Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Uralenol, Glycyrol, and Abyssinone II as potent inhibitors of fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 from anti-cancer plants: A deep learning and molecular dynamics approach

Abstract

Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 2 (FGFR2) plays a critical role in cellular proliferation and differentiation, and its dysregulation is associated with multiple cancers. This study integrates molecular docking, deep learning, pharmacokinetic profiling, and molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to identify potential FGFR2 inhibitors from a library of 1,350 phytochemicals derived from 51 anti-cancer medicinal plants that were traditionally used for anticancer purposes. Initial screening through AutoDock Vina revealed several top candidates with high binding affinities to FGFR2. The top three compounds, uralenol, glycyrol, and abyssinone II, underwent further evaluation via deep learning models, which predicted the potential efficacy of the pIC₅₀ (negative logarithm of the half-maximal inhibitory concentration) values. The ADME/T (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity) analysis confirmed favorable pharmacokinetic profiles and low toxicity risks. MD simulations validated the stability and compactness of protein–ligand complexes, with principal component analysis (PCA) and free energy landscape analyses confirming these interactions’ conformational stability and thermodynamic favorability. These findings suggest that uralenol, glycyrol, and abyssinone II are potential FGFR2 inhibitors and need further experimental validation for potential therapeutic use in cancer treatment.

Citation: Hossain A, Hossan MS, Prodhan MS, Joy MNH, Siam MR, Rahman ME, et al. (2026) Uralenol, Glycyrol, and Abyssinone II as potent inhibitors of fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 from anti-cancer plants: A deep learning and molecular dynamics approach. PLoS One 21(1): e0341498. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341498

Editor: Jorddy Neves Cruz, Universidade Federal do Para, BRAZIL

Received: July 12, 2025; Accepted: January 8, 2026; Published: January 30, 2026

Copyright: © 2026 Hossain 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 manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

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

Introduction

Globally, cancer is still a major and expanding public health concern. The latest global estimates (from GLOBOCAN 2022) indicate approximately twenty million new cancer cases and 9.7 million deaths in 2022 [1]. Even with major improvements in treatment methods, including surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, cancer is still one of the world’s top causes of death [2]. Recent developments in cancer therapy have highlighted the efficacy of combinatorial approaches, including targeted medicines or conventional chemotherapeutics like taxanes and platinum compounds. Combining treatments increases effectiveness by targeting important pathways in concert, lowering drug resistance, and enhancing therapeutic outcomes, including tumor growth suppression and apoptotic induction [3]. The developmental processes from early embryogenesis to organogenesis depend on fibroblast growth factors and their corresponding receptors, fibroblast growth factor receptors, which are crucial in cellular signaling [4]. Four different isoforms of the FGF (fibroblast growth factor) and FGFR families-FGFR1, FGFR2, FGFR3, and FGFR4-are implicated in a variety of biological processes in mammals. FGFRs are receptor tyrosine kinases that are characterized by a single transmembrane domain that, when occupied by a ligand, promotes the activation of subsequent intracellular signaling cascades [5].

FGFR2 is an essential member of the receptor tyrosine kinase family that controls tissue development, differentiation, and proliferation, among other cellular functions [6]. The development and upkeep of various tissues and organs throughout the body depend heavily on these signaling pathways [7]. On chromosome 10q26, the FGFR2 gene has 20 exons in humans and 19 in mice. FGFR2b and FGFR2c are the two isoforms that it encodes via alternative splicing. FGFR2 is a membrane-bound receptor that has three domains: an intracellular tyrosine kinase domain, a transmembrane domain, and an extracellular ligand-binding domain [8–12]. FGF ligands are specifically bound to the extracellular domain of FGFR2, which initiates intracellular signaling cascades. The activation of FGFR2 results in the phosphorylation of several downstream signaling proteins, including transcription factors and adaptor molecules. Following this phosphorylation event, four key intracellular signaling pathways are activated: the PLCγ pathway, the JAK-STAT pathway, the PI3K-AKT-mTOR system, and the RAS-RAF-MEK-MAPK pathway [13,14]. These signaling networks are essential for controlling key cellular functions such as cell specialization, growth inhibition, programmed cell death, and cell division [15]. FGFR2 regulates cell proliferation, differentiation, and survival; its dysregulation is linked to developmental disorders and diverse cancers, making it a critical therapeutic target in oncology and regenerative medicine [16,17].

Dysregulation of FGFR2 signaling has been linked to several illnesses, such as endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition, cancer, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory distress syndrome, skeletal abnormalities, and craniosynostosis [18]. FGFR2 is a prominent target for therapeutic interventions due to its critical involvement in both normal physiology and disease pathogenesis. Understanding its function, structure, and regulation is essential for elucidating its role in development, disease, and potential therapeutic strategies [19,20]. FGFR2 is often overexpressed in a variety of malignancies. Well-known FGFR2 inhibitors, including erdafitinib, zoligratinib, AZD4547, infigratinib, BGJ398, dovitinib, and lucitanib, work by blocking FGFR2 activity, which suppresses tumor growth [8,21,22]. Regardless of their importance, these inhibitors’ effectiveness is constrained by issues like a lack of specificity, off-target binding, and drug resistance [23]. Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship, molecular docking, and dynamics studies are performed to address the challenges with medications in this class and to obtain knowledge about the structural requirements to develop more effective drugs.

Traditional drug discovery is costly, time-consuming, and linked to high attrition rates, which restricts patients’ access to reasonably priced therapies [24]. Pre-clinical drug discovery relies heavily on bioinformatics, which uses a variety of tools and computational methods to maximize results [25]. This strategy focuses on improving the efficacy and selectivity of currently available medications and drug-like substances to find new therapeutic applications while minimizing the development time and expenses by employing proven safety profiles [26]. An integrated bioinformatics strategy is presented in this work to identify potential therapeutic candidates that target FGFR2.

Materials and methods

Protein preparation

The three-dimensional (3D) structure of FGFR2 was retrieved from the Protein Data Bank [27] (PDB ID: 6LVK) with a resolution of 2.29 Å. Before molecular docking studies, the protein structure underwent a series of preparatory steps. Initially, hydrogen atoms were added to account for any missing atoms from the structure. Subsequently, co-crystallized ligands and water molecules were removed to prevent interference during docking simulations. Finally, energy minimization and optimization were performed using the GROMOS 43B1 force field implemented in Swiss-PdbViewer v4.1.0 [28] to ensure the protein was in a suitable conformation for subsequent docking analyses.

Ligand preparation

In this study, a comprehensive literature review was carried out to collect a list of 51 anti-cancer properties of medicinal plants that were traditionally used for anticancer purposes, with their 1350 phytochemicals (S1 Table) identified based on GC/MS (gas chromatography/mass spectrometry) analysis and downloaded as a structure data file (SDF) format from the PubChem database. To prepare these structures for molecular docking studies, OpenBabel v2.4.1 [29] was employed to convert the SDF files into a modified version of SDF, the PDBQT [Protein Data Bank, Q (charge), and T (AutoDock atom type)] format. Subsequently, the ligands underwent energy minimization using the MMFF94 force field and steepest descent optimization method with 2,000 iterations in PyRx software [30] to ensure the compounds achieved their most stable conformational states prior to molecular docking studies.

