4.5 Article

Molecular docking study of natural alkaloids as multi-targeted hedgehog pathway inhibitors in cancer stem cell therapy

期刊

COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 62, 期 -, 页码 145-154

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2015.08.001

关键词

Resistance; Cancer stem cell; Single hit; Network model; Hedgehog; Multitarget

资金

  1. UGC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cancer is responsible for millions of deaths throughout the world every year. Increased understanding as well as advancements in the therapeutic aspect seems suboptimal to restrict the huge deaths associated with cancer. The major cause responsible for this is high resistance as well as relapse rate associated with cancers. Several evidences indicated that cancer stem cells (CSC) are mainly responsible for the resistance and relapses associated with cancer. Furthermore, agents targeting a single protein seem to have higher chances of resistance than multitargeting drugs. According to the concept of network model, partial inhibition of multiple targets is more productive than single hit agents. Thus, by fusing both the premises that CSC and single hit anticancer drugs, both are responsible for cancer related resistances and screened alkaloids for the search of leads having CSC targeting ability as well as the capability to modulating multiple target proteins. The in silica experimental data indicated that emetine and cortistatin have the ability to modulate hedgehog (Hh) pathway by binding to sonic hedgehog (Hh), smoothened (Smo) and Gli protein, involved in maintenance CSCs. Furthermore, solamargine, solasonine and tylophorine are also seems to be good lead molecules targeting towards CSCs by modulating Hh pathway. Except solamargine and solasonine, other best lead molecules also showed acceptable in silica ADME profile. The predicted lead molecules can be suitably modified to get multitargeting CSC targeting agent to get rid of associate resistances. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据