Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 May 20;20(5):e0320789. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320789

2D-QSAR-guided design of potent carbamate-based inhibitors of acetylcholinesterase

Meriem Khedraoui 1, El Mehdi Karim 1, Oussama Abchir 1, Abdelkbir Errougui 1, Yasir S Raouf 2, Abdelouahid Samadi 2,*, Samir Chtita 1,*
Editor: Sapan Kamleshkumar Shah3
PMCID: PMC12092016  PMID: 40393030

Abstract

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) causes a progressive decline in memory, along with impairments in other cognitive abilities. The main pharmacological target for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) treatment is acetylcholinesterase (AChE), a biochemical enzyme belonging to the cholinesterase (ChE) family. In the search for novel hit compoundswith potential as future Alzheimer's therapies, a series of carbamates derivatives were designed and evaluated using computational approaches including QSAR modeling, molecular docking, ADMET profiling, and molecular dynamics simulations. The following study focused on the development of a QSAR model with satisfactory statistical properties. ADMET analysis on the designed ligands, demonstrated good pharmacokinetic properties. Molecular docking identified M6 as a promising AChE binder with a docking score of -11.200 kcal/mol, while the Donepezil control returned a docking score of -10.800 kcal/mol. The validity of the docked complex was confirmed using molecular dynamics simulations, where the trajectory plots of M6 were found to be stable and consistent over 100 ns intervals. The enclosed study highlights M6 as a novel chemical starting point (CSP) (i.e., hit compound) targeting AChE as a potential therapeutic strategy against AD.

Introduction

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a complex neurodegenerative condition involving atrophy of healthy brain cells, resulting in progressive dementia and a chronic cognitive decline [1]. This condition results in chronic damage to memory, thinking abilities, and general mental health. In 2024, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that there are nearly 10 million new cases of dementia each year worldwide, equating to one new case every 3.2 seconds [2]. In the United States, approximately 6.9 million people aged 65 and older are living with Alzheimer's disease [3] [4]. The lack of effective treatments for this disease results in significant economic, and societal pressure exerting a strong burden on global healthcare systems. [5]. The total healthcare costs for treating AD were estimated at $305 billion in 2020, and as the population ages, these costs are expected to rise to over $1 trillion [6]. What makes it more challenging is that science has not yet found an effective treatment for this devastating disease or other diseases causing dementia [7]. Although its underlying pathophysiology remains widely debated (and studied), AD is histopathologically characterized by hyperphosphorylated tau tangles and amyloid plaques in the brain [8]. The human brain contains more than 100 billion neurons and other cells. Nerve cells work together to provide all the necessary connections for functions such as thinking, learning, memory, and planning. The accumulation of these proteins kills these brain cells [9]. Researchers have repeatedly found a deficiency in a brain neurotransmitter (NT), acetylcholine, in Alzheimer’s patients. This NT plays a major role in cognitive and logical functions, and is a hydrolysis substrate of cholinesterase enzymes (ChE). In this regard, several efforts have focused on the use of molecular recognition strategies for the upregulation (or maintenance), of acetylcholine levels by targeting AChE and BChE enzymes, or promoting ACh levels in neuronal synaptic clefts [10]. In recent decades, acetylcholinesterase (AChE) has emerged as a potential therapeutic target for AD, as increasing ACh concentrations improve neuronal function [11]. FDA-approved acetylcholinesterase inhibitors include donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine, and these marketed drugs are commonly used for the symptomatic treatment of AD [12]. Overall, these small molecules compensate for acetylcholine deficiencies in cholinergic neurons of AD patients, partially alleviating symptoms. However, there remains no scientific evidence that these drugs significantly delay the progression of disease.[13].

The objective of this study was to develop a robust 2D-QSAR model to design carbamate inhibitors with satisfactory predictive activity against AChE using advanced computational drug design techniques. Second, we aimed to predict several pharmacokinetic properties of the top molecules (e.g., absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, toxicity). This was followed by molecular docking to predict, quantify, and analyze binding poses to AChE protein. Finally, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations at 100 ns intervals were used to verify the stability of the binding poses.

Materials and methods

Calculating molecular descriptors

The QSAR model was developed using a set of previously known chemical compounds comprising 32 molecules which had already demonstrated their biological properties against AChE via in vitro assays [14]. The IC50 data was collected from literature, and converted into pIC50 values fot the QSAR-2D model development. Molecules were initially subjected to geometry optimization using Gaussian 09 software [15], employing Density Functional Theory (DFT) strategies with the B3LYP/6–31 G basis set. B3LYP is a widely used functional that accurately reproduces the geometry of both small and large molecules [16]. Consequently, several quantum descriptors were also derived, including: Total Energy ET (eV), Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital Energy EHOMO (eV), Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital Energy ELUMO (eV), and Dipole Moment (eV). We also used Chem3D software to calculate various topological and physicochemical descriptors [17].

Principal component analysis (PCA)

Before beginning the modeling analysis, the generated descriptors were preprocessed by removing certain descriptors due to the presence of constant descriptors across all the studied molecules, as well as those with missing values. Then, the principal component analysis (PCA) technique was used to carefully examine the remaining molecular descriptors database, to identify molecular descriptors that might be related to the biological activity (e.g., pIC50) of the carbamate derivatives. This study provides an opportunity to assess the degree of correlation between each pair of molecular descriptors by calculating the correlation coefficient (R) and identifying significant intercorrelations based on a correlation threshold (|R| > 0.95) [18].

Model development of QSAR and validation

A crucial step in 2D-QSAR modeling is selecting the most relevant descriptors from all the calculated descriptors. The selection was carried out using the MLR method with the XLSTAT software [19]. And from a final selection of three pertinent molecular descriptors, a total of 43 molecular descriptors were filtered. A linear relationship between pIC50 and the descriptors was established by the application of the MLR approach. With distribution ratios of 80% and 20%, respectively, the dataset was split into two sets: a training set of 25 molecules and a test set of 7 molecules.

2D-QSAR model validation

Validation tests were conducted to evaluate the explanatory power and predictive ability of the QSAR model [20]. For internal validation, several statistical variables are used to validate the model, such as the coefficient of determination (R²) and the adjusted coefficient of determination (R²adj). Subsequently, the importance of this method is assessed by verifying the cross-validation coefficient of determination (R²CV) using the “leave-one-out” approach. This is a crucial step as a high correlation value indicates better data fitting. According to studies by Golbraikh and Tropsha, it is essential to perform cross-validation, but this alone is not sufficient to demonstrate the predictive abilities of the proposed QSAR model [21]. In addition to internal validation, external validation is necessary; at this stage, the test set was used. The model obtained from the training set is used to analyze the activities of the compounds in the test set, and the coefficient of determination (R²test set) is calculated.

Randomization test

The Y-randomization method is commonly used to assess the robustness of a model. In this method, the values of the dependent variable representing biological activity are randomized, while the independent variable representing the model descriptors remains constant. The randomized data is then used to create a new QSAR model. We performed this using the YRandomization software version 1.2. It is necessary that the squared correlation coefficient of the randomized model (R2rand) is lower than that of the non-randomized model (R2). [22]. This confirms the robustness of the new model. Moreover, it is necessary to examine and highlight the discrepancy between the correlation values of the non-randomized and randomized models.

