Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 May 6;21(5):e0348369. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0348369

In silico evaluation of garlic-derived organosulfur compounds as multi-target inhibitors of breast cancer biomarkers

Courage Siame 1, Benedict Ofori 2, Lily Paemka 3,4, Kwabena Owusu Danquah 5,*
Editor: Muhammad Umer Khan6
PMCID: PMC13148666  PMID: 42090396

Abstract

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality among women globally, and drug resistance complicates treatment. Garlic-derived organosulfur compounds exhibit anticancer potential, but their multi-target activity against key breast cancer biomarkers remains unclear. This study utilized AutoDock Vina for molecular docking, OpenBabel for post-docking energy minimization, and employs SWISS-ADME and PreADMET platforms for ADMET profiling to assess six garlic compounds (Z-ajoene, allyl-methyl trisulfide, diallyl disulfide, diallyl sulfide, diallyl trisulfide, and S-allyl-L-cysteine) against clinically relevant breast cancer targets. Z-ajoene showed strong binding to Bcl-2, Topoisomerase II, and CDK-2, while S-allyl-L-cysteine targets five biomarkers. All compounds complied with Lipinski’s rule of five, indicating good oral bioavailability, and display favorable ADMET properties with no mutagenic or tumorigenic risks. Most compounds were predicted to inhibit P-glycoprotein, while only Z-ajoene showed potential inhibition of CYP2C9, suggesting possible drug-drug interactions. Despite moderate affinities, these compounds may serve as potential promising multi-target agents in breast cancer therapy. Our computational findings provide preliminary evidence that garlic-derived compounds warrant further in vitro and in vivo evaluation, particularly in the context of drug-resistant breast cancer.

Introduction

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed and leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women worldwide [1]. The most recent available data indicate a growing global burden of breast cancer, with an estimated 2.30 million incident cases, 764,000 deaths, and 24.1 million disability-adjusted life years among females [2]. Current projections estimate that by 2050, breast cancer will account for approximately 3.2 million new cases and 1.1 million deaths annually worldwide, with the greatest increases expected in countries with a low Human Development Index [3]. The development of breast cancer arises from a complex interplay of environmental and genetic factors that leads to ductal or lobular hyperproliferation, eventually conferring metastatic potential and contributing to its high lethality [4,5]. Current treatment strategies primarily involve targeted chemotherapy that utilizes agents directed against specific biomarkers associated with key cancer hallmarks. However, the rise in multidrug resistance has significantly reduced treatment effectiveness, causing therapeutic failure in many patients [6,7]. Multidrug resistance in breast cancer arises through various mechanisms, including enhanced drug metabolism, increased efflux pump activity, altered growth factor signaling, upregulated DNA repair, genetic mutations, and epigenetic modifications [6]. The progression and survival of breast cancer cells are further driven by dysregulated molecular pathways, including evasion of apoptosis through proteins like B-cell lymphoma 2 (Bcl-2) and X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis protein (XIAP), unchecked proliferation via cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) and topoisomerases, and tumor-induced angiogenesis mediated by vascular endothelial growth factor and its receptor (VEGF/VEGFR2) signaling [8–15]. These macromolecules are currently targeted by existing breast cancer therapies hence identification of more efficacious agents against them could be very beneficial in treating resistant breast cancer types. An emerging therapeutic target is the guanine quadruplex (G4) DNA structure, which is abundant in the promoter regions of oncogenes such as cellular myelocytomatosis oncogene (c-MYC), where stabilization could inhibit oncogenic transcription [16–19]. Hence, there is a pressing need for novel therapeutic agents with greater specificity, lower toxicity, and improved resistance profiles. Current efforts include screening plant-derived compounds to combat the rising drug resistance, as over 64.9% of drugs in clinical use for cancer are derived from plant sources [20,21].

Allium sativum L. (garlic) belongs to the family Amaryllidaceae, contains 65% water, and 2.3% organosulfur compounds [22]. It is one of the many plants grown for food and used traditionally as medicine. Garlic-derived compounds have demonstrated anticarcinogenic, antimutagenic, bacteriostatic, hypoglycemic, and anticancer activities in in vitro and in vivo models [22–26]. In breast cancer, several garlic-derived compounds have demonstrated cytotoxic and antiproliferative effects. Diallyl trisulfide has shown cytotoxicity against MCF-7 and MDA-MB-468 cell lines [27], while S-allyl-L-cysteine and ajoene reduced proliferation and induced growth arrest in MCF-7, and MDA-MB-231 cells, respectively [26]. Diallyl disulfide is also known to inhibit the growth of multiple breast cancer cell lines, including MDA-MB-231, KPL-1, MKL-F, and MCF-7, and suppress mammary tumor development in rats [26,27–28]. These anti-breast cancer effects highlight the strong potential of sulfur-containing garlic-derived compounds for future breast cancer therapy. However, compounds such as Z-ajoene, allyl-methyl trisulfide, diallyl disulfide, diallyl sulfide, diallyl trisulfide, and S-allyl-L-cysteine remain underexplored regarding their mechanisms of action, anti-breast cancer activity, and drug-likeness.

The use of in-silico approaches has become an essential tool in cancer drug discovery. These methods have accelerated the screening of bioactive molecules and early assessment of their drug-likeness, physicochemical properties, pharmacokinetic behaviour, and potential toxicity, reducing the long timelines, labour, and high costs traditionally associated with experimental drug development [29]. Notably, in-silico approaches such as molecular docking, molecular dynamics simulations, and ADMET profiling have been heavily used and are essential tools in screening potential drug candidates [29,30]. A recent study using similar in silico techniques identified a promising human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 kinase inhibitor through virtual screening, and subsequent experimental assays confirmed its micromolar potency [31], showing that robust in-silico approaches can be successfully translated into laboratory validation with the potential to inform future clinical development. Therefore, we employed an in silico screening strategy to evaluate 6 selected organosulfur compounds derived from garlic against key breast cancer molecular targets (Bcl-2, XIAP-BIR2, CDK2, CDK6, topoisomerases I and II, VEGFR2, and G-quadruplex DNA) to evaluate their drug-likeness, binding interactions, and potential as novel therapeutic candidates.

Methods

Experimental design

This study aimed to assess the multi-target inhibitory potential and drug-likeness of six garlic-derived organosulfur compounds against key breast cancer-related molecular targets using in silico approaches. The study was designed to: (i) retrieve and optimize the two-dimensional (2D) structures of selected compounds; (ii) perform molecular docking against relevant breast cancer targets; (iii) carry out post-docking energy minimization; (iv) analyze protein-ligand interactions; and (v) evaluate physicochemical, pharmacokinetic, and toxicity profiles of the compounds. The computational pipeline incorporated validated tools and reproducible parameters to ensure reliable predictions of binding affinity, drug-likeness, and ADMET (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity) characteristics.

Structure of the investigational compounds

The Structure Data File (SDF) containing the 2D structures of six garlic-derived compounds (Fig 1) were retrieved from the PubChem database (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov): cpd1 (PubChem CID: 9881148), cpd2 (CID: 61926), cpd3 (CID: 16590), cpd4 (CID: 11617), cpd5 (CID: 16315), and cpd6 (CID: 9793905). Geometry optimization was carried out using the MMFF94 force field and steepest descent (maximum 600 steps) algorithm with an RMS gradient convergence criterion of 1 × 10 ⁻ ⁷ after converting the SDF files to MOL2 formats considering the physiological pH of 7.4. File conversion and energy minimization were done using the OpenBabel (version 2.4.1) software. PDB files were later prepared in AutoDockTools software (version 1.5.7) by adding all hydrogen atoms, computing Gasteiger charges, merging the non-polar hydrogens with their bonded carbons and maintaining default torsional angles before exported as Protein Data Bank, Partial Charge, & Atom Type (PDBQT) files for molecular docking.

Fig 1. Two-dimensional chemical structures of Allium sativum L.-derived compounds investigated for their inhibitory potential and physicochemical properties.

Fig 1

Molecular docking and interaction analysis

Eight human molecular targets relevant to breast cancer cell survival, proliferation, and apoptosis in PDB format were selected: CDK-2 (PDB ID: 1DI8, resolution = 2.20 Å) [32], CDK-6 (1XO2, resolution = 2.90 Å) [33], Topoisomerase I (1T8I, resolution = 3.00 Å) [34], Topoisomerase II (1ZXM, resolution = 1.87 Å) [35], G-Quadruplex (1L1H, resolution = 1.75 Å) [36], Bcl-2 (2O2F, resolution not calculated) [37], VEGFR-2 (2OH4, resolution = 2.05 Å) [38], and XIAP-Bir2 (4KJU, resolution = 1.60 Å) [39]. Structures were obtained from the RCSB Protein Data Bank (www.rcsb.org) and prepared by removing heteroatoms (water, ions), adding polar hydrogens, and assigning Kollman charges. The structures were saved as a PDBQT file for docking. Docking was conducted using AutoDock Vina (v1.1.2) with an energy range of 4 and exhaustiveness of 10. Binding sites were defined based on prior studies and co-crystallized ligand positions [40]. The docking grid parameters for all target proteins, including center coordinates, grid dimensions, and spacing, are summarized in Supplementary Table 1. Binding affinity (ΔG) and inhibition constant (Ki) were recorded for each ligand. Ki values were calculated using the equation Ki = exp(ΔG/RT), where R = 1.98 calK ⁻ ¹mol¹ and T = 298.15 K. PyMol (The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, Version 3.0 Schrödinger, LLC) and Ligplot+ tool (v.2.3.1) were used to analyze binding poses and interactions of top-ranked ligand-protein complexes. To validate docking accuracy, re-docking of co-crystallized ligands was performed. Compounds with the lowest binding free energy and relevant interactions were selected for further analysis.

Post-docking energy minimization

Following molecular docking simulations, the protein-ligand complex was subjected to energy minimization to relax the structure and assess binding stability, selecting the best-scoring pose from the docking output. The docked ligand and protein files, initially in PDBQT format, were converted to PDB format using OpenBabel (version 2.4.1) and merged into a single complex file. Energy minimization was performed using OpenBabel’s obminimize tool with the Universal Force Field, suitable for diverse atom types, employing 2000 steps and a convergence criterion of 1 × 10−4 kcal/mol. Stability was evaluated by calculating the total energy of the complex before and after minimizing using OpenBabel’s obenergy tool, with a decrease in energy indicating successful relaxation. Structural stability was further assessed using PyMOL (The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, Version 3.0 Schrödinger, LLC) by aligning the original and minimized complexes and computing the root-mean-square deviation (RMSD), where an RMSD below 2 Å suggested a stable binding mode.

Physicochemical and pharmacokinetic analysis

To predict oral bioavailability, drug-likeness, and toxicity, Molinspiration (https://www.molinspiration.com), DataWarrior (v5.5.0), SwissADME (https://www.swissadme.ch), and PreADMET (https://preadmet.webservice.bmdrc.org) tools were used. Parameters assessed included Lipinski’s rule of five, polar surface area (PSA), aqueous solubility (cLogS), number of rotatable bonds, and toxicity risks (mutagenicity, tumorigenicity, reproductive effects, and irritation potential). SwissADME and PreADMET also predicted blood-brain barrier penetration, human intestinal absorption, cytochrome P450 inhibition, and plasma protein binding. The potential for P-glycoprotein inhibition was also assessed due to its relevance in drug-drug interaction risks.

