IN SILICO PROBING OF ANTI-ARTHRITIC POTENTIAL OF TRADITIONALLY FERMENTED AYURVEDIC POLYHERBAL PRODUCT BALARISHTA REVEALS LUPEOL AND DESULPHOSINIGRIN AS EFFICIENT INTERACTING COMPONENTS WITH UREC

  • Annadurai Vinothkanna Bharathidasan University
  • Paramasivan Manivannan Bharathidasan University
  • Gangatharan Muralitharan Bharathidasan University
  • Soundarapandian Sekar Bharathidasan University

Abstract

Objective: To assess the anti-arthritic properties of Balarishta, an Ayurvedic fermented poly herbal product used to combat the immunological disorder, Rheumatoid Arthritis which is an autoimmune disease triggered by Proteus urinary tract infection through in silico analysis and assay of antimicrobial activity.

Methods: Antibacterial activity of Balarishta against Proteus mirabilis was assessed. Phytochemical analysis was performed by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectroscopy. Urease interaction proteins were homology modeled based on template constraints and physicochemical parameters and stereo chemical nature of the proteins were analyzed. Rigid and flexible docking was done to study the hydrogen bond interaction patterns between active ingredients of Balarishta and urease interaction proteins.

Results: In Balarishta, 42 bioactive metabolites were identified by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectroscopy analysis. These metabolites were checked for strong binding affinities against urease subunits and urease accessory proteins of Proteus mirabilis in silico. ureC subunit exhibited high binding to the compound desulphosinigrin (-10.5217 Kcal/mol) followed by lupeol (-10.0308 Kcal/mol) with conserved residue interaction ranging from amino acid residues 308 – 327. Further, lupeol when bound to ureC had 4 hydrogen bonds as compared to desulphosinigrin with 6 hydrogen bonds. Free energy calculations based on flexible docking showed that lupeol had significant binding affinity for ureC with -9.2 Kcal/mol rather than -6.0 Kcal/mol for desulphosinigrin. Both binding has residue conservation - Cys 319, His 320 and His 321. The results corroborated with in vitro antibacterial activity.

Conclusion: It is proposed that Balarishta would be efficient in arresting Rheumatoid Arthritis complicated urinary tract infections.

 

Keywords: Ayurveda, Balarishta, Polyherbal fermentation, Urinary Tract Infection, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Proteus mirabilis, Urease proteins, Computational Pharmacology, Molecular docking.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Annadurai Vinothkanna, Bharathidasan University

Research Scholar,

Department of Industrial Biotechnology

Paramasivan Manivannan, Bharathidasan University

Research Scholar,

Department of Microbiology

Gangatharan Muralitharan, Bharathidasan University

Assistant Professor,

Department of Microbiology

Soundarapandian Sekar, Bharathidasan University
Professor, Department of Industrial Biotechnology

References

1. Sekar S, Mariappan S. Traditionally fermented biomedicines, arishtas and asavas, from Ayurveda. Indian J Tradit Knowl 2008;7:548-56.
2. Sekar S, Mariappan S. Fermented Medicines of Ayurveda: A Treatise. Germany; LAMBERT Academic Publishing (LAP); 2010.
3. Mobley HLT, Island MD, Hausinger RP. Molecular biology of microbial ureases. Microbiol Rev 1995;59:451-80.
4. Ebringer A, Rashid T. Rheumatoid arthritis is caused by a Proteus urinary tract infection. APMIS 2013;122:363–8.
5. Lawson AA, Maclean N. Renal disease and drug therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 1966;25:441-9.
6. Tishler M, Caspi D, Aimog Y, Segal R, Yaron M. Increased incidence of urinary tract infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and secondary Sjogren’s syndrome. Ann Rheum Dis 1992;51:601-6.
7. Rashid T, Ebringer A. Rheumatoid arthritis is caused by asymptomatic Proteus urinary tract infections. In: Nikibakhsh AA editors. Clinical management of complicated urinary tract infection. Rijeka In Tech; 2011. p. 171-80.
8. Wilson C, Rashid T, Tiwana H, Beyan H, Hughes L, Bansal S. Cytotoxicity responses to peptide antigens in rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheum 2003;30:972-8.
9. Sriwanthana B, Mobley HLT. Proteus mirabilis Urease: Histidine 320 of ureC is essential for urea hydrolysis and nickel ion binding within the native enzyme. Infect Immun 1993;61:2570-7.
10. Bauer AW, Kirby WMM, Sherris JC, Turck M. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a single high content disk method. Amer J Clin Pathol 1966;45:492-6.
11. Naz R, Bano A. Antimicrobial potential of Ricinus communis leaf extracts in different solvents against pathogenic bacterial and fungal strains. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed 2012;2:944-7.
12. Franceschini. STRING database 9.1. Available: URL: http://string-db.org/.
13. Homology detection & structure prediction by HMM-HMM comparison. (2014). Available: URL: http://toolkit.tuebingen.mpg.de/hhpred. [Last accessed 11th Apr 2014].
14. Expasy’s protparam server. 2014. Available: URL: http://us.expasy.org/tools/protparam.html. [Last accessed 09th Apr 2014].
15. Hirokawa T, Boon-Chieng S, Mitaku S. Sosui: classification and secondary structure prediction system for membrane proteins. Bioinf 1998;14:378-79.
16. Buchan DWA, Minneci F, Nugent TCO, Bryson K, Jones DT. Scalable web services for the Psipred Protein Analysis Workbench. Nuc Acids Res 2013;41:340-8.
17. Eswar N, Marti-Renom MA, Webb B, Madhusudhan MS, Eramian D, Shen M, et al. Comparative protein structure modeling with modeller. Current Protocols in Bioinformatics: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2006. p. 15, 5.6.1-5.6.30.
18. Pettersen EF, Goddard TD, Huang CC, Couch GS, Greenblatt DM, Meng EC, et al. UCSF Chimera visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J Comput Chem 2004;25:1605-12.
19. Lovell SC, Davis IW, Arendall III WB, de Bakker PIW, Word JM, Prisant MG, et al. Structure validation by Calpha geometry: phi, psi and Cbeta deviation. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet 2002;50:437-50.
20. Luthy R, Bowie JU, Eisenberg D. Assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles. Nat 1992;5:83-5.
21. Benkert P, Tosatto SCE, Schomburg D. Qmean: a comprehensive scoring function for model quality assessment. Proteins: Struct Funct Bioinf 2008;7:261-77.
22. Liang J, Edelsbrunner H, Woodward C. Anatomy of protein pockets and cavities: Measurement of binding site geometry and implications for ligand design. Prot Sci 1998;7:1884-97.
23. Laurie AT, Jackson RM. Q-SiteFinder: an energy-based method for the prediction of protein–ligand binding sites. Bioinf 2005;21:1908-16.
24. Pubchem project database. 2014. Available: URL: http: //pubchem. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/. [Last accessed 20th Mar 2014].
25. Chemspider database. 2014. Available: URL: http://www.chemspider.com/. [Last accessed 23rd Mar 2014].
26. Pedretti A, Villa L, Vistoli G. VEGA-An open platform to develop chemo-bio-informatics applications, using plug-in architecture and script programming. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2004;18:167-73.
27. Thompson MA. 2004. ArgusLab 4.0.1. Planaria Software LLC, Seattle, Washington. Available: URL: http:// www.ArgusLab.com. [Last accessed 30th Mar 2014].
28. Schneidman-Duhovny D, Inbar Y, Nussinov R, Wolfson HJ. Patch Dock and Symm Dock: servers for rigid and symmetric docking. Nucl Acids Res 2005;33:363-7.
29. Guex N, Peitsch MC. Swiss-PdbViewer: a fast and easy-to-use PDB viewer for Macintosh and PC. Protein Data Bank Quaterly Newsletter; 1996;77:7.
30. Discovery studio visualizer 3.5. 2014. Available: URL: http://accelrys.com/products/discovery-studio/visualization-download.php. [Last accessed 25th May 2014].
31. Molegro virtual docker. 2014. Available: URL: http://molegro-virtual-docker.software.informer.com/5.5/. [Last accessed 30th May 2014].
32. Pymol. 2014. Available: URL: http://www.pymol.org/. [Last accessed 25th Apr 2014].
33. Trott O, Olson AJ. Auto Dock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization and multithreading. J Comput Chem 2010;31:455-61.
34. Manivannan P, Ganesan S, Naveenkumar S, Daniel SD, Sathiamoorthi T, Muralitharan G. Molecular modelling of urease accessory interaction proteins of Helicobacter Pylori J 99 and predicting an interruption in interaction by Vigna radiata Defensins. Bioinf 2011;5:410-5.
35. Geetha T, Varalakshmi P. Anti-inflammatory activity of lupeol and lupeol linoleate in rats. J Ethnopharmacol 2001;76:77-80.
36. Agarwal RB, Rangari VD. Antiinflammatory and antiarthritic activities of lupeol and 19α-h lupeol isolated from strobilanthus callosus and strobilanthus ixiocephala roots. Ind J Pharmacol 2003;35:384-7.
37. Malini MM, Baskar R, Varalakshmi P. Effect of lupeol, a pentacyclictriterpene, on urinary enzymes in hyperoxaluric rats. Jpn J Med Sci Biol 1995;48:211-20.
38. Sunitha S, Nagaraj M, Varalakshmi P. Hepatoprotective effect of lupeol and lupeol linoleate on tissue antioxidant defence system in cadmium-induced hepatotoxicity in rats. Fitoterapia 2001;72:516-23.
39. Marvin JW, Yanjun Z, Muraleedharan G. Colon cancer proliferating desulphosinigrin in Wasabi (Wasabia japonica). Nutr Cancer 2004;48:207-13.
40. Estiu G, Merz KM. The hydrolysis of urea and the proficiency of urease. JACS 2004;126:6932-44.
Statistics
431 Views | 1104 Downloads
How to Cite
Vinothkanna, A., P. Manivannan, G. Muralitharan, and S. Sekar. “IN SILICO PROBING OF ANTI-ARTHRITIC POTENTIAL OF TRADITIONALLY FERMENTED AYURVEDIC POLYHERBAL PRODUCT BALARISHTA REVEALS LUPEOL AND DESULPHOSINIGRIN AS EFFICIENT INTERACTING COMPONENTS WITH UREC”. International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vol. 6, no. 10, 1, pp. 469-75, https://innovareacademics.in/journals/index.php/ijpps/article/view/2881.
Section
Original Article(s)