Targeting Epithelial to Mesenchymal Transition in Breast Cancer with Bioactive Compounds derived from Solanum surattense: A GC-MS and Molecular Docking approach

 

Nagesh Kishan Panchal, Jerine Peter S, Chandrayee Sil, Pratiksha Chhetri, Evan Prince Sabina*

Department of Biomedical Sciences, School of Biosciences and Technology, Vellore Institute of Technology Vellore, India.

*Corresponding Author E-mail: eps674@gmail.com

 

ABSTRACT:

The epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) has been associated with the invasion and migration of tumor cells, thus playing a fundamental role in cancer progression and metastasis. Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease, which has been regarded as one of the leading causes of death amongst women globally. The initiation of EMT in breast cancer embraces the involvement of multiple signaling pathways. The involvement of a few factors present in EMT has left a prominent impact on shaping breast cancer development. Solanum surattense, belonging to the family Solanaceae, possesses numerous therapeutic properties due to the presence of several substances. In this study, we focused on major key players genes in promoting EMT, which increases the severity of cancer. Using GC/MS analysis, the active compounds from Solanum surattense were predicted. Molecular docking studies for this extracted active compounds were performed against the genes responsible for EMT using the PatchDock server. The docked complexes were then visualized using PyMOL. Results obtained from the molecular docking showed the inhibitory effect against the EMT pathway, thus inhibiting breast cancer progression.

 

KEYWORDS: In-silico, EMT, breast cancer, Solanum surattense, molecular docking.

 

 


1. INTRODUCTION:

Breast cancer is the common cause of cancerous death amongst women globally. It is a heterogeneous disease that is characterized by a high grade of cell plasticity arising from the involvement of a diverse range of factors. However, when we talk about breast cancer, we refer to diverse tumors with different histological forms, molecular variations, presentation, and distinct clinical outcomes1. According to the most recent classification, breast cancer can be subdivided into 5 categories luminal A, luminal B, HER-2, basal-like, and claudin-low2–5. Recent progress in understanding the importance of various molecular mechanism underlying breast cancer have clarified the role of various genes, kinases, and transcriptional factors in causing the epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT)6.

 

The EMT is a complex process where epithelial cells gain a mesenchymal phenotype and motility through a cascade of biological events. EMT is divided into three major types; Type 1: which relates to embryogenesis, gastrulation, and neural crest formation; Type 2: involves tissue regeneration and wound healing; Type3: is associated with malignancy, invasion, and metastasis7–10. According to a survey, 90% of deaths in breast cancer are due to invasion, and metastasis, which are two major features of EMT11. The EMT and stem cell-like features have been linked with each other and are also associated with gaining therapeutic resistance12,13. Cancer stem cells have self-renewal and tumor-initiating capabilities, which is one of the important factors involved in the metastasis of breast cancer. Many transcriptional factors play a vital role during the de-differentiation of cancer cells. They are responsible for inducing EMT through transcriptional control of E-cadherin along with SNAIL1/2, ZEB1/2, TWIST1/2, FOXC1/2, TCF3, and various other factors. Amongst them, SNAIL and TWIST are able alone, if activated, to induce an EMT14,15. Moreover, these genes are overexpressed in EMT, as many studies have been carried out. Plants have been a vital source of medicine for millions of years, 25% of the world's medicines used are today are majorly based on plants. Solanum surattense is one of the potent plant effective against several diseases16,17. This plant is commonly known as Kantakari as it’s rich in several phenolic, flavonoids, alkaloids, sterols, saponins, glycosides, tannins, amino acids, and carbohydrates. Therefore in this study, we explored the inhibitory response of bioactive compounds derived from Solanum surattense against the EMT causing genes such as TWIST1/2, ZEB1, FOXC2, SNAIL1, and MMP3 using the molecular docking approach.

 

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS:

2.1 Identification and collection of the plant:

The plant Solanum surattense was obtained from the Salt Lake region, Kolkata, and authenticated by Plant Anatomy Research Center Chennai (Reg no: PARC/2020/4282). After authentication, the plant was subjected to air-drying under shade.  Once the drying process was completed, the leaves were ground into a fine powder for further analysis.