Statistical analysis

This computational study did not involve experimental replicates or inferential statistical analysis. However, reproducibility was ensured through consistent docking parameters and validation via redocking. Quantitative outputs such as ΔG and Ki were generated using AutoDock Vina and calculated using standard thermodynamic equations. Toxicity and ADMET predictions were reported as categorical outputs from respective software. All data are available within the manuscript and supplemental data and source databases cited. All optimized ligand and receptor structures generated in this study have been deposited in Zenodo and can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17804558.

Results

Molecular docking outcomes for lead investigational compounds

To validate the molecular docking protocol before docking the investigational ligands, co-crystallized ligands (LIO, FSE, DTQ, PYN, EDH, ANP, GIG, and 1RH) were re-docked into their respective receptor binding sites (Bcl2, CDK-6, CDK-2, G-Quadruplex, Topoisomerase I, Topoisomerase II, VEGFR-2, and XIAP-Bir2) as shown in Fig 2. The root mean square deviation (RMSD) between the docked and original crystal ligand conformations was calculated, with a cutoff of 2.0 Å for docking reliability. Most co-crystallized ligands yielded RMSD values below this threshold, confirming the method’s reproducibility (Fig 3). Notably, ANP and GIG exceeded the 2.0 Å threshold, likely due to their inherent conformational flexibility. This validation approach is consistent with established molecular docking protocols and thereby supports the robustness of subsequent ligand-receptor interaction analyses.

Fig 2. Co-crystallized ligands of the selected macromolecular targets.

Fig 2

The ligand-receptor pairs include CDK2/DTQ, CDK6/FSE, Topoisomerase I/EDH, Topoisomerase II/ANP, G-Quadruplex/PYN, Bcl-2/LIO, and XIAP-Bir2/1RH. These ligands are established inhibitors of their respective targets and were used to validate docking protocols.

Fig 3. Conformational clustering of co-crystal ligands used to validate molecular docking parameters.

Fig 3

The RMSD was calculated between the original co-crystal ligand positions (green-colored aromatic carbons) and their docked poses (cyan-colored aromatic carbons). A cut-off RMSD value of 2.0 Å was applied to identify closely related conformers, indicating acceptable docking accuracy.

Each investigational compound (Fig 1) and co-crystal ligand (Fig 2) were docked against selected macromolecular targets, and their binding energies (ΔG, kcal/mol) and inhibition constants (Ki, μM) were calculated (Table 1). Compound 1 (cpd1) (Z)-1-(prop-2-enyldisulfanyl)-3-prop-2-enylsulfinylprop-1-ene, commonly known as Z-ajoene, emerged as the most potent inhibitor of Bcl-2, CDK-2, and Topoisomerase II. It showed the strongest binding to Bcl-2 with a binding energy of −4.5 kcal/mol and a Ki of 499.05 μM, interacting mainly via hydrophobic interactions with Phe101(A), Phe150(A), Tyr105(A), Ala146(A), Val130(A), Asp108(A), Phe109(A) and Leu134(A) (Fig 4a). For CDK-2, cpd1 demonstrated a binding energy of −5.1 kcal/mol and Ki of 181.09 μM, forming a hydrogen bond (length = 3.03 Å, angle = 164.8o) with Lys33(A), and hydrophobic interactions with Phe80(A), Ile10(A), Val18(A), Asp145(A), Val64(A), Ala144(A), Phe82(A), Leu83(A), Ala31(A) and Leu134(A) (Fig 4b). Against Topoisomerase II, it achieved a binding energy of −5.4 kcal/mol and Ki of 109.09 μM, interacting via hydrogen bonds with Asn150(A) (length = 2.89 Å, angle = 109.0 o) and Ser149(A) (length = 2.80 Å, angle = 175 o), and hydrophobic interaction with Ser148(A), Ile141(A), Phe142(A), Thr215(A), Asn95(A) and Asn91(A) (Fig 4f). While cpd1 showed favorable binding to all three targets, co-crystal ligands (DTG, LIO, and ANP) demonstrated stronger cooperative binding to their respective targets (CDK-2, Bcl-2, and Topoisomerase II).

Table 1. Binding energy (ΔG, kcal/mol) and inhibition constant (Ki, μM) of organosulfur compounds from Allium sativum L. docked against selected macromolecular targets.

Target CDK-6 CDK-2 Bcl-2 VEGFR-2 XIAP-Bir2 G-Quadruplex Topoisomerase I Topoisomerase II
Ligands ∆G Ki ∆G Ki ∆G Ki ∆G Ki ∆G Ki ∆G Ki ∆G Ki ∆G Ki
cd1 −4.3 699.67 −5.1 181.09 −4.5 499.05 −4.4 590.91 −4.5 499.05 −4.1 980.94 −4.1 980.94 −5.4 109.09
cd2 −3.7 1928.16 −3.6 2283.06 −3.6 2283.06 −3.4 3200.86 −3.1 5313.61 −3.1 5313.61 −3 6291.65 −3.3 3790.01
cd3 −4.2 828.46 −4.1 980.94 −4 1161.5 −4.1 980.94 −3.4 3200.86 −3.3 3790.01 −3.8 1628.43 −3.6 2283.06
cd4 −4 1161.5 −3.9 1375.29 −4 1161.5 −3.7 1928.16 −3.5 2703.28 −3.3 3790.01 −3.5 2703.28 −3.9 1375.29
cd5 −4.3 699.67 −4.4 590.91 −4.2 828.46 −3.9 1375.29 −3.6 2283.06 −3.3 3790.01 −3.5 2703.28 −4.1 980.94
cd6 −5 214.42 −4.7 355.96 −4.2 828.46 −4.7 355.96 −4.7 355.96 −5.2 148.97 −4.8 300.62 −5.3 129.17
Co-crystal
ligands
−7.6 2.65 −8.5 0.58 −10.3 0.03 −10.9 0.01 −7.5 3.14 −9.5 0.11 −8.2 0.96 −10.5 0.2

Bold values indicate the compound with the highest binding affinity (lowest ∆G/ Ki) for each target.

Fig 4. Binding modes and LigPlot+ molecular interactions of the best-docked investigational ligands with their molecular targets.

Fig 4

Bond lengths shown in Å and hydrogen bonding angles between the ligands and key amino acid or nucleotide residues of the receptors are annotated on the LigPlot+ and binding mode images respectively. Z-ajoene (cpd1) showed notable binding with Bcl-2 (Panel 4a), CDK2 (Panel 4b), and Topoisomerase II (Panel 4f) through a combination of hydrogen bonding and hydrophobic interactions. S-allyl-L-cysteine (cpd6) demonstrated strong interactions with G-Quadruplex (Panel 4d), Topoisomerase I (Fig 4e), VEGFR2 (Panel 4g), XIAP-Bir2 (Panel 4h), and CDK-6 (Panel 4c), involving hydrogen bonds and multiple hydrophobic contacts. Specific interacting residues and bond types are highlighted in each panel (Panel 4a-4h).

S-allyl-L-cysteine (cpd6) was identified as a potent inhibitor of five out of the eight molecular targets: G-quadruplex, Topoisomerase I, VEGFR2, XIAP-Bir2, and CDK-6, with binding free energies of −4.9, −4.8, −4.7, −4.7, and −5.0 kcal/mol, and Ki values of 253.89 μM, 300.62 μM, 355.96 μM, 355.96 μM, and 214.42 μM, respectively. Cpd6 interacted with the G-quadruplex via hydrogen bonds with DG2007(B) (length = 3.28 Å, angle = 107.7 o), DT2006(B) (length = 3.13 Å, angle = 139.7 o), DT2005(B) (length = 2.81 Å, angle = 113.5 o), and DT2008(B) (length = 3.05 Å, angle = 170 o), and hydrophobic interaction with DG2009(B) and DG1012(A) (Fig 4d). For Topoisomerase I, an enzyme that cleaves and re-ligates one strand of DNA during relaxation [41], cpd6 formed hydrogen bonds with Pro212(A) (length = 2.87 Å, angle = 98.9 o), Tyr211(A) (3.01 Å, angle = 124.2 o), Gly214(A) (length = 3.05 Å, angle = 146.5 o), Lys216(A) (length = 3.17 Å, angle = 120.5 o) and Ile215(A) (length = 2.97 Å, angle = 116.5 o) along with hydrophobic interactions with Glu213(A), Gln442(A), Lys439(A), Ile435(A), Glu438(A) and Arg434(A) (Fig 4e). In VEGFR2, cpd6 bonded with Glu883(A) (length = 2.91 Å, angle = 126.1 o) and Asp1044(A) (length = 3.19 Å, angle = 126.6 o) through hydrogen bonding and showed hydrophobic interactions with Val846(A), Lys866(A), Val914(A), Cys1043(A), Leu1033(A) and Phe1045(A) (Fig 4g). Against XIAP-Bir2, it formed hydrogen bonds with Phe228(A) (length = 3.18 Å, angle = 157.2 o) and Asn226(A) (length = 3.10 Å, angle = 135.5 o), along with hydrophobic interactions involving Cys227(A), Cys203(A), Thr152(A), Ile153(A), Lys208(C) and Gly205(C) (Fig 4h). Similarly, in CDK-6, known for regulating the G1 to S phase transition through cyclin D binding [11], cpd6 interacted via hydrogen bonds with Gln149(B) (length = 2.99 Å, angle = 150.6 o) and Asp104(B) (length = 3.08 Å, angle = 100.0 o), and hydrophobic interactions with Gln103(B), Phe98(B), Ala41(B), Ala162(B), Leu152(B) and Val77(B) (Fig 4c). Although cpd6 was less potent than co-crystallized ligands (PYN, EDH, GIG, FSE, and 1RH), it demonstrated broad target engagement across multiple key molecular targets (G-quadruplex, topoisomerase I, VEGFR2, XIAP-Bir2, and CDK-6).

Post-docking energy minimization of best-docked compound-receptor complex

Post-docking energy minimization was aimed at refining the predicted protein-ligand complex by reducing steric clashes, optimizing atomic geometries, and arriving at a more stable conformation that better represents physiological conditions. After post-docking energy minimization, all the best-docked-compound-ligand complexes showed stability with lower energy compared to pre-minimized structures in addition to the retention of similar pose (RMSD’s less than 2.0 Å) of the ligands after the energy minimization. Among the complexes, Cpd1/VEGR2 complex showed a major reduction in energy after minimization compared to other complexes (Fig 5a). Only Cpd6/G-Quadruplex complex had an RMSD value of ~1.0 Å, making it the complex with the highest deviation from the pre-minimized pose but lesser than the cut-off value of 2.0 Å. All other complexes had RMSD value approximately <0.6 Å, indicating good similarity between unminimized and minimized poses (Fig 5b-j).

Fig 5. Post-docking energy minimization using OpenBabel tool.

