Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 May 23;20(5):e0324100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324100

Investigation of the inhibitory potential of secondary metabolites isolated from Fernandoa adenophylla against Beta-glucuronidase via molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation studies

Abdur Rauf 1,*, Rahaf Ajaj 2,*, Zuneera Akram 3, Majid Khan 4, Abdul Wadood 5, Maryam Zulfat 5, Zafar Ali Shah 6, Abdulhakeem S Alamri 7,8, Walaa F Alsanie 7,8, Majid Alhomrani 7,8, Humaira Hussain 4, Dorota Formanowicz 9
Editor: Viet Phong Nguyen10
PMCID: PMC12101693  PMID: 40408389

Abstract

Elevated β-glucuronidase activity is associated with the production of toxic metabolites that contribute to tumor development and other diseases. Inhibiting this enzyme may offer therapeutic potential, including the prevention of colonic carcinogenesis. This study investigates the antidiabetic potential of metabolites derived from Fernandoa adenophylla, using β-glucuronidase as a model enzyme linked to hyperglycemia. Both Escherichia coli and human isoforms of β-glucuronidase were evaluated. Among the tested compounds, AA and DD exhibited the most significant inhibitory activity against the E. coli isoenzyme, with inhibition rates of 85.2% (IC₅₀ = 12.3 µM) and 82.6% (IC₅₀ = 8.2 µM), respectively. Against the human isoenzyme, compounds DD and CC showed the highest inhibition, with 92.6% (IC₅₀ = 28.2 µM) and 90.4% (IC₅₀ = 8.9 µM), respectively. These findings were further supported by molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulations. So, these results highlight the potential of F. adenophylla metabolites as promising candidates for developing novel therapeutic agents targeting β-glucuronidase.

1. Introduction

β-glucuronidase is a lysosomal enzyme found in mammals, bacteria, and other organisms, where it plays a key role in the hydrolysis of β-d-glucuronides. In humans, this enzyme is present in various tissues, including the colon and human milk, and contributes to the reabsorption of substances like bilirubin and estrogens. Altered β-glucuronidase activity has been associated with several pathological conditions, including cancers (e.g., breast, colon), diabetes mellitus (DM), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and infections [16]. Its role in tumor development, inflammation, and metabolic disorders makes β-glucuronidase an attractive target for therapeutic interventions, particularly in cancer treatment, neonatal jaundice, diabetes management, and anti-inflammatory therapies.

Due to the broad properties of this enzyme, inhibition of its activity has become a target for diagnostic and therapeutic applications in (a) anticancer chemotherapy - due to the enzyme’s role in tumor development and metastasis; (b) neonatal jaundice treatment - the enzyme is highly expressed in human milk and has been implicated in the hyperbilirubinemia development; (c) diabetes mellitus management, due to the demonstrated relationship between disease status and enzyme activity levels, as well as concomitant periodontitis [7]; and (d) anti-inflammatory treatment, due to its pro-inflammatory role following extensive release from degranulated mast cells and neutrophils. Inhibition of β-glucuronidase alleviated these states and their side effects, thereby improving the efficacy of treatment regimens [1].

Some natural products and synthetic scaffolds have shown potential as β-glucuronidase inhibitors, with a few making their way into clinical use despite their moderate to weak pharmacokinetic profiles. Plants, long revered for their role in producing bioactive compounds, have been extensively studied for their medicinal properties throughout human history. Recently, these natural compounds are being explored as novel pharmaceutical scaffolds for developing modern drugs, a trend that has been well-documented [8]. With the increasing interest in plant-based substances and herbal remedies, they are emerging as a preferred alternative to synthetic pharmaceuticals, offering cost-effectiveness and a reduced likelihood of adverse effects. This shift is particularly significant given the high costs and undesirable side effects often associated with synthetic drugs and the growing concern about their role in developing antibiotic resistance in bacterial pathogens [9].

Identifying novel therapeutic applications from medicinal plants remains a critical aspect of pharmaceutical research. Ethnobotanical studies have played an essential role in discovering and utilizing these plant species [10]. The literature extensively covers the diverse range of plant-based medicines and isolated compounds investigated for their therapeutic potential [11]. It is also important to highlight that the indigenous knowledge held by local communities regarding the medicinal properties of plants has been instrumental in developing many pharmaceutical drugs [12]. The pharmaceutical industry has greatly benefited from phytochemical, biological, and pharmacological studies [13].

Numerous plant species with potential health benefits have already been scientifically investigated. However, many plants remain under-researched, leaving gaps in understanding their potential therapeutic applications. The primary objective of this study was to investigate and evaluate the medicinal properties of Fernandoa adenophylla, a species of the Bignoniaceae family that occurs in regions of Africa and Southeast Asia [14]. Various phytochemicals in this plant have been well documented in scientific literature. Key compounds include tecomoquinone-I, β-amyrin, lapachol, α-lapachone, β-sitosterol, adenophylone, dehydro-α-lapachone, and dehydro-iso-α-lapachone [15]. These compounds are of particular interest due to their potential as β-glucuronidase inhibitors, which is the focus of our research.

Fernandoa adenophylla has been traditionally used by local communities for various medical purposes, including managing amenorrhea, premature ejaculation, diabetes, night emissions, antiseptic treatments, antimicrobial effects, and skin diseases [16]. It is noteworthy that all species within the Bignoniaceae family are known to produce lapachol in significant quantities. The extensive literature on lapachol and its derivatives highlights their broad spectrum of biological activities. Compounds such as lapachol, lapachone, indanone derivatives, and peshawarquinone have been reported for their notable anti-inflammatory, analgesic, muscle relaxant, phosphodiesterase-1 inhibitory, and sedative properties [1719].

This study focuses on evaluating the β-glucuronidase inhibitory activity of five compounds isolated from Fernandoa adenophylla. The rationale for selecting this plant stems from its documented phytochemical profile and its traditional use in managing conditions linked to β-glucuronidase activity. Additionally, molecular docking studies were employed to further investigate the mechanism of inhibition, providing insights into the therapeutic potential of these compounds..

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Ethics

Not applicable

2.2. General Procedure

The glass chromatography column used was 6 cm in diameter and 55 cm in length. Approximately 90 g of silica (200–300 mesh, Merck, Germany) was loaded into the column as the stationary phase, and varying combination ratios of mobile phase, chloroform, and methanol were utilized to isolate these compounds. Mass spectra were carried out on a JEOL MS Route Direct Probe. The 1H and 13C NMR and HMBC spectra were recorded on a Bruker Avance-AV- 400 and 100 MHz at the Hussain Ejaz Research Center of Chemistry, University of Karachi, Pakistan. Two-dimensional (2D) (HSQC, COSY, and HMBC) studies were performed using Topspin software. All commercial-grade solvents were distilled before use for extraction and column chromatography.

