickstrom L, Hauser KE, Simmerling C. ff14SB: improving the accuracy of protein side chain and backbone parameters from ff99SB. J Chem Theory Comput. 2015;11(8):3696–3713. pmid:26574453
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Bayly CI, Cieplak P, Cornell WD, Kollman PA. A well-behaved electrostatic potential based method using charge restraints for deriving atomic charges—the RESP model. J Phys Chem. 1993;97(40):10269–10280.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. Frisch MJ, Trucks GW, Schlegel HB, Scuseria GE, Robb MA, Cheeseman JR, et al. Gaussian 09. Revision E01 ed. Wallingford CT, USA.: Gaussian09, Gaussian Inc.; 2009.
47. Jorgensen WL, Chandrasekhar J, Madura JD, Impey RW, Klein ML. Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J Chem Phys. 1983;79(2):926–935.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
48. Berendsen HJC, Postma JPM, Vangunsteren WF, Dinola A, Haak JR. Molecular-dynamics with coupling to an external bath. J Chem Phys. 1984;81(8):3684–3690.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
49. Izaguirre JA, Catarello DP, Wozniak JM, Skeel RD. Langevin stabilization of molecular dynamics. J Chem Phys. 2001;114(5):2090–2098.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
50. Dassault Systèmes BIOVIA Discovery Studio Visualize, Version 2019; Dassault Systèmes: San Diego, CA, USA, 2019.
51. Jo S, Kim T, Iyer VG, Im W. CHARMM-GUI: a web-based graphical user interface for CHARMM. J Comput Chem. 2008;29(11):1859–1865. pmid:18351591
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
52. Dickson CJ, Madej BD, Skjevik AA, Betz RM, Teigen K, Gould IR, et al. Lipid14: The amber lipid force field. J Chem Theory Comput. 2014;10(2):865–879. pmid:24803855
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
53. Massova I, Kollman PA. Combined molecular mechanical and continuum solvent approach (MM-PBSA/GBSA) to predict ligand binding. Perspect Drug Discov. 2000;18(1):113–135.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
54. Onufriev A, Bashford D, Case DA. Exploring protein native states and large-scale conformational changes with a modified generalized born model. Proteins. 2004;55(2):383–394. pmid:15048829
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
55. Hou T, Wang J, Li Y, Wang W. Assessing the performance of the molecular mechanics/Poisson Boltzmann surface area and molecular mechanics/generalized Born surface area methods. II. The accuracy of ranking poses generated from docking. J Comput Chem. 2011;32(5):866–877. pmid:20949517
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
56. Wang E, Sun H, Wang J, Wang Z, Liu H, Zhang JZH, et al. End-point binding free energy calculation with MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA: Strategies and applications in drug design. Chem Rev. 2019;119(16):9478–9508. pmid:31244000
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
57. Pires DE, Blundell TL, Ascher DB. pkCSM: Predicting Small-Molecule Pharmacokinetic and Toxicity Properties Using Graph-Based Signatures. J Med Chem. 2015;58(9):4066–4072. pmid:25860834
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
58. Kar S, Leszczynski J. Open access in silico tools to predict the ADMET profiling of drug candidates. Expert Opin Drug Discov. 2020;15(12):1473–1487. pmid:32735147
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA: Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(1):7–34. pmid:30620402
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Lippert TH, Ruoff HJ, Volm M. Intrinsic and acquired drug resistance in malignant tumors. The main reason for therapeutic failure. Arzneimittelforschung. 2008;58(6):261–264. pmid:18677966
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Sun YL, Patel A, Kumar P, Chen ZS. Role of ABC transporters in cancer chemotherapy. Chin J Cancer. 2012;31(2):51–57. pmid:22257384
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. International Transporter C, Giacomini KM, Huang SM, Tweedie DJ, Benet LZ, Brouwer KL, et al. Membrane transporters in drug development. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(3):215–236. pmid:20190787
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] PubMed/NCBI

[16] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Juliano RL, Ling V. A surface glycoprotein modulating drug permeability in Chinese hamster ovary cell mutants. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1976;455(1):152–162. pmid:990323
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] PubMed/NCBI

[20] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Mishra J, Drummond J, Quazi SH, Karanki SS, Shaw JJ, Chen B, et al. Prospective of colon cancer treatments and scope for combinatorial approach to enhanced cancer cell apoptosis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2013;86(3):232–250. pmid:23098684
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] PubMed/NCBI

[24] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Sharom FJ. Shedding light on drug transport: structure and function of the P-glycoprotein multidrug transporter (ABCB1). Biochem Cell Biol. 2006;84(6):979–992. pmid:17215884
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] PubMed/NCBI

[28] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Linn SC, Giaccone G. MDR1/P-glycoprotein expression in colorectal cancer. Eur J cancer. 1995;31A(7–8):1291–1294. pmid:7577038
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] PubMed/NCBI

[32] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Gutmann DA, Ward A, Urbatsch IL, Chang G, van Veen HW. Understanding polyspecificity of multidrug ABC transporters: closing in on the gaps in ABCB1. Trends Biochem Sci. 2010;35(1):36–42. pmid:19819701
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] PubMed/NCBI

[36] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Urbatsch IL, Beaudet L, Carrier I, Gros P. Mutations in either nucleotide-binding site of P-glycoprotein (Mdr3) prevent vanadate trapping of nucleotide at both sites. Biochemistry. 1998;37(13):4592–4602. pmid:9521779
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] PubMed/NCBI

[40] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Yang R, Cui L, Hou YX, Riordan JR, Chang XB. ATP binding to the first nucleotide binding domain of multidrug resistance-associated protein plays a regulatory role at low nucleotide concentration, whereas ATP hydrolysis at the second plays a dominant role in ATP-dependent leukotriene C4 transport. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(33):30764–30771. pmid:12783859
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] PubMed/NCBI

[44] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Gottesman MM, Ambudkar SV, Xia D. Structure of a multidrug transporter. Nat Biotechnol. 2009;27(6):546–547. pmid:19513059
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] PubMed/NCBI

[48] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Jones PM, George AM. A reciprocating twin-channel model for ABC transporters. Q Rev Biophys. 2014;47(3):189–220. pmid:24786414
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] PubMed/NCBI

[52] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Palmeira A, Sousa E, Vasconcelos MH, Pinto MM. Three decades of P-gp inhibitors: skimming through several generations and scaffolds. Curr Med Chem. 2012;19(13):1946–2025. pmid:22257057
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[54] View Article

[55] PubMed/NCBI

[56] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Srivalli KMR, Lakshmi PK. Overview of P-glycoprotein inhibitors: a rational outlook. Braz J Pharm Sci. 2012;48(3):353–367.
View Article
Google Scholar

[58] View Article

[59] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Dantzig AH, de Alwis DP, Burgess M. Considerations in the design and development of transport inhibitors as adjuncts to drug therapy. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2003;55(1):133–150. pmid:12535578
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[61] View Article

[62] PubMed/NCBI

[63] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Thomas H, Coley HM. Overcoming multidrug resistance in cancer: an update on the clinical strategy of inhibiting p-glycoprotein. Cancer Control. 2003;10(2):159–165. pmid:12712010
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[65] View Article

[66] PubMed/NCBI

[67] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Bent S. Herbal medicine in the United States: review of efficacy, safety, and regulation: grand rounds at University of California, San Francisco Medical Center. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(6):854–859. pmid:18415652
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[69] View Article

[70] PubMed/NCBI

[71] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Newman DJ, Cragg GM. Natural products as sources of new drugs over the 30 years from 1981 to 2010. J Nat Prod. 2012;75(3):311–335. pmid:22316239
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] PubMed/NCBI

[75] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Kanehisa M, Goto S, Sato Y, Kawashima M, Furumichi M, Tanabe M. Data, information, knowledge and principle: back to metabolism in KEGG. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(Database issue):D199–205. pmid:24214961
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] PubMed/NCBI

[79] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Caspi R, Billington R, Ferrer L, Foerster H, Fulcher CA, Keseler IM, et al. The MetaCyc database of metabolic pathways and enzymes and the BioCyc collection of pathway/genome databases. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(D1):D471–480. pmid:26527732
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[81] View Article

[82] PubMed/NCBI

[83] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Gu J, Gui Y, Chen L, Yuan G, Lu HZ, Xu X. Use of natural products as chemical library for drug discovery and network pharmacology. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e62839. pmid:23638153
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] PubMed/NCBI

[87] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Wishart DS, Jewison T, Guo AC, Wilson M, Knox C, Liu Y, et al. HMDB 3.0—The Human Metabolome Database in 2013. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(Database issue):D801–807. pmid:23161693
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[89] View Article

[90] PubMed/NCBI

[91] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Irwin JJ, Sterling T, Mysinger MM, Bolstad ES, Coleman RG. ZINC: a free tool to discover chemistry for biology. J Chem Inf Model. 2012;52(7):1757–1768. pmid:22587354
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] PubMed/NCBI

[95] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. ww PDBc. Protein Data Bank: the single global archive for 3D macromolecular structure data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47(D1):D520–D528. pmid:30357364
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] PubMed/NCBI

[99] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Alam A, Kowal J, Broude E, Roninson I, Locher KP. Structural insight into substrate and inhibitor discrimination by human P-glycoprotein. Science. 2019;363(6428):753–756. pmid:30765569
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] PubMed/NCBI

[103] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Marti-Renom MA, Stuart AC, Fiser A, Sanchez R, Melo F, Sali A. Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct. 2000;29(1):291–325. pmid:10940251
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[105] View Article

[106] PubMed/NCBI

[107] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Gordon JC, Myers JB, Folta T, Shoja V, Heath LS, Onufriev A. H++: a server for estimating pKas and adding missing hydrogens to macromolecules. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33(Web Server issue):W368–W371. pmid:15980491
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[109] View Article

[110] PubMed/NCBI

[111] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Banerjee P, Erehman J, Gohlke BO, Wilhelm T, Preissner R, Dunkel M. Super Natural II—a database of natural products. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(Database issue):D935–939. pmid:25300487
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[113] View Article

[114] PubMed/NCBI

[115] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Hawkins PC, Skillman AG, Warren GL, Ellingson BA, Stahl MT. Conformer generation with OMEGA: algorithm and validation using high quality structures from the Protein Databank and Cambridge Structural Database. J Chem Inf Model. 2010;50(4):572–584. pmid:20235588
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[117] View Article

[118] PubMed/NCBI

[119] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. OMEGA. 2.5.1.4 ed. Santa Fe, NM, USA: OpenEye Scientific Software; 2013.

[ref32] 32. SZYBKI 1.9.0.3. Santa Fe, NM, USA: OpenEye Scientific Software; 2016.

[ref33] 33. Halgren TA. MMFF VI. MMFF94s option for energy minimization studies. J Comput Chem. 1999;20(7):720–729. pmid:34376030
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[123] View Article

[124] PubMed/NCBI

[125] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. QUACPAC. 1.7.0.2 ed. Santa Fe, NM, USA: OpenEye Scientific Software; 2016.

[ref35] 35. Gasteiger J, Marsili M. Iterative partial equalization of orbital electronegativity—a rapid access to atomic charges. Tetrahedron. 1980;36(22):3219–3228.
View Article
Google Scholar

[128] View Article

[129] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Morris GM, Huey R, Lindstrom W, Sanner MF, Belew RK, Goodsell DS, et al. AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J Comput Chem. 2009;30(16):2785–2791. pmid:19399780
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[131] View Article

[132] PubMed/NCBI

[133] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Forli S, Huey R, Pique ME, Sanner MF, Goodsell DS, Olson AJ. Computational protein-ligand docking and virtual drug screening with the AutoDock suite. Nat Protoc. 2016;11(5):905–919. pmid:27077332
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[135] View Article

[136] PubMed/NCBI

[137] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Case DA, Betz RM, Cerutti DS, Cheatham TE, Darden TA, Duke RE, et al. AMBER 2016. San Francisco, USA: University of California.

[ref39] 39. Ibrahim MAA, Abdeljawaad KAA, Abdelrahman AHM, Jaragh-Alhadad LA, Oraby HF, Elkaeed EB, et al. Exploring natural product activity and species source candidates for hunting ABCB1 transporter inhibitors: An in silico drug discovery study. Molecules. 2022;27(10):3104. pmid:35630581
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[140] View Article

[141] PubMed/NCBI

[142] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Ibrahim MAA, Abdelrahman AHM, Badr EAA, Almansour NM, Alzahrani OR, Ahmed MN, et al. Naturally occurring plant-based anticancerous candidates as prospective ABCG2 inhibitors: an in silico drug discovery study. Mol Divers. 2022. pmid:35224675
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[144] View Article

[145] PubMed/NCBI

[146] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Ibrahim MAA, Badr EAA, Abdelrahman AHM, Almansour NM, Mekhemer GAH, Shawky AM, et al. In Silico targeting human multidrug transporter ABCG2 in breast cancer: Database screening, molecular docking, and molecular dynamics study. Mol Inform. 2022;41(2):e2060039. pmid:34491628
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[148] View Article

[149] PubMed/NCBI

[150] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Ibrahim MAA, Abdeljawaad KAA, Jaragh-Alhadad LA, Oraby HF, Atia MAM, Alzahrani OR, et al. Potential drug candidates as P-glycoprotein inhibitors to reverse multidrug resistance in cancer: an in silico drug discovery study. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2023:1–16. pmid:36883864
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[152] View Article

[153] PubMed/NCBI

[154] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Wang J, Wolf RM, Caldwell JW, Kollman PA, Case DA. Development and testing of a general amber force field. J Comput Chem. 2004;25(9):1157–1174. pmid:15116359
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[156] View Article

[157] PubMed/NCBI

[158] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Maier JA, Martinez C, Kasavajhala K, Wickstrom L, Hauser KE, Simmerling C. ff14SB: improving the accuracy of protein side chain and backbone parameters from ff99SB. J Chem Theory Comput. 2015;11(8):3696–3713. pmid:26574453
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[160] View Article

[161] PubMed/NCBI

[162] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Bayly CI, Cieplak P, Cornell WD, Kollman PA. A well-behaved electrostatic potential based method using charge restraints for deriving atomic charges—the RESP model. J Phys Chem. 1993;97(40):10269–10280.
View Article
Google Scholar

[164] View Article

[165] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Frisch MJ, Trucks GW, Schlegel HB, Scuseria GE, Robb MA, Cheeseman JR, et al. Gaussian 09. Revision E01 ed. Wallingford CT, USA.: Gaussian09, Gaussian Inc.; 2009.

[ref47] 47. Jorgensen WL, Chandrasekhar J, Madura JD, Impey RW, Klein ML. Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J Chem Phys. 1983;79(2):926–935.
View Article
Google Scholar

[168] View Article

[169] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Berendsen HJC, Postma JPM, Vangunsteren WF, Dinola A, Haak JR. Molecular-dynamics with coupling to an external bath. J Chem Phys. 1984;81(8):3684–3690.
View Article
Google Scholar

[171] View Article

[172] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Izaguirre JA, Catarello DP, Wozniak JM, Skeel RD. Langevin stabilization of molecular dynamics. J Chem Phys. 2001;114(5):2090–2098.
View Article
Google Scholar

[174] View Article

[175] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Dassault Systèmes BIOVIA Discovery Studio Visualize, Version 2019; Dassault Systèmes: San Diego, CA, USA, 2019.

[ref51] 51. Jo S, Kim T, Iyer VG, Im W. CHARMM-GUI: a web-based graphical user interface for CHARMM. J Comput Chem. 2008;29(11):1859–1865. pmid:18351591
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[178] View Article

[179] PubMed/NCBI

[180] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Dickson CJ, Madej BD, Skjevik AA, Betz RM, Teigen K, Gould IR, et al. Lipid14: The amber lipid force field. J Chem Theory Comput. 2014;10(2):865–879. pmid:24803855
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[182] View Article

[183] PubMed/NCBI

[184] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Massova I, Kollman PA. Combined molecular mechanical and continuum solvent approach (MM-PBSA/GBSA) to predict ligand binding. Perspect Drug Discov. 2000;18(1):113–135.
View Article
Google Scholar

[186] View Article

[187] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Onufriev A, Bashford D, Case DA. Exploring protein native states and large-scale conformational changes with a modified generalized born model. Proteins. 2004;55(2):383–394. pmid:15048829
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[189] View Article

[190] PubMed/NCBI

[191] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Hou T, Wang J, Li Y, Wang W. Assessing the performance of the molecular mechanics/Poisson Boltzmann surface area and molecular mechanics/generalized Born surface area methods. II. The accuracy of ranking poses generated from docking. J Comput Chem. 2011;32(5):866–877. pmid:20949517
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[193] View Article

[194] PubMed/NCBI

[195] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Wang E, Sun H, Wang J, Wang Z, Liu H, Zhang JZH, et al. End-point binding free energy calculation with MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA: Strategies and applications in drug design. Chem Rev. 2019;119(16):9478–9508. pmid:31244000
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[197] View Article

[198] PubMed/NCBI

[199] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Pires DE, Blundell TL, Ascher DB. pkCSM: Predicting Small-Molecule Pharmacokinetic and Toxicity Properties Using Graph-Based Signatures. J Med Chem. 2015;58(9):4066–4072. pmid:25860834
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[201] View Article

[202] PubMed/NCBI

[203] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Kar S, Leszczynski J. Open access in silico tools to predict the ADMET profiling of drug candidates. Expert Opin Drug Discov. 2020;15(12):1473–1487. pmid:32735147
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[205] View Article

[206] PubMed/NCBI

[207] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Computational methods

ABCB1 preparation

SuperNatural II preparation

Database filtration

Molecular docking

Molecular dynamics (MD)

MD simulations in the lipid bilayer

Binding energy computations

Pharmacokinetic characteristics

Results and discussion

SuperNatural II database pre-screening

Virtual screening of the SuperNatural II database

Molecular dynamics (MD)

Post-dynamics analyses

Binding energy per-frame.

Hydrogen bond analysis.

Center-of-mass distance (CoM).

Root-mean-square deviation (RMSD).

Pharmacokinetic characteristics

MD simulation in the lipid bilayer

Conclusions

Supporting information

S1 Fig. The anticipated binding modes of the top 39 scoring compounds within the active site of the ABCB1 transporter.

S1 Table. Calculated standard and moderate docking scores (in kcal/mol) for the top 3751 SuperNatural II compounds and ZQU against the ABCB1 transporter protein.

S2 Table. Estimated standard, moderate, and expensive docking scores (in kcal/mol) for the top 376 compounds and ZQU within the ABCB1 binding pocket.

S3 Table. Evaluated standard, moderate, and expensive docking scores and MM-GBSA over 5 ns MD simulations (in kcal/mol) for the top 39 compounds and ZQU within the ABCB1 binding pocket.

S1 Graphical abstract.

References