Table 2.

Molecular docking and interaction energies of isolated compounds from G. laxum

	CDOCKER energy		CDOCKER interaction energy
	Wild type	C151W mutation	Wild type	C151W mutation
SFN	−20.7 ± 0.5c	−19.1 ± 1.0e,*	−19.1 ± 0.4bc	−17.8 ± 0.9a
1	−19.3 ± 0.7c	−22.5 ± 0.4g,**	−18.1 ± 0.6b	−21.1 ± 0.4b,##
2	−26.6 ± 0.2e	−21.4 ± 0.4fg,**	−28.9 ± 0.1de	−23.8 ± 0.4c,##
3	−23.8 ± 0.5d	−18.2 ± 0.7de,**	−29.2 ± 1.2de	−24.1 ± 0.8c,#
4	−24.7 ± 0.4de	−20.8 ± 0.1f,**	−30.8 ± 0.5e	−26.5 ± 0.3e,#
5	−16.2 ± 0.4b	−11.0 ± 1.1b,**	−30.1 ± 0.6de	−26.1 ± 1.1de,#
6	−15.3 ± 0.4ab	−9.3 ± 0.6a,***	−29.4 ± 0.5de	−24.0 ± 1.0c,##
7	−14.0 ± 0.3a	−9.0 ± 0.2a,***	−29.7 ± 0.9de	−24.5 ± 0.1cd,#
8	−19.9 ± 0.1c	−14.1 ± 0.2c,***	−31.3 ± 0.4e	−25.0 ± 0.3cde,###
9	−14.8 ± 0.5ab	−9.8 ± 0.4ab,**	−27.7 ± 0.4d	−23.3 ± 1.0c,#
10	−13.6 ± 1.0a	−17.4 ± 0.2d,*	−14.7 ± 1.1a	−18.6 ± 0.1a,#
11	−21.0 ± 1.7c	−22.4 ± 0.4g	−21.4 ± 1.8c	−23.2 ± 0.2c

Values with different letters are significantly different from each other (ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc multiple range test, p < 0.05). The triple best fits were selected by CDOCER analysis using discovery studio 4.0. SFN, a representative antioxidant, and a C151 residue modifier, was used as a positive control. The significance was analyzed by the post hoc Turkey method (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 compared to the wild type of Keap1 in CDOCKER energy, ^# p < 0.05, ^## p < 0.01, ^### p < 0.001 compared to the wild type of Keap1 in CDOCKER interaction energy)