Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Aug 30;18(8):e0290576. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290576

A computational approach to fighting type 1 diabetes by targeting 2C Coxsackie B virus protein with flavonoids

Shahid Ullah 1,*,#, Zilong Zheng 2,#, Wajeeha Rahman 1, Farhan Ullah 1, Anees Ullah 1, Muhammad Nasir Iqbal 3, Naveed Iqbal 3, Tianshun Gao 2,*
Editor: Erman Salih Istifli4
PMCID: PMC10468086  PMID: 37647325

Abstract

Autoimmune diabetes, well-known as type 1 insulin-dependent diabetic mellitus (T1D). T1D is a prolonged condition marked by an inadequate supply of insulin. The lack is brought on by pancreatic cell death and results in hyperglycemia. The immune system, genetic predisposition, and environmental variables are just a few of the many elements that contribute significantly to the pathogenicity of T1D disease. In this study, we test flavonoids against Coxsackie virus protein to cope the type 1 diabetes. After protein target identification we perform molecular docking of flavonoids and selected target (1z8r). then performed the ADMET analysis and select the top compound the base of the docking score and the ADMET test analysis. Following that molecular dynamics simulation was performed up to 300 ns. Root means square deviation, root mean square fluctuation, secondary structure elements, and protein-ligand contacts were calculated as post-analysis of simulation. We further check the binding of the ligand with protein by performing MM-GBSA every 10 ns. Lead compound CID_5280445 was chosen as a possible medication based on analysis. The substance is non-toxic, meets the ADMET and BBB likeness requirements, and has the best interaction energy. This work will assist researchers in developing medicine and testing it as a treatment for Diabetes Mellitus Type 1 brought on by Coxsackie B4 viruses by giving them an understanding of chemicals against these viruses.

Introduction

People with diabetes type 1 have abnormally high blood glucose levels because their systems are unable to manufacture insulin, a hormone that causes the condition. This occurs because the body strikes the tissues that produce insulin in the pancreas, inhibiting it from making insulin in the pancreas, preventing it from making the type of insulin at all. To keep alive, we all need insulin. It serves an important purpose. It allows blood sugar to enter our cells, supplying energy to our bodies. Even if a person develops type 1 diabetes, the body keeps converting carbs from food and beverages into sugar. While glucose flow into the blood, however, there is insufficient insulin to allow it to get stored in the body [1,2]. T1D can manifest itself at any maturity, causing it one of the highly prevalent chronic illnesses in children. Adult-onset type 1 diabetes is more frequent than T1D in childhood and might be misdiagnosed as type 2 diabetes. T1D, which affects 5% to 10% of individuals with diabetes, has progressively grown in incidence and prevalence. A methodical study and extensive analysis found that the frequency of T1D was Fifteen per 100 thousand people, with a global prevalence of 9.5%. Furthermore, there is a large geographical variation in prevalence across the world. Finland and similar Northern European nations have the most reported cases, with rates around 400 times greater than China and Venezuela, which have the lowest known incidences [35].

Coxsackievirus B (CVB) is a member of the enterovirus kinds most likely to migrate from the mucous membrane of the intestines to the pancreas in the etiology of diabetes type 1 Mellitus. (T1DM). In the United States, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia, a couple of research studies comprising 4,448 and 5,921 individuals, each, verified the importance of the connection between the detection of infection with enteroviral evidence in various human tissue specimens and the likelihood of acquiring islet autoimmunity or T1DM [6,7]. In Type 1 diabetes, a postponed, progressive autoimmune development that may extend for years prior to the onset of apparent illness culminates in selective beta-cell dysfunction [8,9].

CVBs can infect human beta-cells since they are cytolytic viruses. The enterovirus family, which includes the coxsackievirus, is found in the human digestive system. Hepatitis A virus, polioviruses, and hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) are all members of this enterovirus family. This virus transmits quickly from one person to another, generally by direct contact or contact with feces-contaminated surfaces. Because the virus can survive without a host for several days, propagating is very simple [1012].

In addition, 66 separate serological investigations have identified human enterovirus serotypes. Enteroviruses come in four main varieties. These groups comprise Coxsackie A and B viruses, polioviruses, and echoviruses. The biological characteristics of these classes coincide while being distinct classes. There may be a link between Coxsackie viruses and type 1 diabetes. It has been believed that this theory exists for over 40 years. The nature of this relationship did not, however, support it. Animal models were employed to verify this connection [13]. This viral RNA has been found in the bloodstream of more than fifty percent of T1D affected at the moment of illness start, according to epidemiological data, which revealed a rise in the prevalence of the condition after enterovirus epidemics [14]. These models highlighted the association between T1D and enteroviruses.

A few of the Coxsackie virus B4 isolates from affected with type 1 diabetes with acute onset have been shown to produce diabetes in mice. There are several potential methods by which enteroviruses may initiate or quicken the degenerative processes most important to medical type 1 diabetes. Several enterovirus strains can reproduce in cultured human islet cells, inhibit insulin production, and, in rare instances, result in cell death [15,16].