2.3. Plant collection

The heartwood roots of Fernandoa adenophylla were collected in April 2011 from the University of Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. The plant was identified by Professor Dr. Barkath Ullah, a distinguished researcher from the Department of Botany at the University of Peshawar. A voucher specimen, labeled with the unique identifier UOP/Bot987, has been deposited in the herbarium for future reference and research purposes.

2.4. Isolation and extraction

The heartwood roots of Fernandoa adenophylla were subjected to a shade-drying process for approximately 40–45 days. The dried material was pulverized into a fine powder and subsequently underwent extraction in a soxhlet apparatus using methanol as the solvent for 6 hours. The crude methanolic extract was subjected to sequential fractionation based on the increasing polarity of the solvents used. Following the process of fractionation and subsequent concentration on a rotary evaporator under reduced pressure, the fractions obtained from n-hexane, dichloromethane, ethyl acetate, and methanol resulted in extract yields of 8 g, 15 g, 25 g, and 40 g, respectively. Column chromatography (CC) was conducted on the methanol fraction (25 g) utilizing silica gel (70–230 mesh) as stationary phase and a chloroform: methanol (10:0 → 0:10) mobile phase. The procedure yielded 114 fractions, which were subsequently consolidated into three main fractions based on TLC profiles: 1 (10.0 → 8:2, 600 mL, 6.2 g), 2 (8:2 → 7:3, 1500 mL, 12 g), and 3 (7:3 → 3:7, 1500 mL, 3.5 g). Fraction 1 on loading to a column having silica as stationary phase and chloroform (10:0, 1000 mL) yielded Compound (5) (30.42 mg). Fraction 2 (3.5 g) underwent further CC with chloroform and methanol (10:0 → 6:4), resulting in two subfractions: 2.1 (10.0 → 7:3, 600 mL, 1.5 g) and 2.2 (7:3 → 6:4, 1500 mL, 3 g). The fraction 2.1 was loaded to the small column on silica and eluting solvent chloroform and methanol (10:0 → 8:2, 400 ml), yielding compound (4) (14.32 mg). CC of fraction 2.2 using chloroform: methanol (6:4) produced compound (1) (12.56 mg). Fraction 3 (3.5 g) was subjected to CC on silica with chloroform: methanol (10.0 → 7:3), generating three sub-fractions: 3.1 (10.0 → 7:3, 300 mL, 1.5 g), 3.2 (7:3 → 5:5, 700 mL, 2.3 g), and 3.3 (5:5 → 2:8, 400 mL, 0.5 g). The sub-fraction 3.1 on separation through the column using a solvent in the ratio (8:2 → 5:5, 800 mL) yielded compound (3) (9.27 mg). Subsequently, CC of sub-fraction 3.2 (2.3 g) on silica gel using chloroform: methanol (7:3) yielded compound (2) (8.10 mg). The compounds (1–5; Fig 1) underwent additional purification by washing with n-hexane. The chemical structures of isolated compounds was characterized by spectroscopic data (See S1 File) [14].

Fig 1. Chemical structures of compounds isolated from Fernandoa adenophylla.

Fig 1

2.5. β-glucuronidase inhibitory assay

The present study investigated the inhibitory potential of five isolated compounds from Fernandoa adenophylla against β-glucuronidase activity. The evaluation of these compounds for their inhibitory effects on β-glucuronidase was conducted following a well-documented protocol available in the literature [20]. The assessment of the inhibitory activity of compounds (1–5) against β-glucuronidase was carried out by monitoring the absorbance of p-nitrophenol, which is generated from the hydrolysis of p-nitrophenyl-b-D-glucuronide (N-1627), at a specific wavelength of 405 nm utilizing a spectrophotometer. The experimental procedure involved the utilization of a reaction mixture consisting of 185 µL of a 0.1 M acetate buffer, 5 µL of a test compound solution (dissolved in 100% DMSO), and 10 µL of an enzyme solution (prepared using the buffer above at a concentration of 1 U/well or 1 U/250 µL). This reaction mixture was subjected to incubation at a temperature of 37 °C for thirty minutes. Subsequently, a volume of 50 µL of a solution containing p-nitrophenyl-β-D-glucuronide at a concentration of 0.4 mM was meticulously introduced into each well. The plates were then analyzed using a multiple reader, specifically the SpectraMax plus 384 model manufactured by Molecular Devices, located in San Jose, CA, USA. The readings were obtained at a wavelength of 405 nm. The experimental protocol was replicated thrice for each compound. The inhibitor used in this study to inhibit ß-glucuronidase was D-saccharic acid 1,4-lactone, as reported by Iqbal et al. in 2022 [21]. The IC50 values were determined by using the following equation 1: (See S1 File).

%Inhibition=100(O.DtestcompoundO.Dcontrol)×100 (1)

2.6. Molecular docking

The generation of three-dimensional structures for isolated compounds from Fernandoa adenophylla was accomplished using the MOE software and all structures were energy-minimized [22]. The compounds underwent protonation, minimization, and charge assignment procedures following the initial synthesis steps. The three-dimensional crystal structures of the target proteins, β-glucuronidase from Escherichia coli and human β-glucuronidase, were obtained from the Protein Data Bank (PDB IDs: 6LEL and 1BHG) [23,24]. The structure analysis revealed that β-glucuronidase forms a homodimer consisting of chains A and B. Chain A was extracted for further analysis, and missing atoms and bond and angle corrections were addressed using the auto-correction function in MOE.

To prepare the protein for docking simulations, it was subjected to protonation, charging, and minimization protocols to optimize its structure. Active site information was gathered from existing literature, allowing for precise targeting of critical residues responsible for enzyme inhibition [25]. Docking simulations of the newly isolated compounds were performed using default parameters, with two distinct rescoring functions applied: GBVI/WSA dG and the Triangle Matcher method. Thirty conformations were generated for each compound to identify the optimal binding conformation.

The results from the docking experiments were systematically organized and saved in output files in the MDB (Microsoft Access Database) format. These output files were visually examined to analyze the protein-ligand interactions, focusing on the active site of the target proteins. This analysis aimed to elucidate the inhibitory activity of the compounds isolated from Fernandoa adenophylla.