Fig 5

Energy values showed that ligand-receptor complexes have lower energy post-docking minimization (Panel 5a). An RMSD value of 2.0 Å was considered as cut-off for ligands that remain in similar poses after aligning pre-energy minimization complexes (green colored carbon backbone) with post-docking energy minimization complexes (cyan colored carbon backbone) (Panel 5b-j). Complexes: Cpd1/Bcl2 (Panel 5c), Cpd1/Cdk2 (Panel 5d), Cpd6/Cdk6 (Panel 5e), Cpd6/G-Quadruplex (Panel 5f), Cpd6/Topoisomerase II (Panel 5g), Cpd1/Topoisomerase I (Fig 5h), Cpd6/VEGFR2 (Panel 5i) and Cpd6/XIAP Bir2 (Panel 5j).

Physicochemical properties and drug-likeness of the investigational compounds

Given the high attrition rate of drug candidates during later stages of development [42], we assessed the physicochemical and ADMET properties of the investigational compounds using open-source computational tools. According to Molinspiration analysis (Table 2), all six compounds complied with Lipinski’s Rule of Five (ROF), a widely used guideline for predicting oral bioavailability. The ROF criteria include molecular weight (MW) < 500, lipophilicity (logP) < 5, number of hydrogen bond donors < 5, and hydrogen bond acceptors < 10 [43]. This suggests that the compounds may possess favorable properties for membrane permeability, absorption, and oral administration. To further evaluate drug-likeness, we examined additional ADMET-related parameters using the DataWarrior program (version 5.5.0), including aqueous solubility at 25 °C and pH 7.5 (cLogS > −4.0), polar surface area (PSA < 140 Ų), and number of rotatable bonds (RTB < 10) (Table 3). Toxicological risk factors such as mutagenicity, tumorigenicity, reproductive toxicity, irritation potential, and molecular complexity were also assessed. The DataWarrior program calculations (Table 3) indicate that all six bioactive compounds possess good solubility and oral bioavailability, as none violate the cutoff values for cLogS, PSA, and RTB. Most of the compounds exhibited no mutagenic potential, except for compound 4 (diallyl sulfide), which showed a potential mutagenic effect. Furthermore, all compounds were predicted to be non-tumorigenic, non-irritant, and non-reproductive toxicants.

Table 2. Predicted physicochemical properties of the investigational bioactive compounds calculated using the Molinspiration web server.

Compound Molecular weight Partition coefficient between n-Octanol and water (logP) Number of hydrogen bond acceptors Number of hydrogen bond donors number of rules violated
cpd1 234.41 1.8 1 0 0
cpd2 152.31 2.48 0 0 0
cpd3 146.28 2.63 0 0 0
cpd4 114.21 2.13 0 0 0
cpd5 178.35 3.13 0 0 0
cpd6 161.23 −1.86 3 3 0

Table 3. Physicochemical properties of the investigational compounds calculated using DataWarrior software.

Compound cLogSa PSA(Ų)b Mutagenic Tumorigenic Reproductive Effect Irritant RTBc Mcpx.d
cpd1 −2.446 86.88 none none none none 8 0.37
cpd2 −2.864 75.9 none none none none 4 0.37
cpd3 −2.706 50.6 none none none none 5 0.46
cpd4 −2.009 25.3 high none none none 4 0.37
cpd5 −3.305 75.9 none none none none 6 0.35
cpd6 −1.222 88.62 none none none none 5 0.60

aaqueous solubility at 25°C and pH 7.4 b polar surface area (sum of surface area of nitrogen and oxygen plus hydrogen attached to the heteroatoms)

cnumber of rotatable bonds d molecular complexity

Additional physicochemical properties related to oral bioavailability were assessed using the Veber and Egan rules. According to the Veber rule, compounds with ≤10 RTB and a PSA ≤ 140 Ų are considered to have good oral bioavailability [44]. The Egan rule considers compounds with LogP ≤ 5.88 and PSA ≤ 131.6 Ų as potentially orally bioavailable [45]. Molecular complexity, expressed as the ratio of sp³-hybridized carbons to total carbon count [46], was also considered. Results from SwissADME (Table 4) show that all the compounds comply with both the Veber and Egan criteria and demonstrate good bioavailability scores. The high bioavailability scores observed may also be attributed to the relatively low molecular complexity of the compounds.

Table 4. Oral bioavailability of the selected compounds based on Veber and Egan Rules as predicted by the SwissADME server.

Compound VEBER EGAN Bioavailability Score
cpd1 Pass Pass 0.55
cpd2 Pass Pass 0.55
cpd3 Pass Pass 0.55
cpd4 Pass Pass 0.55
cpd5 Pass Pass 0.55
cpd6 Pass Pass 0.55

PreADME was used to evaluate key pharmacokinetic properties, including blood-brain barrier (BBB) penetration, human intestinal absorption (HIA), P-glycoprotein (P-gp) inhibition, and plasma protein binding, based on established criteria (Table 5). In addition, SwissADME was employed to assess the inhibitory potential of the compounds on cytochrome P450 isoenzymes CYP2C19 and CYP2C9 (Table 5). Plasma protein binding can be either reversible or irreversible, and this property is commonly used in clinical settings to estimate or determine the therapeutic dose of a drug [47,48]. Compounds are considered strongly bound to plasma proteins if they exhibit a binding score of >90% and weakly bound if <90%. According to the PreADME results, all six compounds demonstrated weak binding to plasma proteins, except diallyl disulfide (cpd 3), which showed a comparatively stronger binding affinity. This finding suggests that the in vivo bioavailability of diallyl disulfide may be lower due to its higher plasma protein binding.

Table 5. Absorption, distribution, elimination, and toxicity profiles of the bioactive compounds assessed using PreADME; CYP2C19 and CYP2C9 inhibition predicted by SwissADME.

Compound HIAa BBBb Pgb_Ic PPBd CYP2C19 inhibitor CYP2C9 inhibitor
cpd1 99.31 1.04 No 70.8 No Yes
cpd2 98.63 1.83 Yes 55.47 No No
cpd3 98.12 1.37 Yes 98.04 No No
cpd4 100 0.8 Yes 78.05 No No
cpd5 99 2.28 Yes 55.56 No No
cpd6 87.97 0.22 No 11.67 No No

ahuman intestinal absorption

bblood-brain barrier penetration

cp-glycoprotein inhibition

dplasma protein binding

Prediction of HIA is a critical step in the design, optimization, and selection of orally administered drugs [49]. HIA was evaluated based on the following criteria: compounds with HIA values between 0–20% are considered poorly absorbed, those between 20–70% moderately absorbed, and those between 70–100% highly absorbed [40]. Based on this assessment, all the compounds investigated demonstrated high HIA values, with diallyl sulfide showing the highest absorption (100%) and compound 6 the lowest (87.97%) (Table 5). Regarding P-gp inhibition, most of the compounds (cp2, cp3, cp4, and cp5) were predicted to be potential P-gp inhibitors, except for Z-ajoene and S-allyl-L-cysteine, which exhibited no inhibitory activity. P-glycoprotein is a member of the ATP-binding cassette superfamily of membrane transporters and plays a key role in the efflux of various xenobiotics, including drugs [50]. It is also a major component of the BBB. Inhibition of P-gp may increase the risk of drug-drug interactions and potential toxicity in vivo [50].

The BBB forms a highly selective permeability barrier between the central nervous system (CNS) and the systemic circulation. For CNS-targeting drugs, high BBB permeability is desirable, while for drugs targeting peripheral organs, low BBB penetration is preferred [51]. Based on the following classification, high CNS penetration (BB value > 2.0), moderate penetration (0.1 < BB ≤ 2.0), and low penetration (BB < 0.1), most compounds were predicted to have moderate BBB permeability, except cpd 5, which showed high absorption potential (Table 5). According to the SwissADME results (Table 5), most of the investigational compounds are not predicted to inhibit CYP2C19 or CYP2C9, except Z-ajoene, which shows potential inhibition of CYP2C9.

Discussion

This study employed computational approaches to evaluate the drug-likeness and molecular interactions of garlic-derived organosulfur compounds to reveal their potential to disrupt critical multi-targets involved in breast cancer progression and resistance. Our results pointed to Z-ajoene and S-allyl-L-cysteine as the most promising candidates, showing good binding affinities to key cancer-related proteins such as Bcl-2, CDK-2, and topoisomerase II. In addition to similar binding pose retention and reduced energy post-docking minimization, the favorable ADMET profiles and adherence to Lipinski’s ROF suggest these compounds may possess desirable pharmacokinetic properties, reinforcing their potential as lead compounds for further development in breast cancer therapy.

Natural products make up about 60% of all cancer drugs and have been shown to slow breast cancer growth through alteration of key pathways and help overcome multidrug resistance by making cancer cells more responsive to treatment [52–54]. Garlic is known for its anticancer properties, largely attributed to its major organosulfur compounds, which have shown notable therapeutic efficacy in preclinical studies [26, 28, 55,56]. The importance of screening garlic-derived compounds for breast cancer therapy lies in their structural diversity and low toxicity, offering a safer alternative to many synthetic chemotherapeutics that often cause off-target effects [57]. For instance, key garlic organosulfur compounds such as diallyl trisulfide and ajoene have shown promising activity, with diallyl trisulfide modulating redox pathways in triple-negative breast cancer cells, and ajoene disrupting protein folding in the endoplasmic reticulum, a known vulnerability in drug-resistant cancers [58]. Expanding such investigations may reveal compounds with synergistic potential when combined with existing therapies, similar to the success achieved with plant-derived agents like paclitaxel [59].

The molecular docking and ADMET profiling used in this study to assess the therapeutic potential of six garlic-derived organosulfur compounds against key breast cancer targets revealed distinct binding affinities and pharmacokinetic properties, with notable variations in target specificity and multi-target engagement. Z-ajoene exhibited strong binding affinities to multiple breast cancer targets, particularly Bcl-2 and topoisomerase II. This dual interaction suggests potential for both apoptosis induction and enhancement of DNA damage, a strategy that could help overcome resistance mechanisms involving apoptotic evasion [60]. Specifically, Z-ajoene’s interaction with Bcl-2 involving hydrophobic contacts with Phe101, Phe150 and Tyr105 may suggest a disruption in the protein’s anti-apoptotic function, a key factor in cancer cell survival [61,62]. In addition, Z-ajoene binds to CDK-2, a key regulator of the G1-to-S phase transition, and this binding mode is similar to how FDA-approved CDK4/6 inhibitors like palbociclib interact with their targets, suggesting that Z-ajoene may exert comparable cell cycle inhibitory effects [63]. Notably, Z-ajoene’s interaction with topoisomerase II mimics that of etoposide, though with lower affinity, indicating potential for future structural optimization [64].

