Previously submitted to: JMIR Bioinformatics and Biotechnology (no longer under consideration since Oct 21, 2022)
Date Submitted: Apr 23, 2022
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Proximicin A-C as prospective HER2-positive and negative breast cancer drugs: Molecular docking and in silico ADME modeling
ABSTRACT
Background:
Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer related death among women worldwide. Proximicin A-C are bioactive chemicals produced by the marine Verrucosispora strain, which have been shown to have potent cytostatic effect against human breast cancer [MCF 7]. HER2 (Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) is a gene that has been linked to breast cancer development.
Objective:
The study’s goals are to (1) forecast the intensity of binding affinity and interactions between HER2 and proximicin A-C, and (2) analyze ADME characteristics of proximicin A-C (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion).
Methods:
The CB-Dock web service was used to dock proximicin A-B and commonly used breast cancer medicines Neratinib (Nerlynx) and Talazoparib against HER2, and protein-ligand interaction findings were collected via the protein-ligand interaction profiler (PLP) web server. The SwissADME web server was used to investigate ADME properties of the substances.
Results:
In terms of docking, proximicin A has a vina score of -8.6, proximicin B and C has a score of -10, Talazoparib has a vina score of -8.5, and Neratinib (Nerlynx) has a vina score of -10.2 on CB-Dock. This means that proximicin B and C bind to HER2 more strongly than proximicin A and Talazoparib. Furthermore, their high binding affinity is equivalent to Neratinibs (Nerlynx). Talazoparib has a lower binding affinity for HER2 than proximicin A. With HER2, all three chemicals have a strong hydrogen bond and hydrophobic contact. SwissADME estimated that all three substances follow the Lipinski rule (RO5) and have a bioavailability score of 0.55. They don’t have any structural issue in medicinal chemistry (no alerts in PAINS and Brenk forecasts), and their synthetic accessibility scales range from 3 to 3.5. Only proximicin A, on the other hand, has the leadlikeness feature. All three drugs failed to cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in terms of pharmacokinetics. Proximicin A has a high absorption rate in the GI tract, whereas proximicin B-C has a low absorption rate in the GI tract (GI). Similarly, proximicin A is neither a P-gp substrate nor a CYP1A2, CYP2C19, CYP2C9, CYP2D6, or CYP3A4 inhibitor. Proximicin B-C, on the other hand, are P-gp substrates, and proximicin C is an inhibitor of all provided CYP enzymes, whilst proximicin B inhibits only three.
Conclusions:
Overall, proximicin A-B could be used as a possible breast cancer therapeutic candidate. Proximicin B-C will outperform proximicin A in terms of therapeutic efficacy. Proximicin A, on the other hand, will have better ADME qualities than Proximicin B-C. Clinical Trial: This study will provide the lead information for developing a new breast cancer medication with a good pharmacological profile.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.