2.7. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulation

Combining docking results with MD simulations validates the docking predictions by assessing protein-ligand complexes’ conformational flexibility and structural stability. In this study, MD simulations were performed using Amber [26] to analyze the dynamic behavior of the protein-ligand complexes over time. These simulations provide insight into molecular motions and interactions within a simulated environment.

The force field used in MD simulations is crucial for computing the potential energy of the protein-ligand complexes [27]. In this work, the General AMBER Force Field (GAFF) was applied to the ligands, while the FF14SB AMBER force field was used for the protein. Topology and coordinate files for each system were generated using the leap module of AMBER software. Atomic charges and topology files for the ligands were created using the antechamber suite in AMBER.

Solvation is an essential step for studying the internal motion of the protein at various temperatures. A truncated octahedral box of TIP3P water molecules was used to solvate the system, with water molecules added using the LEap module of Amber. Sodium ions (Na+) were introduced to neutralize the system. The Particle Mesh Ewald (PME) method was employed to compute long-range electrostatic interactions, and a cut-off distance of 10 Å was set for non-bonded interactions. The SHAKE algorithm was applied to constrain hydrogen-containing bonds.

The simulation protocol involved heating the system from 0 to 300 K, followed by equilibration at constant pressure and 300 K temperature. A production run of 100 ns was then performed for the compound 1 complex and the reference compound [28].

2.8. Statical analysis

ANOVA software was used for statistical analysis. The results of three experiments were presented as mean values ± SEM.

3. Results

3.1. β-glucuronidase inhibitory assay

The results from the in vitro evaluation of β-glucuronidase isozyme inhibitory activity (using E. coli and human sources) for the isolated derivatives (1–5) of Fernandoa adenophylla are presented in Table 1. The highest inhibitory effects for the E. coli isozyme were observed with compounds AA and DD, showing inhibition rates of 85.2% (IC₅₀ = 12.3 µM) and 82.6% (IC₅₀ = 8.2 µM), respectively. In contrast, the human isozyme was significantly inhibited by compounds EE (92.6%) and CC (90.4%), with IC₅₀ values of 32.2 µM and 8.9 µM, respectively. The performance of the positive control drug was remarkable, demonstrating superior efficacy compared to the isolated compounds.

Table 1. In vitro activity of the isolated compounds against β-glucuronidase isozymes.

Compounds E. coli
β-glucuronidase
Human
β-glucuronidase
% Inhibition IC50 ± SEM % Inhibition IC50 ± SEM
AA (Lapachol; 1) 85.2 12.3 ± 0.4 14.6 NA
DD (Alpha-lapachone; 2) 82.6 8.2 ± 0.5 87.1 28.2 ± 0.3
EE (Peshawaraquinone; 3) 41.1 NA 92.6 32.2 ± 0.7
BB (Dehydro-α-lapachone; 4) 72.6 37.6 ± 0.5 20.9 NA
CC (Indanone derivatives; 5) 71.6 40.2 ± 0.8 90.4 8.9 ± 0.9
D-Saccharic acid 1,4-lactone 88.9 42.7 ± 0.7 88.9 38.1 ± 0.6

3.2. Molecular docking analysis

Molecular docking was performed using MOE software to explore the binding interactions of compounds isolated from Fernandoa adenophylla with the target enzyme β-glucuronidase. The isolated compounds were docked into the active sites of both E. coli and human β-glucuronidase. The docking results revealed that these compounds could be effectively accommodated within the β-glucuronidase binding pocket, see Table 1.

For the E. coli β-glucuronidase, the reference compound (D-Saccharic acid 1,4-lactone) displayed one conventional hydrogen bonds with TYR472, and two carbon hydrogen interactions with SER360, achieving a docking score of -6.699 kcal/mol.

Indanone derivatives demonstrated one conventional hydrogen bond with ASN 358, one carbon-hydrogen bond with LEU361, one pi-pi stacked interaction with TYR472, and six alkyl and pi-alkyl interactions with LEU361, TYR468, TYR472, LEU561 residues, resulting in a docking score of -7.2419 kcal/mol. Lapachol, showed two conventional hydrogen bond interactions with LEU361 and MET447, six alkyl and pi-alkyl interation with LEU361, VAL446, MET447, TYR468, TYR472, TRP549, LYS568 residues, yielding a docking score of -7.210. The third potent compound, alpha-apache, with a docking score of -7.197 kcal/mol, formed one conventional hydrogen bond with MET447, and seven TYR468, TYR472, TRP549, and LYS568, residues. For details, see (Table 2, Fig 2 and Fig 3).

Table 2. Illustrated the binding score and interacting residues of E.coli β-glucuronidase involved in binding interaction.

No Compounds Residues S-Score
1 AA (Lapachol; 1) LEU361, VAL446, MET447, TYR468, TYR472, TRP549, LYS568 -7.210
2 DD (Alpha-lapachone; 2) MET447, TYR468, TYR472, TRP549, LYS568 -7.197
3 EE (Peshawaraquinone; 3) PHE448, TYR472 -6.483
4 BB (Dehydro-α-lapachone; 4) LEU361, PHE448, TYR468, TYR472 -6.594
5 CC (Indanone derivatives; 5) ASN358, LEU361, TYR468, TYR472, LEU561 -7.241
6 D-Saccharic acid 1,4-lactone SER360, TYR472 -6.699

Fig 2. Represented the 2d interaction of protein-ligand (Fernandoa adenophylla isolated compounds in complex with E coliβ-glucuronidase).

Fig 2

A Interaction of Indanone derivatives; B. Ligand interaction of Lapachol; C. Ligand interaction of Alpha-lapachone; D. Ligand interaction of D-Saccharic acid 1, 4-lactone (Reference compound).

Fig 3. Binding interaction of protein-ligand (Fernandoa adenophylla isolated compounds in complex with E coliβ-glucuronidase).

Fig 3

A Interaction of Indanone derivatives; B. Ligand interaction of Lapachol; C. Ligand interaction of Alpha-lapachone; D. Ligand interaction of D-Saccharic acid 1, 4-lactone (Reference compound).