S-allyl-L-cysteine, although less potent than co-crystallized inhibitors such as PYN, EDH, GIG, FSE, and 1RH, demonstrated broad target engagement by binding to G-quadruplex DNA, topoisomerase I, VEGFR2, XIAP-BIR2, and CDK-6. Importantly, a direct comparison with the FDA-approved CDK4/6 inhibitor Abemaciclib highlights both the limitations and opportunities of this garlic-derived compound. While Abemaciclib shows much stronger binding to CDK6 (ΔG ≈ −12.12 kcal/mol) [65] compared to S-allyl-L-cysteine (−5 kcal/mol in silico), the latter engages critical residues in the ATP-binding pocket through hydrogen bonding with Gln149 and Asp104, as well as hydrophobic contacts with Gln103, Phe98, Ala41, Ala162, Leu152, and Val77. These interactions suggest that S-allyl-L-cysteine provides a viable structural scaffold for G1/S phase inhibition. Moreover, unlike synthetic inhibitors such as Abemaciclib, S-allyl-L-cysteine offers potential advantages in biocompatibility and reduced toxicity risk. With rational optimization, such as introducing π-π stacking moieties or enhancing hydrogen bond donors to mimic Abemaciclib’s interactions with Val101 and His100 [65,66], its affinity and selectivity could be significantly improved. This broad-spectrum activity supports a polypharmacological approach, where multi-target engagement may reduce the risk of resistance development by breast cancer cells [67]. Notably, its stabilization of G-quadruplex structures, mediated by interactions with DG1012 and DT2008, suggests potential suppression of oncogenes such as c-MYC, a strategy employed by other quadruplex-binding agents like quarfloxin [68]. Furthermore, its binding to VEGFR2 indicates anti-angiogenic potential, paralleling the mechanism of clinical inhibitors such as cediranib, although affinity optimization would be necessary to improve its efficacy [69].

The efficacy of the compounds investigated, particularly diallyl disulfide and diallyl trisulfide has been established in liver, stomach, bone, and lung cancers, nonetheless, a detailed understanding of their multi-target profiles and site-specific binding remains fragmented in the context of breast cancer [70–75]. Our research bridges this gap, employing computational modeling to elucidate the molecular interactions between these organosulfur compounds and key protein targets. Our findings regarding Bcl-2 align with previous experimental reports suggesting that the compounds, particularly, diallyl trisulfide, diallyl disulfide and diallyl sulfide could induce apoptosis in breast cancer. However, comparative docking scores indicate that Z-ajoene has a higher binding affinity than the other investigated compounds, which may explain the higher potency observed in Z-ajoene-treated cell lines [23]. Notably, the affinity interaction identified between these ligands and the XIAP-Bir2 domain and the G-Quadruplex represents a significant expansion of the known medicinal chemistry of garlic derivatives. While most existing literature focuses on Bcl-2 and other targets inhibition, our data positions VEGFR-2, Topoisomerase I and Topoisomerase II as equally viable primary targets.

While the investigational compounds showed moderate binding affinities (Ki ~ 10²-10³ μM) compared to established chemotherapeutics like doxorubicin (Ki ≈ 1 μM for topoisomerase II) [76,77], their strong drug-likeness and pharmacokinetic profiles suggest significant potential for further development. In addition, the moderate binding affinities demonstrated by the compound is therapeutically important in rational drug design such that the weaker interaction with the receptors implies weaker binding to non-target proteins which help minimize side effects [78]. Compounds with high binding affinity could sometimes be difficult to develop into a drug as they might have poor solubility or bioavailability [79]. The moderate bindings could allow for greater flexibility in the design of other drug-like properties of these investigational compounds [80]. Further, all the compounds met key criteria for oral bioavailability and demonstrated high predicted intestinal absorption with minimal toxicity risks. Moderate plasma protein binding may enhance bioavailability [81], however, potential inhibition of P-glycoprotein by compounds cpd2, cpd3, cpd4, and cpd5, and CYP2C9 inhibition by cpd1 (Z-ajoene), raises concerns about drug-drug interactions. Inhibition of P-gp could increase the absorption and tissue distribution of substrate drugs, while CYP2C9 inhibition by Z-ajoene may reduce the metabolism and clearance of co-administered drugs, potentially leading to elevated plasma levels and increased risk of toxicity or therapeutic failure [82,83]. This highlights the need for careful monitoring and possible dose adjustments when used alongside medications metabolized by CYP2C9 or transported by P-gp. Nonetheless, these properties support their promise as scaffolds for optimization in breast cancer therapy. The properties of these compounds could be improved by structural optimization using structure activity relationship method.

Conclusion

This study utilized computational methods to evaluate the multi-target inhibitory potential of six garlic-derived organosulfur compounds. Z-ajoene and S-allyl-L-cysteine emerged as promising candidates, demonstrating relatively strong binding affinities and broad-spectrum activity against key breast cancer biomarkers. These compounds also exhibited favorable drug-likeness and pharmacokinetic profiles. As this study is based solely on in silico analysis, experimental validation in appropriate in vitro and in vivo breast cancer models will be essential to confirm and extend these observations before any therapeutic implications can be established. The moderate binding affinities of the top two compounds further suggest a need for further structural optimization to enhance potency, selectivity, and overall efficacy. This work provides preliminary yet meaningful evidence to support the therapeutic potential of garlic-derived organosulfur compounds for breast cancer.

This study primarily relied on molecular docking and post-docking energy minimization to predict the binding affinities and interactions of garlic-derived organosulfur compounds with key breast cancer targets. While docking provides useful initial insights into potential ligand-target interactions, it does not necessarily mean these outcomes can be translated to clinical context. In vitro experimental assays to confirm binding efficacy, cytotoxicity, and pharmacokinetic behavior are essential next steps. The lead compounds: Z-ajoene and S-allyl-L-cysteine identified should undergo structural optimization and preclinical testing to assess their therapeutic potential and safety profiles in breast cancer models.

Supporting information

S1 File. Supplemental data.

(DOCX)

pone.0348369.s001.docx (14.5KB, docx)

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Burguin A, Diorio C, Durocher F. Breast cancer treatments: updates and new challenges. J Pers Med. 2021;11(8):808. doi: 10.3390/jpm11080808 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.GBD 2023 Breast Cancer Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of breast cancer among females, 1990-2023, with forecasts to 2050: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2023. Lancet Oncol. 2026;27(3):302–26. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(25)00730-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kim J, Harper A, McCormack V, Sung H, Houssami N, Morgan E, et al. Global patterns and trends in breast cancer incidence and mortality across 185 countries. Nat Med. 2025;31(4):1154–62. doi: 10.1038/s41591-025-03502-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Polyak K. Breast cancer: origins and evolution. J Clin Invest. 2007;117(11):3155–63. doi: 10.1172/JCI33295 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Petri BJ, Klinge CM. Regulation of breast cancer metastasis signaling by miRNAs. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2020;39(3):837–86. doi: 10.1007/s10555-020-09905-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bukowski K, Kciuk M, Kontek R. Mechanisms of Multidrug Resistance in Cancer Chemotherapy. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(9):3233. doi: 10.3390/ijms21093233 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Waks AG, Winer EP. Breast Cancer Treatment. JAMA. 2019;321(3):316. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.20751 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Canela EI, Navarro G, Beltrán JL, Franco R. The meaning of the Michaelis-Menten constant: K m describes a steady-state. 2019. 10.1101/608232 [DOI]
  • 9.Williams MM, Cook RS. Bcl-2 family proteins in breast development and cancer: could Mcl-1 targeting overcome therapeutic resistance?. Oncotarget. 2015;6(6):3519–30. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.2792 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fernald K, Kurokawa M. Evading apoptosis in cancer. Trends Cell Biol. 2013;23(12):620–33. doi: 10.1016/j.tcb.2013.07.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sherr CJ, Beach D, Shapiro GI. Targeting CDK4 and CDK6: from discovery to therapy. Cancer Discov. 2016;6(4):353–67. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-15-0894 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Champoux JJ. DNA topoisomerases: structure, function, and mechanism. Annu Rev Biochem. 2001;70(1):369–413. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biochem.70.1.369 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ghalehbandi S, Yuzugulen J, Pranjol MZI, Pourgholami MH. The role of VEGF in cancer-induced angiogenesis and research progress of drugs targeting VEGF. Eur J Pharmacol. 2023;949:175586. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2023.175586 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ni H, Guo M, Zhang X, Jiang L, Tan S, Yuan J, et al. VEGFR2 inhibition hampers breast cancer cell proliferation via enhanced mitochondrial biogenesis. Cancer Biol Med. 2021;18(1):139–54. doi: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2020.0151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Shibuya M. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptor (VEGFR) signaling in angiogenesis: a crucial target for anti- and pro-angiogenic therapies. Genes Cancer. 2011;2(12):1097–105. doi: 10.1177/1947601911423031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bahls B, Aljnadi IM, Emídio R, Mendes E, Paulo A. G-Quadruplexes in c-MYC Promoter as Targets for Cancer Therapy. Biomedicines. 2023;11(3):969. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11030969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.González V, Guo K, Hurley L, Sun D. Identification and characterization of nucleolin as a c-myc G-quadruplex-binding protein. J Biol Chem. 2009;284(35):23622–35. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M109.018028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Shu H, Zhang R, Xiao K, Yang J, Sun X. G-Quadruplex-Binding Proteins: Promising Targets for Drug Design. Biomolecules. 2022;12(5):648. doi: 10.3390/biom12050648 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wu Y, Brosh RM Jr. G-quadruplex nucleic acids and human disease. FEBS J. 2010;277(17):3470–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2010.07760.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Chen T, Xiao Z, Liu X, Wang T, Wang Y, Ye F, et al. Natural products for combating multidrug resistance in cancer. Pharmacol Res. 2024;202:107099. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2024.107099 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Newman DJ, Cragg GM. Natural Products as Sources of New Drugs over the Nearly Four Decades from 01/1981 to 09/2019. J Nat Prod. 2020;83(3):770–803. doi: 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.9b01285 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Nouroz F, Mehboob M, Noreen S, Zaidi F, Mobin T. A review on anticancer activities of garlic (Allium sativum L.). Middle East J Sci Res. 2015;23(6):1145–51. doi: 10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2015.23.06.9381 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Li H, Jeong JH, Kwon SW, Lee SK, Lee HJ, Ryu J-H. Z-Ajoene inhibits growth of colon cancer by promotion of CK1α Dependent β-Catenin Phosphorylation. Molecules. 2020;25(3):703. doi: 10.3390/molecules25030703 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ho J-N, Kang M, Lee S, Oh JJ, Hong SK, Lee SE, et al. Anticancer effect of S-allyl-L-cysteine via induction of apoptosis in human bladder cancer cells. Oncol Lett. 2018;15(1):623–9. doi: 10.3892/ol.2017.7280 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Li M, Ciu J-R, Ye Y, Min J-M, Zhang L-H, Wang K, et al. Antitumor activity of Z-ajoene, a natural compound purified from garlic: antimitotic and microtubule-interaction properties. Carcinogenesis. 2002;23(4):573–9. doi: 10.1093/carcin/23.4.573 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Pandey P, Khan F, Alshammari N, Saeed A, Aqil F, Saeed M. Updates on the anticancer potential of garlic organosulfur compounds and their nanoformulations: Plant therapeutics in cancer management. Front Pharmacol. 2023;14:1154034. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1154034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kanga KJW, Kanga LHB, Mendonca P, Soliman KFA, Ferguson DT, Reed SL, et al. Attenuative Effect of Diallyl Trisulfide on Caspase Activity in TNF-α-induced Triple Negative Breast Cancer Cells. Anticancer Res. 2023;43(6):2393–405. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.16407 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bronowicka-Adamska P, Bentke A, Lasota M, Wróbel M. Effect of S-Allyl –L-Cysteine on MCF-7 Cell Line 3-Mercaptopyruvate Sulfurtransferase/Sulfane Sulfur System, Viability and Apoptosis. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(3):1090. doi: 10.3390/ijms21031090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Shaker B, Ahmad S, Lee J, Jung C, Na D. In silico methods and tools for drug discovery. Comput Biol Med. 2021;137:104851. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104851 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Islam KMT, Islam M d M, Habib JB, Sarker S, Ahmed A, Sohel M, et al. In silico approaches unveil the mechanism of action of Eclipta prostrata against acute myeloid leukemia. Scientific Reports. 2025;15(1):33267. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-18547-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Guo J, Collins S, Miller WT, Rizzo RC. Identification of a Water-Coordinating HER2 Inhibitor by Virtual Screening Using Similarity-Based Scoring. Biochemistry. 2018;57(32):4934–51. doi: 10.1021/acs.biochem.8b00524 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Shewchuk L, Hassell A, Wisely B, Rocque W, Holmes W, Veal J. Binding mode of the 4-anilinoquinazoline class of protein kinase inhibitor: X-ray crystallographic studies of 4-anilinoquinazolines bound to cyclin-dependent kinase 2 and p38 kinase. J Med Chem. 2000;43(1):133–8. doi: 10.1021/jm990401t [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lu H, Chang DJ, Baratte B, Meijer L, Schulze-Gahmen U. Crystal structure of a human cyclin-dependent kinase 6 complex with a flavonol inhibitor, fisetin. J Med Chem. 2005;48(3):737–43. doi: 10.1021/jm049353p [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Staker BL, Feese MD, Cushman M, Pommier Y, Zembower D, Stewart L. Structures of three classes of anticancer agents bound to the human topoisomerase I−DNA covalent complex. J Med Chem. 2005;48(7):2336–45. doi: 10.1021/jm049146p [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Wei H, Ruthenburg AJ, Bechis SK, Verdine GL. Nucleotide-dependent domain movement in the ATPase domain of a human type IIA DNA topoisomerase. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(44):37041–7. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M506520200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Haider SM, Parkinson GN, Neidle S. Structure of a G-quadruplex-ligand complex. J Mol Biol. 2003;326(1):117–25. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(02)01354-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bruncko M, Oost TK, Belli BA, Ding H, Joseph MK, Kunzer A, et al. Studies leading to potent, dual inhibitors of Bcl-2 and Bcl-xL. J Med Chem. 2007;50(4):641–62. doi: 10.1021/jm061152t [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Hasegawa M, Nishigaki N, Washio Y, Kano K, Harris PA, Sato H. Discovery of novel benzimidazoles as potent inhibitors of TIE-2 and VEGFR-2 tyrosine kinase receptors. J Med Chem. 2007;50(18):4453–70. doi: 10.1021/jm0611051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kester RF, Donnell AF, Lou Y, Remiszewski SW, Lombardo LJ, Chen S, et al. Optimization of Benzodiazepinones as Selective Inhibitors of the X-Linked Inhibitor of Apoptosis Protein (XIAP) Second Baculovirus IAP Repeat (BIR2) Domain. J Med Chem. 2013;56(20):7788–803. doi: 10.1021/jm400732v [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Gurung AB, Bhattacharjee A, Ali MA. Exploring the physicochemical profile and the binding patterns of selected novel anticancer Himalayan plant derived active compounds with macromolecular targets. Informatics in Medicine Unlocked. 2016;5:1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.imu.2016.09.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.McKie SJ, Neuman KC, Maxwell A. DNA topoisomerases: Advances in understanding of cellular roles and multi‐protein complexes via structure‐function analysis. BioEssays. 2021;43(4). doi: 10.1002/bies.202000286 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Amorim AMB, Piochi LF, Gaspar AT, Preto AJ, Rosário-Ferreira N, Moreira IS. Advancing Drug Safety in Drug Development: Bridging Computational Predictions for Enhanced Toxicity Prediction. Chem Res Toxicol. 2024;37(6):827–49. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.3c00352 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Lipinski CA. Lead- and drug-like compounds: the rule-of-five revolution. Drug Discov Today Technol. 2004;1(4):337–41. doi: 10.1016/j.ddtec.2004.11.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Caminero Gomes Soares A, Marques Sousa GH, Calil RL, Goulart Trossini GH. Absorption matters: A closer look at popular oral bioavailability rules for drug approvals. Molecular Informatics. 2023;42(11). doi: 10.1002/minf.202300115 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kralj S, Jukič M, Bren U. Molecular filters in medicinal chemistry. Encyclopedia. 2023. 501–11. doi: 10.3390/encyclopedia3020035 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Krzyzanowski A, Pahl A, Grigalunas M, Waldmann H. Spacial Score─A Comprehensive Topological Indicator for Small-Molecule Complexity. J Med Chem. 2023;66(18):12739–50. doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.3c00689 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Bohnert T, Gan L-S. Plasma protein binding: from discovery to development. J Pharm Sci. 2013;102(9):2953–94. doi: 10.1002/jps.23614 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Sear J. Bonding, binding and isomerism. Anaesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine. 2007;8(10):431–6. doi: 10.1016/j.mpaic.2007.08.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Esaki T, Ohashi R, Watanabe R, Natsume-Kitatani Y, Kawashima H, Nagao C, et al. Constructing an In Silico Three-Class Predictor of Human Intestinal Absorption With Caco-2 Permeability and Dried-DMSO Solubility. J Pharm Sci. 2019;108(11):3630–9. doi: 10.1016/j.xphs.2019.07.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Goebel J, Chmielewski J, Hrycyna CA. The roles of the human ATP-binding cassette transporters P-glycoprotein and ABCG2 in multidrug resistance in cancer and at endogenous sites: future opportunities for structure-based drug design of inhibitors. Cancer Drug Resist. 2021;4:784–804. doi: 10.20517/cdr.2021.19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Pardridge WM. Drug transport across the blood-brain barrier. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2012;32(11):1959–72. doi: 10.1038/jcbfm.2012.126 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Asma ST, Acaroz U, Imre K, Morar A, Shah SRA, Hussain SZ, et al. Natural Products/Bioactive Compounds as a Source of Anticancer Drugs. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(24):6203. doi: 10.3390/cancers14246203 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Chauke-Malinga NY, Mohammed A, Poopedi K, Bundwini N, Hull R, Sambili D, et al. Harnessing the Power of Natural Products in Overcoming Drug Resistance in Breast Cancer. Overcoming Breast Cancer Therapy Resistance. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. 2024. p. 211–34. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-52860-6_9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Mitra S, Dash R. Natural products for the management and prevention of breast cancer. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2018;2018:8324696. doi: 10.1155/2018/8324696 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Sato A, Yabuki A, Sato G, Nemoto H, Ogawa Y, Ohira M. Garlic (Allium sativum L.) Organosulfur Compounds Inhibit Breast Cancer Cell Proliferation by Decreasing Steroid Sulfatase Levels. Anticancer Res. 2025;45(1):145–52. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.17401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kaschula CH, Hunter R, Cotton J, Tuveri R, Ngarande E, Dzobo K, et al. The garlic compound ajoene targets protein folding in the endoplasmic reticulum of cancer cells. Mol Carcinog. 2016;55(8):1213–28. doi: 10.1002/mc.22364 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Raisuddin S, Ahmad S, Fatima M, Dabeer S. Toxicity of anticancer drugs and its prevention with special reference to role of garlic constituents. AP. 2018;7(1). doi: 10.21276/ap.2018.7.1.3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Harnoss JM, Le Thomas A, Reichelt M, Guttman O, Wu TD, Marsters SA, et al. IRE1α Disruption in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Cooperates with Antiangiogenic Therapy by Reversing ER Stress Adaptation and Remodeling the Tumor Microenvironment. Cancer Res. 2020;80(11):2368–79. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-19-3108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Alqahtani FY, Aleanizy FS, El Tahir E, Alkahtani HM, AlQuadeib BT. Paclitaxel. 2019. p. 205–38. 10.1016/bs.podrm.2018.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 60.Talib WH, Atawneh S, Shakhatreh AN, Shakhatreh GN, Rasheed aljarrah IS, Hamed RA, et al. Anticancer potential of garlic bioactive constituents: Allicin, Z-ajoene, and organosulfur compounds. PHAR. 2024;71:1–23. doi: 10.3897/pharmacia.71.e114556 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Portt L, Norman G, Clapp C, Greenwood M, Greenwood MT. Anti-apoptosis and cell survival: a review. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2011;1813(1):238–59. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2010.10.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Zameer S, Akram Z, Daniyal A, Fatima U, Faraz M, Anwar Z, et al. Apoptosis Mechanisms: Role of Anti-apoptotic Proteins, Cancer Hallmarks and Tumor Microenvironment in Cancer Cell Survival. Biotechnol J Int. 2025;29(2):27–36. doi: 10.9734/bji/2025/v29i2769 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Tadesse S, Yu M, Mekonnen LB, Lam F, Islam S, Tomusange K. Highly potent, selective, and orally bioavailable 4-thiazol- N -(pyridin-2-yl) pyrimidin-2-amine cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors as anticancer drug candidates: design, synthesis, and evaluation. J Med Chem. 2017;60(5):1892–915. doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b01670 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Le TT, Wu M, Lee JH, Bhatt N, Inman JT, Berger JM, et al. Etoposide promotes DNA loop trapping and barrier formation by topoisomerase II. Nat Chem Biol. 2023;19(5):641–50. doi: 10.1038/s41589-022-01235-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Zhou Y, Li X, Luo P, Chen H, Zhou Y, Zheng X, et al. Identification of abemaciclib derivatives targeting cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 using molecular dynamics, binding free energy calculation, synthesis, and pharmacological evaluation. Front Pharmacol. 2023;14:1154654. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1154654 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Yousif FA, Alzain AA, Alraih AM, Ibraheem W. Repurposing of approved drugs for targeting CDK4/6 and aromatase protein using molecular docking and molecular dynamics studies. PLoS One. 2023;18(9):e0291256. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Feng J, Zheng Y, Ma W, Ihsan A, Hao H, Cheng G, et al. Multitarget antibacterial drugs: An effective strategy to combat bacterial resistance. Pharmacol Ther. 2023;:108550. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2023.108550 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Craven HM, Nettesheim G, Cicuta P, Blagborough AM, Merrick CJ. Effects of the G-quadruplex-binding drugs quarfloxin and CX-5461 on the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2023;23:106–19. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2023.11.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Moradi M, Mousavi A, Emamgholipour Z, Giovannini J, Moghimi S, Peytam F, et al. Quinazoline-based VEGFR-2 inhibitors as potential anti-angiogenic agents: A contemporary perspective of SAR and molecular docking studies. Eur J Med Chem. 2023;259:115626. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2023.115626 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Jiang X, Zhu X, Liu N, Xu H, Zhao Z, Li S, et al. Diallyl Trisulfide Inhibits Growth of NCI-H460 in Vitro and in Vivo, and Ameliorates Cisplatin-Induced Oxidative Injury in the Treatment of Lung Carcinoma in Xenograft Mice. Int J Biol Sci. 2017;13(2):167–78. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.16828 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Kim JW, Kim JH, Kim CY, Jeong JS, Lim JO, Kim JC. Diallyl disulfide prevents 1,3-dichloro-2-propanol-induced hepatotoxicity through mitogen-activated protein kinases signaling. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2022;160:112814. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2022.112814 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Jiang X, Zhu X, Xu H, Zhao Z, Li S, Li S, et al. Diallyl trisulfide suppresses tumor growth through the attenuation of Nrf2/Akt and activation of p38/JNK and potentiates cisplatin efficacy in gastric cancer treatment. Acta Pharmacol Sin. 2017;38(7). doi: 10.1038/aps.2016.176 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Wu Z, Tu B, Li S, Chen J, Shen P, Zhou W, et al. Safety assessment and exploration of the mechanism of toxic effects of diallyl trisulfide: Based on acute and subacute toxicity and proteomics experiments. J Ethnopharmacol. 2025;338(Pt 3):119102. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2024.119102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Kim S-H, Hahm E-R, Singh KB, Singh SV. Diallyl Trisulfide Inhibits Leptin-induced Oncogenic Signaling in Human Breast Cancer Cells but Fails to Prevent Chemically-induced Luminal-type Cancer in Rats. J Cancer Prev. 2020;25(1):1–12. doi: 10.15430/JCP.2020.25.1.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Huang J, Yang B, Xiang T, Peng W, Qiu Z, Wan J, et al. Diallyl disulfide inhibits growth and metastatic potential of human triple-negative breast cancer cells through inactivation of the β-catenin signaling pathway. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2015;59(6):1063–75. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201400668 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Acharya A, Roy N, Newaskar V, Rai A, Ghosh A, Nagpure M, et al. Topoisomerase II-targeting anticancer clinical candidates and drugs: A critical analysis, unravelling molecular medicinal insights and promising research roadmap. Eur J Med Chem. 2025;291:117611. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2025.117611 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Taymaz-Nikerel H, Karabekmez ME, Eraslan S, Kırdar B. Doxorubicin induces an extensive transcriptional and metabolic rewiring in yeast cells. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):13672. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-31939-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Wang J, Guo Z, Fu Y, Wu Z, Huang C, Zheng C, et al. Weak-binding molecules are not drugs?-toward a systematic strategy for finding effective weak-binding drugs. Brief Bioinform. 2017;18(2):321–32. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbw018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Spassov DS. Binding affinity determination in drug design: insights from lock and key, induced fit, conformational selection, and inhibitor trapping models. Int J Mol Sci. 2024;25(13):7124. doi: 10.3390/ijms25137124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Hassan AM, Gattan HS, Faizo AA, Alruhaili MH, Alharbi AS, Bajrai LH, et al. Evaluating the binding potential and stability of drug-like compounds with the monkeypox virus vp39 protein using molecular dynamics simulations and free energy analysis. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2024;17(12):1617. doi: 10.3390/ph17121617 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Wanat K. Biological barriers, and the influence of protein binding on the passage of drugs across them. Mol Biol Rep. 2020;47(4):3221–31. doi: 10.1007/s11033-020-05361-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Elmeliegy M, Vourvahis M, Guo C, Wang DD. Effect of P-glycoprotein (P-gp) inducers on exposure of P-gp substrates: review of clinical drug-drug interaction studies. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2020;59(6):699–714. doi: 10.1007/s40262-020-00867-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Gaston TE, Friedman D. Pharmacology of cannabinoids in the treatment of epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 2017;70(Pt B):313–8. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2016.11.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ahmed A Al-Karmalawy