 

2.2 Identification of plant  active compounds:

After the fine grounding of Solanum surattense leaves, using mortar and pestle, they were subjected to GC-MS analysis respectively.

 

2.3 Protein 3D Structures:

3D structures of Twist1 (PDB id: 2MJV), Foxc2 (PDB id: 6AKO), Snail1 (PDB id: 3W5K), MMP3 (PDB id: 4G9L), Zeb2 (PDB id: 2DA7) for analysis was retrieved from RCSB PDB database (https://www.rcsb.org/) (Figure 1).    

 

 

2.4 Molecular Modeling of 3D protein structure:

As the 3D structure of TWIST2 was not available, we modeled it using the I-TASSER server (https://zhanglab.ccmb.med.umich.edu/I-TASSER/) as shown in (Figure 1). A quality check for the modeled structure was performed using the Rampage server.


 


 

Figure 1: Protein 3D structures of A) TWIST1, FOXC2, SNAIL1, MMP3, ZEB2; B) Modeled–TWIST2

 

Figure 2: Bioactive compounds derived from Solanum surattense leaves using GC-MS


 

2.5 ADME analysis:

All the active compounds were subjected to Lipinski’s rule of 5 and the ADME check-in SwissADME server. Compounds following Lipinski’s rule of 5 and ADME check were further taken for molecular docking analysis.

 

2.6 Molecular Docking Analysis:

The ligand and receptor were subjected to a Patch-Dock server, which is an online molecular docking server. The results obtained from the server consist of the score, area and atomic contact energy (ACE) of the docked compounds with the highest score were noted. Molecular docking of the complexes obtained from the Patch-Dock server was visualized using PyMol.

 

3. RESULTS:

3.1. Bioactive compounds isolated from Solanum surattense:

Gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy examination of the powdered leaves of Solanum surattense was performed. After GC-MS profiling 39 bioactive compounds were reported from leaves (Figure 2). Active compounds obtained after GCMS analysis were subjected for ADME check to the SwissADME server. Compounds following the ADME check were further considered for molecular docking studies.

 

3.2 Molecular docking analysis:

3.2.1 Molecular docking of ZEB2:

Molecular docking analysis of ZEB2 was performed with active compounds derived from Solanum surattense leaves. Results were obtained after the molecular docking study are shown in (Figure 3) (Table 1).

 

3.2.2 Molecular docking of TWIST1:

Molecular docking analysis of TWIST1 was performed with active compounds derived from Solanum surattense leaves. Results were obtained after the molecular docking study are shown in (Figure 4) (Table 2).

 

2.2.1.         Molecular docking of MMP3:

Molecular docking analysis of MMP3 was performed with active compounds derived from Solanum surattense leaves. Results were obtained after the molecular docking study are shown in (Figure 5) (Table 3)


 

 

Figure 3: Molecular Docking of ZEB2 A) Aspidospermidin-17-ol; B) Tetradecanoic Acid; C) 1,3-Bis-T-butylperoxy-Phthalan;
D)
11-Eicosenoic Acid, Trimethylsilyl Ester; E) 4-Dimethyl(Phenyl)Silyloxypenta; F) 3,6-Methano-8h-1,5,7- Trioxacyclopenta[Ij]Cyclopro;
G)
Decanoic Acid, 10-Fluoro-, Trimethylsilyl Ester; H) 2-Methyl-3-Decanol; I) 4-Heptanol, 2-Methyl;
J) Bicyclo[3.2.1]Oct-3-En-2-One, 3,8-Dihydroxy; K) Di-N-Propylmalonic Acid; L) D,L-Xylitol, 1-O-Undec-10-Enoyl;
M)
Heptanedioic Acid, Bis(Trimethylsilyl) Ester; N) N-(5-Chloro-2-Hydroxyphenyl)Dodecanamide;
O)
4-Fluoro-1-Methyl-5-Carboxylic Acid, Ethyl(Ester); P) Cyclopropanetetradecanoic Acid, 2-Octyl-,Methyl;
Q)
Cyclopentadecanone, Oxime; R) 4- (Trimethylsilylmethyl)Benzoylcyclopentane.