Mean effect (ME) and variance inflation factor (VIF)

Calculating the Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) for each of the independent variables in the reported model helps determine the multicollinearity of these variables, and this test was performed using XLSTAT software. The VIF test identifies whether the model’s descriptors are related to each other or not. If their estimated VIF values are less than 1, there is no relationship between the descriptors; the model is likely to be accepted if their estimated VIF values are between 1 and 5 [23]; and if their estimated VIF values exceed 10, it indicates the model’s instability and necessitates reevaluation [24].

Applicability domains

The theoretical chemical space of a QSAR model is known as the applicability domain (AD), which encompasses its relevant variables as well as the predicted response [25]. Within the applicability domain, based on the chemical data used for the model’s creation, it is possible to assess the level of uncertainty in recognizing a particular molecule.

The AD is also used to identify outliers in the training set (X-outliers) and to detect molecules that fall outside the AD, in line with the fundamental concept of the standardization method.

Various approaches have been utilized to define the AD of QSAR models. Gramatica described the AD method [26]. Her approach is based on the use of the leverage technique on the dataset. The leverage technique allows for the study of the position of a new molecule within the QSAR model. Thus, the leverage method is employed, as shown in equation (1):

hi = XiTXTX-1xi (1)

The descriptor matrix of the studied compound is represented by the small descriptor vector x. Meanwhile, the large X represents the descriptor matrix, which is generated using the descriptor values from the training set. The warning leverage (h*) was calculated based on equation (2):

h*=3×K+1n (2)

The number of training set compounds is n, and the number of model descriptors is K.

Predictive pharmacokinetic analyses

The initial step in drug discovery requires the prediction of drug-likeness and ADMET properties, as only molecules with satisfactory pharmacokinetic profiles advance to the preclinical stage of drug research [27]. The pharmacokinetic characteristics of the newly designed molecules in this study were predicted using two websites: SwissADME and pkCSM to assess drug-likeness and ADMET properties, respectively [28,29]. The evaluation of the oral bioavailability of the newly designed compounds was based on Lipinski’s “Rule of Five” (ROF), a commonly used criterion for assessing oral bioavailability, the rule of five links the physicochemical characteristics of a compound to its biopharmaceutical properties in the human body for oral use [30].

Molecular docking

The 3D structures of the ligands were subjected to energy minimization using Gaussian 09. The compounds were then converted to PDB format using PyMOL software [31]. Regarding the AChE protein, relevant crystal structures were extracted from the Protein Data Bank (https://www.rcsb.org/), [32]. AChE 4EY7 was selected, with a high resolution of 2.35 Å [33]. After locating the coordinates of the active site: (x = -14.11 Å, y = -43.83 Å, and z = 27.67 Å), The co-crystallized Donepezil ligand was removed in preparation for docking studies., The AChE protein structure was then prepared by removing co-crystallized water molecules using Discovery Studio Visualizer 2016 [34]. Using AutoDock version 1.5.7, polar hydrogen atoms and Gasteiger and Kollman charges were added, and missing residues were repaired to generate a suitable (and physiologically relevant) protein structure duringreceptor-ligand dockings and MD simulation [35]. Molecular docking study parameters were set to default values, and a grid box of size 40 × 40 × 40 Å centered on the active site with a grid spacing of 0.375 Å was generated. Ligands were then docked into the active site of AChE. as flexible molecules, allowing rotatable bonds, while the AChE protein was treated as rigid [36]. Resulting binding poses were then evaluated using Discovery Studio 2016.

Molecular dynamics

A 100 ns molecular dynamics (MD) simulation was performed to analyze the structural stability of the compound developed in this study using GROMACS 2020.4 software [37]. The protein topology was generated using the OPLS-A force field, and the SwissParam server was used to generate the ligand topology [38]. These topology files were merged. The protein-ligand system was then placed in a cubic box consisting of a TIP3P water model. To neutralize the system’s charge, Na+ and Cl- ions were incorporated. Subsequently, the steepest descent algorithm was used to minimize the entire system. After that, a 100 ns simulation was carried out under NVT and NPT ensembles at a constant temperature (300 K) and pressure (1 atm). The trajectories were integrated every two femtoseconds (fs), and the atomic coordinates of the simulated structures were recorded every 10 ps. Throughout the trajectory, the root mean square deviation (RMSD), root mean square fluctuation (RMSF), radius of gyration (Rg), number of hydrogen bonds, and solvent-accessible surface area (SASA) were studied.

Results and discussion

Different QSAR models were developed with a high coefficient of determination; however, a more robust, efficient, and reliable model was selected as the best model due to the significance of its parameters. Indeed, it shows the highest values of R² = 0.81, R²adj = 0.78, and Q²cv = 0.56. The robustness and accuracy of the QSAR model were assessed using statistical parameters. The QSAR model is presented below.

pIC50=-1.454+0.005*Connolly Accessible Area-54.459*ELUMO+0.285*Hydrogen% (3)

The external validation of the model allowed us to predict the activity of an external set, resulting in a test set regression coefficient R² Test set=0.82. These results clearly demonstrate the external validity of the model. A group of data points around the reference line showing predicted activity versus experimental activity, as illustrated in Fig 1, indicates the robustness and reliability of the selected QSAR model. Our MLR model was chosen as the most effective because it exhibited statistical parameters similar to those reported for a robust model [39, 40]. The three descriptors have VIF values ranging from 1 to 5 in Table 1, suggesting that the developed QSAR model was statistically significant and thus stable and acceptable. The absolute t-statistic value of each descriptor is greater than 2, indicating that the chosen descriptors were significant [41]. Additionally, the p-values obtained for these descriptors in the model at a 95% confidence level were less than 0.05. This requires accepting the alternative hypothesis that there is a direct relationship between the biological activity of each compound and the descriptor that influences the constructed model. Consequently, the null hypothesis is rejected, which states that there is no direct link between the biological activity of each compound and the descriptor that influences the constructed model. The results of the randomization Y test showed very low R2rand= 0.27 and Q2 = -1.01 values, suggesting that the developed model is stable, solid, and reliable. When the randomization-Y coefficient cR2p= 0.76 is greater than 0.50, it indicates that the developed model is powerful and not dependent on chance.

Fig. 1. Correlation between expected and observed biological activity values.

Fig. 1

Table 1. Accepted QSAR model validation tools: evaluation of predictive performance and robustness [42].

Validation tools Interpretation Acceptable value Developed model value and remarks
Co-efficient of determination ≥0.6 0.81
Pass
cv Cross-Validation Co-efficient >0.5 0.74
Pass
P(95%) Confidence interval at 95% confidence level <0.05 0.0001-0.009
Pass
Test set Co-efficient of determination of external and test set ≥0.5 0.82
Pass
adj Adjusted R-squared >0.6 0.78
Pass
cR²p Coefficient of determination for Y-randomization >0.5 0.76
Pass
t-test t-Statistic value >2 2.86-4.90
Pass
VIF Variance Inflation Factor <10 1.80-2.82
Pass

Applicability domain

QSAR models use experimental data that are restricted to a group of molecules, making each extracted model unique. In other words, the model is only valid for molecules similar to the input data. The applicability domain of each model can be identified based on the range of applicability. The region where the predicted biological activity is specified for each model [43]. The Williams plot (Fig 2) was used to visually represent the applicability domain of the model developed in this study. The normal control values for outlier Y values (cross-validated residuals) were established as ±3σ. The data set includes 32 compounds, with 7 serving as a test set and the remainder as a training set. This means that the warning leverage has a value of 0.48. All observations fall within the applicability domain (three units of deviation and the warning leverage h*) as shown in Fig 2, which indicates the reliability of the extracted model for predicting the activity of new compounds.

