Issue

Vol. 36 No. 4 (2024): Vol 36 Issue 4, 2024

Copyright (c) 2024 Krishnam Raju Chintalapati

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

In silico Studies of Cilnidipine Degradation Products for Structure Confirmation, Toxicity Prediction and Molecular Docking

https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2024.31150
Krishnam Raju Chintalapati
Department of Chemistry, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation, Green Fields, Vaddeswaram-522302, India Analytical Research and Development, United States Pharmacopeial Convention - India (P) Ltd., Hyderabad-500101, India
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7011-1871
Yesudas Kada
Synthetics Department, United States Pharmacopeial Convention - India (P) Ltd., Hyderabad-500101, India
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1155-3992
Vasavi Malkhed
Molecular Modelling Research Laboratory, Department of Chemistry, University College of Science, Osmania University, Tarnaka, Hyderabad-500007, India
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1597-4217
Sanath Kumar Goud Palusa
Analytical Research and Development, United States Pharmacopeial Convention - India (P) Ltd., Hyderabad-500101, India
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2690-8530
Rabin Bera
Synthetics Department, United States Pharmacopeial Convention - India (P) Ltd., Hyderabad-500101, India
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5056-2074
V. Shanmukha Kumar Jagarlapudi
Department of Chemistry, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation, Green Fields, Vaddeswaram-522302, India
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5725-690X

Corresponding Author(s) : V. Shanmukha Kumar Jagarlapudi

shanmukh_fed@kluniversity.in

Asian Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 36 No. 4 (2024): Vol 36 Issue 4, 2024

Abstract

In this study, a comprehensive analysis of cilnidipine and its degradation products (KD1-KD4 and CD1-CD3) with three main objectives viz. (i) toxicity prediction for bacterial mutagenicity, (ii) assessment of pharmacological activity and (iii) density functional theory (DFT) calculations were performed for structure confirmation. For bacterial mutagenicity prediction, in silico assessments were performed following ICH M7 guidelines. Using rule-based and statistical-based methodologies, predictions revealed an alerting group in CD1-CD3, while no alerting group was observed in KD1-KD4 for bacterial mutagenicity. To assess pharmacological activity, docking studies were conducted to identify the mode of binding and interaction types of cilnidipine and its degradation products with N-type and L-type calcium channel subunits 7VFS and 7UHF, respectively. Additionally, 20 drugs acting as calcium channel blockers were considered for docking analysis to correlate the affinities of binding. The interaction energies revealed that molecule CD3 shows the highest binding affinity with the ligand molecules, with a binding energy of -9.2 (kcal/mol) with 7VFS and -8.7 (kcal/mol) with 7UHF proteins, followed by KD3 with a binding energy of -8.7 (kcal/mol) (7VFS) and -7.9 (kcal/mol) (7UHF). Furthermore, DFT calculations were employed to reassess the structures of degradation products CD1 and CD2 proposed in the literature. Simulating 1H and 13C NMR spectra, the obtained data demonstrated good agreement with experimental results, confirming the proposed stereo-configurations in the literature. Based on in silico bacterial mutagenicity predictions and docking studies, KD3 emerged as a promising compound for receptor binding. Additionally, DFT calculations provided structural insights, affirming stereo-configurations proposed in the existing literature. This multifaceted approach contributed valuable insights into the toxicity, pharmacology and structural aspects of cilnidipine degradation products.

Keywords

Cilnidipine Degradation products Density functional theory Toxicity predictions Docking study
Chintalapati, K. R., Kada, Y., Malkhed, V., Palusa, S. K. G., Bera, R., & Jagarlapudi, V. S. K. (2024). In silico Studies of Cilnidipine Degradation Products for Structure Confirmation, Toxicity Prediction and Molecular Docking. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 36(4), 865–878. https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2024.31150
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. R. Yoshimoto, H. Dohmoto, K. Yamada and A. Goto, Jpn. J. Pharmacol., 56, 225 (1991); https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-5198(19)39885-3
  2. C. Krishnam Raju, J.V. Shanmukha Kumar and P.S. Kumar Goud, New J. Chem., 42, 634 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1039/C7NJ02781H
  3. ICH M7(R1) - Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals To Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk. (2018).
  4. S.B. Ganorkar and Y.V. Heyden, Trends Analyt. Chem., 157, 116747 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2022.116747
  5. N. Greene, K.L. Dobo, M.O. Kenyon, J. Cheung, J. Munzner, Z. Sobol, G. Sluggett, T. Zelesky, A. Sutter and J. Wichard, Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 72, 335 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.05.008
  6. C. Kim, T.G. Traylor and C.L. Perrin, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 120, 9513 (1998); https://doi.org/10.1021/ja981531e
  7. O. Trott and A.J. Olson, J. Comput. Chem., 31, 455 (2010); https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21334
  8. M.J. Frisch, G.W. Trucks, H.B. Schlegel, G.E. Scuseria, M.A. Robb, J.R. Cheeseman, J.A. Montgomery Jr., T. Vreven, K.N. Kudin, J.C. Burant, J.M. Millam, S.S. Iyengar, J. Tomasi, V. Barone, B. Mennucci, M. Cossi, G. Scalmani, N. Rega, G.A. Petersson, H. Nakatsuji, M. Hada, M. Ehara, K. Toyota, R. Fukuda, J. Hasegawa, M. Ishida, T. Nakajima, Y. Honda, O. Kitao, H. Nakai, M. Klene, X. Li, J.E. Knox, H.P. Hratchian, J.B. Cross, V. Bakken, C. Adamo, J. Jaramillo, R. Gomperts, R.E. Stratmann, O. Yazyev, A.J. Austin, R. Cammi, C. Pomelli, J.W. Ochterski, P.Y. Ayala, K. Morokuma, G.A. Voth, P. Salvador, J.J. Dannenberg, V.G. Zakrzewski, S. Dapprich, A.D. Daniels, M.C. Strain, O. Farkas, D.K. Malick, A.D. Rabuck, K. Raghavachari, J.B. Foresman, J.V. Ortiz, Q. Cui, A.G. Baboul, S. Clifford, J. Cioslowski, B.B. Stefanov, G. Liu, A. Liashenko, P. Piskorz, I. Komaromi, R.L. Martin, D.J. Fox, T. Keith, M.A. Al-Laham, C.Y. Peng, A. Nanayakkara, M. Challacombe, P.M.W. Gill, B. Johnson, W. Chen, M.W. Wong, C. Gonzalez and J.A. Pople, Gaussian 09, A.02; Gaussian Inc.: Wallingford CT (2009).
  9. R. Ditchfield, Mol. Phys., 27, 789 (1974); https://doi.org/10.1080/00268977400100711
  10. S. Miertu, E. Scrocco and J. Tomasi, Chem. Phys., 55, 117 (1981); https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-0104(81)85090-2
  11. V. Barone and M. Cossi, J. Phys. Chem. A, 102, 1995 (1998); https://doi.org/10.1021/jp9716997
  12. A.D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys., 98, 5648 (1993); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.464913
  13. K.L. Dobo, N. Greene, C. Fred, S. Glowienke, J.S. Harvey, R. Jolly, C. Hasselgren, M.O. Kenyon, J.B. Munzner, W. Muster, R. Neft, M.V. Reddy, A.T. White and S. Weiner, Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 62, 449 (2012); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2012.01.007
  14. M. Honma, Genes Environ., 42, 23 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1186/s41021-020-00163-1
  15. R.V. Williams, A. Amberg, A. Brigo, L. Coquin, R. Jolly, A. Giddings, S. Glowienke, N. Greene, R. Kemper, C. O’Leary-Steele, A. Parenty, H.-P. Spirkl, S.A. Stalford, S.K. Weiner and J. Wichard, Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 76, 79 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.01.008
  16. T. Hanser, C. Barber, E. Rosser, J.D. Vessey, S.J. Webb and S. Werner, J. Cheminform., 6, 21 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1186/1758-2946-6-21
  17. Y. Dong, Y. Gao, S. Xu, Y. Wang, Z. Yu, Y. Li, B. Li, T. Yuan, B. Yang, X.C. Zhang, D. Jiang, Z. Huang and Y. Zhao, Cell Rep., 37, 109931 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109931
  18. A. Pandey, J. P, S. Tripathi and C. Gopi Mohan, Mol. Inform., 31, 643 (2012); https://doi.org/10.1002/minf.201200025
  19. L. Carballeira and I. Pérez–Juste, J. Comput. Chem., 19, 961 (1998); https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(199806)19:8<961::AID-JCC14>3.0.CO;2-A
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0