Table 1: Docking Results of ZEB2

Ligand

Score

Area

ACE

Interactions

Residue

Bonds

Aspidospermidin-17-ol

4220

509.8

-214.10

Lys14, Ser18

2.7, 2.6, 2.0

Tetradecanoic Acid

3372

414.70

-69.45

Gly-71

2.6

1,3-Bis-T-Butylperoxy-Phthalan

3870

493.60

-100.85

Gln-60

2.2

11-Eicosenoic Acid, Trimethylsilyl Ester

4950

693.40

-204.36

Tyr-24

3.2

4-Dimethyl(Phenyl)Silyloxypenta

4224

461.70

-102.55

Gln-60 ,Arg-56

2.9 ,3.2

3,6-Methano-8h-1,5,7- Trioxacyclopenta[Ij]Cyclopro

2530

268.40

-56.77

Tyr-24,Arg-56

3.1,2.4

Decanoic Acid, 10-Fluoro-, Trimethylsilyl Ester

3146

416.20

-88.19

Gln-60

2.9

2-Methyl-3-Decanol

2736

301.70

-23.77

Arg-56

2.7,2.4

4-Heptanol, 2-Methyl-

2738

282.80

-42.80

Arg-56

2.6

Bicyclo[3.2.1]Oct-3-En-2-One, 3,8-Dihydroxy

3934

484.60

-122.32

Gln-60,Arg-56, Ser-64

3.3,2.2,2.7

Di-N-Propylmalonic Acid

2280

257.40

21.63

Lys-50

2.9

D,L-Xylitol, 1-O-Undec-10-Enoyl-

4044

461.00

-87.68

Tyr-24,Arg-56

3.1,2.4

Heptanedioic Acid, Bis(Trimethylsilyl) Ester

3614

448.10

-164.76

Ser-69,Ser-70

3.4,3.3

N-(5-Chloro-2-Hydroxyphenyl)Dodecanamide

3474

387.40

-50.69

Arg-56

2.8,3.3

4-Fluoro-1-Methyl-5-Carboxylic Acid,Ethyl(Ester)

2664

295.70

-58.77

Ser-64,Arg-56

2.3,3.3

Cyclopropanetetradecanoic Acid, 2-Octyl-,Methy

5294

713.30

-224.36

Asn-63

2.7,3.4

Cyclopentadecanone, Oxime

3108

350.40

-102.88

Lys-21

1.9

4- (Trimethylsilylmethyl)Benzoylcyclopentane

3488

413.40

-87.92

Arg-56,Trp-52

3.6,3.3

 

Figure 4: Molecular Docking of TWIST1 A) Aspidospermidin-17-ol; B) 1,3-Bis-T-butylperoxy-Phthalan; C) Androstane-11,17-Dione, 3-[(Trimethylsilyl)Oxy]; D) 4-Dimethyl(Phenyl)Silyloxypenta; E) 1- Heptyn-4-Ol; F) D,L- Xylitol; G) Emylcamate; H) n-(5-chloro-2-hydroxyphenyl)dodecanamide -; I) 4-Fluoro-1-Methyl-5-Carboxylic Acid, Ethyl(Ester); J) Cyclopentadecanone,oxime; K) 4- Heptanol;

 

Table 2: Docking Results of TWIST1

Ligand

Score

Area

ACE

Interactions

Residue

Bonds

Aspidospermidin-17-ol

3814

409.60

-1.01

Ala343, Lys349

3.5, 2.9

1,3-Bis-T-butylperoxy-Phthalan

3616

482.60

-100.99

Ala343

3.2, 2.4

Androstane-11,17-Dione, 3-[(Trimethylsilyl)Oxy];

3530

419.10

-33.58

Gln339

2.5

4-Dimethyl(Phenyl)Silyloxypenta

3660

401.10

-68.30

His341, Ser338, Asp459

2.0, 3.4, 2.4, 2.8

1- Heptyn-4-Ol

2112

461.70

-102.55

Gln60, Arg56

2.9, 3.2

D,L- Xylitol, 1-O-Undec-10-Enoyl

3574

399.70

-134.05

Tyr448, Asp389

3.1, 3.1

Emylcamate

1978

202.60

-5.91

Asp448

2.0

n-(5-chloro-2-hydroxyphenyl)dodecanamide

3474

415.30

-44.33

Asp459

1.8

4- Fluoro-1-Methyl5-Carboxylic Acid, Ethyl(Ester)