Fig. 2. Applicability domain of the developed QSAR model.

Fig. 2

Molecular design based on ligands

To create more effective carbamate analogues as AChE inhibitors, an in-silico screening approach was implemented based on the QSAR model. The template molecule used for the design was molecule 8 (S1 Table), which was chosen from the training set due to its high inhibitory capacity (pIC50 = 8.08). According to the suggested model (Eq. 1), the main features influencing antiacetylcholinesterase activity are Connolly Accessible Area, ELUMO, and Hydrogen%. The t-test value of each descriptor was calculated to assess their impact level (Table 1). Indeed, the variance in antiacetylcholinesterase activity is strongly influenced by the descriptor with the highest absolute t-test value. Antiacetylcholinesterase activity is significantly influenced by Connolly Accessible Area and Hydrogen%. To create new substances with improved antiacetylcholinesterase activity, the structure of the compound was modified by adding methyl and hydroxyl groups to the model molecule. The predicted MLR model was used to predict the AChE inhibitory activity of seven hypothetical designed compounds listed in S2 Table. All their activities were more potent than the template molecule, with a predicted pIC50 ranging from 8.20 to 8.76.

ADMET properties and drug likeness

According to Lipinski’s Rule of 5 (Ro5 for oral bioavailable small molecules, a compound is considered more “drug-like” if it has a MW <500, HBD < 5, HBA < 10, and a LogP < 5. [44]. These are summarized in Table 2 which evaluates molecular weight, the number of hydrogen bond donors, hydrogen bond acceptors, and the lipophilicity partition co-efficient (logP). As shown by the results, none of the designed compounds violat Lipinski’s Rule of Five (RO5). This suggests that if successful during synthesis and development, these compounds could be orally bioavailable. [45].

Table 2. Drug-likeness parameters according to Lipinski.

Molecular weight (g/mol) Donors HBD Acceptors HBA Calculated LogP
M2 614.068 0 4 9.381
M3 545.167 0 4 8.600
M4 545.167 0 4 8.600
M5 549.199 0 4 9.048
M6 555.247 0 4 8.872
M7 689.050 0 3 11.200

The likelihood of therapeutic success for drug-like molecules, is also determined by their pharmacokinetic properties. The Caco-2 cell line, which consists of human colorectal adenocarcinoma epithelial cells, is frequently used as an in vitro model of the human intestinal mucosa to predict oral drug absorption. This prediction is performed by studying the logarithm of the apparent permeability coefficient (log Papp; log cm/s). If the predictive log Papp values exceed 0.90 cm/s, a compound is considered to have high permeability through Caco-2 cells [46]. According to Table 3, the compounds studied have Caco-2 permeability (log Papp) ranging from 0.8 to 0.9 cm/s. Compounds M6 and M7 have a log Papp greater than 0.9 cm/s, suggesting high permeability through Caco-2. Compounds M2, M3, M4, and M5, which have a log Papp less than 0.9 cm/s, are expected to exhibit low permeability through Caco-2.

Table 3. ADMET properties for the selected compounds.

Caco2 HIA% BBB CYP3A4 substrate CYP2D6 substrate CYP2D6 inhibitior CYP3A4 inhibitior Total Clearance AMES toxicity Hepatotxicity SS
M2 0.809 88.865 –0.409 Yes No Yes No 1.316 No No No
M3 0.838 91.125 –0.340 Yes No Yes No 1.125 No No No
M4 0.838 91.125 –0.340 Yes No Yes No 1.158 No No No
M5 0.813 90.113 –0.393 Yes No Yes No 1.453 No No No
M6 0.940 91.565 –0.390 Yes No Yes No 1.510 No No No
M7 0.925 84.896 0.955 Yes No Yes No 1.692 No No No

HIA%: Intestinal absorption (human), BBB: permeability to brain blood barrier.

SS Skin Sensitisation

Microvascular endothelial cells of the central nervous system (CNS) form the blood-brain barrier (BBB), a unique biological barrier. Everything entering and leaving the brain is filtered by these cells. CNS homeostasis is primarily maintained by the BBB, which limits the transport of toxic substances and removes metabolites from the brain [47]. The LogBB value, which is the logarithm of the ratio between drug concentration in the brain and concentration in the blood measured at equilibrium, indicates how easily a compound crosses the BBB. Compounds with a logBB greater than 0.3 are those that easily pass through the BBB, while those with a logBB less than -1.0 are more difficult to cross. According to the results, all the designed molecules are distinguished by their ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and achieve bioavailability in neurological pathways.

The most common metabolism mode of small molecule drugs is oxidative metabolism by cytochrome P450 enzymes (CYP450) [48]. Of these enzymes, CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 play crucial roles in drug metabolism, with CYP3A4 cited as being the primary metabolizing enzymes for almost half of all drugs. Therefore, predicting CYP inhibition is crucial in drug development [49]. The molecules were identified as non-substrates and inhibitors of the CYP2D6 microsomal enzyme, while all the compounds are metabolized by CYP3A4 as substrates and not inhibitors, implying that these molecules will not disrupt the biotransformation of drugs metabolized by these enzymes [50]. Drug duration in the body is determined by clearance, a parameter that represents the correlation between drug concentration and elimination rate [51]. Consequently, the recent compounds have high clearance values, ensuring optimal drug retention in the body. Toxicity levels must be considered when searching for drugs. The predictive toxicity results of the compounds are presented in Table 3. The Ames test predicts whether a compound has mutagenic, and thus carcinogenic, properties. In reality, none of the molecules are carcinogenic, hepatotoxic, or cause skin sensitization.

Molecular docking

One commonly employed method for discovering new inhibitors is molecular docking. This method has allowed for the identification of potent compounds that may resemble the co-crystallized structure or be used as new leads. In this study, LGA was used, treating ligands as flexible entities. The research was conducted using AutoDock Vina 4.2 [52], which employs a semi-empirical free energy force field to calculate scores (Eq. 4). The energies involved in the protein-ligand binding, such as van der Waals energies, electrostatic energies, hydrogen bond energies, desolvation energies, and torsion penalties, play a role in the scoring function.

V=Wvdwi,jAijrij12+Bijrij6+Whbondi;jEtCijrij12+Dijrij10+Welei,jqiqie(rij)rij+        Wsoli,j(SiVj+SjVi)erij22σ2+WtorNtor. (4)

The re-docking method was used to assess the efficiency and accuracy of the molecular docking algorithms by superimposing the co-crystallized ligand onto the docked ligand. The superposition results shown in Fig 3 reveal a root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) of 0.28 Å, which is less than 2 Å, demonstrating the accuracy and precision of the predicted pose. Thus, the docking verification process was successfully studied.

Fig. 3. Assessment of molecular docking accuracy by superimposing the docked ligand and the co-crystallized ligand.

Fig. 3

Two compounds designed on the initial pharmacophore of a carbamate, selected after the ADMET test, were evaluated for their ability to bind to the AChE protein (PDB ID: 4EY7). The results of this docking study are represented in Fig 4. The compounds studied, namely compound M6 and compound M7, showed interesting docking scores of -11.2 and -10.9 kcal/mol, respectively. These scores were higher than that of the co-crystallized ligand, which was -10.8 kcal/mol. Illustration 4 shows how these compounds were integrated into the active site of the AChE protein by interacting with amino acid residues.

Fig. 4. Two-dimensional interactions between AChE and the ligands (a): M6 and (b): M7.

Fig. 4

Compound M6 demonstrated the highest score, with a binding energy value of -11.2 kcal/mol relative to the active site. It formed multiple interactions with the active amino acid residues in the AChE binding site (Fig 4a). It established three hydrogen bonds with the amino acids PHE295, ARG296, and GLY121, as well as sixteen hydrophobic interactions with residues TYR341, TRP286, TRP86, TYR124, LEU76, TYR337, PHE338, and HIS447.

On the other hand, compound M7 exhibited a slightly lower free energy of -10.9 kcal/mol compared to compound M6. Fig 4b shows that it interacts with the AChE protein through hydrophobic interactions with residues TRP286, LEU289, TRP86, TYR337, PHE338, TYR341, and HIS447.

Molecular dynamics simulation studies

Molecular dynamics (MD) is used in drug discovery, and structure-based drug design to study the movement and trajectory of molecules in the presence of other molecules, proteins, receptors while also studying potential intermolecular interactions within the two-body system. It helps in understanding conformational changes of molecules, structural characteristics of proteins, and drug-protein interactions. In this study, the AChE-M6 complex was examined through MD simulations. A detailed analysis of the RMSD, RMSF, SASA, radius of gyration, and HBond trajectories was conducted.

RMSD analysis

RMSD (Root Mean Square Deviation) reflects the average displacement variations in the position of an atom for a specific frame relative to a reference frame. RMSD simulation provides data on the structure of the protein and ligand, as well as the stability and equilibrium of the system [53, 54]. As the RMSD variations of the protein increase, it becomes more unstable, and vice versa [55]. The average RMSD of the unbound AChE protein ranged between 15 and 17 Å and remained stable throughout the MD simulation period. The AChE protein bound to ligand M6 maintained an average RMSD of 3 Å throughout the MD simulation period. Regarding the ligand, Fig 5 shows an increase in the ligand RMSD to 6 Å at 20 ns, after experiencing fluctuations in RMSD between 5 and 7 Å. It then stabilized at 6 Å around 77 ns until the end of the simulation (Fig 5).

Fig. 5. RMSD of AChE, M6, and AChE-M6.

Fig. 5

Root mean square fluctuations (RMSF)

To evaluate the dynamic behavior of residues, it is necessary to measure the root mean square fluctuations (RMSF) of the Ca atoms of all residues in both the apo protein and the AChE_M6 complex systems. RMSF provides valuable data on structural flexibility and variations in different parts of the protein [56, 57]. Fluctuations are generally larger when residues are unstable, while lower RMSF values indicate residue stability. Fig 6 shows the RMSF of the Ca atoms for the apo and AChE-M6 complex.

Fig. 6. RMSF of AChE and AChE-M6.

Fig. 6

Most residues in the AChE protein, whether uncomplexed or complexed, had RMSF values less than 2 Å, suggesting that the residues were stable during the MD simulation. Additionally, the fluctuation curves for the complex were similar to those of the apo form, further confirming the stability of the AChE-M6 complex. However, significant conformational changes were observed in the N-terminal and C-terminal residues. This can be explained by the fixed position of the terminal residues, which tend to vary.

Nominal RMSF fluctuations can be attributed to the dynamics of the ligands within the binding pocket. The average RMSF values for each M6 atom were also calculated, as illustrated in Fig 7. Some variations were observed in their RMSF values, indicating dynamic displacement from their initial positions.

Fig. 7. R MSF of ligand M6.

Fig. 7

Solvent-accessible surface area (SASA)

According to the system conditions, solvent behavior varies, making solvent-accessible surface area (SASA) a useful method for explaining protein conformational dynamics. Time-dependent SASA values were calculated for both the apo and the docked complex using a 100 ns MD simulation. According to Fig 8, it can be observed that the SASA of the AChE-M6 complex is shifted and its value decreases. The SASA values are lower in the M6 complex system compared to the apo system, suggesting that the SASA has reached equilibrium throughout the simulation, indicating the structural stability of the complex (Fig 8).

Fig. 8. Solvent-accessible surface area (SASA) of AChE-M6 complex and the AChE protein.

Fig. 8

Radius of gyration

The radius of gyration (Rg) plays a crucial role in directly relating to the volume of the tertiary structure and the overall conformational structure of a protein [58, 59]. It provides essential information about a protein’s stability, with a higher Rg suggesting a looser packing. The average Rg values for both the apo and AChE-M6 complex systems were calculated. Their Rg values were 23.3 and 23 Å, respectively. The Rg results highlight the stability of the complex’s structure during the simulation (Fig 9).

Fig. 9. Radius of gyration of the AChE protein and AChE-M6 complex.

Fig. 9

Hydrogen bond dynamics

The stability of proteins primarily relies on intramolecular hydrogen bonding [60]. The analysis of intramolecular hydrogen interactions can provide valuable data on the overall stability of protein structures. Furthermore, studying hydrogen interactions between molecules allows us to examine the polar interactions between a protein and a ligand, revealing the directionality and specificity of these interactions, which is a crucial element of molecular recognition [61, 62]. We investigated the dynamics of hydrogen bonds formed in the AChE-M6 complex during the simulation to confirm and assess the stability of the complex. Specifically, hydrogen bonds were formed throughout the simulations. It was observed that the average number of hydrogen bonds was two, indicating that the M6 compound remains in the binding pocket throughout the 100 ns (Fig 10).

Fig. 10. Number of hydrogen bonds in the AChE-M6 complex.

Fig. 10

Conclusion

In this work, a QSAR study is presented for a series of 32 carbamate derivatives to determine their activity against the target protein AChE. The QSAR model was developed using various statistical parameters. Internal and external validation confirmed the reliability and robustness of the model, demonstrating its predictive power as well as statistical significance. Randomization testing, variance inflation testing, and applicability domain assessment were conducted to ensure the robustness of the developed MLR model. Three molecular descriptors (Connolly accessible area, H %, ELUMO) showed a higher correlation with biological activity. In this research, new molecules were developed based on the structural changes of one of the most active carbamate derivatives. These were subjected to ADMET prediction studies, molecular docking, and molecular dynamics simulations. The results indicate that the M6 and M7 molecules meet all ADMET criteria and exhibit drug-like properties. Molecular docking studies show relevant interaction with the AChE protein. The designed M6 compound was tested through molecular dynamics simulation, which demonstrated its stability and cohesion within the active site over 100 ns. This suggests that the proposed M6 molecule could be a potential candidate for further studies in the field of drug development against Alzheimer’s disease.

Supporting information

Table S1. Structures and pIC50 values of the 32 studied compounds.

(DOCX)

pone.0320789.s001.docx (197.1KB, docx)
Table S2. Structures and predicted pIC50 values of new designed compounds.