Molecular docking

In drug discovery, molecular docking is essential for gaining a thorough understanding of the intricate molecular interactions underlying essential biological functions [31]. In this study, we performed molecular docking analyses on a compound library to discover potential inhibitors targeting FGFR2. The Autodock Vina screening tool [32] was employed to execute structure-based virtual screening by using preprocessed structures of all the phytochemicals and the receptor in the PDBQT file format. A structurally blind search was used in the virtual screening process, allowing the compounds to freely move and investigate their binding site or sites on FGFR2. For docking the compounds with PDB ID: 6VLK, the grid box was centered at coordinates X: 26.294, Y: 12.604, Z: 58.945, with dimensions set to X: 51.353, Y: 66.934, and Z: 59.605 Å. The ligand binding affinity was expressed in kcal/mol units as negative binding energy values [30]. The 40 highest-scoring ligands were chosen based on their optimal binding affinities. The re-docking procedure was conducted identically for FGFR2 proteins, and known inhibitors previously bound to the protein structures underwent re-docking to benchmark their binding affinities against our screened phytochemicals. Ultimately, 16 compounds were selected based on their most favorable negative binding affinities with the target protein for additional screening using deep learning methodologies.

Re-screening using deep learning (DL)

The compounds with a binding affinity of greater than 9.0 kcal/mol were chosen for re-screening using a deep learning approach that used Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) to predict models using the CHEMBL4142 dataset [33], which contained FGFR2 experimental inhibitors. This process was carried out using the DeepScreening server, which displays good screening performance with average and median area under the ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curve values of 0.86 and 0.89 under several built-in deep-learning models [34]. Using the PubChem fingerprint, PaDEL [35] produced 881 molecular fingerprints. Hyperparameters such as the hidden layer (3), number of neurons (2000, 700, 200), and learning rate (0.0001) were manually set for this developed model. The hidden layers employed the activation function, while the output layer utilized the sigmoid function. The predicted pIC50 values were computed using the following formula, which was utilized to re-evaluate the 16 highest-scoring docked compounds and display the pIC50 values:

The DeepScreening platform provides an integrated framework for deep learning–based virtual screening. Its workflow involves: (i) dataset preparation, where a specific target is selected to train the deep neural network (DNN); (ii) feature selection, in which molecular descriptors are identified and vectorized; (iii) model parameterization, where essential parameters are defined for training regression models; and (iv) virtual screening, in which the trained model is applied to evaluate large chemical libraries. DeepScreening is a fully automated and advanced server that combines data preprocessing, model construction, and virtual screening into a seamless pipeline. The deep learning model is limited by dataset size, chemical space representation, and potential bias in molecular descriptors, which may restrict the generalizability of predicted bioactivity.

ADME/T analysis

After molecular docking, the ADME/T profile of the selected compounds was further evaluated to predict their drug-likeness properties. ADME/T stands for absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity, which represents a crucial aspect of pharmaceutical development as it determines how a drug compound behaves within the biological system, like how a compound is absorbed into the bloodstream, distributed across tissues, metabolized by enzymes, eliminated from the body, and whether it has potential toxic effects. The SwissADME was used for pharmacokinetic and physicochemical property predictions, while ProTox-III was employed for toxicity assessment [36], with SMILES (simplified molecular-input line-entry system), a text-based representation of chemical structures, serving as the input format for the molecular structures.

Molecular dynamics simulation

MD simulations were conducted on the three highest-scoring compounds, along with the control compound and Apo, to assess the stability of their corresponding protein-ligand complexes. The best-performing ligands underwent comprehensive all-atom MD simulations utilizing GROMACS version 5.1.5 for thorough analysis [37]. The simulation system was configured using LiGRO [38], a graphical user interface (GUI)-based application that streamlines the preparation workflow for MD simulations in GROMACS. Topological parameters for both the protein and ligand molecules were created employing the Amber99SB force field through the AnteChamber Python Parser interface (ACPYPE) [39], respectively. Ligand charge assignments were derived using the General Amber Force Field in conjunction with the bond charge correction approach. The protein–ligand complexes were solvated in a cubic simulation box using the TIP3P water model to mimic the aqueous environment. Subsequently, the systems were neutralized by introducing an appropriate number of counterions, and the ionic strength was adjusted by adding NaCl to a final concentration of 0.15 M. To eliminate potential steric clashes within the system, a two-stage energy minimization was conducted. Initially, 5000 steps were executed using the steepest descent algorithm, followed by further refinement with the conjugate gradient method until the system’s energy converged below 10 kJ/mol. Periodic boundary conditions were applied uniformly across all simulation boxes in all three spatial dimensions to replicate an infinite system and eliminate edge effects. The simulations were performed using NVT [number of particles (N), volume (V), and temperature (T)] and NPT [number of particles (N), pressure (P), and temperature (T)] ensembles, each running for 1 nanosecond duration, with temperature maintained at 310.15 K and pressure held at 1 bar. During both equilibration phases, positional restraints were applied to the heavy atoms of the protein and ligand with a force constant of 1000 kJ/mol/nm2. Production molecular dynamics simulations were performed under NPT conditions with temperature maintained at 310.15 K using the V-rescale thermostat and pressure kept at 1 bar using the Parrinello-Rahman barostat. Non-bonded electrostatic and van der Waals forces were calculated using a cutoff radius of 1 nm. Bond constraints were applied to all heavy atoms utilizing the LINCS algorithm [40]. Subsequently, MD simulations were carried out for a duration of 100 nanoseconds (ns), employing a timestep of 2 femtoseconds, with trajectory frames recorded every 500 steps. The frames were stored after every 10 picoseconds (ps), and the trajectories were visualized using the PyMOL molecular graphics system, version 2.5, Schrödinger, LLC.

Principal component analysis (PCA)

To investigate the overall conformational variability among the protein-ligand complexes, PCA was applied, incorporating structural comparisons with both the apo (unbound) protein and a standard drug-bound complex [41]. This multivariate technique enabled the identification and categorization of conformational shifts by evaluating variations across multiple structural descriptors throughout the MD simulations. PCA was performed through the diagonalization of covariance matrices, followed by the computation of eigenvalues and eigenvectors. The eigenvalues quantified the magnitude of atomic fluctuations, while the eigenvectors delineated the dominant directions of motion within the complex structures. Before PCA, the 100-nanosecond MD trajectories underwent pre-processing, including mean subtraction and normalization to unit variance, to standardize the data [42]. The analysis was implemented using Python (version 3.11), with the Scikit-learn library (version 1.2) facilitating the PCA computation, and Matplotlib (version 3.7) employed for data visualization.

Free energy landscape

The free energy landscape (FEL) delineates the potential energy profile of a molecular system as a function of pertinent collective variables [43], providing essential insights into the energetic barriers and thermodynamically favorable conformational states that the molecule can occupy during transitions between distinct structural configurations [44]. The MD simulation trajectories underwent analysis through computation of root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) and radius of gyration (Rg) parameters for individual frames. These data were subsequently used to construct a density matrix, representing discrete regions within the conformational space. The Gibbs free energy surface was then derived from this density matrix through the application of statistical mechanics principles [45]. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional visualizations of the free energy landscapes were generated using Matplotlib version 3.7.2.

Ethical consideration

This study does not require formal ethical approval, as it will rely solely on published data.

Results

Molecular docking analysis

Molecular docking is a computational technique used to predict the interaction between small molecules and macromolecular targets [46]. This method helps identify binding interactions, key binding residues, and binding affinity scores. In this study, docking protocols began with the selection of medicinal plants known for their anticancer properties, identified through an extensive literature review. A phytochemical compound library containing 1,350 molecules was then constructed by collecting GC-MS data of these plants from previously published studies. The target protein in this study belongs to the transferase family and has a well-defined catalytic active site that was targeted to inhibit its function [47]. The binding affinities of the phytochemicals were calculated using AutoDock Vina and ranked based on their binding energy, where less negative scores indicate stronger binding [48]. A lower (i.e., more negative) binding score suggests a higher likelihood of stable ligand–protein complex formation, as it implies lower energy is required for bond formation [49]. To validate the docking protocol, re-docking was performed to assess consistency and accuracy.

Following the analysis of protein–ligand interactions, 16 phytochemical compounds were identified with favorable binding affinities. These include atherospermidine, β-hydroxyacteoside, uralenol, glycyrol, 2’,4’-Dihydroxy-2’‘-(1-hydroxy-1-methylethyl)dihydrofuro[2,3-h]flavanone, broussoflavonol F, isolicoflavonol, vitexin, (2S)-euchrenone A7, abyssinone II, 4-[(3S,3aR,6S,6aR)-6-[3-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-2-(hydroxymethyl)-2,3-dihydro-1,4-benzodioxin-6-yl]-1,3,3a,4,6,6a-hexahydrofuro[3,4-c]furan-3-yl]benzene-1,2-diol, prasterone, corosolic acid, lupeol, α-Amyrin acetate, and Fgfr3-IN-2. Their binding affinities (in kcal/mol) were: −9.6, −9.7, −9.8, −9.7, −9.3, −9.7, −9.4, −10.1, −10.4, −9.7, −10.0, −9.9, −10.1, −10.7, −10.6, and −9.0, respectively (Table 1). The docking scores predicted IC₅₀ values, and types of non-covalent interactions with the protein are summarized in Table 1. The reliability of the re-docking procedure was further confirmed through conformational superimposition of the ligand binding modes within the target protein (Fig 1). The calculated RMSD between the re-docked pose and the co-crystallized native ligand (inhibitor Fgfr3-IN-2) was 0.023Å, which is well enough below the commonly accepted 2Å threshold, thereby demonstrating the robustness of the docking protocol. This minimal deviation indicates that the binding pose was accurately reproduced, with the inhibitor occupying nearly identical sites and engaging the same key residues as in the native complex.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Molecular docking results of selected phytochemicals with FGFR2, including binding affinities, predicted pIC₅₀ values, interacting residues, interaction types, and bond distances.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341498.t001

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Conformational superimposition of the ligand.

Three-dimensional visualization of the best re-docking pose of FGFR2, showing the conformational superimposition of the co-crystallized ligand (inhibitor Fgfr3-IN-2). The calculated RMSD of 0.023Å indicates excellent agreement between the re-docked and native binding conformations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341498.g001

Based on binding affinity, interactions with active site residues, ADME profiles, and toxicity predictions, three compounds, uralenol, glycyrol, and abyssinone II, emerged as the most promising inhibitors (Fig 2). Uralenol showed a binding affinity of −9.8 kcal/mol and formed three hydrogen bonds with the residues Ala567, Glu534, and Ala567. Additionally, it formed six Pi-Alkyl interactions with residues Phe492, Leu487, Val495, Ala515, Leu633, and Ala643. Glycyrol exhibited a binding affinity of −9.7 kcal/mol. It formed one hydrogen bond with Ala567, one carbon–hydrogen bond with Gly588, and one Pi–Pi stacked interaction with Phe492. Moreover, it showed six alkyl interactions involving Ala515, Met538, Ile548, Val564, Lys517, and Val562. Abyssinone II demonstrated a binding affinity of −9.7 kcal/mol, forming three hydrogen bonds with residues Lys517, Ala567, and Glu534. In addition, it engaged in five Pi-Alkyl interactions with key hydrophobic residues, including Phe492, Leu487, Val495, Val564, and Leu633. These interactions suggest strong binding stability at the FGFR2 active site, reinforcing its potential as a promising FGFR2 inhibitor. The two-dimensional and three-dimensional interaction diagrams of uralenol, glycyrol, and abyssinone II with their control compound are demonstrated in Fig 3.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. 2D structure of the lead compounds.

The 2D structure of uralenol, glycyrol, and abyssinone II compounds was selected based on their docking and inhibitory activity. The chemical structures were generated using the 2D Sketcher (Beta) software.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341498.g002

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. Interaction diagrams of the lead compounds.

Two-dimensional and three-dimensional interaction diagrams of (A) uralenol, (B) glycyrol, (C) abyssinone II, and (D) control compound in complex with FGFR2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341498.g003

Deep screening via deep learning

The deep learning approach employed artificial neural network frameworks to analyze IC₅₀ datasets and predict molecular bioactivity. A regression model was built using IC₅₀ values from 891 known FGFR2 inhibitors, utilizing PubChem fingerprints and standard neural network settings. The model demonstrated robust performance, achieving an R2 value of 0.68, indicating a good fit between predicted and experimental pIC₅₀ values. Other evaluation metrics—MSE, RMSE, and MAE—were also low, confirming high predictive accuracy (Fig 4). The model was used to evaluate the bioactivity of selected compounds against the FGFR2 proteins. Uralenol, glycyrol, and abyssinone II showed pIC₅₀ values of 5.21, 5.06, and 4.66, respectively, suggesting potential inhibitory activity.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 4. Analysis of the deep learning model.

Performance of the deep learning regression model used to predict FGFR2 inhibitory activity, including values for R2, MSE, RMSE, and MAE.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341498.g004

Pharmacokinetics and toxicity analysis

Pharmacokinetics refers to the study of the dynamic processes that govern the movement of chemical substances throughout the body. It encompasses the kinetic behavior of absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) [50]. The selected phytochemicals demonstrated favorable ADME profiles, a critical requirement for small molecules to be considered as potential drug candidates, as summarized in Table 2. Furthermore, all four compounds exhibited low toxicity levels, suggesting their suitability for safe administration. Table 3 displays the toxicity characteristics of the chosen compounds along with the reference control.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. ADME and physicochemical properties of selected lead compounds, including molecular weight, TPSA, LogP, solubility, GI absorption, and BBB permeability.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341498.t002

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Predicted toxicity profiles of selected compounds, including hepatotoxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, immunotoxicity, LD₅₀ values, and overall toxicity class.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341498.t003

MD simulation

MD simulation serves a vital function in elucidating the dynamic characteristics of biomolecular systems in aqueous environments by efficiently monitoring their motion patterns over different temporal scales and providing information about thermal-averaged molecular attributes that correspond well with experimental ensemble measurements [51]. By calculating bulk solution properties and assessing free energy modifications, MD simulation fulfills a crucial role in clarifying mechanisms like molecular binding interactions [52]. MD simulation was performed on the highest-scoring complexes to assess their structural stability and flexibility throughout a 100 ns timeframe, aiming to identify potentially effective inhibitors. Multiple parameters, including RMSD, RMSF, radius of gyration (Rg), solvent-accessible surface area (SASA), free energy landscape, and principal component analysis (PCA), were analyzed for both the unbound 6LVK structure and its most favorable compound-bound complex.

RMSD analysis of the complexes

RMSD analysis was employed to assess stability and conformational dynamics of the FGFR2–ligand complexes over a 100 ns MD simulation (Fig 5). Lower RMSD values indicate greater structural stability, with reduced fluctuations reflecting a more stable protein–ligand complex [53]. The RMSD profiles of FGFR2 in its apo form and complex with CID: 5315126, CID: 5320083, CID: 10064832, and the control compound CID: 44243159 were analyzed. The average RMSD values for the apo protein, control, CID: 5315126, CID: 5320083, and CID: 10064832 were 1.72 Å, 1.77 Å, 1.88 Å, 1.21 Å, and 1.33 Å, respectively.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 5. Molecular dynamics analysis of the compounds.

Molecular dynamics analysis of FGFR2 in apo form, control, and ligand-bound complexes over 100 ns simulation. The RMSD profiles indicate enhanced structural stability upon ligand binding. RMSF analysis shows reduced residue fluctuations in complexes compared to the apo form. Radius of gyration (Rg) values suggest compact and stable structures, while SASA profiles reveal consistent solvent exposure.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341498.g005

Among these, CID: 5320083 showed the lowest average RMSD (1.21 Å), indicating superior conformational stability and minimal structural deviation. Its RMSD peaked at 2.81 Å around 71.19 ns and stabilized between 0.7–1.5 Å after the initial 0.1 ns. In contrast, the apo FGFR2 began at 0 Å, reached 2.51 Å at 72.36 ns, and stabilized between 0.9–1.2 Å after 0.5 ns, reflecting moderate flexibility. The control compound CID: 44243159 exhibited a peak of 2.59 Å at 13.13 ns and stabilized between 1.0–1.5 Å, ending at 1.79 Å, suggesting consistent structural behavior. CID: 10064832 exhibited moderate conformational stability, with an RMSD peak of 2.83 Å at 53.29 ns and stabilization within the 1.0–1.5 Å range after 0.5 ns, ending at 1.37 Å. CID: 5315126, despite showing the highest average RMSD (1.88 Å) and a peak of 3.07 Å at 82.83 ns, also stabilized consistently between 1.7–2.3 Å after 1.0 ns. Both compounds maintained structural integrity without significant fluctuations, supporting their binding stability.

RMSF analysis of the complexes

RMSF represents a key metric in MD simulations, employed to assess the mobility of individual amino acid residues within a protein receptor throughout ligand interactions across the simulation period. RMSF quantifies the fluctuation of atomic coordinates relative to their mean positions during the MD trajectory, offering detailed information about residue-level dynamic behavior. In this study, we conducted RMSF analysis on each residue over a 100 ns MD simulation, enabling the identification of regions exhibiting increased flexibility within the protein structure. Notably, residues ASP471, LYS507, LYS659, and ASN766 exhibited pronounced flexibility during the simulation. These residues are known for their participation in ligand interaction, as demonstrated in Fig 5. Of these residues, LEU468 exhibited the greatest RMSF value, attaining 1.42 Å. Average RMSF values observed for the apo form (FGFR2), control, CID 5315126, CID 5320083, and CID 10064832 were 0.138 Å, 0.125 Å, 0.133 Å, 0.134 Å, and 0.149 Å, respectively. Among the systems, the control compound exhibited the lowest average RMSF, suggesting relatively stable binding. However, both CID 5315126 and CID 5320083 showed comparable minor fluctuations, indicating that these ligands stabilize the protein structure to a similar extent. Notably, CID: 10064832 displayed the highest average RMSF, implying increased local flexibility in certain regions of the protein, which may be attributed to conformational adaptations upon ligand binding.

RG analysis of the complexes

RG measures the spatial arrangement of atoms relative to the central axis in a protein-ligand complex throughout a defined simulation timeframe. Calculating the Rg is crucial for assessing the structural stability of a macromolecule, as it provides important information regarding alterations in the complex’s compactness. In this study, the Rg of FGFR2 was assessed over a 100 ns MD simulation for the apo form, the control compound (CID 44243159), and three ligand-bound complexes (CID: 5315126, CID: 5320083, and CID: 10064832). The average Rg values recorded were 1.984 Å for the apo protein, 1.995 Å for the control, 1.999 Å for CID: 5315126, 1.999 Å for CID: 5320083, and 2.005 Å for CID: 10064832, as depicted in Fig 5. The Rg values across all complexes were closely aligned, without any major structural shift in the active site of the protein after binding. Notably, the apo and control systems displayed greater fluctuations in Rg throughout the 100 ns simulation period, suggesting a relatively higher degree of structural flexibility. In contrast, the three ligand-bound complexes demonstrated more consistent Rg profiles, implying enhanced conformational stability and maintenance of protein compactness upon ligand binding. These findings highlight the stabilizing effect of ligand interaction on FGFR2 structure, which maintained compact and stable conformations throughout the simulation.

SASA analysis of the complexes

Solvent Accessible Surface Area (SASA) measures the fraction of a protein’s surface that remains available for interaction with solvent molecules [54]. It provides valuable molecular-level insights into conformational fluctuations and the nature of ligand interactions with protein macromolecules, as illustrated in Fig 5. The analysis was conducted over a 100 ns MD simulation for the apo FGFR2 protein, the control complex (CID: 44243159), and three test compound complexes with 6LVK proteins (CID: 5315126, CID: 5320083, and CID: 10064832). Average SASA values were 1009.677 Ų for the apo protein, 1010.493 Ų for the control, 1009.981 Ų for CID: 5315126, 1010.075 Ų for CID: 5320083, and 1009.692 Ų for CID: 10064832. These values are very close across all systems, indicating a consistent solvent exposure profile during the simulation. In terms of fluctuation ranges, the apo system exhibited SASA values between 996.58 and 1018.97 Ų, reflecting inherent flexibility in the unbound state. The control complex showed a slightly wider range, from 996.78 to 1021.23 Ų, suggesting minor structural rearrangements upon ligand binding. In comparison, all lead phytochemicals—CID: 5315126, CID: 5320083, and CID: 10064832—in complex with FGFR2 exhibited relatively stable SASA trajectories, characterized by minimal fluctuations throughout the 100 ns simulation period.

Principal component analysis

PCA analysis revealed distinct sampling behaviors among the five systems (A–E). Apo A and Control B exhibited extensive conformational exploration, with broad distributions along PC1 (−125–75) and PC2 (−100–50). Complexes D and E showed more constrained sampling, with tight clustering in the PCA space, while Complex C displayed intermediate dispersion. Quantitatively, the standard deviation of PC1 was ~ 40–50 for A and B, and ~25–30 for D and E (Fig 6).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 6. Principal component analysis (PCA) of the compounds.PCA scatter plots, free energy landscapes, and cumulative variance plots for molecular dynamics simulations of: (A) apo form, (B) control system, (C) uralenol complex, (D) glycyrol complex, and (E) abyssinone II complex. PCA reveals conformational sampling patterns, energy landscapes show stable states (purple = low energy, yellow = high energy), and variance plots indicate dimensional contribution to system dynamics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341498.g006

Free energy landscapes

Free energy surfaces varied across systems. Apo A and Control B showed complex landscapes with multiple shallow basins and energy values ranging from 0.0 to 16.8 kJ/mol. Complex D presented a deep, centralized energy minimum surrounded by steep energy gradients (>10 kJ/mol). Complexes C and E showed intermediate features: Complex C had a broader low-energy basin, while Complex E displayed an asymmetric energy surface. However, cumulative variance plots were similar across systems. The first 20 principal components captured 50–60% of total variance, while 40–60 components explained up to 80%, indicating comparable dimensionality for essential dynamics across all systems.