Coxsackievirus B (CVB) serotypes may have a function in the etiology of type 1 diabetes, according to epidemiological research, although their precise involvement is yet unknown. We have anticipated a CVB1 drug from flavonoids in the current work. Natural remedies are gradually becoming more and more popular because they don’t have any negative side effects in the treatment of brain disorders all over the world. These compounds play a large variety of roles in biological processes. Flavonoids, a class of low molecular weight phenolic compounds, are becoming more and more well-liked due to their wide range of health advantages, their ability to exert a variety of biological properties, including protection from neurological diseases, and their use in nutraceutical, pharmaceutical, medicinal, and cosmetic applications [17,18].

Materials and methods

Preparation of target protein structure and data for docking

Coxsackie B4virus has been detected in recent research employing PCR tests on a variety of diabetes patients. The family of picornaviruses includes coxsackie B4 viruses. These viruses are classified as small RNA viruses because they have a single positive component of RNA. Medicine should be used to address the Coxsackie B4 viral protein, which causes T1D. Coxsackie B4 virus, which kills pancreatic beta cells and causes T1D, is the target of the current in silico project, which aims to find active lead compounds against it using computational methods. The 3D configuration of the targeted protein was retrieved from RCSB PDB by using its specific PDB ID 1Z8R [19]. PDB, the online internet information portal provides access to 3D structural data of macromolecules (proteins, DNA, and RNA) [20]. MODELLER was used for loop refinement [21]. Swiss PDB Viewer [22] and RAMPAGE were used to optimize and minimize the protein crystal structure. RAMPAGE created a Ramachandran Plot that revealed no protein conflicts. The plot also shows which residues are in the favored, allowed, and outlier zones [23]. CASTp (Computed Atlas of Surface Topography of Proteins) predicted protein target binding sites. CASTp 3.0 identifies and quantifies protein topography reliably and thoroughly [24]. Docking was set up with a class of naturally occurring chemicals “flavonoids”. Flavonoids are secondary polyphenolic chemicals found in plants and are a common component of human diets. Flavonoids consist of two phenyl rings and one heterocyclic ring, totaling 15 carbon atoms. Flavonoids’ 2D structures were constructed and minimized. 37 flavonoids compounds were chosen from literature.

Molecular docking

The top 37 compounds from flavonoids were chosen after sorting and screening. Using AutoDock Vina [25], energy dissipated while binding was measured, and protein-ligand interactions were evaluated, after docking these molecules with the receptor. PyMOL [26] was used to create complex receptor and ligand files, whereas BIOVIA Discovery Studio [27] was applied to find interactions in two dimensions.

ADMET analysis

To establish the drug-likeness and toxicity characteristics of compounds, the pkCSM [28] and QikProp developed by Professor William L. Jorgensen [29] were utilized that are reported as essential and valuable tools for evaluation of important druglike descriptors like adsorption, dissemination, and breakdown, elimination, and toxicity (ADMET). These tools are also employed for predicting lead likeness concerning mutagenicity the carcinogenicity. Complete ADMET analysis results are uploaded in S1 Table.

Lead identification

Researchers employed metrics like docking score, ligand-protein interactions, partial coefficient logP, rotatable bonds, rings, Polar Surface Area (PSA), Blood-Brain Barrier, and Ames Toxicity to narrow down the pool of potential inhibitors to a manageable set. 2C Coxsackie B virus protein inhibitor was selected based on their low binding affinities, strong lead-likeness scores, and positive interactions.

MD simulation, PCA and DCCM

Schrödinger LLC’s Desmond program was used for studying 300 ns MD simulations. [30]. The first crucial stage in molecular dynamics modeling, receptor-ligand docking, gives a fixed image of a ligand’s binding location at a protein’s binding site [31]. By including Newton’s classical calculation of action, MD simulations often forecast the status of lead compounds in a biological environment. [32,33].

The Protein Preparation Wizard in Maestro was used to perform preprocessing (optimization and minimization) on the receptor-ligand complex. In this process, steric conflicts, poor contacts, and deformed geometries were eliminated. All structures were built using the System Builder tool, and the OPLS_2005 force field was utilized with the solvent model TIP3P (Intermolecular Interaction Potential 3 Points Transferable), an orthorhombic box [34]. Throughout the simulation period, 310K temperature and 1atm pressure were utilized to imitate physiological circumstances while opposite ions were added to counteract the models, and 0.15M sodium chloride was injected. The models were made looser before the simulation. For examination, frames were saved after every 50 ps, and the binding of protein-ligand was determined over time using RMSD. Using the R package "Bio3D," the principal component analysis (PCA) and dynamic cross-correlation matrix (DCCM) were examined [35]. Simulation trajectory file could be found at this given link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hpx9TGYe2nA4z9VOhvwgrvsoBV7Y8UEM/view?usp=sharing

Results and discussion

The 3D structure of the target protein (1Z8R) was obtained from Protein Data Bank. The total structure weight is 18.49 kDa. Fig 1 depicts the protein structure after loop refinement, optimization, and minimization. Ramachandran plot is shown in S1 Fig. The structure’s overall quality was 98 percent, with highly preferred observations. In the plot, all other residues are displayed as circles, while glycine is plotted as triangles and proline as squares. The orange areas are the "favored" areas, the yellow areas are the "allowed" areas, and the white areas are the "disallowed" areas. AutoDock Vina performed the docking of the top hits. ADMET (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity) study was accomplished via QikProp and pkCSM. The top 10 compounds are included in Table 1 based on ADMET and docking findings.

Fig 1. 3D structure of protein retrieved from PDB after minimization showing binding pocket.

Fig 1

Table 1. Table showing ADMET properties, binding affinity, and pharmacophore score of top compounds.

C_ID mol_MW donorHB accept QPlogPo/w QPlogHERG QPPCaco QPlogBB QPlogKhsa Binding Affinity (Kcal/mol)
5280445 286.24 3 4.5 0.941 -5.023 45.027 -1.91 -0.205 -6.6
65084 306.271 6 6.2 -0.227 -4.706 18.622 -2.415 -0.566 -6.4
5281792 360.32 5 7 1.195 -4.11 2.138 -3.442 -0.564 -6.4
440735 288.256 3 4.75 0.876 -4.633 50.253 -1.798 -0.217 -6.3
445154 228.247 3 2.25 1.976 -5.291 280.02 -1.286 -0.172 -5.8

In Table 1, mol_MW represents the molecular weight, which should be between 130.0 and 725.0, and donorHB is the projected amount of bonds that the solute would give to water molecules. accepted, the projected amount of bonds the solute would accept from water molecules in an aqueous solution can be a non-integer value with a recommended range of 0.0–6.0. This is because the value is an average across several different configurations. Given that values are calculated as an average over multiple states, they may not all be integers. It operates between 2.0 and 20.0. The Octanol/water partition coefficient, estimated to be in the range of -2.0 to 6.5, is denoted as QPlogPo/w. QPlogHER, Value of the inhibitory concentration (IC50) for the blockade of HERG K+ channels. Negative values below -5 are the cause for alarm. QPPCaco Caco-2 cell permeability prediction, expressed as several nanometers per second. The gut-blood barrier can be mimicked using Caco2 cells. The results of QikProp are for passive transport only. In the range of 0–25, consider it poor, and anything beyond 500 is excellent. QPlogBB Expected brain/blood separation ratio. Dopamine and serotonin, for instance, are CNS-negative because they are too polar to cross the blood-brain barrier, with predicted ranges of—3.0 to—1.2 when using QikProp to predict orally administered drugs. QPlogKhsa and Human serum albumin binding predictions range from -1.5 to 1.5.

Following lead identification, one compound CID: 5280445 was discovered as the most active of all compounds. Fig 2 depicts the best one’s 2D interactions. The properties of the best one are shown in Table 1. Tetrahydroxyflavone luteolin has four hydroxyl groups at positions 3’, 4’, 5, and 7 on its molecular structure. It is believed to function as a key antioxidant, free radical hunter, anti-inflammatory, immunity modulator, and active against several malignancies in the human body [36]. The optimal chemical complex with the protein target was simulated using molecular dynamics simulation for 300 ns. Desmond’s simulated trajectories were analyzed. Root-mean-square-deviation (RMSD) and root-mean-square-fluctuation (RMSF) values, as well as protein-ligand interactions, were determined using MD trajectory analysis.

Fig 2. Interactions of the lead compound with protein target showing interacting residues and length of bond (5280445_1z8r).

Fig 2

Fig 3 shows the time-dependent variation in RMSD estimates for C-alpha particles in ligand-bound proteins. The RMSD plot shows that the complexed protein (PDB ID: 1z8r) stabilized at 20 ns. Once the simulation begins, the RMSD stays in the range of 0.5 Angstrom for the rest of the run, which is fine. The experiment validated the general belief that the building was sturdy. Throughout the simulation, there was no significant change in the Ligand Fit to Protein. The RMSD numbers would fluctuate suddenly, sometimes going up and sometimes down. After equilibrium was reached, there was no change in the ligand’s RMSD.

Fig 3. Variation in the root mean square distance (RMSD) between the C-alpha atoms of proteins and lead over time (5280445_1z8r).

Fig 3

The pink color shows the RMSD of the lead compound and green shows the RMSD of the protein target over time.

Protein dynamics are characterized by PCA (Principal Component Analysis) [37]. Observing collective trajectory motions during MD simulations is a valuable tool. Graph of eigenvalues (protein) vs eigenvector index (eigenmode) for the initial 20 forms of action (NPA022882_1z8r) (Fig 4A). The eigenvalues depict hyperspace eigenvector fluctuations. In simulations, eigenvectors with higher eigenvalues regulate the proteins’ total mobility. The top five eigenvectors in our systems showed dominant movements and had larger eigenvalues (35.4–72.9%) than the other eigenvectors, which had low eigenvalues. More than 50% of all changes were covered by the first three PCs (PC1, PC2, and PC3) that were plotted. According to the Fig 4A plots, PC1 clusters had the largest variability (35.43%), PC2 showed variability (13.69%), and PC3 had the lowest variability (8.99%). As a result of its low variability, PC3 has a more compact structure than PC1 and PC2 and is thought to have a highly steadied protein-ligand binding. Straightforward grouping in the PC subspace showed conformational variations across all groups, with blue exhibiting the most significant mobility, white indicating intermediate movement, and red indicating less flexibility.

Fig 4.

Fig 4

(A) Principal Component Analysis eigenvalue plotted versus the percentage of variance (NPA022882_1z8r). The varying areas are displayed in three separate sections. Variations in PC1, PC2, and PC3 add up to 35.43 percent, 13.59 percent, and 8.99 percent, respectively. (B) Complex 5280445_1z8r dynamic cross-correlation map. The residues’ positive and negative correlations are depicted by cyan and purple, respectively.

CID: 5280445 and the 1z8r protein were shown to be significantly correlated with one another, as seen by their high pairwise cross-correlation coefficient value on the cross-correlation map (Fig 4B). Magenta represents anti-correlated residues (-0.4), whereas cyan represents correlated residues (>0.8). It is clear from a large number of pairwise correlated residues between the 1z8r protein and ligand that their binding connection is stable.

Fig 5 illustrates the Residue-wise Root Mean Square Fluctuation (RMSF) of the ligand-coupled protein. Based on MD trajectories, we know that residues with higher peaks are in loop regions or N- and C-terminal regions (Fig 6). The constancy of ligand attachment to the protein is demonstrated by low RMSF estimates of attaching position residues. The secondary structure features of alpha-helices and beta-strands are tracked throughout the simulation (SSE). In the graph below, SSE is plotted against the residue index to display its distribution across the protein structure. Totaling 44.01 percent, it was found that helix made up 2.81 percent, and strand made up 41.20 percent of secondary structure elements.

Fig 5. RMSF of protein complexed with the ligand.

Fig 5

Fig 6. Elements of protein secondary structure are dispersed across the protein-ligand complex over time of the simulation.

Fig 6

The alpha helices are represented by the red columns and the beta strands by the blue ones.

In Fig 7, it is clear that hydrogen bonds and hydrophobic interactions constitute most of the important ligand-protein connections established by MD. Hydrogen bonds especially crucial for the amino acids were HIS_5, SER_5, and SER_87. For hydrophobic TYR_3, HIS_21, and TYR_90 are important. The ligand-protein interaction can be monitored over the course of the simulation. In the chart below the contacts and interactions are visualized in a timeline on this figure.

Fig 7. Protein-ligand contact heatmap throughout trajectory (5280445_1z8r).

Fig 7

The MMGBSA method is frequently used to evaluate the binding energy of ligands to protein molecules. The influence of additional non-bonded interaction energies as well as the binding free energy of each 5280445_1z8r complex was evaluated. The binding energy of the ligand CID5280445 to 1z8r is -45.5655 kcal/mol. Gbind is governed by non-bonded interactions such as GbindCoulomb, GbindPacking, GbindHbond, GbindLipo, and GbindvdW (Table 2). The S2 Table contains all the MM-GBSA results. The average binding energy was mainly influenced by the GbindvdW, GbindLipo, and GbindCoulomb energies across all types of interactions. The GbindSolvGB and Gbind Covalent energies, on the other hand, made the smallest contributions to the final average binding energies. Additionally, 5280445_1z8r complexes showed stable hydrogen bonds with amino acid residues by their GbindHbond interaction values. As a result, the binding energy derived from the docking data was well justified by the MM-GBSA calculations that came from the MD simulation trajectories.

Table 2. Average MM-GBSA binding energy calculation of CID_5280445 with 1z8r after every 10 ns from MD simulation trajectories.

Energies (Kcal/mol) 5280445_1z8r
dG bind -45.5655
dG bind Lipo -7.6085
dG bind vdW -35.1296
dG bind Coulomb -14.6204
dG bind H bond -1.3610
dG bind Packing -7.5653

Conclusion

Drug development has been researched extensively since the ability of transdisciplinary strategies to both speed up the process and reduce overall costs. The primary objective of this research was to discover target proteins for 2 Coxsackie B4 viral protein that causes T1D so that a lead drug could be selected for it. To counteract the effects of natural compounds on the 2 Coxsackie B4 viral protein, we chose substances that have this property. An appropriate natural inhibitor, identified from flavonoids CID: 5280445, blocks the action of 1z8r at its receptor. We reasoned that this material might act as a beginning point for the progress of a medication that targets Diabetes Type 1 (T1D) selectively without affecting other cellular processes. These results will be useful to researchers and may lead to the progress of a new medicine for the treatment of T1D.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Complete results of ADMET analysis.

(CSV)

S2 Table. MM-GBSA binding energy calculation of bonded and non-bonded interactions of CID_5280445 with 1z8r after every 10 ns from MD Simulation trajectories.

(CSV)

S1 Fig

(PNG)

Data Availability

All the data is available in the main paper and in supplementary tables, and will be freely available under journal rule.

Funding Statement

This research is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China [32100434] and Research Start-up Fund of the Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University [ZSQYBRJH0020]” Also The funders had the main role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Roep BO. The role of T-cells in the pathogenesis of Type 1 diabetes: from cause to cure. Diabetologia. 2003;46(3):305–21. doi: 10.1007/s00125-003-1089-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ehrmann D, Kulzer B, Roos T, Haak T, Al-Khatib M, Hermanns N. Risk factors and prevention strategies for diabetic ketoacidosis in people with established type 1 diabetes. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020;8(5):436–46. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30042-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mobasseri M, Shirmohammadi M, Amiri T, Vahed N, Hosseini Fard H, Ghojazadeh M. Prevalence and incidence of type 1 diabetes in the world: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Promot Perspect. 2020;10(2):98–115. doi: 10.34172/hpp.2020.18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Leslie RD, Evans-Molina C, Freund-Brown J, Buzzetti R, Dabelea D, Gillespie KM, et al. Adult-Onset Type 1 Diabetes: Current Understanding and Challenges. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(11):2449–56. doi: 10.2337/dc21-0770 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Holt RIG, DeVries JH, Hess-Fischl A, Hirsch IB, Kirkman MS, Klupa T, et al. Correction to: The management of type 1 diabetes in adults. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetologia. 2022;65(1):255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Yeung WC, Rawlinson WD, Craig ME. Enterovirus infection and type 1 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational molecular studies. BMJ. 2011;342:d35. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d35 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Jaidane H, Sauter P, Sane F, Goffard A, Gharbi J, Hober D. Enteroviruses and type 1 diabetes: towards a better understanding of the relationship. Rev Med Virol. 2010;20(5):265–80. doi: 10.1002/rmv.647 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kobayashi T, Tanaka S, Aida K. Unique pathological changes in the pancreas of fulminant type 1 diabetes. Diabetol Int. 2020;11(4):323–8. doi: 10.1007/s13340-020-00462-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Tanaka S, Aida K, Nishida Y, Kobayashi T. Pathophysiological mechanisms involving aggressive islet cell destruction in fulminant type 1 diabetes. Endocr J. 2013;60(7):837–45. doi: 10.1507/endocrj.ej13-0222 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Nekoua MP, Mercier A, Vergez I, Morvan C, Mbani CJ, Sane F, et al. [Coxsackievirus B infection and pathogenesis of type 1 diabetes]. Virologie (Montrouge). 2022;26(6):415–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Emekdas G, Rota S, Kustimur S, Kocabeyoglu O. [Antibody levels against coxsackie B viruses in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus]. Mikrobiyol Bul. 1992;26(2):116–20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nekoua MP, Alidjinou EK, Hober D. Persistent coxsackievirus B infection and pathogenesis of type 1 diabetes mellitus. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2022;18(8):503–16. doi: 10.1038/s41574-022-00688-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Banatvala JE. Insulin-dependent (juvenile-onset, type 1) diabetes mellitus Coxsackie B viruses revisited. Prog Med Virol. 1987;34:33–54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Yin H, Berg AK, Tuvemo T, Frisk G. Enterovirus RNA is found in peripheral blood mononuclear cells in a majority of type 1 diabetic children at onset. Diabetes. 2002;51(6):1964–71. doi: 10.2337/diabetes.51.6.1964 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hyoty H, Hiltunen M, Lonnrot M. Enterovirus infections and insulin dependent diabetes mellitus—evidence for causality. Clin Diagn Virol. 1998;9(2–3):77–84. doi: 10.1016/s0928-0197(98)00007-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Roivainen M, Ylipaasto P, Savolainen C, Galama J, Hovi T, Otonkoski T. Functional impairment and killing of human beta cells by enteroviruses: the capacity is shared by a wide range of serotypes, but the extent is a characteristic of individual virus strains. Diabetologia. 2002;45(5):693–702. doi: 10.1007/s00125-002-0805-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Atanasov AG, Zotchev SB, Dirsch VM, Orhan IE, Banach M, Rollinger JM, et al. Natural products in drug discovery: advances and opportunities. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 2021;20(3):200–16. doi: 10.1038/s41573-020-00114-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Panche AN, Diwan AD, Chandra SR. Flavonoids: an overview. Journal of Nutritional Science. 2016;5:e47. doi: 10.1017/jns.2016.41 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Baxter NJ, Roetzer A, Liebig HD, Sedelnikova SE, Hounslow AM, Skern T, et al. Structure and dynamics of coxsackievirus B4 2A proteinase, an enyzme involved in the etiology of heart disease. J Virol. 2006;80(3):1451–62. doi: 10.1128/JVI.80.3.1451-1462.2006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, et al. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28(1):235–42. doi: 10.1093/nar/28.1.235 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Eswar N, Webb B, Marti-Renom MA, Madhusudhan MS, Eramian D, Shen MY, et al. Comparative protein structure modeling using Modeller. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2006;Chapter 5:Unit-5 6. doi: 10.1002/0471250953.bi0506s15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Guex N, Peitsch MC. SWISS-MODEL and the Swiss-PdbViewer: an environment for comparative protein modeling. Electrophoresis. 1997;18(15):2714–23. doi: 10.1002/elps.1150181505 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ho BK, Brasseur R. The Ramachandran plots of glycine and pre-proline. BMC Struct Biol. 2005;5:14. doi: 10.1186/1472-6807-5-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tian W, Chen C, Lei X, Zhao J, Liang J. CASTp 3.0: computed atlas of surface topography of proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(W1):W363–W7. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky473 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Trott O, Olson AJ. AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J Comput Chem. 2010;31(2):455–61. doi: 10.1002/jcc.21334 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mura C, McCrimmon CM, Vertrees J, Sawaya MR. An introduction to biomolecular graphics. PLoS Comput Biol. 2010;6(8). doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000918 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Systèmes D. BIOVIA Discovery Studio. San Diego. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pires DE, Blundell TL, Ascher DB. pkCSM: Predicting Small-Molecule Pharmacokinetic and Toxicity Properties Using Graph-Based Signatures. J Med Chem. 2015;58(9):4066–72. doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.5b00104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Laoui A, Polyakov VR. Web services as applications’ integration tool: QikProp case study. J Comput Chem. 2011;32(9):1944–51. doi: 10.1002/jcc.21778 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bowers KJaC David E. and Xu Huafeng and Dror, Ron O. and Eastwood, Michael P. and Gregersen, Brent A. and Klepeis, et al. Scalable Algorithms for Molecular Dynamics Simulations on Commodity Clusters: IEEE; 2006. 43– p. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ferreira LG, Dos Santos RN, Oliva G, Andricopulo AD. Molecular docking and structure-based drug design strategies. Molecules. 2015;20(7):13384–421. doi: 10.3390/molecules200713384 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hildebrand PW, Rose AS, Tiemann JKS. Bringing Molecular Dynamics Simulation Data into View. Trends Biochem Sci. 2019;44(11):902–13. doi: 10.1016/j.tibs.2019.06.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Rasheed MA, Iqbal MN, Saddick S, Ali I, Khan FS, Kanwal S, et al. Identification of Lead Compounds against Scm (fms10) in Enterococcus faecium Using Computer Aided Drug Designing. Life (Basel). 2021;11(2). doi: 10.3390/life11020077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Shivakumar D, Williams J, Wu Y, Damm W, Shelley J, Sherman W. Prediction of Absolute Solvation Free Energies using Molecular Dynamics Free Energy Perturbation and the OPLS Force Field. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation. 2010;6(5):1509–19. doi: 10.1021/ct900587b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Grant BJ, Skjaerven L, Yao XQ. The Bio3D packages for structural bioinformatics. Protein Sci. 2021;30(1):20–30. doi: 10.1002/pro.3923 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Imran M, Rauf A, Abu-Izneid T, Nadeem M, Shariati MA, Khan IA, et al. Luteolin, a flavonoid, as an anticancer agent: A review. Biomed Pharmacother. 2019;112:108612. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2019.108612 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.David CC, Jacobs DJ. Principal component analysis: a method for determining the essential dynamics of proteins. Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1084:193–226. doi: 10.1007/978-1-62703-658-0_11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Erman Salih Istifli

28 Jun 2023

PONE-D-23-08995A computational approach to fighting type 1 diabetes by targeting 2C Coxsackie B virus protein with flavonoids.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ullah,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 12 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Erman Salih Istifli, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file).

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Dr. Shahid Ullah designed and supervised the project with Dr. Tianshun Gao's assistance and performed data analysis. Zilong Zheng, Farhan Ullah, Wajeeha Rahman, Dr. Anees Ullah contributed to data analysis. Shahid Ullah wrote the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

This research is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China [32100434] and Research Start-up Fund of the Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University [ZSQYBRJH0020]”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article “A computational approach to fighting type 1 diabetes by targeting 2C Coxsackie B virus protein with flavonoids

This study will assist in developing medicine and testing it as a treatment for Diabetes Mellitus Type 1 brought on by Coxsackie B4 viruses by giving them an understanding of chemicals against these viruses. Although the study is valuable, it has some shortcomings.

Various situations should be considered that will increase the research value.

Abs tart should be rewritten with clear objectives and scientific language

Add the significance of your work.

Add limitation of the study

Typos should be corrected. The article should be accepted after Major revision.

Reviewer #2: The work is focusing on in silicon screening for a flavonoid inhibitor of a coxsackie B virus protein to combat type 1 diabetes (T1D).

The work is interesting but the preliminary nature of the results and lack of quantitative analysis make it much less interesting. Here are some specific points that the authors should address:

1. The writing could be much more concise and focused. The abstract should be more focus centered around the finding not the introduction about virus and T1D.

2. The material and method section could be significantly improved in that many detailed subsections could be merged into one concise experimental subsection for example, the first section about downloading coordinate from PDB and the preparation and evaluation of the structure for further docking analysis could be combined into “preparation of target structure”.

3. Also, the criteria why the authors did choose this protein in particular as a target should be further elaborated with references. Also, the authors should explain if there is any reason why “1Z8R” got chosen as a target?.

4. It should be also describe clearly what did the authors do to minimize and optimize the protein structure. I am very puzzling why did the author exploited computational server like SwissPDB to “optimize” the experimental crystal structure obtained from PDB?

5. The results from the binding site prediction to show all the putative active/allosteric sites should be included as a figure. The validation of the binding prediction is also important and should be added in the paper.

6. The ligand database is not clearly defined. It is unclear what computational or experimental approach the authors exploited to pre-screen the top 37 flavonoids before performing molecular docking with AutoDock Vina. The structures/structural illustration of all the compounds from the flavonoid library used in this work should be included as a supplementary material. Top 37 flavonoids with greatest binding should also be described structurally in the supplementary together with ADMET results.

7. Line 116 “Toxicity Analysis” is a misleading title for a subsection because in fact the toxicity analysis is just part of ADMET analysis. The authors should make it clear.

8. Lead identification section is also not very clear of how did the author choose lead. Is there any particular experiment or analysis the author perform to exclude potentially false hit out from the results apart from looking at the calculated binding energy and the drug-likeness result of ADMET analysis.

9. There is no need to add Ramachandran plot and the structure from PDB in the main figure. Figure 1 could be moved to supplementary information.

10. The structurally optimized model (perhaps superimposed with the PDB data) should be added in the figure and the pre-screening of the library should be at least mentioned. The figure to show binding prediction results should be added together with validation.

11. Figure 2 there is no detail about bond length in the figure. Also this pocket should be shown together with the full structure.

12.The Figure 3 that showed RMSD from simulations requires a lot of explanation. Is this one time simulation with no repeat? Normally, RMSD from all the repeat of MD simulation should be included in the figure. Also, is there any constraint used in the simulation? The authors should also discuss the fact that ligand RMSD shown in this figures could not displace beyond 1.5 A. Based on the pattern of the chart, it looks like there is a cutoff constraints at approximately 1.5 A?

13. The rest of the figures could be improved. Many of them should be included not as main figures but as supplementary figures.

14. All structures used in this study including protein, ligands, protein-ligand complexes should be deposited. The topology files used in trajectory analysis from MD simulations should be included as supplementary.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Puey Ounjai

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: The work is focusing on in silicon screening for a flavonoid inhibitor of a coxsackie B virus protein to combat type 1 diabetes.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Aug 30;18(8):e0290576. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290576.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


10 Aug 2023

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

ANSWER: Addressed

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file).

ANSWER: Addressed. We copyedit the manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Dr. Shahid Ullah designed and supervised the project with Dr. Tianshun Gao's assistance and performed data analysis. Zilong Zheng, Farhan Ullah, Wajeeha Rahman, Dr. Anees Ullah contributed to data analysis. Shahid Ullah wrote the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

This research is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China [32100434] and Research Start-up Fund of the Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University [ZSQYBRJH0020]”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

ANSWER: This research is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China [32100434] and Research Start-up Fund of the Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University [ZSQYBRJH0020]”

Also The funders had the main role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

ANSWER: All the data is available in the main manuscript and in supplementary tables, and will be freely available under journal rule.

5. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

ANSWER: Addressed

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: No

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article “A computational approach to fighting type 1 diabetes by targeting 2C Coxsackie B virus protein with flavonoids

This study will assist in developing medicine and testing it as a treatment for Diabetes Mellitus Type 1 brought on by Coxsackie B4 viruses by giving them an understanding of chemicals against these viruses. Although the study is valuable, it has some shortcomings.

Various situations should be considered that will increase the research value.

Abs tart should be rewritten with clear objectives and scientific language

Add the significance of your work.

Add limitation of the study

Typos should be corrected. The article should be accepted after Major revision.

ANSWER: Addressed. Comments addressed and manuscript improved appropriately.

Reviewer #2: The work is focusing on in silicon screening for a flavonoid inhibitor of a coxsackie B virus protein to combat type 1 diabetes (T1D).

The work is interesting but the preliminary nature of the results and lack of quantitative analysis make it much less interesting. Here are some specific points that the authors should address:

1. The writing could be much more concise and focused. The abstract should be more focus centered around the finding not the introduction about virus and T1D.

ANSWER: Addressed.

2. The material and method section could be significantly improved in that many detailed subsections could be merged into one concise experimental subsection for example, the first section about downloading coordinate from PDB and the preparation and evaluation of the structure for further docking analysis could be combined into “preparation of target structure”.

ANSWER: Addressed.

3. Also, the criteria why the authors did choose this protein in particular as a target should be further elaborated with references. Also, the authors should explain if there is any reason why “1Z8R” got chosen as a target?.

ANSWER: Addressed.

4. It should be also describe clearly what did the authors do to minimize and optimize the protein structure. I am very puzzling why did the author exploited computational server like SwissPDB to “optimize” the experimental crystal structure obtained from PDB?

ANSWER: We minimized and optimized PDB structure because it has missing atoms and residues. Also it is crucial step for proper bond order in protein.

5. The results from the binding site prediction to show all the putative active/allosteric sites should be included as a figure. The validation of the binding prediction is also important and should be added in the paper.

ANSWER: Addressed.

6. The ligand database is not clearly defined. It is unclear what computational or experimental approach the authors exploited to pre-screen the top 37 flavonoids before performing molecular docking with AutoDock Vina. The structures/structural illustration of all the compounds from the flavonoid library used in this work should be included as a supplementary material. Top 37 flavonoids with greatest binding should also be described structurally in the supplementary together with ADMET results.

ANSWER: ADMET analysis of compounds is provided in supplementary data. 37 flavonoid compounds were chosen from different literature reviews.

7. Line 116 “Toxicity Analysis” is a misleading title for a subsection because in fact the toxicity analysis is just part of ADMET analysis. The authors should make it clear.

ANSWER: Addressed.

8. Lead identification section is also not very clear of how did the author choose lead. Is there any particular experiment or analysis the author perform to exclude potentially false hit out from the results apart from looking at the calculated binding energy and the drug-likeness result of ADMET analysis.

ANSWER: Researchers employed a range of metrics to meticulously assess potential inhibitors, including docking scores, interactions, logP coefficient, rotatable bonds, ring presence, PSA, Blood-Brain Barrier permeability, and Ames Toxicity. This multi-dimensional approach narrowed down the pool of inhibitors to a promising subset. Notably, the 2C Coxsackie B virus protein inhibitor stood out due to low binding affinities and strong lead-likeness scores. Positive interactions and compatibility with the target protein further supported its selection. The thorough use of diverse metrics led to identifying the 2C Coxsackie B virus protein inhibitor as a high-potential option for drug development.

9. There is no need to add Ramachandran plot and the structure from PDB in the main figure. Figure 1 could be moved to supplementary information.

ANSWER: Addressed.

10. The structurally optimized model (perhaps superimposed with the PDB data) should be added in the figure and the pre-screening of the library should be at least mentioned. The figure to show binding prediction results should be added together with validation.

ANSWER: Addressed in fig 1.

11. Figure 2 there is no detail about bond length in the figure. Also this pocket should be shown together with the full structure.

ANSWER: Addressed

12.The Figure 3 that showed RMSD from simulations requires a lot of explanation. Is this one time simulation with no repeat? Normally, RMSD from all the repeat of MD simulation should be included in the figure. Also, is there any constraint used in the simulation? The authors should also discuss the fact that ligand RMSD shown in this figures could not displace beyond 1.5 A. Based on the pattern of the chart, it looks like there is a cutoff constraints at approximately 1.5 A?

ANSWER: We used state of the art tool to perform a very long 300 ns simulation. All the parameters are mentioned in the manuscript. We did not use any cutoff to limit the RMSD of the ligand. This behavior of ligand RMSD is explained in the manuscript. For further investigation, trajectory files could be found at this link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hpx9TGYe2nA4z9VOhvwgrvsoBV7Y8UEM/view?usp=sharing.

13. The rest of the figures could be improved. Many of them should be included not as main figures but as supplementary figures.

ANSWER: Addressed

14. All structures used in this study including protein, ligands, protein-ligand complexes should be deposited. The topology files used in trajectory analysis from MD simulations should be included as supplementary.

ANSWER: Addressed

________________________________________

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Erman Salih Istifli

11 Aug 2023

A computational approach to fighting type 1 diabetes by targeting 2C Coxsackie B virus protein with flavonoids.

PONE-D-23-08995R1

Dear Dr. Ullah,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Erman Salih Istifli, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Erman Salih Istifli

18 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-08995R1

A computational approach to fighting type 1 diabetes by targeting 2C Coxsackie B virus protein with flavonoids.

Dear Dr. Ullah:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Erman Salih Istifli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Complete results of ADMET analysis.

    (CSV)

    S2 Table. MM-GBSA binding energy calculation of bonded and non-bonded interactions of CID_5280445 with 1z8r after every 10 ns from MD Simulation trajectories.

    (CSV)

    S1 Fig

    (PNG)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: The work is focusing on in silicon screening for a flavonoid inhibitor of a coxsackie B virus protein to combat type 1 diabetes.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All the data is available in the main paper and in supplementary tables, and will be freely available under journal rule.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES