IJSTR

International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

Home About Us Scope Editorial Board Blog/Latest News Contact Us
0.2
2019CiteScore
 
10th percentile
Powered by  Scopus
Scopus coverage:
Nov 2018 to May 2020

CALL FOR PAPERS
AUTHORS
DOWNLOADS
CONTACT

IJSTR >> Volume 5 - Issue 10, November 2016 Edition



International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research  
International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

Website: http://www.ijstr.org

ISSN 2277-8616



In-Silico Testing Of Nutraceutical Against The Murd Enzymes From Mycobacterium Tuberculosis

[Full Text]

 

AUTHOR(S)

Mohammad Teimouri, Hamidreza Kamrani

 

KEYWORDS

Nutraceutical, MurD, Mycobacterium Tuberculosis, homology modeling, Molecular Docking, I-Tasser Server, Modeler v9.14

 

ABSTRACT

In spite of availability of moderately protective vaccine and antibiotics, new antibacterial agents are urgently needed to decrease the global incidence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infections. Mur family is an important target for the development of new drugs as they are involved in the biosynthesis of bacterial cell wall. MurC-MurF ligases catalyze a series of irreversible steps in the biosynthesis of peptidoglycan precursor, i.e. MurD catalyzes the ligation of D-glutamate to the nucleotide precursor UMA. Here, we developed a homology model of MurD from M. Tuberculosis and was validated by using rampage, Errat and ProSA online servers. Different nutraceuticals were tested and reported for their activity. Among the 14 nutraceuticals, Diosgenin, Xanthohumol, Capsaicin, 1'-acetoxychavicol acetate and [6]-Gingerol have best docking score. The best of all was Diosgenin with the docking score -14.22988, Xanthohumol with -13.923555, Capsaicin with -12.880404, 1'-acetoxychavicol acetate with -12.573502 and [6]-Gingerol -12.349156 which will play a guiding role in the experimental design and development of mycobacterium tuberculosis MurD

 

REFERENCES

[1] Cole, S., et al., Deciphering the biology of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from the complete genome sequence. Nature, 1998. 393(6685): p. 537-544.

[2] Khasnobis, S., V.E. Escuyer, and D. Chatterjee, Emerging therapeutic targets in tuberculosis: post-genomic era. Expert opinion on therapeutic targets, 2002. 6(1): p. 21-40.

[3] Dye, C., et al., Prospects for tuberculosis elimination. Annual review of public health, 2013. 34: p. 271-286.

[4] Bugg, T. and C. Walsh, Intracellular steps of bacterial cell wall peptidoglycan biosynthesis: enzymology, antibiotics, and antibiotic resistance. Natural product reports, 1992. 9(3): p. 199-215.

[5] Van Heijenoort, J., Recent advances in the formation of the bacterial peptidoglycan monomer unit. Natural product reports, 2001. 18(5): p. 503-519.

[6] El Zoeiby, A., F. Sanschagrin, and R.C. Levesque, Structure and function of the Mur enzymes: development of novel inhibitors. Molecular microbiology, 2003. 47(1): p. 1-12.

[7] Barreteau, H., et al., MurD enzymes from different bacteria: evaluation of inhibitors. Biochemical pharmacology, 2012. 84(5): p. 625-632.

[8] Roy, A., A. Kucukural, and Y. Zhang, I-TASSER: a unified platform for automated protein structure and function prediction. Nat. Protocols, 2010. 5(4): p. 725-738.

[9] Kelley, L.A., et al., The Phyre2 web portal for protein modeling, prediction and analysis. Nat. Protocols, 2015. 10(6): p. 845-858.

[10] Wu, S. and Y. Zhang, LOMETS: a local meta-threading-server for protein structure prediction. Nucleic acids research, 2007. 35(10): p. 3375-3382.

[11] Combet, C., et al., Geno3D: automatic comparative molecular modelling of protein. Bioinformatics, 2002. 18(1): p. 213-214.

[12] Vilar, S., G. Cozza, and S. Moro, Medicinal chemistry and the molecular operating environment (MOE): application of QSAR and molecular docking to drug discovery. Current topics in medicinal chemistry, 2008. 8(18): p. 1555-1572.

[13] Webb, B. and A. Sali, Comparative protein structure modeling using Modeller. Current protocols in bioinformatics, 2014: p. 5.6. 1-5.6. 32.

[14] Colovos, C. and T.O. Yeates, Verification of protein structures: patterns of nonbonded atomic interactions. Protein science, 1993. 2(9): p. 1511-1519.

[15] Lovell, S., et al., Richardson, JS, Richardson, DC 2003. Structure validation by C alpha geometry: 18 phi, psi and C beta deviation. Proteins. 50: p. 437-450.

[16] Wiederstein, M. and M.J. Sippl, ProSA-web: interactive web service for the recognition of errors in three-dimensional structures of proteins. Nucleic acids research, 2007. 35(suppl 2): p. W407-W410.

[17] Consortium, U., UniProt: a hub for protein information. Nucleic acids research, 2014: p. gku989.

[18] Altschul, S.F., et al., Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic acids research, 1997. 25(17): p. 3389-3402.

[19] Di Tommaso, P., et al., T-Coffee: a web server for the multiple sequence alignment of protein and RNA sequences using structural information and homology extension. Nucleic acids research, 2011. 39(suppl 2): p. W13-W17.

[20] Zhang, Y., I-TASSER server for protein 3D structure prediction. BMC bioinformatics, 2008. 9(1): p. 1.

[21] Kelley, L.A., et al., The Phyre2 web portal for protein modeling, prediction and analysis. Nature protocols, 2015. 10(6): p. 845-858.

[22] Fiser, A. and A. Šali, Modeller: generation and refinement of homology-based protein structure models. Methods in enzymology, 2003. 374: p. 461-491.

[23] Lovell, S.C., et al., Structure validation by Cα geometry: ϕ, ψ and Cβ deviation. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, 2003. 50(3): p. 437-450.