Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T00:08:03.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Computational approach to identify potential antileishmanial activity of reported inhibitor, E5700 and two natural alkaloids against Leishmania donovani Squalene Synthase

Subject: Computer Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2020

Padmika Wadanambi*
Affiliation:
Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka
*
*Corresponding author: Email: pwadanambi@gmail.com

Abstract

Leishmania species are the causative agents for Leishmaniasis which is one of the neglected tropical diseases causing 70,000 deaths worldwide each year. Squalene synthase enzyme plays a vital role in sterol metabolism which is essential for Leishmania parasite viability. Therefore squalene synthase of Leishmania donovani is a therapeutic target to inhibit growth of parasite. The 3D model of Leishmania donovani Squalene Synthase (LdSQS) was generated by homology modeling and validated through PROCHECK, ERRAT, VERIFY3D and PROSA tools. Virtual screening of the protein was performed by AutoDock with reported inhibitor, E5700 and two natural alkaloids. Molecular interactions were explored to understand the nature of intermolecular bonds between active ligand and the protein binding site residues using UCSF Chimera and PLIP server. The reported inhibitor showed the best binding affinity (-9.75 kcal/mol) closely followed by Ancistrotanzanine B (-9.55 kcal/mol) and Holamine (-8.79 kcal/mol). Ancistrotanzanine B showed low binding energy and permissible ADMET properties. Based on the present study, homology model of LdSQS and Ancistrotanzanine B can be used to design inhibitors with antileishmanial activity.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Result type: Novel result
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. (A). The superimposition of template protein 3WCA_A (Blue) and the 3D modeled structure of LdSQS (Green) (RMSD=0.306A°). (B). Sequence alignment of LdSQS (Target) with the template protein PDB ID: 3WCA_A. The conserved residues are represented as asterisk, highly similar residues as colon and similar residues as full stop. (C-E). 3D structures of ligands used for the study. [C] Holamine (PubChem CID: 12310548), [D] E5700 (Reported Inhibitor) (PubChem CID: 56947067), [E] Ancistrotanzanine B (PubChem CID: 10002166)

Figure 1

Table 1. (A). Identification of the best homologous template using BLAST against Protein Data Bank (PDB). (B). Structure validation results of LdSQS (Modeled Protein). (C). Protein-ligand interaction analysis of docked complexes. (D). Grid box parameters selected for LdSQS (Modeled Protein), based on binding site residues (Spacing was set up at 0.375A°). (E). Drug likeness and in silico ADMET (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion and Toxicity) prediction of ligands.

Figure 2

Figure 2.

Figure 3

Figure 2.

Figure 4

Figure 3 (A-C). Best binding conformation of ligand with LdSQS protein in the binding cavity. These images were generated in UCSF Chimera. (A). Best binding conformation of E5700 (Reported Inhibitor) to LdSQS. (B). Best binding conformation of Ancistrotanzanine B to LdSQS. (C). Best binding conformation of Holamine to LdSQS

Reviewing editor:  Emanuele Frontoni Universita Politecnica delle Marche, Information Engineerging Department - DII, Ancona, Italy, 60121
This article has been accepted because it is deemed to be scientifically sound, has the correct controls, has appropriate methodology and is statistically valid, and met required revisions.

Review 1: Computational approach to identify potential antileishmanial activity of reported inhibitor, E5700 and two natural alkaloids against Leishmania donovani Squalene Synthase

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: A more in depth description of limitations and future work is required. Larger space should be given to the survey of the state of the art.

Proofreading is required (sometimes, there is no space between words)

Presentation

Overall score 2.7 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
3 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
3 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
2 out of 5

Context

Overall score 3 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
3 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
3 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
3 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
3 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 2.8 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
3 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
3 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
2 out of 5

Review 2: Computational approach to identify potential antileishmanial activity of reported inhibitor, E5700 and two natural alkaloids against Leishmania donovani Squalene Synthase

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to the Author: This is an interesting topic: the homology modeling of squalene synthase to search for the antileishmanial activity of different molecules by structure-based drug discovery. It is my opinion that the paper deserves publication in Experimental Results. However, the manuscript does not read fluently: some mistakes were found throughout the text and must be corrected.

Presentation

Overall score 4.1 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
3 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
5 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
4 out of 5

Context

Overall score 5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 5 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
5 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
5 out of 5

Review 3: Computational approach to identify potential antileishmanial activity of reported inhibitor, E5700 and two natural alkaloids against Leishmania donovani Squalene Synthase

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: The present work was well conducted by the author and represents an addition when the proposal is to develop new methods to combat leishmaniasis.

Please see spacing errors between words and punctuation.

I understand the proposal of both the present work and Experimental Results but I missed more information in the discussion. As a suggestion, for example, in addition to the computational field, the author could correlate his data with the results in the literature with squalene synthase inhibitors in leishmania. There are some studies with E5700, ER-119884 and other inhibitors in leishmania in in vitro models. This correlation could further corroborate the author’s assumptions.

Presentation

Overall score 4.4 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
5 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
3 out of 5

Context

Overall score 5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 3.6 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
3 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
4 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
4 out of 5