2454

285.10

-17.02

Lys368

3.2

Cyclopentadecanone,oxime

3206

331.70

-26.14

Ser338

2.1

4- Heptanol

2356

256.00

-34.53

Lys349,Asp459

2.2,2.6

 

Figure 5: Molecular Docking of MMP3 A) Aspidospermidin-17-ol; B) Tetradecanoic Acid; C) 1,3-Bis-T-butylperoxy-Phthalan; D) Androstane-11,17-Dione,3-[(Trimethylsilyl)Oxy]-, 17; E) 4-Dimethyl(Phenyl)Silyloxypenta; F) 3,6-Methano-8h-1,5,7- Trioxacyclopenta[Ij]Cyclopro; G) 9-Octadecenoic Acid, (2-Phenyl-1,3-Dioxolan-4-Yl)Methyl; H) 2-Methyl-3-Decanol; I) Bicyclo[3.2.1]Oct-3-En-2-One, 3,8-Dihydroxy; J) Di-N-Propylmalonic Acid; K) D,L-Xylitol, 1-O-Undec-10-Enoyl; L) Emylcamate; M) ) N-(5-Chloro-2-Hydroxyphenyl)Dodecanamide; N) 4-Fluoro-1-Methyl-5-Carboxylic Acid, Ethyl(Ester); O) 4- (Trimethylsilylmethyl)Benzoylcyclopentane ; P) 4- Heptanol;

 

 

Figure 6: Molecular Docking Of SNAIL1 A) Aspidospermidin-17-Ol; B) 1,3-Bis-T-Butylperoxy-Phthalan; C) Androstane-11,17-Dione,3-[(Trimethylsilyl)Oxy]-, 17;D) 11-Eicosenoic Acid, Trimethylsilyl Ester; E) 4-Dimethyl(Phenyl)Silyloxypenta; F) 3,6-Methano-8h-1,5,7- Trioxacyclopenta[Ij]Cyclopro; G) 9-Octadecenoic Acid, (2-Phenyl-1,3-Dioxolan-4-Yl)Methyl; H) Decanoicacid,10-Fluoro-,Trimethylsilylester; I) Bicyclo[3.2.1]Oct-3-En-2-One, 3,8-Dihydroxy; J) 1-Heptyn-4-Ol; K) Di-N-Propylmalonic Acid; L) D,L-Xylitol, 1-O-Undec-10-Enoyl; M)  N-(5-Chloro-2-Hydroxyphenyl)Dodecanamide; N) Cyclopentadecanone,Oxime; O) 4- (Trimethylsilylmethyl)Benzoylcyclopentane; P) 4- Heptanol;


3.2.4. Molecular docking of SNAIL1

Molecular docking analysis of SNAIL1 was performed with active compounds derived from Solanum surattense leaves. Results were obtained after the molecular docking study are shown in (Figure 6) (Table 4).


 

Table 3: Docking Results of MMP3

Ligand

Score

Area

ACE

Interactions

Residue

Bonds

Aspidospermidin-17-ol

4352

510.30

-209.55

Ala165,His224,

3.0,2.4

Tetradecanoic Acid

4012

487.50

-92.95

Arg93

2.5

1,3-Bis-T-Butylperoxy-Phthalan

4144

468.30

-97.08

Lys119

3.4

Androstane-11,17-Dione, 3-[(Trimethylsilyl)Oxy]