In the case of human β-glucuronidase, the Indanone derivatives emerged as the top compound based on interactions and docking score (-6.887 kcal/mol), forming four conventional hydrogen bonds with HIS94, TYR199 and GLN202, one pi-sigma interaction with GLN202, three carbon hydrogen interactions with PHE200, VAL201 and three alkyl interactions with HIS94, VAL96, TYR199. The second most potent compound was alpha-lapachone, followed by Lapachol, with docking scores of -6.493 and -6.347, respectively. alpha-lapachone formed two conventional hydrogen bonds with TYR199 and GLN202, two pi-pi stacked interactions with HIS94, and one alkyl interaction with VAL201, while Lapachol established one conventional hydrogen bond acceptor interaction with PHE200, one pi-pi stacked interaction with TYR199 and three alkyl interactions with VAL96, VAL201 residues. For details, see Table 3 Fig 4, and Fig 5.

Table 3. Illustrated the binding score and interacting residues of human β-glucuronidase involved in binding interaction.

No Compounds Residues S-Score
1 AA (Lapachol; 1) VAL96, TYR199, PHE200, VAL201 -6.347
2 DD (Alpha-lapachone; 2) HIS94, TYR199, VAL201, GLN202 -6.493
3 EE (Peshawaraquinone; 3) SER52, VAL96, TYR199 -6. 094
4 BB (Dehydro-α-lapachone; 4) ARG91, PHE95, VAL96, TYR199 -5.977
5 CC (Indanone derivatives; 5) HIS94, VAL96, TYR199, PHE200, VAL201, GLN202 -6.887
6 D-Saccharic acid 1,4-lactone TYR199, GLN202 -6. 098

Fig 4. Represented the 2d interaction of protein-ligand (Fernandoa adenophylla isolated compounds complex with humanβ-glucuronidase).

Fig 4

A Interaction of Indanone derivatives; B. Ligand interaction of alpha-lapachone; C. Ligand interaction of Lapachol; D. Ligand interaction of D-Saccharic acid 1, 4-lactone (Reference compound).

Fig 5. Binding interaction of protein-ligand (Fernandoa adenophylla isolated compounds complex with humanβ-glucuronidase).

Fig 5

A Interaction of Indanone derivatives; B. Ligand interaction of alpha-lapachone; C. Ligand interaction of Lapachol; D. Ligand interaction of D-Saccharic acid 1, 4-lactone (Reference compound).

3.3. Molecular dynamic (MD) simulation and its analysis

The molecular dynamics (MD) simulation was conducted to assess the stability of the most potent compound compared to the reference compound. The trajectory analysis was performed using the CPPTRAJ module of AMBER software. Subsequent post-simulation analyses, including RMSD and RMSF, were carried out to evaluate and compare the stability and flexibility of the protein-ligand complexes.

3.4. Root mean square deviation

Root mean square deviation (RMSD) measures the differences in the backbone structure of protein complexes from their initial to final conformations. A larger RMSD curve indicates lower stability, while a smaller curve suggests higher stability. The MD simulation results demonstrated that the reference compound, D-saccharic acid 1,4-lactone, exhibited a more significant deviation than the most potent compound, the Indanone derivatives. Initially, the compound 1/eβ-glucuronidase complex RMSD was found to be ~ 0.4Å, which gradually increased and reached ~1.4Å with minor increases and decreases and remained stable until the end of the simulation, indicating a dynamically stable interaction (Fig 6). In contrast, the RMSD of the D-Saccharic acid 1,4-lactone/eβ-glucuronidase complex showed a stable pattern with a score of ~0.8Å from the beginning to 19ns, and then gradually increased to 1.4Å by 60ns. After 60ns, the RMSD, again gradually increased and then reached ~1.9Å. Then remained stable after 65ns until the end of the simulation. These results indicate that the compound 1/eβ-glucuronidase complex is more stable than the D-Saccharic acid 1,4-lactone/eβ-glucuronidase complex, as evidenced by its lower RMSD values and more stable behavior.

Fig 6. RMSD of the compound 1/eβ-glucuronidase complex is shown in red, while the reference compound complex is shown in black.

Fig 6

3.5. Root mean square fluctuation

Root mean square fluctuations (RMSF) provide insights into the flexibility of residues within a protein-ligand complex. Regions with low RMSF values indicate rigidity, while higher RMSF values suggest increased flexibility. The RMSF analysis in this study revealed that, compared to the reference compound (D-Saccharic acid 1,4-lactone), the compound 1/eβ-glucuronidase complex exhibited lower RMSF values, indicating enhanced stability. Specifically, residues 140–160, 220–260, 360–370, 550–555 of the reference compound showed more significant fluctuations compared to the compound 1/eβ-glucuronidase complex. Both systems, however, maintained an average RMSF of ~0.5 Å, with notable fluctuations observed in the 140–160, 220–260, 360–370 and 550–555 regions. Although the reference compound exhibited higher fluctuations, the overall residual flexibility pattern was similar to that of the 1/eβ-glucuronidase complex.

As illustrated in Fig 7, the RMSF profiles clearly show the differences in flexibility between the two systems. These findings suggest that the binding of the selected inhibitor to the target protein enhances its stability, as evidenced by the reduced fluctuations in critical regions.

Fig 7. Root means square fluctuations (RMSF) of D-Saccharic acid 1, 4-lactone, and Lapachol during 100ns MD simulations.

Fig 7

3.6. Distance

The AMBER software was used to calculate the distance between the eβ-glucuronidase and ligands during the simulation. The average distance calculations were done using the 100 ns MD trajectories and are shown in Fig 8. The average distance for the compound 1/eβ-glucuronidase complex was observed to be around 4.25 nm, while for D-Saccharic acid 1,4-lactone/eβ-glucuronidase complex, it was computed to be around 4.38 nm. Distance analysis shows that compound-1 has the same distance from eβ-glucuronidase as the reference D-Saccharic acid 1,4-lactone.

Fig 8. The distance of the compound 1/eβ-glucuronidase complex is shown in red, while the reference compound complex is shown in black, during 100ns MD simulations.

Fig 8

3.7. Binding Free energy (BFE) calculation.

The binding free energy of each complex is predicted using a widely used method called MM-GBSA. All energy terms are listed in Table 4, including vdWaals (vdW), electrostatic energy (EEL), polar solvation (EGB), and total binding free energy of all systems. The total binding energy of the compound 1/eβ-glucuronidase complex was found to be –26.18 kcal/mol. The vdW value reported for the compound 1/eβ-glucuronidase complex was -26.18 kcal/mol, electrostatic -85.88 kcal/mol, EGB 73.21, and ESURF -3.10 kcal/mol. Total binding energy for reference/eβ-glucuronidase complex was found to be -18.00. For reference/eβ-glucuronidase complex, the calculated values of vdW and electrostatic energy, EGB and ESURF were -24.09, -11.48 kcal/mol, 20.26, and -18. 00 kcal/mol, respectively. Table 4 shows the total binding energy along with all related terms.

Table 4. The total binding free energy and related term of compound-1/eβ-glucuronidase complex and reference/eβ-glucuronidase complex.

S.NO System VDWAALS EEL EGB ESURF DELTA TOTAL kcal/mol
1. Compound-1 -10.4084 -85.8818 73.2107 -3.1078 -26.1873
2. Reference -24.0952 -11.4873 20.2630 -2.6843 -18.0002

4. Discussion

Natural products continue to be valuable sources for drug discovery, especially for chronic diseases like diabetes mellitus (DM). These compounds have demonstrated various bioactivities, including anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and antimicrobial properties, making them valuable candidates for treating chronic conditions. Among these, DM has garnered significant attention due to its increasing prevalence and the limitations of current synthetic therapies. In searching for safer and more effective treatments, natural products offer promising alternatives for managing DM and related metabolic disorders. DM and obesity stand as one of the most prevalent chronic health challenges worldwide [2930]. The management of DM primarily relies on synthetic drugs, especially in developing countries, while monthly depot injections like semaglutide are available in more developed regions [31]. However, there remains an urgent need for safer, more effective, and cost-efficient antidiabetic treatments. The exploration of natural products [32] and their isolated compounds [33] continues to be a promising area of research in this quest. This study was undertaken to discover a potent and novel antidiabetic remedy.

Previous research has reported the antidiabetic potential of Fernandoa adenophylla [32]. Given the promising results of the plant extract, we conducted a detailed investigation into its chemical constituents. β-glucuronidase, an enzyme essential for human metabolism, is critical in carbohydrate breakdown [34]. However, the excessive activity of this enzyme is linked to the release of free glucose, which can lead to hyperglycemia and, ultimately, type 2 diabetes mellitus. The pathological accumulation of glucosylceramide, resulting from β-glucuronidase deficiency, is also associated with Gaucher’s disease [35,36]. Therefore, inhibiting β-glucuronidase has become a key strategy in managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2).

In our study, the isolated compounds from Fernandoa adenophylla showed substantial inhibitory activity against β-glucosidase, supporting their potential antidiabetic properties. The compounds exhibited powerful binding behavior to the target enzyme through molecular docking tests together with substantial interface connections which supported their inhibitory mechanisms. Molecular dynamics simulations proved the stability of these interactions during a 100-nanosecond simulation run. Without extending enzyme kinetics analysis more certain confirmation about the specific binding site on β-glucuronidase cannot be achieved since multiple ligand-binding sites exist. Enzyme kinetics experiments represent the essential research step for future validation because they will confirm the specific binding site and substantiate the docking study findings. The top-performing compound showed significant structural stability and consistent binding, suggesting its potential as a promising lead molecule for further development. Our findings indicate that the antidiabetic effects of Fernandoa adenophylla may stem from its β-glucosidase inhibitory activity, which could effectively reduce glucose levels and mitigate hyperglycemia. The combined in vitro and in silico results support the therapeutic potential of these compounds and provide a foundation for future research aimed at developing natural, enzyme-targeting antidiabetic drugs.

5. Conclusions

In the present study, the isolated chemical constituents (1–5) of Fernandoa adenophylla exhibited remarkable antidiabetic activity. This potency was reinforced by computational analyses, including molecular docking and preliminary molecular dynamics simulations, which confirmed that these compounds formed stable and effective interactions with the target enzymes. The combined results from both in vitro and in silico studies underscore the potential of these natural compounds as promising candidates for antidiabetic drug development.

Supporting information

S1 File. The spectroscopic data of all isolated compounds are available in the supplementary file.

(DOC)

pone.0324100.s001.doc (2.1MB, doc)

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This research was funded by Taif University, Saudi Arabia, Project No. (TU-DSPP-2024-09).

References

  • 1.Awolade P, Cele N, Kerru N, Gummidi L, Oluwakemi E, Singh P. Therapeutic significance of β-glucuronidase activity and its inhibitors: A review. Eur J Med Chem. 2020;187:111921. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2019.111921 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Whitaker BL. Plasma beta-glucuronidase levels in breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1960;14(3):471–7. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1960.51 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kim DH, Jin YH. Intestinal bacterial beta-glucuronidase activity of patients with colon cancer. Arch Pharm Res. 2001;24(6):564–7. doi: 10.1007/BF02975166 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Schumacher U, Adam E, Zangemeister-Wittke U, Gossrau R. Histochemistry of therapeutically relevant enzymes in human tumours transplanted into severe combined immunodeficient (SCID) mice: nitric oxide synthase-associated diaphorase, beta-D-glucuronidase and non-specific alkaline phosphatase. Acta Histochem. 1996;98(4):381–7. doi: 10.1016/s0065-1281(96)80004-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Vlacha V, Eliopoulou M, Haidas S, Beratis NG. Correlation of cerebrospinal fluid beta-glucuronidase activity with plasma methotrexate concentrations in leukemic children receiving high-dose methotrexate. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2004;42(4):350–6. doi: 10.1002/pbc.20002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Saha AK, Glew RH, Kotler DP, Omene JA. Elevated serum beta-glucuronidase activity in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Clin Chim Acta. 1991;199(3):311–6. doi: 10.1016/0009-8981(91)90125-v [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Llambés F, Arias-Herrera S, Caffesse R. Relationship between diabetes and periodontal infection. World J Diabetes. 2015;6(7):927–35. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v6.i7.927 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Patrick G. An introduction to medicinal chemistry. Oxford University Press. 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Johann S, Pizzolatti MG, Donnici CL, Resende MAD. Antifungal properties of plants used in Brazilian traditional medicine against clinically relevant fungal pathogens. Braz J Microbiol. 2007;38:632–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Farombi EO. African indigenous plants with chemotherapeutic potentials and biotechnological approach to the production of bioactive prophylactic agents. Afr J Biotech. 2003;2:662–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Saleem H, Htar TT, Naidu R, Zengin G, Ahmad I, Ahemad N. Phytochemical profiling, antioxidant, enzyme inhibition and cytotoxic potential of Bougainvillea glabra flowers. Nat Prod Res. 2020;34(18):2602–6. doi: 10.1080/14786419.2018.1543684 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Teklehaymanot T, Giday M. Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants used by people in Zegie Peninsula, northwestern Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2007;3:1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Srinivasan K, Natarajan D, Mohanasundari C, Venkatakrishnan CJ, Nagamurugan N. Antibacterial, preliminary phytochemical and pharmacognostical screening on the leaves of Vicoa indica (L.) DC. I. J. Pharma. Therap. 2007;6:109–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Shah Z, Khan M. Peshawaraquinone a novel naphthoquinone and a new indanone from the stem of Heterophragma adenophyllum Seem. Rec Nat Prod. 2015;9:169. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Jassbi AR, Singh P, Jain S, Tahara S. Novel Naphthoquinones from Heterophragma adenophyllum. Helvetica Chimica Acta. 2004;87(4):820–4. doi: 10.1002/hlca.200490080 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rahmatullah M, Samarrai W, Jahan R, Rahman S, Sharmin N, Miajee EU, et al. An ethnomedicinal, pharmacological and phytochemical review of some Bignoniaceae family plants and a description of Bignoniaceae plants in folk medicinal uses in Bangladesh. Adv Nat Appl Sci. 2010;4:236–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Abu-Izneid T, Shah ZA, Rauf A, Wadood A, Bawazeer S, Muhammad N, et al. Anti-inflammatory and In Silico Docking Studies of Heterophragma adenophyllum Seem Stem Constituents. Inflammation. 2021;44(1):297–306. doi: 10.1007/s10753-020-01333-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Alhumaydhi FA, Aljohani ASM, Rashid U, Shah ZA, Rauf A, Muhammad N, et al. In Vivo Antinociceptive, Muscle Relaxant, Sedative, and Molecular Docking Studies of Peshawaraquinone Isolated from Fernandoa adenophylla (Wall. ex G. Don) Steenis. ACS Omega. 2021;6(1):996–1002. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.0c05720 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Shah ZA, Abu-Izneid T, Rauf A, Rashid U, Nizam M, Muhammad N, et al. Phosphodiesterase 1 inhibition and molecular docking study of phytochemicals isolated from stem heartwood of Heterophragma adenophyllum Seem. South African Journal of Botany. 2020;135:274–9. doi: 10.1016/j.sajb.2020.08.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lin CH, Chou HJ, Chang CC, Chen IS, Chang HS, Cheng TL, et al. Chemical constituent of β-glucuronidase inhibitors from the root of Neolitsea acuminatissima. Molecules. 2020;25:5170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Iqbal S, Shaikh NN, Khan KM, Kiran S, Naz S, Ul-Haq Z, et al. Synthesis of 2-Aminopyrimidine Derivatives and Their Evaluation as β-Glucuronidase Inhibitors: In Vitro and In Silico Studies. Molecules. 2022;27(22):7786. doi: 10.3390/molecules27227786 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mujawah A, Rauf A, Bawazeer S, Wadood A, Hemeg HA, Bawazeer S. Isolation, Structural Elucidation, In Vitro Anti-α-Glucosidase, Anti-β-Secretase, and In Silico Studies of Bioactive Compound Isolated from Syzygium cumini L. Processes. 2023;11(3):880. doi: 10.3390/pr11030880 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Al-Nasser F, Taha M, Rahim F, Adalat B, Chigurupati S, Nawaz M, et al. Synthesis of novel indazole derivatives as inhibitors of diabetics II along with molecular docking and simulation study. Journal of Molecular Structure. 2025;1322:140394. doi: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2024.140394 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ibrahim MT, Muhammad U. Molecular modeling and docking analysis of bis-indolymethanes derivatives as human β-glucuronidase enzyme inhibitors. Bayero J Pure App Sci. 2021;14(1):21–30. doi: 10.4314/bajopas.v14i1.4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wallace BD, Wang H, Lane KT, Scott JE, Orans J, Koo JS, et al. Alleviating cancer drug toxicity by inhibiting a bacterial enzyme. Science. 2010;330(6005):831–5. doi: 10.1126/science.1191175 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Salomon-Ferrer R, Case DA, Walker RC. An overview of the amber biomolecular simulation package. WIREs Comput Mol Sci. 2013;3:198–210. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Grinter SZ, Zou X. Challenges, applications, and recent advances of protein-ligand docking in structure-based drug design. Molecules. 2014;19(7):10150–76. doi: 10.3390/molecules190710150 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Zulfat M, Hakami MA, Hazazi A, Mahmood A, Khalid A, Alqurashi RS, et al. Identification of novel NLRP3 inhibitors as therapeutic options for epilepsy by machine learning-based virtual screening, molecular docking and biomolecular simulation studies. Heliyon. 2024;10(15):e34410. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34410 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Braem CIR, Yavuz US, Hermens HJ, Veltink PH. Missing Data Statistics Provide Causal Insights into Data Loss in Diabetes Health Monitoring by Wearable Sensors. Sensors (Basel). 2024;24(5):1526. doi: 10.3390/s24051526 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bargieł W, Cierpiszewska K, Maruszczak K, Pakuła A, Szwankowska D, Wrzesińska A, et al. Recognized and Potentially New Biomarkers-Their Role in Diagnosis and Prognosis of Cardiovascular Disease. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021;57(7):701. doi: 10.3390/medicina57070701 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Fadini GP, Bonora BM, Ghiani M, Anichini R, Melchionda E, Fattor B, et al. Oral or injectable semaglutide for the management of type 2 diabetes in routine care: A multicentre observational study comparing matched cohorts. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2024;26(6):2390–400. doi: 10.1111/dom.15554 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Cherrada N, Elkhalifa Chemsa A, Gheraissa N, Zaater A, Benamor B, Ghania A, et al. Antidiabetic medicinal plants from the Chenopodiaceae family: a comprehensive overview. International Journal of Food Properties. 2024;27(1):194–213. doi: 10.1080/10942912.2023.2301576 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.RebollarRamos D, OvalleMagallanes B, Raja HA, JacomeRebollo M, Figueroa M, TovarPalacio C, et al. Antidiabetic potential of a trimeric anthranilic acid peptide isolated from Malbranchea flocciformis. Chem Biodivers. 2024;2024:e202301602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rauf A, Rashid U, Shah ZA, Khalil AA, Shah M, Tufail T, et al. Anti-inflammatory and anti-diabetic properties of indanone derivative isolated from Fernandoa adenophylla in vitro and in silico studies. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):9624. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-59703-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Velagapudi S, Karsai G, Karsai M, Mohammed SA, Montecucco F, Liberale L, et al. Inhibition of de novo ceramide synthesis by sirtuin-1 improves beta-cell function and glucose metabolism in type 2 diabetes. Cardiovasc Res. 2024;cvae100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Nagral A. Gaucher disease. J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2014;4(1):37–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jceh.2014.02.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Viet Phong Nguyen

12 Feb 2025

PONE-D-25-04376Investigation of the inhibitory potential of secondary metabolites isolated from Fernandoa adenophylla against Beta-glucuronidase via molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation studiesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rauf,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:  In this study: " Investigation of the inhibitory potential of secondary metabolites isolated from Fernandoa adenophylla against Beta-glucuronidase via molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation studies" The authors provide report about the inhibitory activities of compounds isolated from Fernandoa adenophylla against β-glucuronidase via in vitro and in silico studies. However, there are many concerns in this study, and major revision is required.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 29 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,

Viet Phong Nguyen, Ph.D.

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. 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. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

Additional Editor Comments :

1. Abstract: Avoid non-standard or uncommon abbreviations. If any are essential to include, ensure they are defined within your abstract at first mention.

2. Section 2.1: - Details on chromatographic separation techniques are missing (type of chromatographic column, stationary/mobile phase used, elution conditions, detection).

- Details of spectroscopic techniques to determine the structure of the isolated compound (type of NMR spectroscopy, mass, equipment used).

3. Section 2.3: check again the writing here. There are many grammar and presentation issues.

Additionally, all NMR data along with Chemical properties and spectra are mandatory in Supplemental materials.

4. Section 2.5: references of enzyme structures downloaded from Protein Data Bank are required.

In addition, was a grid box defined around the binding site to specify the docking region, or was blind docking used in this study?

Please clearly indicate the grid box parameters (grid size, grid position) for each target protein.

How was the 3D structure of the inhibitor constructed? Was the structure of the test compounds minimized before the docking process? Please indicate.

5. Section 3.1: Please provide the IC50 graphs of all test compounds.

The β-glucuronidase enzyme has multiple ligand binding sites (e.g., catalytic and allosteric sites). Without conducting enzyme kinetics analysis, it is unclear which binding site is relevant for the inhibitors. Therefore, to validate the binding site and confirm the docking results, enzyme kinetics experiments are mandatory.

6. Section 3.2 Molecular docking analysis: There is much literature reporting the inhibition mode and binding site of β-glucuronidase inhibitors. Please compare your compounds with reported inhibitors. What is the difference between the binding sites? Please clearly describe.

7. Section 3.3 MD simulation: A molecular dynamics simulation of 20 ns is not meaningful and does not yield any significant scientific results. In fact, the protein-ligand complex tends to exhibit many fluctuations during the initial 20 ns equilibration of simulations. Therefore, a prolonged molecular dynamics simulation of at least 100 ns is required.

8. It would be beneficial to report the RMSD of the ligand after fitting to the protein backbone, along with the distance between the centers of mass of the protein and ligand. These parameters can reveal any potential internal motions, particularly interdomain motion, within the protein.

9. How about the binding affinity of bound ligand conformations? MM/PB(GB)SA calculations are required.

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

Reviewers' comments:

[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.pdf

pone.0324100.s002.pdf (86.9KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2025 May 23;20(5):e0324100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324100.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 1


17 Mar 2025

Dear Viet Phong Nguyen, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Thank you very much for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript. We have studied the reviewer comments carefully and have made several revisions to the text. We would like to express our appreciation to you and the reviewers for your many suggestions, which have greatly improved our manuscript. All changes are shown in yellow, highlighted in the revised manuscript, and are outlined below on a point-by-point basis (red color).

We hope these corrections and revisions are satisfactory and that the manuscript now meets the requirements for publication.

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

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

Response: Done

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.

Response: Done

3. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

Response: Done

Additional Editor Comments :

1. Abstract: Avoid non-standard or uncommon abbreviations. If any are essential to include, ensure they are defined within your abstract at first mention.

Response: Corrected as suggested.

2. Section 2.1: - Details on chromatographic separation techniques are missing (type of chromatographic column, stationary/mobile phase used, elution conditions, detection).

Response: Details on chromatographic separation techniques, including column specifications, stationary and mobile phases, elution conditions, and detection methods, have now been incorporated.

- Details of spectroscopic techniques to determine the structure of the isolated compound (type of NMR spectroscopy, mass, equipment used).

Response: Details of the spectroscopic data, along with the corresponding spectra, are provided in the supplementary file.

3. Section 2.3: check again the writing here. There are many grammar and presentation issues.

Additionally, all NMR data along with Chemical properties and spectra are mandatory in Supplemental materials.

Response: All grammatical issues have been addressed. The NMR data, physical data, and spectra are now provided in the Supplemental Materials.

Section 2.5: references of enzyme structures downloaded from Protein Data Bank are required. In addition, was a grid box defined around the binding site to specify the docking region, or was blind docking used in this study?

Response: Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your valuable comments. We have incorporated the suggested references and followed the docking procedure as reported in a previous study. (https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11030880, doi:10.5281/zenodo.3576583).

Please clearly indicate the grid box parameters (grid size, grid position) for each target protein. How was the 3D structure of the inhibitor constructed? Was the structure of the test compounds minimized before the docking process? Please indicate.

Response: The requested details have now been incorporated into the revised manuscript and have been highlighted for clarity.

Section 3.1: Please provide the IC50 graphs of all test compounds.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's insightful comment. In response, we have incorporated the IC₅₀ graphs for all tested compounds (AA: Lapachol, DD: Alpha-lapachone, CC: Indanone derivatives, and D-Saccharic acid 1,4-lactone) as requested. The IC₅₀ values were determined using nonlinear regression analysis in GraphPad Prism, and the corresponding dose-response curves are now provided below.

The β-glucuronidase enzyme has multiple ligand binding sites (e.g., catalytic and allosteric sites). Without conducting enzyme kinetics analysis, it is unclear which binding site is relevant for the inhibitors. Therefore, to validate the binding site and confirm the docking results, enzyme kinetics experiments are mandatory.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We acknowledge that β-glucuronidase has multiple ligand-binding sites, including catalytic and allosteric sites, and that enzyme kinetics experiments are essential for definitive validation. In our study, molecular docking was employed as an initial approach to predict potential interactions. However, to further substantiate our findings, we plan to conduct enzyme kinetics experiments in future studies to confirm the binding site and validate the docking results experimentally.

Section 3.2 Molecular docking analysis: There is much literature reporting the inhibition mode and binding site of β-glucuronidase inhibitors. Please compare your compounds with reported inhibitors. What is the difference between the binding sites? Please clearly describe.

Response: The compounds have now been compared with the reported inhibitors, and the updates are highlighted in the revised manuscript.

Section 3.3 MD simulation: A molecular dynamics simulation of 20 ns is not meaningful and does not yield any significant scientific results. In fact, the protein-ligand complex tends to exhibit many fluctuations during the initial 20 ns equilibration of simulations. Therefore, a prolonged molecular dynamics simulation of at least 100 ns is required.

Response: The MD simulation has been extended to 100 ns, and the updates have been highlighted in the revised manuscript.

It would be beneficial to report the RMSD of the ligand after fitting to the protein backbone, along with the distance between the centers of mass of the protein and ligand. These parameters can reveal any potential internal motions, particularly interdomain motion, within the protein.

Response: As per the suggestions, the RMSD and distance analysis have been incorporated and highlighted in the revised manuscript.

How about the binding affinity of bound ligand conformations? MM/PB(GB)SA calculations are required

Response: The required details have now been added and appropriately highlighted in the revised manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reply-comments.docx

pone.0324100.s004.docx (17.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Viet Phong Nguyen

9 Apr 2025

PONE-D-25-04376R1Investigation of the inhibitory potential of secondary metabolites isolated from Fernandoa adenophylla against Beta-glucuronidase via molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation studiesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rauf,

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 May 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,

Viet Phong Nguyen, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

4. 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

6. 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 authors adequately responded to all comments and suggestions raised to improve their manuscript.

Reviewer #2: In my opinion, the manuscript “Investigation of the inhibitory potential of secondary metabolites isolated from Fernandoa adenophylla against Beta-glucuronidase via molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation studies” is well written and presents interesting information. But I would like to point out some issues which can be revised:

Abstract: Revise the abstract to align with conventional standards of clarity, logical flow, and objectivity.

Introduction: The introduction section should be rewritten in a more focused manner, in concise paragraphs. The statement of the problem and the rationale of this study is unclear. Although the authors have included some studies, it is needed to include additional literature on this plant, and a justification of its choice for the current investigation. According to this study, isolated chemical constituents (1-5) of Fernandoa adenophylla exhibited remarkable antidiabetic activity. Additionally, what are all the major phytocompounds have been reported and so on can be added.

Result: Appropriate inferential statistics are missing, especially for results. This is particularly important in interpreting the results, appraising their validity, and drawing appropriate conclusions.

Discussion : The discussion section should be revised and focused on interpretation, relationships with reports from other scholars in the field, and implication of the obtained results.

Reviewer #3: I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript. One additional comment I just mention that author should write the unit of binding energy in the manuscript.

**********

7. 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:  Khaled M. Darwish

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Shashank Shekher Mishra

**********

[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 23;20(5):e0324100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324100.r005

Author response to Decision Letter 2


14 Apr 2025

Dear Viet Phong Nguyen, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Thank you very much for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed the comments from the reviewers and made several revisions to the text. We would like to express our appreciation to you and the reviewers for your many suggestions, which have greatly improved our manuscript. All changes are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript and are outlined below on a point-by-point basis (in red).

We hope these corrections and revisions are satisfactory and that the manuscript now meets the requirements for publication.

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response: The reference list has been checked and found to be corrected.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Response: Thank you.

________________________________________

2. 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: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Response: The necessary corrections have been made.

________________________________________

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Response: Thank you.

________________________________________

4. 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Response: Thank you.

________________________________________

5. 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Response: Thank you.

________________________________________

6. 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 authors adequately responded to all comments and suggestions raised to improve their manuscript.

Response: Thank you.

Reviewer #2: In my opinion, the manuscript “Investigation of the inhibitory potential of secondary metabolites isolated from Fernandoa adenophylla against Beta-glucuronidase via molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation studies” is well written and presents interesting information. But I would like to point out some issues which can be revised:

Abstract: Revise the abstract to align with conventional standards of clarity, logical flow, and objectivity.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the abstract to make it more concise and clear.

Introduction: The introduction section should be rewritten in a more focused manner, in concise paragraphs. The statement of the problem and the rationale of this study is unclear. Although the authors have included some studies, it is needed to include additional literature on this plant, and a justification of its choice for the current investigation. According to this study, isolated chemical constituents (1-5) of Fernandoa adenophylla exhibited remarkable antidiabetic activity. Additionally, what are all the major phytocompounds have been reported and so on can be added.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestion. The introduction has been revised as per the suggestions.

Result: Appropriate inferential statistics are missing, especially for results. This is particularly important in interpreting the results, appraising their validity, and drawing appropriate conclusions.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. The results were presented as mean ± SEM from triplicate experiments, analyzed using ANOVA to ensure consistency. Due to the limited sample size (n=3), further inferential statistics (e.g., p-values) were not applied to avoid overinterpretation. However, conclusions were supported through complementary molecular docking, MD simulations, and MM-GBSA analyses, providing robust validation of the findings.

Discussion : The discussion section should be revised and focused on interpretation, relationships with reports from other scholars in the field, and implication of the obtained results.

Response: Dear reviewer, we have revised the discussion as per the suggestions

Reviewer #3: I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript. One additional comment I just mention that author should write the unit of binding energy in the manuscript.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. The unit of binding energy (kcal/mol) has been added in the text and Table 4.

________________________________________

7. 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: Khaled M. Darwish

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Shashank Shekher Mishra

Response: It okay

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments reply.docx

pone.0324100.s005.docx (19.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Viet Phong Nguyen

22 Apr 2025

Investigation of the inhibitory potential of secondary metabolites isolated from Fernandoa adenophylla against Beta-glucuronidase via molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation studies

PONE-D-25-04376R2

Dear Dr. Rauf,

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,

Viet Phong Nguyen, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Viet Phong Nguyen

PONE-D-25-04376R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rauf,

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

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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. Viet Phong Nguyen

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 File. The spectroscopic data of all isolated compounds are available in the supplementary file.

    (DOC)

    pone.0324100.s001.doc (2.1MB, doc)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: comments.pdf

    pone.0324100.s002.pdf (86.9KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reply-comments.docx

    pone.0324100.s004.docx (17.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments reply.docx

    pone.0324100.s005.docx (19.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES