Abstract
Background
PBP2a is a type of penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs) that cause resistivity in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from β-lactam antibiotics. MRSA susceptible with cefttobiprole (fifth generation of cephalosporin as an anti-MRSA agent) which inhibits PBP2a and stops its growth. Contrary to its efficacy, ceftobiprole causes taste disturbance more than any other cephalosporins; furthermore, its mechanism is unknown. This study aims to explore an in silico study of a natural compound, which serves as a potential alternative to overcome MRSA with minimum adverse side effects.
Methods
A molecular docking study was performed using Molegro Virtual Docker version 5.5. Brazilin and proto-sappanins A–E are phytochemical compounds contained in sappan wood extract and are docked into the binding site of PBP2a (Protein Data Bank: ID 4DKI).
Results
Brazilin and proto-sappanins A–E have some interaction with Ser 403 amino acid residue which is an important interaction to inhibit PBP2a protein. The result of the molecular docking study showed that the MolDock score of proto-sappanins D and E is lower than that of methicillin but higher than that of its native ligand (ceftobiprole).
Conclusions
The results of this study suggest that proto-sappanins D and E have an excellent potential activity as an alternative to ceftobiprole in limiting MRSA growth through PBP2A enzyme inhibition.
Acknowledgment
Special thanks to Prof. Dr. Siswandono, MS, Apt, from Airlangga University for MVD program licensed.
Research funding: None declared.
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
Competing interests: The authors state no conflict of interest.
References
[1] Llarrull LI, Fisher JF, Mobashery S. Molecular basis and phenotype of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and insights into new β-lactams that meet the challenge. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009;53:4051–63.10.1128/AAC.00084-09Search in Google Scholar
[2] Waness A. Revisiting methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. J Glob Infect Dis 2010;2:49.10.4103/0974-777X.59251Search in Google Scholar
[3] Gajdács M. The continuing threat of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antibiotics 2010;8:52.10.3390/antibiotics8020052Search in Google Scholar
[4] Fishovitz J, Hermoso JA, Chang M, Mobashery S. Penicillin-binding protein 2a of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. IUBMB Life 2014;66:572–7.10.1002/iub.1289Search in Google Scholar
[5] Foxley MA, Friedline AW, Jensen JM, Nimmo SL, Scull EM, King JB, et al. Efficacy of ampicillin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus restored through synergy with branched poly(ethylenimine). J Antibiot (Tokyo) 2016;69:871.10.1038/ja.2016.44Search in Google Scholar
[6] Graves-Woodward K, Pratt RF. Reaction of soluble penicillin-binding protein 2a of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with β-lactams and acyclic substrates: kinetics in homogeneous solution. Biochem J 1998;332:755–61.10.1042/bj3320755Search in Google Scholar
[7] Gurusamy KS, Koti R, Toon CD, Wilson P, Davidson BR. Antibiotic therapy for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in surgical wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;8:CD009726.10.1002/14651858.CD009726Search in Google Scholar
[8] Zhanel GG, Lam A, Schweizer F, Thomson K, Walkty A, Rubinstein E, et al. Ceftobiprole: a review of a broad-spectrum and anti-MRSA cephalosporin. Am J Clin Dermatol 2008;9:245–54.10.2165/00128071-200809040-00004Search in Google Scholar
[9] Lovering AL, Gretes MC, Safadi SS, Danel F, Castro L, Page MG, et al. Structural insights into the anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) activity of ceftobiprole. J Biol Chem 2012;287:32096–102.10.1074/jbc.M112.355644Search in Google Scholar
[10] Srinivasan R, Karthik S, Mathivanan K, Baskaran R, Karthikeyan M, Gopi M, et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of Caesalpinia sappan L. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed 2012;2:S136–9.10.1016/S2221-1691(12)60144-0Search in Google Scholar
[11] Nirmal NP, Rajput MS, Prasad RG, Ahmad M. Brazilin from Caesalpinia sappan heartwood and its pharmacological activities: a review. Asian Pac J Trop Med 2015;8:421–30.10.1016/j.apjtm.2015.05.014Search in Google Scholar
[12] Zanin JL, De Carvalho BA, Salles Martineli P, Dos Santos MH, Lago JH, Sartorelli Jr P, et al. The genus Caesalpinia L. (Caesalpiniaceae): phytochemical and pharmacological characteristics. Molecules 2012;17:7887–902.10.3390/molecules17077887Search in Google Scholar
[13] Thomas HA. Merck molecular force field. Basis, form, scope, parametrization, and performance of MMFF94. J Com Chem 1996;17:490–519.10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(199604)17:5/6<490::AID-JCC1>3.0.CO;2-PSearch in Google Scholar
[14] Thomsen R, Christensen MH. MolDock: a new technique for high-accuracy molecular docking. J Med Chem 2006;49:3315–21.10.1021/jm051197eSearch in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