8 Aug 2025

-->PONE-D-25-34728-->-->In silico evaluation of garlic-derived organosulfur compounds as multi-target inhibitors of breast cancer biomarkers-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Danquah,

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 Sep 22 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.. 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 . 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,

Ahmed A. Al-Karmalawy, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. 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. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[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: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

-->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.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: Yes

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: 1- Include molecular dynamics (MD) simulations or post-docking energy minimization to assess the stability of protein-ligand complexes over time. This is crucial to support docking results.

2- because of the weak binding affinity the author need to discuss the therapeutic relevance of such moderate affinities in more detail, and consider whether structure-based optimization could improve potency.

3- Inadequate Comparison with Existing Drugs, author need to provide comparative data or references to contextualize how garlic compounds perform relative to standard breast cancer drugs.

4- Conclusion emphasizes therapeutic potential despite no experimental (in vitro/in vivo) validation. Author needs to acknowledge that findings are preliminary and hypothesis-generating, pending experimental confirmation.

5- The manuscript lacks a clear justification for why the 8 specific targets (e.g., CDK2, VEGFR2, G-quadruplex) were chosen. Author needs to justify the clinical relevance of each target in breast cancer pathophysiology and resistance mechanisms.

6- Figures lack resolution, and tables are dense without highlighting top-performing compounds.

7- Certain points (e.g., garlic's anticancer potential) are repeated verbatim. Condense overlapping information to improve focus and flow.

Reviewer #2: The authors of the provided manuscript explored the potential anti-cancer activity of garlic-derived organosulfur compounds targeting several breast cancer-associated biotargets. The manuscript is relevant in the field of drug discovery. Comments are to be addressed as follows:

1. In the molecular modelling simulation section, brief description regarding the topology and binding site description of the five investigated breast cancer-associated biotarget’s. Further, the key reported binding residues should be highlighted as being mentioned important within the current literature.

2. Further, the compounds’ polar interaction patterns with key pocket residues should be annotated in terms of both the bond distances and angles. Hydrogen bonding should be presented within hydrogen bond distances as well as bond angles since hydrogen bond depend on both. Authors should mention the Hydrogen bond angles as well as their distances, since the strength of hydrogen bonding is based on both parameters in a way to ensure the adequacy of optimum hydrogen bonding.

3. The authors should provide MM_GBSA or PBSA energy calculations. It is advised to provide the dissected energy terms of these total energies (ΔGbind Lipo, ΔGbind Solv GB, ΔGbind vDW, ΔGbind Coulomb, and ΔGbind Ligand strain) to further evaluate the nature of interaction (dominant energy potential) based on these different energy terms. This would guide further hit to lead and lead optimization steps.

4. Based on the study results, what are the take-away messages. Authors are advised to highlight the future suggested structural modifications that would improve the hits’ predicted activities based on the computational findings. These insights would be beneficial for guiding future lead optimization and development.

**********

-->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 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

[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 . 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.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2026 May 6;21(5):e0348369. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0348369.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


20 Sep 2025

Dear Dr. Al-Karmalawy,

We appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers have dedicated to the thorough examination of our manuscript titled ‘In silico evaluation of garlic-derived organosulfur compounds as multi-target inhibitors of breast cancer biomarkers.’ Your constructive feedback has been invaluable in improving the overall quality and clarity of our work. To address your comments, we have carefully reviewed and revised the manuscript to address all concerns raised by the reviewers.

We believe that the manuscript is now suitable for publication in PLOS ONE.

Sincerely,

Kwabena O. Danquah

Corresponding author (on behalf of all authors)

Reviewer #1

Comment 1

Include molecular dynamics (MD) simulations or post-docking energy minimization to assess the stability of protein-ligand complexes over time. This is crucial to support docking results

Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback and for suggesting the inclusion of molecular dynamics simulations or post-docking energy minimization to evaluate the stability of protein-ligand complexes over time. In response, we have performed post-docking energy minimization to assess the stability of the protein-ligand complexes. Details of this additional analysis have been incorporated into the Methodology (lines 134-146), and the corresponding findings are presented in the Results (lines 251-263) and illustrated in Figure 5. Furthermore, these results have been discussed in the Discussion section to reflect their implications.

Comment 2

Because of the weak binding affinity the author need to discuss the therapeutic relevance of such moderate affinities in more detail, and consider whether structure-based optimization could improve potency.

Response

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In the original version of the manuscript, we had included a note on the potential for structural optimization to improve the potency of the compounds. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded this discussion to also address the therapeutic relevance of the weak binding affinities observed. This has now been incorporated into the Discussion section (lines 411-414). We believe that this addition provides a more balanced perspective on the translational potential of the compounds and highlights possible avenues for future drug development.

Comment 3

Inadequate Comparison with Existing Drugs, author need to provide comparative data or references to contextualize how garlic compounds perform relative to standard breast cancer drugs.

Response

We thank the reviewer for this important observation and suggestion. In the revised Discussion, we have expanded our comparisons between garlic-derived compounds and FDA-approved inhibitors as well as previously reported in silico studies. Specifically, we now compare S-allyl-L-cysteine’s binding to CDK6 with that of Abemaciclib, an FDA-approved CDK4/6 inhibitor (ΔG ≈ -12.12 kcal/mol vs -5 kcal/mol, respectively), and highlight how S-allyl-L-cysteine engages critical residues in the ATP-binding pocket while offering potential advantages in biocompatibility and reduced toxicity. We also discuss how rational structural modifications could enhance its affinity and selectivity, drawing from published interaction patterns of Abemaciclib. Similarly, Z-ajoene’s binding to CDK-2 and topoisomerase II is contextualized by comparison with palbociclib and etoposide, respectively. These additions provide a clearer framework for interpreting our results relative to clinically relevant standards. The new text can be found in the Discussion section, lines 388-399.

Comment 4

Conclusion emphasizes therapeutic potential despite no experimental (in vitro/in vivo) validation. Author needs to acknowledge that findings are preliminary and hypothesis-generating, pending experimental confirmation.

Response

We thank the reviewer for this valuable feedback. While we had noted in the original submission that the findings are preliminary and require experimental validation, we agree that this point needed to be emphasized more strongly. In the revised manuscript, we have made this limitation explicitly clear in the Abstract and Conclusion, highlighting that our results should be regarded as hypothesis-generating and that further in vitro and in vivo validation will be essential to confirm the therapeutic potential of the identified compounds against breast cancer targets. We believe this addition provides a more balanced and transparent interpretation of the study outcomes.

Comment 5

The manuscript lacks a clear justification for why the 8 specific targets (e.g., CDK2, VEGFR2, G-quadruplex) were chosen. Author needs to justify the clinical relevance of each target in breast cancer pathophysiology and resistance mechanisms

Response

We thank the reviewer for this valuable feedback. While the original manuscript (lines 54–64) provided a general rationale for selecting the eight targets, we agree that a clearer justification was needed. In the revised version, we have expanded the Background section (lines 64-66) to emphasize that these macromolecules are currently targeted by existing breast cancer therapies and to highlight the clinical relevance of each target in breast cancer pathophysiology and resistance. For example, CDKs and topoisomerases are linked to unchecked proliferation and endocrine resistance, Bcl-2 and XIAP mediate apoptosis evasion and chemoresistance, VEGFR2 is central to angiogenesis and tumor progression, and G-quadruplex structures play a role in telomerase regulation and genomic instability. This addition provides an additional layer of information to support the selection of these specific targets and shows their therapeutic importance in drug-resistant breast cancer.

Comment 6

Figures lack resolution, and tables are dense without highlighting top-performing compounds.

Response

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. In response, we have revised the relevant figures and tables to improve clarity and readability. Specifically, in Table 1, the top-performing docked compounds against each macromolecule have been highlighted in bold and a table legend added for easy identification. In addition, all figures have been updated with high-resolution images (≥300 dpi) to ensure better quality in the revised manuscript.

Comment 7

Certain points (e.g., garlic's anticancer potential) are repeated verbatim. Condense overlapping information to improve focus and flow.

Response

We thank the reviewer for this observation. In the revised manuscript, we have carefully reviewed and condensed sections where overlapping information was presented, particularly regarding garlic’s anticancer potential. Redundant statements have been removed or rephrased to improve focus, clarity, and flow, ensuring that each point is presented only once in the most appropriate context.

Reviewer #2

Comment

In the molecular modelling simulation section, brief description regarding the topology and binding site description of the five investigated breast cancer-associated biotarget’s. Further, the key reported binding residues should be highlighted as being mentioned important within the current literature. Further, the compounds’ polar interaction patterns with key pocket residues should be annotated in terms of both the bond distances and angles. Hydrogen bonding should be presented within hydrogen bond distances as well as bond angles since hydrogen bond depend on both. Authors should mention the Hydrogen bond angles as well as their distances, since the strength of hydrogen bonding is based on both parameters in a way to ensure the adequacy of optimum hydrogen bonding.

Response

Thank you for the feedback. In response to your suggestion, we have annotated the bond angles, distances, and key binding residues in Figure 4 and discussed them in the results section. Additionally, our study includes eight breast cancer-associated targets, not five. For the binding site descriptions, we have referenced the databases from which the targets were retrieved, as these sources provide comprehensive details on their topology and binding sites. We believe repeating this information in our manuscript would be redundant. However, we have included the resolution and PDB IDs of the targets around lines 118-121. In our methodology, we explained that the binding sites were selected based on known inhibitors, with their coordinates provided. Our analysis focuses on the residues in these regions that interact with our ligands (compounds), identifying key interacting residues within that known binding site to guide the further development of the lead compounds identified in our study.

Comment

The authors should provide MM_GBSA or PBSA energy calculations. It is advised to provide the dissected energy terms of these total energies (ΔGbind Lipo, ΔGbind Solv GB, ΔGbind vDW, ΔGbind Coulomb, and ΔGbind Ligand strain) to further evaluate the nature of interaction (dominant energy potential) based on these different energy terms. This would guide further hit to lead and lead optimization steps.

Response

Thank you for your suggestion and this important observation. Based on suggestions by other reviewers, we proceeded to do post-docking energy minimization to evaluate the stability of the protein-compound complexes. For individual residues contributing to energy, we have annotated residues that the ligands (compounds) interacted with and the type of bonds they formed. MM_GBSA or PBSA energy calculations would be valuable after MD simulation in our opinion but as said earlier, based on recommendations, we went ahead to do post-docking energy minimization which we have described at appropriate sections in the revised manuscript.

Comment

Based on the study results, what are the take-away messages. Authors are advised to highlight the future suggested structural modifications that would improve the hits’ predicted activities based on the computational findings. These insights would be beneficial for guiding future lead optimization and development.

Response

Thank you for your suggestion. We have made suggestions for the kind of approach that can be used for the structural optimization around lines 396-399. The key take-away messages have also been highlighted in the conclusion of the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebutal letter.docx

pone.0348369.s003.docx (24.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Muhammad Umer Khan

9 Nov 2025

-->PONE-D-25-34728R1-->-->In silico evaluation of garlic-derived organosulfur compounds as multi-target inhibitors of breast cancer biomarkers-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Danquah,

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.

==============================-->

Dear Authors,

Please revise your manuscript thoroughly in accordance with the reviewers’ comments, as incorporating these revisions is essential prior to publication.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 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.. 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 . 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,

Muhammad Umer Khan, Ph. D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

-->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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->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.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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 1. In the Introduction section, the authors should include a brief overview of recent in silico techniques, supported by relevant references, to align with the title and provide better context for the study. This will enhance the reader’s understanding of the computational approaches used.

2. Docking requires 3D coordinates. Please state explicitly how the 2D PubChem records were converted to 3D (e.g., OpenBabel, RDKit, Avogadro, Chem3D, or a PubChem 3D conformer download) and include the software name and version.

3. Describe how protonation states (pH considered), stereochemistry, and tautomeric forms were handled before optimization and docking. Indicate whether explicit hydrogens were added and which protonation state was used.

4. Although MMFF94 and steepest descent are mentioned, the manuscript should specify the program or server used to perform the optimization (including version), the implementation of MMFF94, the maximum number of optimization steps or exact stopping criterion (rather than “varied until energy minimization was achieved”), and the final energy or RMS gradient reached.

5. Indicate the file formats generated (e.g., SDF, MOL2, PDB) and detail any further preparation steps used for docking (charge assignment, atom typing, conversion to PDBQT, conformer selection, number of conformers retained).

6. For reproducibility, please provide the optimized 3D structures (e.g., as an SDF/MOL2/PDB supplementary file) or a link to a repository containing these geometries.

7. The grid box parameters (center coordinates, box size, and grid spacing) are provided only for the Bcl-2 protein. Since docking was performed against eight target proteins, similar details should be included for all targets to ensure methodological completeness and reproducibility.

8. The manuscript describes post-docking energy minimization using OpenBabel and the Universal Force Field (UFF), which is appropriate for local structural relaxation. However, this step cannot substitute for molecular dynamics (MD) simulation, as energy minimization provides only a static refinement and does not account for time-dependent stability or conformational flexibility of the complex. It is recommended to perform MD simulations to more accurately assess the dynamic stability and binding behavior of the top compound–protein complexes.

9. Please include the accessible web links for all ADMET and drug-likeness tools for reproducibility and clarity.

10. The authors have discussed only the top-scoring complex in the docking evaluation. It is recommended to include docking results for all other ligand–protein complexes as supplementary data to provide a comprehensive view of binding affinities and interactions across all tested compounds.

**********

-->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 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #2: Yes:Khaled DarwishKhaled Darwish

Reviewer #3: Yes:Hina ManzoorHina Manzoor

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 May 6;21(5):e0348369. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0348369.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


4 Dec 2025

In each sample, the review comments are not italicized while the responses are italicized.

Reviewer 2

No responses received

Reviewer 3

Comment

1. In the Introduction section, the authors should include a brief overview of recent in silico techniques, supported by relevant references, to align with the title and provide better context for the study. This will enhance the reader’s understanding of the computational approaches used.

Response

Thank you for this important feedback. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have now provided a clearer rationale for the use of in silico approaches in cancer drug discovery and included a brief overview of key computational techniques, supported by relevant references. A notable example added is the use of in silico techniques to discover a novel inhibitor against HER2 and its subsequent experimental validation which proved its micropotency. This information has been incorporated into the Introduction to better align with the study’s focus and to help readers understand the significance and context of the computational methods employed. This can be found on lines 42-55.

Comment

2. Docking requires 3D coordinates. Please state explicitly how the 2D PubChem records were converted to 3D (e.g., OpenBabel, RDKit, Avogadro, Chem3D, or a PubChem 3D conformer download) and include the software name and version.

3. Describe how protonation states (pH considered), stereochemistry, and tautomeric forms were handled before optimization and docking. Indicate whether explicit hydrogens were added and which protonation state was used.

Response (to comments 2 and 3)

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding our ligand preparation methodology. For the file formats and conversions needed for the molecular docking, we have updated the manuscript around lines 114 to 124 to clearly communicate it. We confirmed that all ligands were processed to ensure the correct major microspecies at physiological pH (7.4) using the OpenBabel pH flag (pH 7.4) during the SDF to MOL2 conversion. For stereochemistry, the (S) absolute configuration was chosen for cpd6, as this is the only chiral ligand and this stereoisomer is experimentally reported as potent, and for compound cpd1, the (Z) geometric isomer was maintained because it was experimentally shown to be potent in relevant studies. Finally, we employed ACD/ChemSketch to validate that the MOL2 files represented the most thermodynamically favorable tautomer. The structures incorporating these finalized definitions (protonation, stereochemistry, and tautomerism) are all depicted in Figure 1 of the revised manuscript around lines 121 to 123.

Comment

4. Although MMFF94 and steepest descent are mentioned, the manuscript should specify the program or server used to perform the optimization (including version), the implementation of MMFF94, the maximum number of optimization steps or exact stopping criterion (rather than “varied until energy minimization was achieved”), and the final energy or RMS gradient reached.

Response

Thank you for the comment. We now specify that ligand optimization was performed in OpenBabel (version 2.4.1) using MMFF94 with steepest descent for a maximum of 600 steps. We have updated our original statement of ‘ Geometry optimization was carried out using the MMFF94 force field and steepest descent (maximum 600 steps) algorithm with a convergence criterion of 1 × 10⁻⁷’ to ‘Geometry optimization was carried out using the MMFF94 force field and steepest descent (maximum 600 steps) algorithm with an RMS gradient convergence criterion of 1 × 10⁻⁷ after converting the SDF files to MOL2 formats considering the physiological pH of 7.4).

The RMS gradient convergence criterion of 1 × 10⁻⁷ is a very common and strict threshold used computation chemistry and physics for geometry optimizations. This update is now reflected in the Methods section (lines 122-123).

Comment

5. Indicate the file formats generated (e.g., SDF, MOL2, PDB) and detail any further preparation steps used for docking (charge assignment, atom typing, conversion to PDBQT, conformer selection, number of conformers retained).

Response

Thank you for your suggestion. The Structure preparation and file formats are now detailed in the updated manuscript around lines 114 to 160.

Comment

6. For reproducibility, please provide the optimized 3D structures (e.g., as an SDF/MOL2/PDB supplementary file) or a link to a repository containing these geometries.

Response

Thank you for the recommendation. The optimized structures can be accessed via https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17804558. This has been included in the manuscript around lines 177-178.

Comment

7. The grid box parameters (center coordinates, box size, and grid spacing) are provided only for the Bcl-2 protein. Since docking was performed against eight target proteins, similar details should be included for all targets to ensure methodological completeness and reproducibility.

Response

Thank you for this important suggestion. For methodological completeness and reproducibility, we have updated the manuscript to include the grid box parameters of for all the eight target proteins and for cleaner and easier to read, we have put this in a table form as a supplemental data.

Comment

8. The manuscript describes post-docking energy minimization using OpenBabel and the Universal Force Field (UFF), which is appropriate for local structural relaxation. However, this step cannot substitute for molecular dynamics (MD) simulation, as energy minimization provides only a static refinement and does not account for time-dependent stability or conformational flexibility of the complex. It is recommended to perform MD simulations to more accurately assess the dynamic stability and binding behavior of the top compound–protein complexes.