5040

606.20

-265.93

Asn194

3.2

4-Dimethyl(Phenyl)Silyloxypenta

4208

475.10

-184.75

Ala165,Leu164

2.4,2.1

3,6-Methano-8h-1,5,7- trioxacyclopenta[Ij]Cyclopro

3364

342.90

-133.79

His201,His224,Tyr223

2.8,3.1,2.3

9-Octadecenoic Acid, (2-Phenyl-1,3-Dioxolan-4-Yl)Methyl

5182

619.80

-227.76

Ala167

3.2

2-Methyl-3-Decanol

3434

357.40

-95.54

Tyr223

2.4

Di-N-Propylmalonic Acid

2968

312.90

-84.53

Leu164,Tyr223

2.7,3.1,3.2

D,L- Xylitol, 1-O-Undec-10-Enoyl

4166

494.60

-79.25

Glu126

2.7

Emylcamate

2730

278.50

-70.39

His201

3.2

n-(5-chloro-2-hydroxyphenyl)dodecanamide

3988

453.50

-190.32

Tyr223

3.0

4- Fluoro-1-Methyl5-Carboxylic Acid, Ethyl(Ester)

2782

315.30

-59.00

Ala163,Leu164,His201,His211

3.0,3.2,3.5,2.4

4- (Trimethylsilylmethyl)Benzoylcyclopentane

4004

463.60

-173.61

His211

3.2

4- Heptanol

2598

261.20

-49.85

Glu202,His205,His201,His211

2.6,3.2,2.5,3.4

 

Table 4: Docking Results of SNAIL1

Ligand

Score

Area

ACE

Interactions

Residue

Bonds

Aspidospermidin-17-ol

5600

627.10

58.64

Ser190

2.5,2.7

1,3-Bis-T-Butylperoxy-Phthalan

4972

580.90

27.55

Arg264,Lys346

3.4,3.3

Androstane-11,17-Dione, 3-[(Trimethylsilyl)Oxy]

5784

633.50

4.21

Lys170,Ser476,Lys537

2.9,3.5,3.1

11-Eicosenoic Acid, Trimethylsilyl Ester

7022

915.00

-129.03

Arg172

2.3

4-Dimethyl(Phenyl)Silyloxypenta

5418

613.10

-240.23

Gln228

3.5

3,6-Methano-8h-1,5,7- trioxacyclopenta[Ij]Cyclopro

4038

479.30

-113.41

Arg434

2.4

9-Octadecenoic Acid, (2-Phenyl-1,3-Dioxolan-4-Yl)Methyl

7014

772.10

-32.84

Arg174

2.3

Decanoicacid,10-Fluoro-,Trimethylsilylester

4796

584.10

-52.04

Arg434

3.5

1-Heptyn-4-Ol

3068

359.70

-10.85

Arg264

2.3

Di-N-Propylmalonic Acid

3732

426.00

-41.11

Arg434,lys253

3.2,2.5

D,L- Xylitol, 1-O-Undec-10-Enoyl

5476

584.60

-119.07

Ser246,Glu281,Gln278,Gln239

2.5,1.9,3.5,3.2

n-(5-chloro-2-hydroxyphenyl)dodecanamide

5280

586.50

-141.56

Lys234

2.9

Cyclopentadecanone,Oxime

4388

572.30

26.00

Ser476,Lys170

3.2,2.1

4- (Trimethylsilylmethyl)Benzoylcyclopentane

4988

572.30

-98.30

Ser257

2.3

4- Heptanol

3218

365.40

7.93

Arg264

2.3

 

 

 

A)

B)

Figure 7: Molecular Docking of FOXC2 and TWIST2 respectively :: a) A) Tetradecanoic Acid ; B) 1,3-Bis-T-Butylperoxy-Phthalan; C) Androstane-11,17-Dione,3-[(Trimethylsilyl)Oxy]-, 17;D) 11-Eicosenoic Acid, Trimethylsilyl Ester; E) 4-Dimethyl(Phenyl)Silyloxypenta; F) 3,6-Methano-8h-1,5,7- Trioxacyclopenta[Ij]Cyclopro; G) 9-Octadecenoic Acid, (2-Phenyl-1,3-Dioxolan-4-Yl)Methyl; H) Decanoicacid,10-Fluoro-,Trimethylsilylester; I) Bicyclo[3.2.1]Oct-3-En-2-One, 3,8-Dihydroxy; J) 1-Heptyn-4-Ol; K) Di-N-Propylmalonic Acid; L) D,L-Xylitol, 1-O-Undec-10-Enoyl; M) Emylcamate; N) N-(5-Chloro-2-Hydroxyphenyl)Dodecanamide; O) Cyclopentadecanone, Oxime; P) 4- (Trimethylsilylmethyl)Benzoylcyclopentane ; Q) 4- Heptanol :: b) A) 1,3-Bis-T-Butylperoxy-Phthalan; B) 3,6-Methano-8h-1,5,7- Trioxacyclopenta[Ij]Cyclopro; C) 4-Heptanol, 2-Methyl ; D) D,L-Xylitol, 1-O-Undec-10-Enoyl; E) Emylcamate; F) Heptanedioic Acid, Bis(Trimethylsilyl) Ester

Table 5: Docking Results of FOXC2 and TWIST2

Ligand

Score

Area

ACE

Interactions

Residue

Bonds

FOXC2

Tetradecanoic Acid

3484

392.10

-65.22

Lys92, Tyr145, Thr94

2.9,3.1,3.5

1,3-Bis-T-Butylperoxy-Phthalan

3916

409.50

-111.59

Thr94

3.5

Androstane-11,17-Dione, 3-[(Trimethylsilyl)Oxy]

3842

442.00

-56.07

Arg164

3.0

11-Eicosenoic Acid, Trimethylsilyl Ester

4216

553.90

-63.56

Thr94

3.0

4-Dimethyl(Phenyl)Silyloxypenta

3898

407.00

-177.79

Pro140, Gly97, Asn87

2.8,3.1,2.2

3,6-Methano-8h-1,5,7- trioxacyclopenta[Ij]Cyclopro

2570

281.40

-120.41

Lys132

2.9

9-Octadecenoic Acid, (2-Phenyl-1,3-Dioxolan-4-Yl)Methyl

4820

531.60

-117.10

Tyr145,Thr94

3.5,3.1

Decanoicacid,10-Fluoro-,Trimethylsilylester

3304

376.80

-45.71

Glu128,Cys129

3.1,2.9

1-Heptyn-4-Ol

2326

253.20

-77.21

Lys132

3.3

Di-N-Propylmalonic Acid

2522

266.40

-11.70

Arg164,Ser152,Arg166

3.4,2.9,3.1

D,L- Xylitol, 1-O-Undec-10-Enoyl

3820

516.60

-9.66

Arg165

2.8

Emylcamate

2066

224.00

-89.62

Asn-127

1.8

n-(5-chloro-2-hydroxyphenyl)dodecanamide

3494

362.90

-144.25

Thr94,Asn96

3.5,2.5

Cyclopentadecanone,Oxime

3250

404.20

-29.39

Ser152,Arg164

3.5,2.5,2.8

4- (Trimethylsilylmethyl)Benzoylcyclopentane

3424

434.00

-27.39

Arg165

3.1

4- Heptanol

2346

244.40

-61.03

Lys

3.3.

TWIST2

1,3-Bis-T-Butylperoxy-Phthalan

3880

476.80

-75.43

Arg112

2.0

3,6-Methano-8h-1,5,7- Trioxacyclopenta[Ij]Cyclopro

2984

363.50

-50.19

Thr95,Ser98,Arg112

3.4,3.2,3.2

4-Heptanol, 2-Methyl

3240

4.7.90

-70.89

Ser98

2.8

D,L-Xylitol, 1-O-Undec-10-Enoyl

4114

533.60

-115.30

Ile93

2.7

Emylcamate

2148

274.20

-52.17

Thr95

2.7

Heptanedioic Acid, Bis(Trimethylsilyl) Ester

3620

485.50

-119.21

Thr95

3.5

 


3.2.5 Molecular docking of FOXC2 and TWIST2:

Molecular docking analysis of FOXC2 and TWIST2 was performed with active compounds derived from Solanum surattense leaves. Results were obtained after molecular docking study are shown in (Figure 7) (Table 5)

 

4. DISCUSSION:

There is growing evidence for plant-derived active compounds as potential inhibitors in several stages of cancers. EMT results in the invasion of cells into the bloodstream11,12. Following the aforementioned literature related to Solanum surattense leaves extracts has shown promising effects against several diseases16,18. The Solanum surattense and Solanum nigrum belong to the same genus. Solanum nigrum has demonstrated antitumor effects in various types of cancer, which include breast cancer, cervical cancer colorectal, and several others18,19. Therefore here we evaluate the anticancer activity of Solanum surattense using GC-MS and molecular docking20–22. In the present study, the active compounds derived from Solanum surattense were examined against the EMT causing genes, which ultimately leads to the spread of breast cancer. Here, we focused on the major key player of EMT, causing genes like TWIST1/2, ZEB1, FOXC2, SNAIL1, and MMP3. Molecular docking of active compounds such as  Tetradecanoic Acid, 1,3-Bis-T-Butylperoxy-Phthalan, Androstane-11,17-Dione,3-[(Trimethylsilyl)Oxy]-, 17, 11-Eicosenoic Acid, Trimethylsilyl Ester, 4-Dimethyl(Phenyl)Silyloxypenta, 3,6-Methano-8h-1,5,7- Trioxacyclopenta[Ij]Cyclopro, 9-Octadecenoic Acid, (2-Phenyl-1,3-Dioxolan-4-Yl)Methyl, Decanoicacid,10-Fluoro-, Trimethylsilylester, Bicyclo[3.2.1]Oct-3-En-2-One, 3,8-Dihydroxy, 1-Heptyn-4-Ol, Di-N-Propylmalonic Acid,  D, L-Xylitol, 1-O-Undec-10-Enoyl, Emylcamate, N-(5-Chloro-2-Hydroxyphenyl)Dodecanamide, Cyclopentadecanone, Oxime,4-(Trimethylsilylmethyl) Benzoylcyclopentane, 4- Heptanol with the TWIST1/2, ZEB1, FOXC2, SNAIL1, and MMP3 has shown interactions respectively as shown in above figures and tables. The result obtained from molecular docking studies clearly shows that the aforementioned active compounds show interaction with EMT makers and can act as potent inhibitors. Further, in future in-vitro and in-vivo studies might help to evaluate the effective concentration of the compounds by administrating it to an animal model. Therefore the active compounds extracted from Solanum nigrum can serve as one of the better medicinal options in treating EMT in breast cancer.

 

5. CONCLUSION:

Breast cancer is a common type of cancer amongst the female population globally. EMT in breast cancer makes it difficult for the treatment. Although there are many therapeutic options for treating, these results are not satisfactory. The compounds namely 1,3-Bis-t-butyl peroxy-phthalan, 3,6-Methano-8h-1,5,7- trioxacyclopenta, D,L-Xylitol, 1-o-undec-10-enoyl showed high affinity and best interaction with all the receptors TWIST1, TWIST2, FOX C2, SNAIL1, MMP3, and ZEB2 with many hydrogen bonds, which will have a beneficial effect against the EMT pathway and thus can inhibit breast cancer. Therefore from this study, we conclude that these mentioned active compounds and be used as therapeutic options against EMT. Molecular dynamic simulations studies along with in-vitro and in-vivo studies need to be performed for further development and understanding.

 

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

We would like to thank VIT for giving us the opportunity to work and giving us all the necessary resources to successfully carry out this work.

 

7. DISCLOSURE:

Authors declare that they do not have any conflicts of interest.

 

8. REFERENCES :

1.   Jayashree V. Breast Cancer and various Prognostic Biomarkers for the diagnosis of the disease : A Review. 2017;10:3211–6.

2.   Prat A, Parker JS, Karginova O, Fan C, Livasy C, Herschkowitz JI, He X, Perou CM. Phenotypic and molecular characterization of the claudin-low intrinsic subtype of  breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2010;12:R68.

3.   Patidar A, Shivhare SC, Ateneriya U, Choudhary S. A Comprehensive Review on Breast Cancer . 2012;2:28–32.

4.   Francis AM, Ramya R, Ganesan N, Kumarasamy P, Paul SFD, Munirajan AK, Roobini J. Analysis of BRCA1 gene exon 2 mutation in breast cancer patients in a South Indian population. 2018;11:4592–6.

5.   Jabir FA, Hamzah SK. SOX17 and RASSAF1A Promoters Methylation in Circulation Tumor Cell and Cell Free DNA Isolated from Plasma in Breast Cancer Iraqi Women Patients. 2018;11:2000–5.

6.   Dange VN, Shid SJ, Magdum CS, Mohite SK. A Review on Breast cancer : An Overview. 2017;7:49–51.

7.   Micalizzi DS, Ford HL. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition in development and cancer. Future Oncol 2009;5:1129–43.

8.   Taube JH, Herschkowitz JI, Komurov K, Zhou AY, Gupta S, Yang J, Hartwell K, Onder TT, Gupta PB, Evans KW, Hollier BG, Ram PT, et al. Core epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition interactome gene-expression signature is  associated with claudin-low and metaplastic breast cancer subtypes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010;107:15449–54.

9.   Hinz N, Jücker M. Distinct functions of AKT isoforms in breast cancer: a comprehensive review. Cell Commun Signal 2019;17:1–29.

10.           Hemalatha K, Girija K. Evaluation of Drug Candidature of some Benzimidazole Derivatives as Biotin Carboxylase Inhibitors : Molecular docking and Insilico studies. 2016;6:15–20.

11.           Felipe Lima J, Nofech-Mozes S, Bayani J, Bartlett JMS. EMT in Breast Carcinoma-A Review. J Clin Med 2016;5.

12.           Mani SA, Guo W, Liao M-J, Eaton EN, Ayyanan A, Zhou AY, Brooks M, Reinhard F, Zhang CC, Shipitsin M, Campbell LL, Polyak K, et al. The epithelial-mesenchymal transition generates cells with properties of stem cells. Cell 2008;133:704–15.

13.           Morel A-P, Lièvre M, Thomas C, Hinkal G, Ansieau S, Puisieux A. Generation of breast cancer stem cells through epithelial-mesenchymal transition. PLoS One 2008;3:e2888.

14.           Garg M. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition - activating transcription factors - multifunctional regulators in cancer. World J Stem Cells [Internet] 2013;5:188–95. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24179606

15.           Chelamalla R, Makula A. Molecular docking studies and ADMET Predictions of Pyrimidine Coumarin Scaffolds as Potential IDO Inhibitors. 2017;10:331–40.

16.           Muruhan S, Selvaraj S, Viswanathan PK. In vitro antioxidant activities of Solanum surattense leaf extract. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed [Internet] 2013;3:28–34. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23570013

17.           Shankari B, Rambabu M, Jayanthi S. Claudin-7 Inhibitors for Colon Cancer : A Computational Approach. 2018;11:3415–8.

18.           Ahmed MM, Andleeb S, Saqib F, Hussain M, Khatun MN, Ch BA, Rahman H. Diuretic and serum electrolyte regulation potential of aqueous methanolic extract of Solanum surattense fruit validates its folkloric use in dysuria. BMC Complement Altern Med [Internet] 2016;16:166. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27255699

19.           Lai Y-J, Tai C-J, Wang C-W, Choong C-Y, Lee B-H, Shi Y-C, Tai C-J. Anti-Cancer Activity of Solanum nigrum (AESN) through Suppression of Mitochondrial Function and Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition (EMT) in Breast Cancer Cells. Molecules [Internet] 2016;21:553. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27136519

20.           Zadorozhnii P V, Pokotylo IO, Kiselev V V, Okhtina O V, Kharchenko A V. Molecular Docking Studies of N - ((( 5-Aryl-1 , 3 , 4-oxadiazol-2- yl ) amino ) ethyl ) carboxamides as Potential Inhibitors of GSK-3 β. 2019;12:523–30.

21.           Hardjono S, Widiandani T, Purwanto BT, Nasyanka AL. Molecular Docking of N -benzoyl- N ’ - ( 4-fluorophenyl ) thiourea Derivatives as Anticancer Drug Candidate and Their ADMET prediction. 2019;12:2160–6.

22.           Khdar ZA, Sliman F, Kousara M. Design and In-Silico ADMET Analysis of new Benzopyrane-derived Pim-1 Inhibitors: 2019;12:5413–23.

 

 

 

 

Received on 15.10.2020             Modified on 18.06.2021

Accepted on 23.11.2021           © RJPT All right reserved

Research J. Pharm. and Tech 2022; 15(12):5637-5644.

DOI: 10.52711/0974-360X.2022.00951