STRUCTURE-BASED DESIGN OF NOVEL RILPIVIRINE ANALOGUES AS HIV-1 NON-NUCLEOSIDE REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE INHIBITORS THROUGH QSPR AND MOLECULAR DOCKING
Objectives: The aim of this research is to investigate the better biological activities from Rilpivirine analogues based on their Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship (QSPR) and pharmacophore study.
Methods: In this study, we had designed six Rilpivirine analogues. The complementary aided-computational drug design and molecular docking was employed to find the best lead candidate. The drug-likeness properties of Rilpivirine analogues were defined by following the Rule of Five.
Results: The drug-likeness properties of Rilpivirine derivatives (RVN 1-6) were defined by the Rule of Five (RO5), which RVN3 compound showed the best RO5 score among others. However, the log P value of RVN1 and RVN4 are lower than 5, while RVN2, RVN3, RVN5 and RVN6 have log P values greater than 5. Based on the solubility, RVN1 and RVN4 compounds are more soluble than other analogues including Rilpivirine prototype (RVN). The topological polar surface area (TPSA) score of RVN1 and RVN4 showed greater scores compared to others. On the other hand, the TPSA score of all Rilpivirine analogues are below 140 Ã…2. The absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) properties of Rilpivirine analogues were determined, according to blood brain barrier penetration were found within the range of-1.2 to-2.2, which RVN4 showed the lowest value compared to others, while RVN showed the highest value. The percentage of human intestinal absorption was observed 100% to all compounds. The plasma protein binding percentages was obtained within the range 99.03-99.57%. Moreover, the hydrogen bond donor contribution of all compounds was in the range 2-4 bonds, while the acceptor hydrogen bond was found 6 bonds from all compounds. The mutagenicity properties showed all compounds could cause mutagenic effect in long-term administration. The carcinogenicity tests were done in mouse showed positive results to all compounds, while carcinogenicity test in rat showed negative results upon all compound, except RVN3 which gave positive result. From molecular docking result, RVN 1 and RVN 4 showed higher potential inhibition activities to Reverse Transcriptase Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1 RT) compared other analogues.
Conclusion: Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) have a great potential inhibition against HIV-1 RT. From high throughput computational approach, we suggested that RVN 1 and RVN 4 are the potential drug candidates which have better activity among other Rilpivirine derivatives.
2. Saag MS. New and investigational antiretroviral drugs for HIV infection: mechanisms of action and early research findings. Top Antivir Med 2012;20:162-7.
3. Olin JL, LM Spooner, OM Klibanov. Elvitegravir/cobicistat/ emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate single tablet for HIV-1 infection treatment. Ann Pharmacother 2012;46:1671-7.
4. Imaz A, D Podzamczer. The role of rilpivirine in clinical practice: strengths and weaknesses of the new nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor for HIV therapy. AIDS Res Rev 2012;14:268-78.
5. Moss DM. Rilpivirine inhibits drug transporters ABCB1, SLC22A1, and SLC22A2 in vitro. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013;57:5612-8.
6. Li SL. Effectiveness and safety of rilpivirine, a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1:A meta-analysis. HIV Clin Trials 2014;15:261-8.
7. James C, L Preininger, M Sweet. Rilpivirine: a second-generation nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2012;69:857-61.
8. Fernandez-Montero JV. Rilpivirine: a next-generation non-nucleoside analogue for the treatment of HIV infection. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2012;13:1007-14.
9. Casado JL, S Banon. Recent advances in rilpivirine: new data and promising treatment option. AIDS Rev 2014;16:172-81.
10. Laskowski RA, DS Moss, JM Thornton. Main-chain bond lengths and bond angles in protein structures. J Mol Biol 1993;231:1049-67.
11. Totrov M, R Abagyan. The contour-buildup algorithm to calculate the analytical molecular surface. J Struct Biol 1996;116:138-43.
12. Tian S. The application of in silico drug-likeness predictions in pharmaceutical research. Adv Drug Delivery Rev 2015;86:2-10.
13. Proudfoot JR. Drugs, leads, and drug-likeness: an analysis of some recently launched drugs. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2002;12:1647-50.
14. Clark DE, SD Pickett. Computational methods for the prediction of 'drug-likeness. Drug Discovery Today 2000;5:49-58.
15. Lagorce D. FAF-Drugs 2: free ADME/tox filtering tool to assist drug discovery and chemical biology projects. BMC Bioinf 2008;9:396.
16. Maunz A. lazar: a modular predictive toxicology framework. Front Pharmacol 2013;4:38.
17. Trott O, AJ Olson. 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.
18. Lipinski CA. Lead-and drug-like compounds: the rule-of-five revolution. Drug Discovery Today: Technol 2004;1:337-41.
19. Prasanna S, RJ Doerksen. Topological polar surface area: a useful descriptor in 2D-QSAR. Curr Med Chem 2009;16:21-41.
20. Lipinski CA. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Delivery Rev 2001;46:3-26.
21. Bhal SK. The rule of five revisited: applying log D in place of log P in drug-likeness filters. Mol Pharm 2007;4:556-60.
22. Choy YB, MR Prausnitz. The rule of five for non-oral routes of drug delivery: ophthalmic, inhalation and transdermal. Pharm Res 2011;28:943-8.
23. Lipinski CA. Chris lipinski discusses life and chemistry after the rule of five. Drug Discovery Today 2003;8:12-6.
24. Pollastri MP. Overview on the rule of five. Current Protocols Pharmacol 2010;9:9-12.
25. van de Waterbeemd H, E Gifford. ADMET in silico modelling: towards prediction paradise? Nat Rev Drug Discovery 2003;2:192-204.
26. Shen Q. Stereoselective binding of chiral drugs to plasma proteins. Acta Pharmacol Sin 2013;34:998-1006.
27. Mora-Peris B. Rilpivirine exposure in plasma and sanctuary site compartments after switching from nevirapine-containing combined antiretroviral therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother 2014;69:1642-7.
28. Ntie-Kang F. In silico drug metabolism and pharmacokinetic profiles of natural products from medicinal plants in the Congo basin. In silico Pharmacol 2013;1:12.
29. Nelwan EJ. Adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in HIV/AIDS patient. Acta Media Indonesia 2014;46:273-4.
30. Wada NI. The effect of HAART-induced HIV suppression on circulating markers of inflammation and immune activation. AIDS 2015;29:463-71.
31. Postorino MC. Use of efavirenz or atazanavir/ritonavir is associated with better clinical outcomes of HAART compared to other protease inhibitors: routine evidence from the Italian MASTER cohort. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015;21:386 e1-9.
32. Tontodonati M. Cost of HAART in Italy: multicentric evaluation and determinants from a large HIV outpatient cohort. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2015;7:27-35.