Discussion

FGFR2 is a transmembrane receptor tyrosine kinase that plays a critical role in regulating essential cellular processes, including proliferation, differentiation, and cell survival [16]. Accurate control of FGFR2 signaling is crucial for maintaining proper cellular activities and tissue balance. Disruptions in FGFR2 signaling, caused by genetic mutations or abnormal expression levels, have been linked to the onset of numerous diseases, especially malignancies [55]. Acknowledged as an oncogenic driver, FGFR2 has become an attractive target for therapeutic exploration. Selectively inhibiting its aberrant activity offers the potential to suppress cancer cell proliferation and survival while minimizing adverse effects on normal cells [56]. The development of novel FGFR2 inhibitors has attracted considerable attention in the field of precision medicine, as these agents may enable personalized treatment strategies based on patients’ specific genetic alterations and signaling pathway dysregulations. Such targeted therapies could significantly improve clinical outcomes by directly targeting the molecular drivers of disease, potentially overcoming current therapeutic limitations in cancer treatment [57]. The Fibroblast Growth Factor (FGF) family consists of a collection of signaling proteins that function through FGFRs, controlling numerous biological processes including embryonic growth, tissue regeneration, and blood vessel formation. Within the FGFR variants (FGFR1 through FGFR4), FGFR2 stands out due to its widespread tissue expression and its essential role in developmental mechanisms and physiological balance maintenance [57,58]. Disrupted FGFR2 function, caused by gene amplifications, mutations, or excessive expression, can result in overactive signaling pathways that facilitate tumor initiation and cancer advancement. Significantly, FGFR2 alterations have been reported in numerous cancer types, emphasizing its clinical significance as a promising therapeutic target [59,60]. Natural products have long been recognized as valuable sources of therapeutic agents for a wide range of human diseases and have been utilized in medicine since ancient times [61].

Virtual screening and computer-aided drug design have become indispensable approaches in modern drug discovery, leveraging advanced computational methodologies to identify and develop novel therapeutic compounds [62]. These methods have thus become indispensable in CADD, particularly for the virtual screening of natural bioactive phytochemical libraries to identify potential drug candidates [63]. Molecular docking represents a core technique in pharmaceutical research and development, facilitating the prediction of binding interactions between small molecules and their target proteins. The binding capacity of the compounds with FGFR2 was determined and prioritized according to AutoDock Vina scoring results. The most favorable affinity from multiple conformational poses of each compound was chosen, as it indicates the maximum energy release upon complex formation [49]. Molecular docking evaluation revealed sixteen compounds displaying binding energies greater than −9.0 kcal mol ⁻ ¹, demonstrating robust interactions with the FGFR2 protein, as presented in Table 1. These findings are consistent with the recognized concept that more negative binding energies generally correlate with enhanced stability and effectiveness of ligand-target associations [64]. A significant characteristic of the binding interactions observed in this investigation is the participation of hydrogen bonding, hydrophobic interactions, and additional non-covalent forces (Fig 3). These molecular interactions are presumably vital for strengthening the structural integrity of the protein-ligand complexes and may enhance their inhibitory efficacy against the target protein.

In recent years, deep learning approaches have emerged as powerful tools in drug discovery, enabling the efficient prediction of molecular bioactivity from large chemical datasets. The results demonstrate that deep learning-based regression modeling can effectively predict compound bioactivity against viral targets, as shown by the high R² value and low error metrics. The model’s performance reflects its ability to learn complex structure-activity relationships from topological and chemical features encoded in the fingerprint data. The predicted pIC₅₀ values of the selected compounds closely matched experimental expectations, validating the model’s screening capability. Among them, CID 5315126, CID 5320083, and CID 10064832 exhibited pIC50 values of 5.21, 5.06, and 4.66, respectively, indicating that these compounds possess notable biological activity and potential inhibitory effects on the target protein. Our deep learning predictions are constrained by reliance on available datasets and descriptor selection, highlighting the need for larger, diverse training sets and experimental validation for broader applicability.

The ADME analysis presented in Table 2 demonstrates that uralenol, glycyrol, and abyssinone II exhibit favorable pharmacokinetic properties, including optimal molecular weight, LogP values, and topological polar surface area (TPSA), suggesting suitable membrane permeability and oral bioavailability. All compounds showed high gastrointestinal (GI) absorption, acceptable water solubility, and no predicted blood-brain barrier (BBB) penetration, reducing the risk of central nervous system-related side effects. These characteristics enhance their drug-likeness and systemic applicability. In Table 3, toxicity profiling further supports the therapeutic potential of these candidates. None of the compounds showed predicted hepatotoxicity, carcinogenicity, or mutagenicity. Their predicted LD₅₀ values fall within acceptable safety margins, placing them in lower toxicity classes. The absence of major immunotoxic or cytotoxic alerts indicates a lower risk of adverse effects. Collectively, the ADME and toxicity results suggest that these phytochemicals are not only bioactive but also possess drug-like safety and absorption profiles suitable for further preclinical development as FGFR2 inhibitors.

MD simulation is utilized to evaluate protein stability following ligand binding. It additionally offers information regarding the structural integrity and flexibility of protein-ligand complexes across a specified time period, replicating physiological environments comparable to those found in the human body [65]. The MD simulations performed in this research provided a valuable understanding of the structural stability and dynamic characteristics of FGFR2 protein-ligand complexes throughout a 100 ns duration. Analysis of essential parameters such as RMSD, RMSF, RG, SASA, FEL, and PCA contributed to clarifying the structural features and general behavior of these molecular complexes. RMSD calculations provide an assessment of the overall stability of protein–ligand complexes, while RMSF values offer insights into the fluctuations of individual residues during the ligand-binding process [65]. During the 100 ns simulation timeframe, the three selected compounds, CID 5315126, CID 5320083, and CID 10064832, demonstrated reduced RMSD and RMSF values upon receptor binding, suggesting improved structural integrity of the complexes, as shown in Fig 5. A decreased radius of gyration (Rg) value reflects increased structural compactness, while elevated values imply a propensity for the compounds to separate from the protein [66]. In comparison to the CID 44243159 protein complex and the unbound protein, the complexes generated by the three leading compounds displayed consistent Rg values with minimal variations. Reduced SASA values signify more condensed complexes featuring stronger interactions between amino acid residues and adjacent water molecules, while increased values indicate diminished structural integrity. In this investigation, the complexes of CID 5315126, CID 5320083, and CID 10064832 with the receptor demonstrated reduced SASA values relative to the protein-CID 44243159 complex, as depicted in Fig 5.

The PCA and free energy analyses highlight differences in molecular flexibility and stability. Apo A and Control B extensive sampling and multiple energy basins suggest high conformational flexibility and the presence of metastable states (Fig 6). Such behavior is often associated with molecules requiring dynamic structural shifts, such as allosteric proteins. In contrast, complex D narrow sampling range and a deep energy minimum, indicating structural rigidity and thermodynamic stability, likely maintained by strong intramolecular interactions. This is typical of proteins or ligands with a well-defined functional conformation. Complexes C and E represent intermediate behaviors. Complex C broad energy basin suggests a flexible yet stable structure, potentially allowing moderate conformational shifts. Complex E asymmetric energy profile may reflect directional preferences or internal constraints affecting dynamics. Similar cumulative variance curves validate PCA’s effectiveness for dimensionality reduction and underscore its utility in conformational analysis. Combining PCA with free energy mapping provides a comprehensive picture of molecular behavior, offering insights into both the extent and thermodynamic feasibility of conformational states. Recent studies report several FGFR inhibitors, including AZD4547, BGJ398, dovitinib, and lucitanib, progressing to phase II trials, though none are approved for breast cancer [67,68]. These synthetic inhibitors face challenges of selectivity, resistance, and safety [69,70]. In contrast, our computational analysis identified natural compounds, uralenol, glycyrol, and abyssinone II, with favorable binding, stability, and pharmacokinetics. Thus, our findings suggest phytochemicals may provide safer and more effective alternatives for FGFR2-targeted therapy.

Recent efforts to target FGFR2 signaling in cancer have largely focused on synthetic small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as AZD4547, BGJ398 (infigratinib), and pemigatinib, which exhibit high potency but are often associated with dose-limiting toxicities, acquired resistance, and suboptimal pharmacokinetic profiles [71–74]. In this context, phytochemical-based inhibitors have gained increasing attention due to their structural diversity, favorable safety profiles, and potential for multitarget modulation. Our integrative in-silico approach combining molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulations provides a comparative framework to evaluate the FGFR2 inhibitory potential of natural compounds relative to previously reported inhibitors. Very recent studies on FGFR2 inhibitors reported good binding affinities of −8.0 to −9.6 kcal/mol for synthetic compounds [75], and −8.3801 kcal/mol, −8.3014 kcal/mol, and −8.320 kcal/mol for Knipholone, Torosanin, and Rubrolide E, respectively [74]. Our phytochemicals, uralenol (−9.8 kcal/mol), glycyrol (−9.7 kcal/mol), and abyssinone II (−9.7 kcal/mol), showed strong binding affinity towards the FGFR2 kinase domain, comparable to or exceeding those reported in earlier studies. Clinical FGFR inhibitors like erdafitinib and infigratinib exhibit moderate structural stability in MD simulations [67,68], whereas our compounds demonstrated superior stability (RMSD: 1.21–1.88 Å). Previous phytochemical studies targeting FGFRs showed weaker activity [73]. Unlike synthetic inhibitors facing selectivity and resistance challenges [69], with low toxicity predictions, our compounds exhibited favorable ADME properties, reduced RMSD fluctuations, favorable radius of gyration profiles, and stable hydrogen bond occupancy throughout the simulation period. Overall, when contextualized against existing FGFR2 inhibitors and phytochemical-based kinase modulators, our findings suggest that uralenol, glycyrol, and abyssinone II represent promising scaffolds with balanced binding affinity, structural stability, pharmacokinetic characteristics, and superior safety profiles, suggesting their potential relevance as lead candidates.

This study is entirely computational and lacks experimental validation. While molecular docking, deep learning, and molecular dynamics simulations provide valuable predictive insights, in vitro and in vivo studies are essential to confirm biological efficacy and therapeutic potential. The ADME/T and toxicity profiles were predicted using in silico models, which may not fully reflect complex human physiological responses. The focus on a subset of top-ranked compounds may have excluded other potential candidates. Therefore, our findings should be regarded as predictive rather than confirmatory. Expanding the chemical space and conducting experimental validation, such as in vitro kinase inhibition assays, cell viability tests in FGFR2-overexpressing cancer cell lines, and in vivo xenograft models, are essential next steps to validate these computational predictions and advance these compounds toward preclinical development.

Conclusion

This study successfully identified uralenol, glycyrol, and abyssinone II as potent and stable FGFR2 inhibitors from a phytochemical library of traditionally used anti-cancer plants using an integrated in silico framework. The integrated approach of molecular docking, deep learning prediction, ADME/T evaluation, and molecular dynamics simulations provided strong evidence for the structural stability, binding affinity, bioactivity, and favorable pharmacokinetic properties of these compounds toward FGFR2. Competitive binding affinities (−9.7 to −9.8 kcal/mol) comparable to synthetic inhibitors, superior structural stability (RMSD: 1.21–1.88 Å) during MD simulations, favorable drug-like properties with minimal predicted toxicity, and stable conformational dynamics confirmed by PCA and free energy landscape analyses further confirmed stable and energetically favorable protein–ligand interactions. Importantly, this work highlights the novel potential of these phytochemicals as FGFR2-targeted anticancer candidates, expanding the scope of plant-derived kinase inhibitors with enhanced stability and safety profiles compared to current synthetic therapeutics, addressing limitations of off-target toxicity and resistance. These computational predictive findings support the therapeutic potential of the compounds and highlight them as potential candidates for further validation through in vitro kinase inhibition assays against FGFR2, cell viability and proliferation studies in FGFR2-overexpressing cancer cell lines, and in vivo xenograft models to assess antitumor efficacy. Successful experimental validation could position these natural compounds as safer alternatives for FGFR2-targeted cancer therapy.

Supporting information

S1 Table. List of anti-cancer properties of medicinal plants with their 1350 Phytochemicals.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341498.s001

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Abdul Kuddus, Sajib Ghosh, Md. Borhan Uddin, Md. Akon Bin Kawsar, and Sumaiya Tasnime for their valuable support and contributions to the literature review process. Their efforts and dedication greatly enhanced the quality and depth of this research.

References

  1. 1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49. pmid:33538338
  2. 2. Debela DT, Muzazu SG, Heraro KD, Ndalama MT, Mesele BW, Haile DC, et al. New approaches and procedures for cancer treatment: current perspectives. SAGE Open Med. 2021;9:20503121211034366. pmid:34408877
  3. 3. Bayat Mokhtari R, Homayouni TS, Baluch N, Morgatskaya E, Kumar S, Das B, et al. Combination therapy in combating cancer. Oncotarget. 2017;8(23):38022–43. pmid:28410237
  4. 4. Ornitz DM, Itoh N. The Fibroblast Growth Factor signaling pathway. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol. 2015;4(3):215–66. pmid:25772309
  5. 5. Ornitz DM, Xu J, Colvin JS, McEwen DG, MacArthur CA, Coulier F, et al. Receptor specificity of the fibroblast growth factor family. J Biol Chem. 1996;271(25):15292–7. pmid:8663044
  6. 6. Klint P, Claesson-Welsh L. Signal transduction by fibroblast growth factor receptors. Front Biosci. 1999;4:D165-77. pmid:9989949
  7. 7. Cleaver O, Melton DA. Endothelial signaling during development. Nat Med. 2003;9(6):661–8. pmid:12778164
  8. 8. Touat M, Ileana E, Postel-Vinay S, André F, Soria J-C. Targeting FGFR signaling in cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(12):2684–94. pmid:26078430
  9. 9. Wesche J, Haglund K, Haugsten EM. Fibroblast growth factors and their receptors in cancer. Biochem J. 2011;437(2):199–213. pmid:21711248
  10. 10. Tomlinson DC, Knowles MA. Altered splicing of FGFR1 is associated with high tumor grade and stage and leads to increased sensitivity to FGF1 in bladder cancer. Am J Pathol. 2010;177(5):2379–86. pmid:20889570
  11. 11. Gong S-G. Isoforms of receptors of fibroblast growth factors. J Cell Physiol. 2014;229(12):1887–95. pmid:24733629
  12. 12. Givol D, Yayon A. Complexity of FGF receptors: genetic basis for structural diversity and functional specificity. FASEB J. 1992;6(15):3362–9. pmid:1464370
  13. 13. Turner N, Grose R. Fibroblast growth factor signalling: from development to cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010;10(2):116–29. pmid:20094046
  14. 14. Du S, Zhang Y, Xu J. Current progress in cancer treatment by targeting FGFR signaling. Cancer Biology & Medicine. 2023;20(7):490.
  15. 15. Dailey L, Ambrosetti D, Mansukhani A, Basilico C. Mechanisms underlying differential responses to FGF signaling. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2005;16(2):233–47. pmid:15863038
  16. 16. Katoh Y, Katoh M. FGFR2-related pathogenesis and FGFR2-targeted therapeutics (Review). Int J Mol Med. 2009;23(3):307–11. pmid:19212647
  17. 17. Melnik BC. Role of FGFR2-signaling in the pathogenesis of acne. Dermatoendocrinol. 2009;1(3):141–56. pmid:20436882
  18. 18. Xie Y, Su N, Yang J, Tan Q, Huang S, Jin M, et al. FGF/FGFR signaling in health and disease. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2020;5(1):181. pmid:32879300
  19. 19. Matsuda Y, Ueda J, Ishiwata T. Fibroblast growth factor receptor 2: expression, roles, and potential as a novel molecular target for colorectal cancer. Patholog Res Int. 2012;2012:574768. pmid:22701813
  20. 20. Matsuda Y, Ishiwata T, Yamahatsu K, Kawahara K, Hagio M, Peng W-X, et al. Overexpressed fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 in the invasive front of colorectal cancer: a potential therapeutic target in colorectal cancer. Cancer Lett. 2011;309(2):209–19. pmid:21745712
  21. 21. Servetto A, Formisano L, Arteaga CL. FGFR signaling and endocrine resistance in breast cancer: Challenges for the clinical development of FGFR inhibitors. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer. 2021;1876(2):188595. pmid:34303787
  22. 22. Soria J-C, DeBraud F, Bahleda R, Adamo B, Andre F, Dientsmann R, et al. Phase I/IIa study evaluating the safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of lucitanib in advanced solid tumors. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(11):2244–51. pmid:25193991
  23. 23. Facchinetti F, Hollebecque A, Braye F, Vasseur D, Pradat Y, Bahleda R, et al. Resistance to selective FGFR inhibitors in FGFR-driven urothelial cancer. Cancer Discov. 2023;13(9):1998–2011. pmid:37377403
  24. 24. Hinkson IV, Madej B, Stahlberg EA. Accelerating Therapeutics for Opportunities in Medicine: A Paradigm Shift in Drug Discovery. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:770. pmid:32694991
  25. 25. Sabe VT, Ntombela T, Jhamba LA, Maguire GEM, Govender T, Naicker T, et al. Current trends in computer aided drug design and a highlight of drugs discovered via computational techniques: A review. Eur J Med Chem. 2021;224:113705. pmid:34303871
  26. 26. Xue H, Li J, Xie H, Wang Y. Review of drug repositioning approaches and resources. Int J Biol Sci. 2018;14(10):1232–44. pmid:30123072
  27. 27. Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, et al. The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28(1):235–42. pmid:10592235
  28. 28. Guex N, Peitsch MC. SWISS-MODEL and the Swiss-PdbViewer: an environment for comparative protein modeling. Electrophoresis. 1997;18(15):2714–23. pmid:9504803
  29. 29. O’Boyle NM, Banck M, James CA, Morley C, Vandermeersch T, Hutchison GR. Open Babel: An open chemical toolbox. J Cheminform. 2011;3:33. pmid:21982300
  30. 30. 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):455–61. pmid:19499576
  31. 31. Jakhar R, Dangi M, Khichi A, Chhillar AK. Relevance of molecular docking studies in drug designing. CBIO. 2020;15(4):270–8.
  32. 32. Cosconati S, Forli S, Perryman AL, Harris R, Goodsell DS, Olson AJ. Virtual Screening with AutoDock: Theory and Practice. Expert Opin Drug Discov. 2010;5(6):597–607. pmid:21532931
  33. 33. Davies M, Nowotka M, Papadatos G, Dedman N, Gaulton A, Atkinson F, et al. ChEMBL web services: streamlining access to drug discovery data and utilities. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(W1):W612-20. pmid:25883136
  34. 34. Liu Z, Du J, Fang J, Yin Y, Xu G, Xie L. DeepScreening: a deep learning-based screening web server for accelerating drug discovery. Database (Oxford). 2019;2019:baz104. pmid:31608949
  35. 35. Yap CW. PaDEL-descriptor: an open source software to calculate molecular descriptors and fingerprints. J Comput Chem. 2011;32(7):1466–74. pmid:21425294
  36. 36. Banerjee P, Kemmler E, Dunkel M, Preissner R. ProTox 3.0: a webserver for the prediction of toxicity of chemicals. Nucleic Acids Res. 2024;52(W1):W513–20. pmid:38647086
  37. 37. Abraham MJ, Murtola T, Schulz R, Páll S, Smith JC, Hess B, et al. GROMACS: High performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX. 2015;1–2:19–25.
  38. 38. Kagami LP, das Neves GM, Timmers LFSM, Caceres RA, Eifler-Lima VL. Geo-Measures: A PyMOL plugin for protein structure ensembles analysis. Comput Biol Chem. 2020;87:107322. pmid:32604028
  39. 39. Kagami L, Wilter A, Diaz A, Vranken W. The ACPYPE web server for small-molecule MD topology generation. Bioinformatics. 2023;39(6):btad350. pmid:37252824
  40. 40. Hess B, Bekker H, Berendsen HJC, Fraaije JGEM. LINCS: A linear constraint solver for molecular simulations. J Comput Chem. 1997;18(12):1463–72.
  41. 41. Abdi H, Williams LJ. Principal component analysis. WIREs Computational Stats. 2010;2(4):433–59.
  42. 42. Ichiye T, Karplus M. Collective motions in proteins: a covariance analysis of atomic fluctuations in molecular dynamics and normal mode simulations. Proteins. 1991;11(3):205–17. pmid:1749773
  43. 43. Rampogu S, Gajula RG, Lee G, Kim MO, Lee KW. Unravelling the therapeutic potential of marine drugs as SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors: An insight from essential dynamics and free energy landscape. Comput Biol Med. 2021;135:104525. pmid:34252682
  44. 44. Maisuradze GG, Liwo A, Scheraga HA. Relation between free energy landscapes of proteins and dynamics. J Chem Theory Comput. 2010;6(2):583–95. pmid:23620713
  45. 45. Papaleo E, Mereghetti P, Fantucci P, Grandori R, De Gioia L. Free-energy landscape, principal component analysis, and structural clustering to identify representative conformations from molecular dynamics simulations: the myoglobin case. J Mol Graph Model. 2009;27(8):889–99. pmid:19264523
  46. 46. Nouroz F, Mehboob M, Mobin T, Khan S. In silico exploitation of antiviral phytochemicals against dengue. Pak J Bot. 2021;53(1):309–19.
  47. 47. Kuriwaki I, Kameda M, Hisamichi H, Kikuchi S, Iikubo K, Kawamoto Y, et al. Structure-based drug design of 1,3,5-triazine and pyrimidine derivatives as novel FGFR3 inhibitors with high selectivity over VEGFR2. Bioorg Med Chem. 2020;28(10):115453. pmid:32278710
  48. 48. Eberhardt J, Santos-Martins D, Tillack AF, Forli S. AutoDock Vina 1.2.0: New Docking Methods, Expanded Force Field, and Python Bindings. J Chem Inf Model. 2021;61(8):3891–8. pmid:34278794
  49. 49. Xue Q, Liu X, Russell P, Li J, Pan W, Fu J, et al. Evaluation of the binding performance of flavonoids to estrogen receptor alpha by Autodock, Autodock Vina and Surflex-Dock. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2022;233:113323. pmid:35183811
  50. 50. Kim GB, Seo JI, Gye MC, Yoo HH. Isosorbide, a versatile green chemical: Elucidating its ADME properties for safe use. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2024;272:116051. pmid:38310823
  51. 51. Katiyar RS, Jha PK. Molecular simulations in drug delivery: Opportunities and challenges. WIREs Comput Mol Sci. 2018;8(4).
  52. 52. Maria-Solano MA, Serrano-Hervás E, Romero-Rivera A, Iglesias-Fernández J, Osuna S. Role of conformational dynamics in the evolution of novel enzyme function. Chem Commun (Camb). 2018;54(50):6622–34. pmid:29780987
  53. 53. Wang C, He F, Sun K, Guo K, Lu S, Wu T, et al. Identification and characterization of 7-azaindole derivatives as inhibitors of the SARS-CoV-2 spike-hACE2 protein interaction. Int J Biol Macromol. 2023;244:125182. pmid:37276898
  54. 54. Durham E, Dorr B, Woetzel N, Staritzbichler R, Meiler J. Solvent accessible surface area approximations for rapid and accurate protein structure prediction. J Mol Model. 2009;15(9):1093–108. pmid:19234730
  55. 55. Katoh M. Cancer genomics and genetics of FGFR2 (Review). Int J Oncol. 2008;33(2):233–7. pmid:18636142
  56. 56. Chae YK, Ranganath K, Hammerman PS, Vaklavas C, Mohindra N, Kalyan A, et al. Inhibition of the fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) pathway: the current landscape and barriers to clinical application. Oncotarget. 2017;8(9):16052–74. pmid:28030802
  57. 57. Zugman M, Botrus G, Pestana RC, Uson Junior PLS. Precision Medicine Targeting FGFR2 Genomic Alterations in Advanced Cholangiocarcinoma: Current State and Future Perspectives. Front Oncol. 2022;12:860453. pmid:35444941
  58. 58. Jin C, McKeehan K, Guo W, Jauma S, Ittmann MM, Foster B, et al. Cooperation between ectopic FGFR1 and depression of FGFR2 in induction of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in the mouse prostate. Cancer Res. 2003;63(24):8784–90. pmid:14695195
  59. 59. KATOH M. FGFR inhibitors: Effects on cancer cells, tumor microenvironment and whole-body homeostasis (Review). International Journal of Molecular Medicine. 2016;38(1):3–15.
  60. 60. Kubota S, Aoyama E, Takigawa M, Nishida T. Fibroblast growth factors and cellular communication network factors: intimate interplay by the founding members in cartilage. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(15):8592. pmid:35955724
  61. 61. Dias DA, Urban S, Roessner U. A historical overview of natural products in drug discovery. Metabolites. 2012;2(2):303–36. pmid:24957513
  62. 62. Niazi SK, Mariam Z. Computer-aided drug design and drug discovery: a prospective analysis. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2023;17(1):22. pmid:38256856
  63. 63. Pinzi L, Rastelli G. Molecular docking: shifting paradigms in drug discovery. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(18):4331. pmid:31487867
  64. 64. Hassan M, Shahzadi S, Seo SY, Alashwal H, Zaki N, Moustafa AA. Molecular docking and dynamic simulation of AZD3293 and solanezumab effects against BACE1 to treat alzheimer’s disease. Front Comput Neurosci. 2018;12:34. pmid:29910719
  65. 65. Pavan M, Menin S, Bassani D, Sturlese M, Moro S. Qualitative Estimation of Protein-Ligand Complex Stability through Thermal Titration Molecular Dynamics Simulations. J Chem Inf Model. 2022;62(22):5715–28. pmid:36315402
  66. 66. Talukder MdEK, Atif MdF, Siddiquee NH, Rahman S, Rafi NI, Israt S, et al. Molecular docking, QSAR, and simulation analyses of EGFR-targeting phytochemicals in non-small cell lung cancer. Journal of Molecular Structure. 2025;1321:139924.
  67. 67. André F, Cortés J. Rationale for targeting fibroblast growth factor receptor signaling in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;150(1):1–8. pmid:25677745
  68. 68. Krook MA, Reeser JW, Ernst G, Barker H, Wilberding M, Li G, et al. Fibroblast growth factor receptors in cancer: genetic alterations, diagnostics, therapeutic targets and mechanisms of resistance. Br J Cancer. 2021;124(5):880–92. pmid:33268819
  69. 69. Lei H, Deng C-X. Fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 signaling in breast cancer. Int J Biol Sci. 2017;13(9):1163–71. pmid:29104507
  70. 70. Santolla MF, Maggiolini M. The FGF/FGFR System in Breast Cancer: Oncogenic Features and Therapeutic Perspectives. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(10):3029. pmid:33081025
  71. 71. Botrus G, Raman P, Oliver T, Bekaii-Saab T. Infigratinib (BGJ398): an investigational agent for the treatment of FGFR-altered intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2021;30(4):309–16. pmid:33307867
  72. 72. Coombes RC, Badman PD, Lozano-Kuehne JP, Liu X, Macpherson IR, Zubairi I, et al. Results of the phase IIa RADICAL trial of the FGFR inhibitor AZD4547 in endocrine resistant breast cancer. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):3246. pmid:35688802
  73. 73. Tojjari A, Nagdas S, Saeed A, Saeed A. Deciphering the FGFR2 Code: Innovative Targets in Gastric Cancer Therapy. Curr Oncol. 2024;31(8):4305–17. pmid:39195304
  74. 74. Wang Q, Bai C, Zhang P, Suleman M, Wei H, Chen D. Targeting FGFR2 with natural products: Discovery and experimental validation of torosanin as a potent and selective therapeutic candidate for gallbladder cancer. Int J Biol Macromol. 2025;322(Pt 3):146888. pmid:40816411
  75. 75. Sofela SO, Bodun DS, Omoboyowa DA, Ajiboro PA, Nwankwo DO, Ashimiyu-Abdusalam Z, et al. Virtual screening for novel FGFR2 inhibitors: exploring gefitinib-like compounds as promising therapeutic candidates. Informatics in Medicine Unlocked. 2023;42:101368.