Response

We greatly acknowledge your concern, but the decision to use post-docking energy minimization instead of full Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulation, as a reviewer in the initial round of review recommended, was based on computational efficiency and the immediate goal of structural refinement due to resource constraints. Minimization was used because it is significantly faster, making it the only feasible option for high-throughput analysis of the number of docked complexes we had. We used it to efficiently relieve high-energy steric clashes, and structural strains often present in docking poses, thereby ensuring the complex is geometrically valid and resides in the nearest local potential energy minimum. While MD offers complete dynamic and entropic analysis, minimization was a resource-conscious and sufficient method to validate the structural feasibility of the initial binding hypothesis. This limitation has been acknowledged in the revised manuscript around lines 457-462.

Comment

9. Please include the accessible web links for all ADMET and drug-likeness tools for reproducibility and clarity.

Response

We have cross-checked the links and updated them to ensure that they are accurate. This update is located around lines 161 – 170

Comment

10. The authors have discussed only the top-scoring complex in the docking evaluation. It is recommended to include docking results for all other ligand–protein complexes as supplementary data to provide a comprehensive view of binding affinities and interactions across all tested compounds.

Response

We appreciate your observation. However, the docking results for the other compounds have been provided in Table 1.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to the Reviewers.docx

pone.0348369.s005.docx (23KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Muhammad Umer Khan

24 Feb 2026

-->PONE-D-25-34728R2-->-->In silico evaluation of garlic-derived organosulfur compounds as multi-target inhibitors of breast cancer biomarkers-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Danquah,

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 Apr 10 2026 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.. 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 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 . 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,

Muhammad Umer Khan, Ph. D

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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 #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

-->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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: N/A

**********

-->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.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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

-->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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

-->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 #3: The manuscript is acceptable in its current form and is recommended for publication. The study presents a well-structured and comprehensive in silico investigation, and the methodology applied is appropriate for the stated objectives. The results are clearly presented and supported by relevant analyses, providing meaningful insights into the interaction of the selected compounds with the proposed targets. Although molecular dynamics simulations were not performed, this does not detract from the overall scientific value of the work. Minor language and grammatical issues are present; however, they do not affect the clarity or interpretation of the findings. Overall, the manuscript meets the required standards for publication.

Reviewer #4: 1. The Introduction starts abruptly and lacks sufficient background context. The authors should begin with a brief overview of breast cancer burden, current therapeutic strategies, and existing clinical limitations to provide a logical foundation for the study.

2. The statement describing the identification of Z-ajoene and S-allyl-L-cysteine as promising candidates appears to report the study’s findings within the Introduction. Instead, the Introduction should focus on the rationale, knowledge gaps, and study objectives.

3. The manuscript lacks a clear justification for the selection of the proposed molecular targets in breast cancer. The authors should explicitly explain the biological and clinical relevance of these target proteins, including their roles in breast cancer progression, signaling pathways, and therapeutic relevance. A concise rationale for each target is required.

4. The authors should confirm whether the selected PDB structures correspond to human proteins. If any structures are derived from non-human homologs, the rationale for their selection and the level of structural or sequence similarity to human proteins should be clearly stated.

5. Appropriate references for each PDB ID should be provided. The authors are encouraged to cite the original structural studies (X-ray crystallography or cryo-EM publications) rather than only referring to the Protein Data Bank.

6. A comparative analysis with standard FDA-approved breast cancer drugs (e.g., tamoxifen, paclitaxel, doxorubicin, trastuzumab) should be included. Benchmarking docking scores, binding energies, and interaction profiles against standard therapeutics would improve the clinical relevance of the study.

7. There is inconsistent use of abbreviations throughout the manuscript. All abbreviations should be defined at first mention and used consistently. Unnecessary or redundant abbreviations should be avoided.

8. Potential off-target interactions and unintended biological effects of the proposed compounds should be discussed. Incorporating computational off-target prediction would strengthen the safety evaluation.

9. Molecular dynamics simulations should be performed for at least 200 ns to validate the docking results to ensure stability and convergence of the protein–ligand complexes.

10. A comparative discussion with previously published studies is missing. The authors should compare their findings with existing computational and experimental reports on similar targets and compounds, highlighting similarities, differences, and the novelty of the present work. This will help position the study within the current literature and clarify its scientific contribution.

**********

-->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 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #3: Yes:Hina ManzoorHina Manzoor

Reviewer #4: Yes:Iqra KhurramIqra Khurram

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

Attachment

Submitted filename: PlosONE Reviewer Comment.docx

pone.0348369.s006.docx (18.9KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2026 May 6;21(5):e0348369. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0348369.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 3


9 Mar 2026

Reviewer 4 Response

Comment 1

The Introduction starts abruptly and lacks sufficient background context. The authors should begin with a brief overview of breast cancer burden, current therapeutic strategies, and existing clinical limitations to provide a logical foundation for the study.

Response

Thank you for your comment. In response, we have revised the Introduction to provide clearer background context. Specifically, we now include a brief overview of the global burden of breast cancer (Lines 57-62), followed by discussion of current therapeutic strategies and their limitations, particularly the challenge of multidrug resistance.

Comment 2

The statement describing the identification of Z-ajoene and S-allyl-L-cysteine as promising candidates appears to report the study’s findings within the Introduction. Instead, the Introduction should focus on the rationale, knowledge gaps, and study objectives.

Response

Thank you for this comment. We agree that the Introduction should focus on the study rationale and knowledge gaps rather than report findings. Accordingly, the Introduction has been revised to remove statements suggesting study outcomes and instead emphasize the background, research gap, and study objectives.

Comment 3

The manuscript lacks a clear justification for the selection of the proposed molecular targets in breast cancer. The authors should explicitly explain the biological and clinical relevance of these target proteins, including their roles in breast cancer progression, signaling pathways, and therapeutic relevance. A concise rationale for each target is required.

Response

Thank you for this comment. The biological and clinical relevance of the selected molecular targets has been described in the Introduction (Lines 70-79). Specifically, we discuss their roles in key processes associated with breast cancer progression, including apoptosis regulation (Bcl-2 and XIAP), cell cycle control (CDK2 and CDK6), DNA replication and repair (topoisomerases I and II), and tumor angiogenesis (VEGFR2 signaling). In addition, the therapeutic relevance of G-quadruplex DNA structures in oncogene regulation is also highlighted.

Comment 4

The authors should confirm whether the selected PDB structures correspond to human proteins. If any structures are derived from non-human homologs, the rationale for their selection and the level of structural or sequence similarity to human proteins should be clearly stated.

Response

Thank you for this comment. We confirm that all selected PDB structures correspond to human proteins and are not derived from non-human homologs. To improve clarity, we have revised the Methods section to state this in the revised manuscript (Lines 140-141).

Comment 5

Appropriate references for each PDB ID should be provided. The authors are encouraged to cite the original structural studies (X-ray crystallography or cryo-EM publications) rather than only referring to the Protein Data Bank.

Response

We appreciate this suggestion. In the revised manuscript, around lines 141 to 145, we have referenced the publications which resolved the structure of the molecular targets in addition to their PDB ID.

Comment 6

A comparative analysis with standard FDA-approved breast cancer drugs (e.g., tamoxifen, paclitaxel, doxorubicin, trastuzumab) should be included. Benchmarking docking scores, binding energies, and interaction profiles against standard therapeutics would improve the clinical relevance of the study.

Response

Thank you for this suggestion. Comparative discussion with relevant FDA-approved breast cancer therapeutics has been included in the revised manuscript (Lines 398-425). Specifically, we compare the binding interactions and potential mechanisms of the identified compounds with established drugs such as palbociclib, Abemaciclib, etoposide, cediranib, and the G-quadruplex stabilizer quarfloxin. These comparisons highlight similarities in binding modes, interaction with key residues, and potential functional implications, while also acknowledging the relatively lower binding affinities of the garlic-derived compounds and the need for further structural optimization.

Comment 7

There is inconsistent use of abbreviations throughout the manuscript. All abbreviations should be defined at first mention and used consistently. Unnecessary or redundant abbreviations should be avoided.

Response

Thank you for this comment. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript to ensure that all abbreviations are defined at their first occurrence and used consistently throughout the text. Any redundant or unnecessary abbreviations were also checked and corrected where appropriate to improve clarity.

Comment 8

Potential off-target interactions and unintended biological effects of the proposed compounds should be discussed. Incorporating computational off-target prediction would strengthen the safety evaluation.

Response

Thank you for this suggestion. In response, we evaluated the potential off-target interactions and unintended biological effects of the proposed compounds through computational ADMET and toxicity predictions. The analysis indicated that P-glycoprotein may be inhibited by compounds cpd2, cpd3, cpd4, and cpd5, while CYP2C9 inhibition was predicted for cpd1 (Z-ajoene). These findings and their potential implications have been discussed in the revised manuscript (Lines 450-458).

Comment 9

Molecular dynamics simulations should be performed for at least 200 ns to validate the docking results to ensure stability and convergence of the protein–ligand complexes.

Response

Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that molecular dynamics (MD) simulations can provide important information into the stability and convergence of protein-ligand complexes. However, due to logistical and computational constraints, we were unable to perform extended MD simulations during this study. As an alternative, post-docking energy minimization was conducted to refine the docking poses and improve the stability of the predicted complexes. We acknowledge the absence of MD simulations as a limitation of the present study and have explicitly stated this in the manuscript.

Comment 10

A comparative discussion with previously published studies is missing. The authors should compare their findings with existing computational and experimental reports on similar targets and compounds, highlighting similarities, differences, and the novelty of the present work. This will help position the study within the current literature and clarify its scientific contribution.

Response

Thank you for this great suggestion. We agree that positioning our findings within the context of existing literature strengthens the scientific contribution of the study. Accordingly, we have revised the Discussion section (Lines 426-441) to include comparative analysis with previously published computational and experimental studies involving similar molecular targets and natural compounds. These additions highlight similarities and differences in binding interactions, docking affinities, and reported biological activities, while also emphasizing the novelty and potential therapeutic relevance of the garlic-derived compounds investigated in this study.

Attachment

Submitted filename: reviewer 4_response.docx

pone.0348369.s007.docx (18.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Muhammad Umer Khan

15 Apr 2026

In silico evaluation of garlic-derived organosulfur compounds as multi-target inhibitors of breast cancer biomarkers

PONE-D-25-34728R3

Dear Dr. Danquah,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support..

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,

Muhammad Umer Khan, Ph. D

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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 #4: 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 #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #4: N/A

**********

-->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.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 #4: Yes

**********

-->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 #4: Yes

**********

-->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 #4: All comments have been thoroughly and carefully addressed, and the manuscript has been revised accordingly. It is now accepted in its current form.

**********

-->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 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #4: Yes:Iqra KhurramIqra Khurram

**********

Acceptance letter

Muhammad Umer Khan

PONE-D-25-34728R3

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Danquah,

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.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

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. Muhammad Umer Khan

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. Supplemental data.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0348369.s001.docx (14.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebutal letter.docx

    pone.0348369.s003.docx (24.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to the Reviewers.docx

    pone.0348369.s005.docx (23KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PlosONE Reviewer Comment.docx

    pone.0348369.s006.docx (18.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: reviewer 4_response.docx

    pone.0348369.s007.docx (18.9KB, 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