(DOCX)

pone.0320789.s002.docx (59.8KB, docx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

AS and YSR acknowledge the support of the UAEU through an UAEU-UOS joint grant (Grant Code G00005017) and an internal Start-up grant 2024 (Grant 12S156), respectively. There was no additional external funding received for this study.

References

  • 1.Cao Y, Liu P, Bian H, Jin S, Liu J, Yu N, et al. Reduced neurogenesis in human hippocampus with Alzheimer’s disease. Brain Pathol. 2024;34(3):e13225. doi: 10.1111/bpa.13225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Health Organization. Dementia. 2024. Retrieved from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dementia [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Alzheimer’s Association. Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimers Dement. 2024;20(3):700–89. doi: 10.1002/alz.13809 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Alzheimer’s Association. Projection to 2060 also from the same source: Alzheimer’s Association. 2024 Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures. Alzheimer Dement. 2024;20(3):700–89. doi: 10.1002/alz.13809 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Skaria AP. The economic and societal burden of Alzheimer disease: managed care considerations. Am J Manag Care. 2022;28(10 Suppl):S188–96. doi: 10.37765/ajmc.2022.89236 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.PharmD WW. Economic burden of Alzheimer disease and managed care considerations. Am J Manag Care. 2020;26(8 Suppl):S177–83. doi: 10.37765/ajmc.2020.88482 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.van der Flier WM, de Vugt ME, Smets EMA, Blom M, Teunissen CE. Towards a future where Alzheimer’s disease pathology is stopped before the onset of dementia. Nat Aging. 2023;3(5):494–505. doi: 10.1038/s43587-023-00404-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tijms BM, Vromen EM, Mjaavatten O, Holstege H, Reus LM, van der Lee S, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid proteomics in patients with Alzheimer’s disease reveals five molecular subtypes with distinct genetic risk profiles. Nat Aging. 2024;4(1):33–47. doi: 10.1038/s43587-023-00550-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Louback da Silva L, de Frias Leite B, Teixeira da Silva E, Vinícius Nora de Souza M. Evaluation of camphor hydrazone derivatives as inhibitors of myeloperoxidase and acetylcholinesterase enzymes: targets for the development of agents against alzheimer’s disease. Med Res. 2023;7(1–2):230002–230002. doi: 10.21127/yaoyimr20230002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Villeda-González JD, Gómez-Olivares JL, Baiza-Gutman LA. New paradigms in the study of the cholinergic system and metabolic diseases: Acetyl-and-butyrylcholinesterase. J Cell Physiol. 2024;239(8):e31274. doi: 10.1002/jcp.31274 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Patel A, Shah D, Patel Y, Patel S, Mehta M, Bambharoliya T. A Review on recent development of novel heterocycles as acetylcholinesterase inhibitor for the treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease. Curr Drug Targets. 2023;24(3):225–46. doi: 10.2174/1389450124666221213114500 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lista S, Vergallo A, Teipel SJ, Lemercier P, Giorgi FS, Gabelle A, et al. Determinants of approved acetylcholinesterase inhibitor response outcomes in Alzheimer’s disease: relevance for precision medicine in neurodegenerative diseases. Ageing Res Rev. 2023;84:101819. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2022.101819 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Dantas RLM, Baracho NC, Camins A, Ettcheto M. Pharmacological drug strategies in Alzheimer’s Disease. Rev Neurocienc. 2021;29. doi: 10.34024/rnc.2021.v29.12413 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Liu Y, Ma C, Li Y, Li M, Cui T, Zhao X, et al. Design, synthesis and biological evaluation of carbamate derivatives incorporating multifunctional carrier scaffolds as pseudo-irreversible cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Eur J Med Chem. 2024;265:116071. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2023.116071 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Frisch MJ, Trucks GW, Schlegel HB, Scuseria GE, Robb MA, Cheeseman JR, et al. Gaussienne 09, Révision A.02. 2009.
  • 16.Wodrich MD, Corminboeuf C, von Ragué Schleyer P. Systematic errors in computed alkane energies using B3LYP and other popular DFT functionals. Org Lett. 2006;8(17):3631–4. doi: 10.1021/ol061016i [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.ChemOffice. Informatique PerkinElmer. 2016. http://www.cambridgesoft.com [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mouhsin M, Abchir O, El Otmani FS, Oumghar AA, Oubenali M, Chtita S, et al. Identification of novel NLRP3 inhibitors: a comprehensive approach using 2D-QSAR, molecular docking, molecular dynamics simulation and drug-likeness evaluation. Chem Pap. 2023;78(2):1193–204. doi: 10.1007/s11696-023-03157-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.XLSTAT. Entreprise XLSTAT. 2013. www.xlstat.com [Google Scholar]
  • 20.El Rhabori S, Alaqarbeh M, El Allouche Y, Naanaai L, El Aissouq A, Bouachrine M, et al. Exploring innovative strategies for identifying anti-breast cancer compounds by integrating 2D/3D-QSAR, molecular docking analyses, ADMET predictions, molecular dynamics simulations, and MM-PBSA approaches. J Mol Struct. 2025;1320:139500. doi: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2024.139500 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Golbraikh A, Tropsha A. Beware of q2!. J Mol Graph Model. 2002;20(4):269–76. doi: 10.1016/s1093-3263(01)00123-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.El Rhabori S, Alaqarbeh M, El Aissouq A, Bouachrine M, Chtita S, Khalil F. Design, 3D-QSAR, molecular docking, ADMET, molecular dynamics and MM-PBSA simulations for new anti-breast cancer agents. Chem Phys Impact. 2024;8:100455. doi: 10.1016/j.chphi.2023.100455 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Chtita S, Aouidate A, Belhassan A, Ousaa A, Taourati AI, Elidrissi B, et al. QSAR study of N-substituted oseltamivir derivatives as potent avian influenza virus H5N1 inhibitors using quantum chemical descriptors and statistical methods. New J Chem. 2020;44(5):1747–60. doi: 10.1039/c9nj04909f [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Isyaku Y, Uzairu A, Uba S, Ibrahim MT, Umar AB. QSAR, molecular docking, and design of novel 4-(N,N-diarylmethyl amines) Furan-2(5H)-one derivatives as insecticides against Aphis craccivora. Bull Natl Res Cent. 2020;44(1). doi: 10.1186/s42269-020-00297-w [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bitam S, Hamadache M, Hanini S. 2D-QSAR, docking, molecular dynamics, studies of PF-07321332 analogues to identify alternative inhibitors against 3CLpro enzyme in SARS-CoV disease. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2023;41(14):6991–7000. doi: 10.1080/07391102.2022.2113822 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Umar BA, Uzairu A, Shallangwa GA, Sani U. QSAR modeling for the prediction of pGI50 activity of compounds on LOX IMVI cell line and ligand-based design of potent compounds using in silico virtual screening. Netw Model Anal Health Inform Bioinforma. 2019;8(1). doi: 10.1007/s13721-019-0202-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Khedraoui M, Abchir O, Nour H, Yamari I, Errougui A, Samadi A, et al. An in silico study based on qsar and molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation for the discovery of novel potent inhibitor against AChE. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2024;17(7):830. doi: 10.3390/ph17070830 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Zoete V, Daina A, Bovigny C, Michielin O. SwissSimilarity: a web tool for low to ultra high throughput ligand-based virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model. 2016;56(8):1399–404. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00174 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.pkCSM. 2022. July 25. http://biosig.unimelb.edu.au/pkcsm/theory [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Delivery Rev. 2012;64:4–17. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2012.09.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Support.pymol.org. https://pymol.org/support.html [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bank RPD. RCSB PDB: Homepage. https://www.rcsb.org/ [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cheung J, Rudolph MJ, Burshteyn F, Cassidy MS, Gary EN, Love J, et al. Structures of human acetylcholinesterase in complex with pharmacologically important ligands. J Med Chem. 2012;55(22):10282–6. doi: 10.1021/jm300871x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.D. Systèmes BIOVIA discovery studio. Dassault Systèmes BIOVIA, discovery studio modeling environment, Release 2017 Dassault Systèmes. 2016.https://discover.3ds.com/discovery-studio-visualizer-download [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Morris GM, Huey R, Lindstrom W, Sanner MF, Belew RK, Goodsell DS, et al. AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J Comput Chem. 2009;30(16):2785–91. doi: 10.1002/jcc.21256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Gonçalves RB, Ferraz WR, Calil RL, Scotti MT, Trossini GHG. Convergent QSAR models for the prediction of cruzain inhibitors. ACS Omega. 2023;8(42):38961–82. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.3c03376 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Abraham MJ, Murtola T, Schulz R, Páll S, Smith JC, Hess B, et al. GROMACS: High performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX. 2015;1(1–2):19–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Zoete V, Cuendet MA, Grosdidier A, Michielin O. SwissParam: a fast force field generation tool for small organic molecules. J Comput Chem. 2011;32(11):2359–68. doi: 10.1002/jcc.21816 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tropsha A. Best Practices for QSAR model development, validation, and exploitation. Mol Inform. 2010;29(6–7):476–88. doi: 10.1002/minf.201000061 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ikwu FA, Shallangwa GA, Mamza PA. QSAR, QSTR, and molecular docking studies of the anti-proliferative activity of phenylpiperazine derivatives against DU145 prostate cancer cell lines. Beni-Suef Univ J Basic Appl Sci. 2020;9(1). doi: 10.1186/s43088-020-00054-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ugbe FA, Shallangwa GA, Uzairu A, Abdulkadir I. A combined 2-D and 3-D QSAR modeling, molecular docking study, design, and pharmacokinetic profiling of some arylimidamide-azole hybrids as superior L. donovani inhibitors. Bull Natl Res Cent. 2022;46(1). doi: 10.1186/s42269-022-00874-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Olasupo SB, Uzairu A, Shallangwa G, UBA S. Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) Studies and Molecular docking Simulation of Norepinephrine Transporter (NET) Inhibitors as Anti-psychotic Therapeutic Agents. J Turkish Chem Soc Section A: Chem. 2020;7(1):179–96. doi: 10.18596/jotcsa.577259 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Dragos H, Gilles M, Alexandre V. Predicting the predictability: a unified approach to the applicability domain problem of QSAR models. J Chem Inf Model. 2009;49(7):1762–76. doi: 10.1021/ci9000579 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Khedraoui M, Nour H, Yamari I, Abchir O, Errougui A, Chtita S. Design of a new potent Alzheimer’s disease inhibitor based on QSAR, molecular docking and molecular dynamics investigations. Chemical Physics Impact. 2023;7:100361. doi: 10.1016/j.chphi.2023.100361 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ajala A, Uzairu A, Shallangwa GA, Abechi SE. QSAR, simulation techniques, and ADMET/pharmacokinetics assessment of a set of compounds that target MAO-B as anti-Alzheimer agent. Futur J Pharm Sci. 2023;9(1). doi: 10.1186/s43094-022-00452-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Khamouli S, Belaidi S, Ouassaf M, Lanez T, Belaaouad S, Chtita S. Multi-combined 3D-QSAR, docking molecular and ADMET prediction of 5-azaindazole derivatives as LRRK2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2022;40(3):1285–98. doi: 10.1080/07391102.2020.1824815 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Bagchi S, Chhibber T, Lahooti B, Verma A, Borse V, Jayant RD. In-vitro blood-brain barrier models for drug screening and permeation studies: an overview. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2019;13:3591–605. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S218708 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Tong J-B, Zhang X, Luo D, Bian S. Molecular design, molecular docking and ADMET study of cyclic sulfonamide derivatives as SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors. Chinese J Analytical Chemistry. 2021;49(12):63–73. doi: 10.1016/j.cjac.2021.09.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Shadrack DM, K. Ndesendo VM. Molecular docking and admet study of emodin derivatives as anticancer inhibitors of nat2, cox2 and top1 enzymes. CMB. 2017;07(01):1–18. doi: 10.4236/cmb.2017.71001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Yamari I, Abchir O, Mali SN, Errougui A, Talbi M, Kouali ME, et al. The anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity of novel 9, 10-dihydrophenanthrene derivatives: an insight into molecular docking, ADMET analysis, and molecular dynamics simulation. Sci Afr. 2023;21:e01754. doi: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2023.e01754 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Zrinej J., Elmchichi L., Alaqarbeh M, Lakhlifi T., Bouachrine M. Computational approach: 3D-QSAR, molecular docking, ADMET, molecular dynamics simulation investigations, and retrosynthesis of some curcumin analogues as PARP-1 inhibitors targeting colon cancer. New J. Chem. 2023;47(1):20987–21009. doi: doi: 10.1039/D3NJ03981A 38226346 [Google Scholar]
  • 52.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]
  • 53.Gupta S, Singh AK, Kushwaha PP, Prajapati KS, Shuaib M, Senapati S, et al. Identification of potential natural inhibitors of SARS-CoV2 main protease by molecular docking and simulation studies. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2021;39(12):4334–45. doi: 10.1080/07391102.2020.1776157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Gohlke H, Kiel C, Case DA. Insights into protein-protein binding by binding free energy calculation and free energy decomposition for the Ras-Raf and Ras-RalGDS complexes. J Mol Biol. 2003;330(4):891–913. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(03)00610-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Jade DD, Pandey R, Kumar R, Gupta D. Ligand-based pharmacophore modeling of TNF-α to design novel inhibitors using virtual screening and molecular dynamics. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2022;40(4):1702–18. doi: 10.1080/07391102.2020.1831962 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Ouassaf M, Belaidi S, Chtita S, Lanez T, Abul Qais F, Md Amiruddin H. Combined molecular docking and dynamics simulations studies of natural compounds as potent inhibitors against SARS-CoV-2 main protease. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2022;40(21):11264–73. doi: 10.1080/07391102.2021.1957712 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Karim EM, Abchir O, Nour H, Yamari I, Bennani L, MHammed EK, et al. Discovery of a potential inhibitor against lung cancer: computational approaches and molecular dynamics study. 2024. doi: 10.22036/pcr.2023.415502.2423 [DOI]
  • 58.Abchir O, Yamari I, Nour H, Daoui O, Elkhattabi S, Errougui A, et al. Structure‐Based Virtual Screening, ADMET analysis, and Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Moroccan Natural Compounds as Candidates α‐Amylase Inhibitors. ChemistrySelect. 2023;8(26). doi: 10.1002/slct.202301092 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Lobanov MI, Bogatyreva NS, Galzitskaia OV. Radius of gyration is indicator of compactness of protein structure. Mol Biol (Mosk). 2008;42(4):701–6. doi: 10.1134/s0026893308040195 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.J. R. Yunta M. It Is Important to compute intramolecular hydrogen bonding in drug design?. AJMO. 2017;5(1):24–57. doi: 10.12691/ajmo-5-1-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Menéndez CA, Accordino SR, Gerbino DC, Appignanesi GA. Hydrogen bond dynamic propensity studies for protein binding and drug design. PLoS One. 2016;11(10):e0165767. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165767 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Nour H, Abdou A, Belaidi S, Jamal J, Elmakssoudi A, Dakir M, et al. Discovery of promising cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer’s disease treatment through DFT, docking, and molecular dynamics studies of eugenol derivatives. J Chinese Chemical Soc. 2022;69(9):1534–51. doi: 10.1002/jccs.202200195 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Sapan Kamleshkumar Shah

10 Dec 2024

-->PONE-D-24-47957-->-->Design of novel potent inhibitor based on 2D-QSAR of carbamate derivatives for AChE inhibition-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chtita,

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 Jan 24 2025 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,

Sapan Kamleshkumar Shah, Ph.D., M.Pharm.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. 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. 

The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive 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. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication. 

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)

4. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: 

AS and YSR acknowledge the support of the UAEU through an internal Start-up grant 2023 (Grant Code G00004400) and an internal Start-up grant 2024 (Grant 12S156), respectively.

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

AS and YSR acknowledge the support of the UAEU through an internal Start-up grant 2023 (Grant Code G00004400) and an internal Start-up grant 2024 (Grant 12S156), respectively.

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

AS and YSR acknowledge the support of the UAEU through an internal Start-up grant 2023 (Grant Code G00004400) and an internal Start-up grant 2024 (Grant 12S156), respectively.

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

7. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Additional Editor Comments:

Authors have developed successfully validated QSAR model using dataset of 32 compounds. However, these count of dataset is very small? Further as per OECD guidelines authors need to divide these dataset into training set and test test. However, author have not provided any details statistical results differentiation for Training and Test set. Whether Internal validation was successful or not?

Also, After generating model, author can give detail analysis of impact of selected descriptor on biological activity considering functional groups/atoms and its importance to include SAR studies. This will further enhance quality of manuscript.

Authors have not used any standard drug for comparison of Molecular simulation and ADMET studies . I would suggest authors to add that also.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->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 manuscript "Design of novel potent inhibitor based on 2D-QSAR of carbamate derivatives for AChE" has caught my attention. The study investigates how the lead molecule M6 interacts with the AChE protein with enhanced affinity. The results from QSAR and molecular simulations show that the chosen lead molecule could be a good compound to target against AChE. Overall, I found the manuscript interesting, but there are many flaws in it, from the introduction to the conclusion section. A more scientific perspective should guide the rewriting of the entire manuscript. Many paragraphs have more colloquial language.

• First, the abstract section mentions the compound as an AChE binder, but further clarification is required. Has a wet lab already validated it, or is it merely an in silico-based hypothesis? Regarding the docking score, the authors can give only a single digit instead of three digits (-11.200 kcal/mol). The abstract fails to mention the significance of the findings.

• In the introduction section:

• . The accumulation of these proteins kills these brain cells [9].---- Here, the authors have not mentioned any proteins that are associated with accumulation.

• The term 'in recent decades' is not appropriate in this context. Also, it should be mentioned firstly, secondly instead of second in the introduction section.

• Predictive pharmacokinetic analyses: typographical errors

• In the molecular docking section, the authors have mentioned that the downloaded crystal structure has a high resolution. However, the given value of 2.35 indicates a lower resolution. The manuscript does not mention the active site residues. Instead, the authors provide the coordinates. The authors need to provide the active site details of the protein for better understanding.

• The TIP3P should appear in upper case in the molecular dynamics section.

• In the molecular docking section “crystallized structure or be used as new leads." This sentence needs to be rewritten.

• The research was conducted using AutoDock Vina 4.2 [52]. The sentence needs to be reframed.

• 6. There are typographical errors, like residue. Additionally, figure 7, located adjacent to figure 6, should display residues instead of atoms. The authors can label the figures as Fig. 6(a) and Fig. 6(b) instead.

• According to the Rg report, the values (23.3 and 23) are negligible. The authors have stated that their interaction with M6 has resulted in a more tightly packed AChE. However, the given results contradict their statements. Here, an increase in the radius of gyration confirms that the protein has become less compact compared to its Apo form. There is no mention of these details in the manuscript.

• Hydrogen bond details: Here the authors do not do any comparison of the total hydrogen bonds between the apo and holo forms of the AChE protein. The authors have focused on the intermolecular hydrogen bond between the ligand and the protein. Instead, they have referred to it as intramolecular, which is incorrect.

• The manuscript does not mention the required residues associated with hydrogen bonds. This will provide a clear understanding of the consistency in the formation of hydrogen bonds between the protein and the ligand. Also, the authors have done a single run of the simulation instead of the triplicates. Two more simulation runs could better validate their findings.

• The manuscript needs to include the MM/PBSA score of the protein-ligand complex for improved validation of the protein-ligand complex interaction.

• Moreover, the author made no mention of the structural features of drug M6 and their functional group

• The manuscript can only be considered if the authors revise it as per the suggestions given above.

Reviewer #2:  The manuscript is very well written and has some new findings. There are some minor changes which I would like to suggest.

What is meant by M6 in the abstract?

There are some missing references throughout the manuscript.

In the section Principal Component analysis, the term correlation coefficient is not well described.

Also what is the coefficient of determination?

**********

-->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: Yes:  Dr.Selvaa Kumar C

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[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.

PLoS One. 2025 May 20;20(5):e0320789. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320789.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 1


28 Jan 2025

Answers to reviewers' questions

I would like to thank all the authors who devoted their time to review my paper. Your commitment and constructive comments were of great help in improving my work. I would also like to inform you that I have corrected some graphs in the molecular dynamics results, as the previous ones did not represent the original results due to confusion. This problem has now been corrected.

Authors have developed successfully validated QSAR model using dataset of 32 compounds. However, these count of dataset is very small? Further as per OECD guidelines authors need to divide these dataset into training set and test test. However, author have not provided any details statistical results differentiation for Training and Test set. Whether Internal validation was successful or not?

Thank you for your feedback and constructive observations. The dataset of 32 compounds used to develop the QSAR model is sufficient for a reliable analysis, in accordance with standard practices in this field. We divided this dataset into two distinct subsets: a training set and a test set, as mentioned in the manuscript. Furthermore, we clearly presented the differentiated statistical results for these two subsets, addressing your remark. Regarding internal validation, it was successfully performed, with the obtained results exceeding the recommended threshold, which confirms the robustness and reliability of the developed model.

Also, After generating model, author can give detail analysis of impact of selected descriptor on biological activity considering functional groups/atoms and its importance to include SAR studies. This will further enhance quality of manuscript.

Thank you for your remark. We have conducted a detailed analysis of the impact of the selected descriptors on biological activity, taking into account functional groups, atoms, and their significance to include SAR studies, in accordance with your suggestion.

Authors have not used any standard drug for comparison of Molecular simulation and ADMET studies . I would suggest authors to add that also.

Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the standard drug (Donepezil) for the comparison of molecular simulations and ADMET studies, in accordance with your recommendation.

Comments to the Author

Review #1: The manuscript “Design of novel potent inhibitor based on 2D-QSAR of carbamate derivatives for AChE” caught my attention. The study investigates how the lead molecule M6 interacts with the AChE protein with increased affinity. The results of QSAR and molecular simulations show that the chosen lead molecule could be a good compound for against AChE. Overall, I found the manuscript interesting, but there are many flaws, from the introduction to the conclusion section. A more scientific perspective should guide the rewriting of the entire manuscript. Many paragraphs have more colloquial language.

Thank you for your valuable comments. We have made the necessary corrections throughout the manuscript.

• First, the abstract section mentions the compound as an AChE binder, but further clarification is needed. Has a wet lab already validated this, or is it just an in silico hypothesis? Regarding the docking score, the authors can only give one number instead of three numbers (-11,200 kcal/mol). The abstract does not mention the significance of the results.

Thank you for your feedback. We have taken this into consideration and made the necessary corrections. The clarifications on the compound as an AChE binder, as well as the adjustment of the docking score to a single digit (-11.2 kcal/mol), have been incorporated. In addition, the importance of the results has been highlighted in the abstract.

• In the introduction section:

• . The accumulation of these proteins kills these brain cells [9].---- Here, the authors did not mention any proteins associated with the accumulation.

• The expression “in the last few decades” is not appropriate in this context. Also, it should be mentioned first, second instead of second in the introduction section.

Thank you for your feedback. We have made the necessary changes in the introduction section.

• Analyses pharmacocinétiques prédictives : erreurs

Thank you for your comment. We have corrected it.

typographical• In the section on molecular docking, the authors mentioned that the downloaded crystal structure has a high resolution. However, the given value of 2.35 indicates a lower resolution. The manuscript does not mention the active site residues. Instead, the authors provide the coordinates. Authors should provide the details of the active site of the protein for better understanding.

Thank you for your remark. It is important to note that in crystallography, the lower the resolution value, the better the quality and accuracy of the crystal structure. A resolution of 2.35 Å indicates a sufficiently high quality for detailed structural studies. Therefore, the structure used in this study is of good quality, meeting the requirements for reliable analyses. (A protein with a resolution above 2.7 A˚ is considered to be low-resolution structure, while proteins with a resolution between 2.7 and 1.8 A˚ are classified as medium resolution structures, and those below 1.8 A˚ resolution are typically classified as high-resolution structures [1]).

[1]. BERJANSKII, Mark, et al. Resolution-by-proxy: a simple measure for assessing and comparing the overall quality of NMR protein structures. Journal of biomolecular NMR, 2012, 53: 167-180.‏

Regarding the details on the active site of AChE, we have added them in the manuscript in yellow highlighting for better understanding.

• TIP3P should appear in capital letters in the molecular dynamics section.

• In the molecular docking section “crystallized structure or be used as new leads.” This sentence should be rewritten.

• The search was conducted using AutoDock Vina 4.2 [52]. The sentence should be reworded.

• 6. There are typographical errors, such as residues. Also, Figure 7, located next to Figure 6, should display residues instead of atoms. Authors can label the figures as Fig. 6(a) and Fig. 6(b) instead.

Thank you for your comments. We have taken them into consideration and made the necessary corrections. However, I cannot replace "atoms" with "residues" in this context. For the ligand, the fluctuations are observed at the atom level, since it is a small molecule, and the RMSF is therefore calculated as a function of the atoms. On the other hand, for the protein, which is a macromolecule containing a large number of atoms, it is not relevant to represent the fluctuations for each atom. Therefore, in the protein graph, the RMSF is calculated and represented as a function of the residues. This distinction is essential for a correct interpretation of the results.

• According to the Rg ratio, the values (23.3 and 23) are negligible. The authors stated that their interaction with M6 resulted in a tighter AChE. However, the results given contradict their claims. Here, an increase in the radius of gyration confirms that the protein has become less compact compared to its Apo form. There is no mention of these details in the manuscript.

Based on the radius of gyration (Rg) analysis, the differences between the holo (AChE-M6) and apo (AChE) systems appear to be minimal, with similar values (2.33 Å and 2.3 Å). These differences are not significant and indicate that the interaction with M6 does not substantially modify the compactness of the enzyme. Thus, contrary to the initial assertion, the results suggest that AChE maintains a tight structure even in the presence of M6.

• Hydrogen bonding details: Here, the authors do not make any comparison of the total hydrogen bonds between the apo and holo forms of the AChE protein. The authors focused on the intermolecular hydrogen bond between the ligand and the protein. Instead, they called it intramolecular, which is incorrect.

Thank you for your comment. We performed an analysis of total hydrogen bonds between the apo and holo forms of AChE protein as suggested. Regarding intramolecular hydrogen bonding, we mentioned it in the manuscript as a global information about protein stability, without confusing it with intermolecular hydrogen bonds. Additionally, we added the term intermolecular to clarify and avoid confusion for the reader.

• The manuscript does not mention the necessary residues associated with hydrogen bonds. This will provide an understanding of the consistency in the formation of hydrogen bonds between the protein and the ligand. In addition, the authors did a single run of the simulation instead of triplets. Two more simulations could better validate their results.

Thank you for your remark. We have added a figure showing the residues involved in hydrogen bonding after molecular dynamics, along with a detailed interpretation for better understanding. Additionally, we performed two additional simulations for the complex and the protein to further validate our results, and we found consistent and repeatable outcomes.

• The manuscript should include the MM/PBSA score of the protein-ligand complex for better validation of the protein-ligand complex interaction.

Thank you for your feedback. We performed MM/GBSA analysis for the protein-ligand complex to further validate the interaction, and the results have been included in the manuscript.

• Furthermore, the author made no mention of the structural characteristics of the drug M6 and its functional group• The manuscript can only be considered if the authors revise it according to the suggestions given above.

Thank you for your comment. We have added a detailed description of the structural features of the drug M6 as well as its functional groups in the manuscript, according to your suggestion.

Critique #2: The manuscript is very well written and contains some new findings. There are some minor changes I would like to suggest.

What is meant by M6 in the abstract?

The manuscript is missing some references.

In the Principal Component Analysis section, the term Correlation coefficient is not well described.

Also, what is the coefficient of determination?

Thank you for your review and suggestions. We have clarified in the manuscript what M6 means, and we have added the references in the manuscript, and further detailed the correlation coefficient in the Principal Component Analysis section. In addition, we have included a clear explanation of the coefficient of determination for better understanding.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.DOCX

pone.0320789.s004.DOCX (17.5KB, DOCX)

Decision Letter 1

Sapan Kamleshkumar Shah

25 Feb 2025

Design of novel potent inhibitor based on 2D-QSAR of carbamate derivatives for AChE inhibition

PONE-D-24-47957R1

Dear Dr. Chtita,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Sapan Kamleshkumar Shah, Ph.D., M.Pharm.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Sapan Kamleshkumar Shah

PONE-D-24-47957R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chtita,

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

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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

Dr. Sapan Kamleshkumar Shah

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Table S1. Structures and pIC50 values of the 32 studied compounds.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0320789.s001.docx (197.1KB, docx)
    Table S2. Structures and predicted pIC50 values of new designed compounds.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0320789.s002.docx (59.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.DOCX

    pone.0320789.s004.DOCX (17.5KB, DOCX)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES