Skip to main content
F1000Research logoLink to F1000Research
. 2021 Nov 11;10:Chem Inf Sci-358. Originally published 2021 May 7. [Version 2] doi: 10.12688/f1000research.52168.2

Identification of potential inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 S protein–ACE2 interaction by in silico drug repurposing

Fabiola E Tristán-Flores 1, Diana Casique-Aguirre 2, Raquel Pliego-Arreaga 3, Juan A Cervantes-Montelongo 4, Ponciano García-Gutierrez 5, Gerardo Acosta-García 4, Guillermo A Silva-Martínez 4,6,a
PMCID: PMC8630554  PMID: 34900223

Version Changes

Revised. Amendments from Version 1

Edits to the manuscript focus on an improved and better organization on the abstract, methods and discussion sections, accordingly to reviewers suggestions. New references were cited on manuscript to support Introduction and Discussion sections in order to addresses the reviewers comments.

Abstract

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a new coronavirus discovered that appeared in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, causes COVID-19 disease which have resulted in cases similar to SARS-atypical pneumonia. Worldwide, around 116 million cases and 2.57 million deaths are reported with new cases and increasing mortality every day. To date, there is no specific commercial treatment to control the infection. Repurpose drugs targeting the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor represents an alternative strategy to block the binding of SARS-CoV-2 protein S and forestall virus adhesion, internalization, and replication in the host cell.

Methods: We performed a rigid molecular docking using the receptor binding domain of the S1 subunit of S protein (RBD S1)-ACE2 (PDB ID: 6VW1) interaction site and 1,283 drugs FDA approved. The docking score, frequency of the drug in receptor site, and interactions at the binding site residues were used as analyzing criteria.

Results: This research yielded 40 drugs identified as a potential inhibitor of RBD S1-ACE2 interaction. Among the inhibitors, compounds such as ipratropium, formoterol, and fexofenadine can be found. Specialists employ these drugs as therapies to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and virtually any respiratory infection.

Conclusions: Our results will serve as the basis for in vitro and in vivo studies to evaluate the potential use of those drugs to generate affordable and convenient therapies to treat COVID-19.

Keywords: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, ACE2, Molecular Docking, Drug Repurposing

Introduction

Emerging viruses can be defined as those whose incidence has increased in the last twenty years or whose presence has a high probability of increasing in the near future. Diseases caused by emerging viruses are one of the biggest public health threats globally 1 . Some of the viruses that fall within this catalog are the avian influenza virus subtype H5N1, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Ebola, Zika, and MERS-CoV, to name a few 2 . Coronaviruses (CoVs) are classified into four genera, α-CoV, β-CoV, γ-CoV, and δ-CoV2. α and β infect mammals, γ birds and δ birds and mammals, respectively 3 . These viruses are of public health importance because they cause enteric, renal, and neurological respiratory diseases that range from asymptomatic to fatal 4, 5 .

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) appeared in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, causing cases of SARS-like atypical pneumonia 6, 7 , with a clinical picture of fever, general malaise, dry cough, shortness of breath and was called the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) 8 . It can be asymptomatic, develop mild-to-severe symptoms, or may cause death in patients with chronic diseases, such as hypertension, diabetes, and obesity 9 . On January 31 st 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a public health emergency of international concern and, on March 12 th, it was declared a global pandemic 10 . In Mexico, local transmission (phase 2 of transmission) was declared on March 24 th 2020, which resulted in the suspension of non-essential activities in the country, generating economic losses in addition to public health problems and deaths associated with the disease. As of March 1 st 2021, Mexico had reached 2.1 million cases of COVID-19 and 186 thousand deaths; around 116 million cases and 2.57 million deaths have been reported worldwide.

To date, there is no specific commercial treatment to control the infection 1113 . Measures such as early detection, blocking the route of transmission through social isolation, isolation of suspected cases, disinfection of objects, as well as frequent hand washing with soap, in addition to the use of biosafety equipment such as surgical masks for health personnel, may reduce the transmission of COVID-19 among population.

Coronaviruses, such as SARS-CoV-2, are positive-stranded RNA viruses enveloped on a membrane. The coronaviral genome is composed of approximately 30,000 nucleotides containing the envelope (E), membrane (M), spike (S), nucleocapsid (N) and ORFs , that encode non-structural proteins, including enzymes that appear during their in-host reproductive cycle-genes 14 .

This virus measures 70 to 100 nm and belongs to the genus β-CoV 15 and it has been proposed that any of the aforementioned proteins that make up CoVs may be targets for the development of vaccines or drugs 4 . Protein S plays an essential role on COVID-19 infection as it mediates the internalization on host cell and for the spread of the virus in the infected host 16, 17 . This starts when the receptor binding domain of the S1 subunit (RBD S1) of S protein binds to the peptidase domain of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor (ACE2) 18 and it is know that disrupting the binding of S protein to ACE2 prevents the attaching an the later internalization of the virus to the host cell 19 .

This protein interaction has recently been crystallized and deposited in the Protein Data Bank database 20 , allowing us to use it as a model of study to test different strategies to counter SARS-CoV-2 infection, like blocking S glycoprotein-ACE2 interaction through the discovery of sites of potential pharmaceutical interest.

In 2019, Research and Development (R&D) spending in the pharmaceutical industry totaled 186 billion U.S. dollars globally and its projected to reach 233 billion U.S. dollars to 2026. Unfortunately, drug development takes large time and financial resources that not all countries possess, especially developing countries, like Mexico.

In this sense, drug repurposing or repositioning allow us to integrate all evidence, pharmacodynamics/kinetics, bioavailability, among other important parameters, from an existing and approved drug in order to manage emerging diseases, like COVID-19. All this translates into a considerable decrease in research time and investment of resources in R&D 21 .

Different approaches have been taken in order to disrupt SARS-CoV-2 protein S-ACE2 interaction, as an example, many works has focus on finding potential biding sites on protein S structure, however, new variant strains has been detected worldwide, like B117 in UK, P1351 in South Africa, P1 and P2 in Brazil. All variant strains display the N501Y mutation, which is located on the RBD of the S protein, making the interaction more effective. In this sense, targeting RBD may be a transitory approach, therefore, an alternative strategy would be aiming at the ACE2 receptor. Some authors have pointed out some concerns about using drugs that targeting the renin–angiotensin signaling (RAS) pathway 2224 , but Jia and collaborators 25 highlight current efforts of exploiting ACE2 as therapeutic target, like the use of pseudo-ligands to dominate the binding site for SARS-CoV-2 as an example. Therefore, inhibition of the SARS-CoV-2 protein S-ACE2 interaction trough aiming ACE2 receptor it is a plausible strategy. In this study, we screened a library consisting of 1,283 FDA-approved drugs and acquired by Ministry of Health of Mexico in order to identify potential inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2–ACE2 interaction.

Methods

Molecular modeling, electric partial-charge assignation, ligand conformer, searching of potential binding sites, energy minimizations, visualization and docking were performed with Molecular Operating Environment package 26 .

Ligand preparation

The chemical structure of 1,283 drugs that comprises the updated list of reference drugs, as well as the National Compendium of Health Supplies of Mexico (June 2020 update) were obtained from the DrugBank, ZINC15 and PubChem database in September 2020. In order to simulate ligand flexibility for our rigid docking simulations, we generated a set of low-energy conformer for each drug with Conformer Import tool, with an imposed conformational cut-off energy of 3 kcal/mol from minimum energy structure of each compound, calculated with the AMBER10-EHT force field. The resulted in-house molecular data base (mdb) contain multiple conformers for each molecule and were used for rigid docking simulation.

Protein selection for ligand docking

The X-ray crystal structure of SARS-CoV-2 RBD S1 in a complex with the ACE2 (PDB ID: 6VW1, resolution of 2.68 Å) was selected as a protein target for docking simulations. Importantly, this engineered structure is the first to presents all the functionally important epitopes in the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding motif 20 . Potential binding sites in ACE2 near the interface region between the SARS-CoV-2 RBD S1 and ACE2 proteins, were identified with Site Finder tool. All crystallographic water and ligands molecules were removed from the system (chains B, E, F). Hydrogen atoms ( Protonate 3D tool) and partial charges ( Potential Setup tool) were added to ACE2 assuming pH equal to 7.0 and using the AMBER10-EHT force field, respectively. Before docking, the ACE2 protein structure was subjected to energy minimization using the same forcefield, in order to optimize atomic contacts. Docking simulations between the optimized ACE2 structure and each of the conformers contained in the in-house database, was carried out under the rigid-docking protocol. The docking parameters were set to take each ligand conformation as unique molecule, using the Alpha Triangle algorithm as placement method (at least 100 different orientations or poses on potential binding site) and further evaluation keeping the thirty best poses accordingly the London scoring function for binding affinity with a second refinement as a Rigid Receptor using Affinity dG algorithm keeping the ten best poses. The results were analyzed by docking score, frequency of the chemical compound as a stable conformation and the types of interactions at the binding site residues.

Results

Structural analysis of SARS-CoV-2 – ACE2 interaction

The structural analysis for the SARS-CoV-2 RBD S1 of the spike protein in a complex with the ACE2 (PDB ID: 6VW1; Figure 1A) revealing a potential site for ligand binding inside ACE2 structure ( Table 1). The identified receptor site ( Figure 1B) is proximal to the binding site of RBD S1 with a size of 86, therefore it can be used for simulating rigid molecular docking since receptor atoms are in an exposed region of the structure, which could be in favor of drug binding.

Figure 1. SARS-CoV-2 RBD S1interaction with human ACE2 receptor.

Figure 1.

A) Crystallographic structure (PDB ID: 6VW1) of RBD S1(red) and ACE2 receptor (blue); B) Molecular surface of the selected binding site in ACE2.

Table 1. General characteristics of RBD S1-ACE2 receptor site.

Size. PLB Hyd. Side Residues
86 0.84 20 55 Gln81 Tyr83 Pro84 Leu85 Gln86 Leu95 Gln98 Ala99 Gln101
Gln102 Asn103 Ala193 Asn194 His195 Tyr196
Gly205 Asp206 Tyr207 Glu208 Asn210 Arg219 Lys562

Virtual screening and molecular docking

An average of 78 conformations were generated for each ligand by Conformation Import MOE, generating 100,450 ligand conformations of the FDA approved and prescript drugs by the Mexican Public Health System.

The docking results were sorted and analyzed based on their S score, binding frequency which the drug binds to the receptor site and type of interactions, preferably, hydrogen bond, of the ligand with the selected site. We selected 38 drugs ( Table 2) that presents the best docking score between −10.04 and −4.04.

Table 2. List of potential inhibitors of the RBD S1-ACE2 interaction.

Drug name S-Score Interaction type (number)
Hydrogen
bond
Ionic
bond
Pi-bond
Uridine, trisodium salt -9.53 10 3 0
Methotrexate sodium -10.04 8 2 1
Raltritedex -8.93 8 2 0
Folotyn -8.19 8 2 0
CDP-choline(1-) -8.10 8 0 0
Cefuroxime -8.06 7 2 0
Fexofenadine -7.89 7 0 0
Fludarabine phosphate -7.99 6 0 1
Cefixime -9.02 5 3 0
Aloin -8.16 5 0 0
Domperidone -6.63 5 1 0
Tamsulosin -6.62 5 2 0
Cromoglycic acid -8.63 4 0 1
Macitentan -8.06 4 0 2
Tafluprost -Taflutan -7.94 4 0 1
Thiopental(1-) -5.42 4 0 0
Metoprolol -5.10 4 0 0
Irinotecan -8.72 3 0 1
Pitavastatin(1-) -8.40 3 0 1
Amlodipine -5.94 3 0 0
Verapamil -5.85 3 1 0
Tolterodine -4.77 3 0 0
Lopinavir -8.62 2 0 0
Glimepiride -8.47 2 1 0
Arformoterol -6.85 2 0 0
Formoterol -6.15 2 2 1
Ipratropium -5.38 2 0 1
Pargeverine -4.53 2 2 0
Pyrilamine -4.26 2 1 0
Biperiden -4.23 2 0 1
Orlistat -8.16 1 0 0
Glyburide -8.10 1 0 0
Ribociclib -7.96 1 0 1
Ibesartan -7.17 1 0 3
Cholecalciferol -5.81 1 0 0
Testosterone enanthate and
estradiol valerate
-5.39 1 0 0
Disopyramide phosphate -4.22 1 0 2
Primaquine -4.04 1 1 2

Subsequently, we shortlisted nine drugs based on their risk of teratogenicity, route of administration, interaction with other drugs, side effects and by their background as pharmacological therapy for the treatment of respiratory diseases 27, 28.

Fexofenadine showed interactions of hydrogen bond with Lys 74, Ala 99, Ser 105, Ser 106, Trp 203 and Asp 509 ( Figure 2A) with a docking score of −7.89. Pitavastatin displays hydrogen bond interaction with Gln 102, Tyr 196, Asp 206 and pi-H stacking with Leu 73 ( Figure 2B) and a docking score of −8.40. Arformoterol showed hydrogen bond interactions with Tyr 202 and Asp 206 ( Figure 2C) with a docking score of −6.85. Formoterol presented hydrogen bond interactions with Gln 98, Asn 194, ionic interaction with Glu 208 and pi-H interaction with Leu 85 ( Figure 2D) and presents a docking score of −6.15. Ipratropium exhibited hydrogen bond interaction with Gln 98, Gln 208 and pi-H stacking with Asp 206 ( Figure 2E) and a docking score of −5.38. Pargeverine shows hydrogen bond interactions with Gln 98, Gly 205, Glu 208 and ionic interaction with Glu 208 ( Figure 2F) and presents a docking score of −4.53. Cholecalciferol presented hydrogen bond interaction with Gln 102 ( Figure 2G) and had a docking score of −5.81. Lopinavir displays hydrogen bond interaction with Gln 102, Tyr 196 ( Figure 2H) and a docking score of −8.62. Cefixime showed hydrogen bond interaction with Gln 98, Tyr 202, Glu 208, Arg 219, Lys 562 and ionic interaction with Arg 219, Lys 562 ( Figure 2I) and a docking score of −9.02.

Figure 2. Two-dimensional representation of the interactions of the selected drugs with the ACE2 receptor binding site.

Figure 2.

The blue arrows indicate the structural hydrogen bridge bonds, and the green arrows are the hydrogen bridge bonds with the side chain. A) Fexofenadine, B) pitavastatine, C) aformoterol, D) formoterol, E) ipatropium, F) pargeverine, G) cholecalciferol, H) lopinavir and I) cefixime.

Some pharmacokinetics characteristics 27, 28 of the shortlisted potential inhibitors of the RBD S1 ACE2 interaction are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Potential inhibitors of RBD S1-ACE2 interaction selected according to desired characteristics.

Drug Pharmacokinetics Route of
administration
Drug Type/
Teratogenic risk
Bioavailability
(%)
Protein
binding (%)
Metabolism Half-life
(hours)
Excretion
Fexofenadine 30-41 60-70 Hepatic 14.4 Urine and
feces
Oral Antihistaminic
(third
generation) /B
Cefixime 30-50 60 Hepatic 3-4 Urine and
bile
Oral Antibiotic
(Cephalosporin;
third generation)/ B
Pitavastatine 60 96 Hepatic 11 Feces Oral Statin /X
Lopinavir 25 98-99 Hepatic 2-3 Urine and
feces
Oral Antiviral -Protease
inhibitor / C
Arformoterol 21-37 61-64 Hepatic 26 Urine Inhaled Long lasting β
agonist/ C
Formoterol 61 50 Hepatic 17 Urine Inhaled Long lasting β
agonist/ C
Ipratropium 2 0-9 Gastrointestinal 1.6 Urine Inhaled Anticholinergic
bronchodilators / B
Pargeverine 80 90 Hepatic 1.5-2 Urine Oral,
intravenous,
intramuscular,
rectal
Opium alkaloid
antispasmodic / D
Cholecalciferol NA NA Hepatic NA Urine Oral,
intramuscular
Vitamin

Discussion

It has been established that S protein of SARS-CoV-2 virus plays a major role during viral infection. The S protein mediates receptor recognition, cell attachment and fusion of viral membrane with host cell membrane 2934 . The S protein binds to ACE2 receptor through the RBD S1, mediating viral attachment to host cell 35 . Expression of ACE2 is ubiquitous in lung, intestine, heart and kidney, also alveolar epithelial type II cells had higher expression levels 23 . SARS-CoV-2, as one RNA viruses, has shown a high mutation rate as a result of lack of proofreading mechanisms, which leads to gain the ability to rapidly adapt to changes in their environment, which in turn leads to a great challenge for treating and preventing infections 36 . In this sense, the RBD region is a critical therapeutic target (vaccines and drugs) due to its indispensable function; however, it is suggested that mutations in this region may render pharmacological or immunological therapies ineffective 37, 38 , therefore, it is needed to search and design alternative treatments.

In order to block this event, we propose an in silico approach to identify potential inhibitors of the SARS-CoV-2 ACE2 interaction aiming at the ACE2 receptor, blocking the virus accessibility to the membrane-bound ACE2. In this sense, Jia and collaborators 25 present an extensive review for this underexplored approach to treat COVID-19, pointing that it is imperative to determine, by clinicians, the stage of the disease and comorbidities that could prove consequential for an ACE2-targeting regimen. Here, we screened a drug library consisting of 1,283 drugs, FDA approved and prescribed by the Mexican Public Health System, for potential SARS-CoV-2−ACE2 inhibitors, using a rigid receptor docking approach. Utilization of an FDA-approved drug library is an effective and ideal tool for drug repurposing in antiviral research 39, 40 , such as zika virus 41 , human rhinovirus 42 and hepatitis B virus 43 . We identify 38 potentially inhibitor drugs of SARS-CoV-2−ACE2 interaction and these are listed on Table 2. Several of those drugs were previously reported to be used for the treatment of respiratory diseases.

Within this list of potential inhibitors of the SARS-CoV-2−ACE2 interaction, is fexofenadine, a third generation antihistamine whose therapeutic indication is the treatment of symptoms of stationary allergies through the selective blockade of H1 receptors 44 . It possesses direct effect on combating the cytokine storm caused by SARS-CoV-2 through inhibition of histamine and interleukin-6 (IL-6) release. In silico evidence 45, 46 suggest that it may interact with the SARS-CoV-2 main protease enzyme M Pro, a key enzyme in viral replication 47 , acting as a potential inhibitor.

Cefixime is a third-generation antibiotic derived from cephalosporin whose use is indicated for the treatment of infections in the upper and lower respiratory tract, otorhinolaryngological 48 and urinary tract 49 , inhibiting the synthesis of the bacterial wall by binding to specific binding proteins for penicillin and is currently used as a secondary therapy to prevent opportunistic infections during the development of COVID-19 50 .

Pitavastatin is a statin indicated for lowering blood cholesterol levels by inhibiting HMG-CoA reductase, preventing cholesterol synthesis 51 , and it has also been observed that statin treatments can interfere with viral infectivity through inhibition of glycoprotein processing 52 also, they modulates the inflammatory process at cellular level 53 , which is a remarkable characteristic of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Additionally, in silico findings suggest that could be an efficient inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 M Pro 54 and SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) 55 thru active site binding.

Lopinavir is a protease inhibitor indicated as first barrier therapy, in conjunction with Ritonavir, to treat infection caused by the HIV virus by inhibiting the HIV-1 protease 56 in addition, studies in cell cultures have shown its effectiveness as an inhibitor of the replication of the MERS-CoV virus 57 and SARS-CoV-1 58 , while in severe cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the results of clinical trials indicate that it is not useful 59 .

Formoterol and aformoterol, anenantiomer of formoterol, are long-lasting selective β agonists indicated for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and bronchospasms 60 , in the same way there is evidence of the use of these drugs as a partial inhibitor of viral replication in primary epithelial cells cultures 61 and in silico data suggest their binding to the papain-like protease PL pro, a coronavirus enzyme essential for viral spread 62 .

Ipratropium is a bronchodilator anticholinergic indicated for the treatment of asthma, shortness of breath, cough and tightness in the chest in patients with COPD 63, 64 . Inhalation therapy with ipratropium is currently in use to dilate bronchioles in COVID-19 patients to increase oxygen saturation levels (from <80% to 94%) 65 .

Pargeverine is an antispasmodic opioid alkaloid whose therapeutic indication is aimed at the treatment of painful spasms 66 , also, acts as anticholinergic and has a moderate and non-selective blockade of muscarinic cholinergic fibers 67 . Since cholinergic activity contribute to airway narrowing, this might be a potential agent to open airway obstruction.

Cholecalciferol, is a form of vitamin D (vitamin D3) that can be synthesized naturally in the skin and acts as a hormonal precursor, being converted into calcitriol, and therapeutically is used as a vitamin supplement to treat deficiencies of this vitamin 68 . In addition, it has been observed that vitamin D supplementation is favorable to reduce viral infections such as influenza 69, 70 or more aggressive cases such as HIV 71 and it has recently been suggested that it also presents favorable effects before and during the infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 72 .

Likewise, it is important to take into account that ACE2 plays an important biological role since regulates cardiovascular functions and innate immune system 73 and, therefore cautions must be taken. Another point to consider is the delivery method of the drug, since the primary target must be smooth muscle, like the one surrounding the bronchioles, and lung epithelial cells in the airway and airspace compartments, hence, inhalable delivery would be the acceptable choice to deliver the drug in a selectively and localized manner.

Given these characteristics, the results obtained through our in silico approach, we consider that the aforementioned drugs are outlined as possible inhibitors of the RBD S1-ACE2 interaction. These drugs are well tolerated, commonly used and affordable, hence, most of the drugs on this list can be tested in vitro, and even in vivo and, consequently, in clinical trials for the development of adjuvant therapies to treat COVID-19.

Conclusion

In the absence of approved therapies for treatment or prevention, drug repurposing has provided fast and valuable insight into the treatment of COVID-19. Targeting ACE2 receptor as a COVID-19 therapy it is a conceivable approach since it is essential for the viral internalization. However, this approach requires an integrative evaluation of the pros and cons by a clinical context since ACE2 is a multifunctional protein. Several drugs are currently investigated by clinical trials or are already in use to treat COVID-19 patients, like lopinavir or ipratropium. In this in silico study using structure-bases virtual screening, we identified potential inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2–ACE2 by their interaction with ACE2 receptor. Based on desired characteristics like pharmacokinetics, route of administration or by their background as pharmacological therapy, we propose a shortlist of drugs suitable for testing their potential RBD S1 ACE2 inhibitory activity: fexofenadine, cefixime, pitavastatine, lopinavir, arformoterol, formoterol, ipratropium, pargeverine and cholecalciferol. Our identification of potential inhibitors of the SARS-CoV-2–ACE2 interaction among commonly use drugs highlights their potential use for treating COVID-19. Further in vitro, in vivo or clinical trial are needed to validate their potential use as inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2–ACE2 interaction.

Data availability

Source data

Protein Data Bank: Crystal structure of SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD S1) of the spike protein in a complex with the ACE2 receptor. https://identifiers.org/pdb:6vw1.

Ministry of Health of Mexico: Drug list used by the Ministry of Health of Mexico (June 2020 version). http://www.csg.gob.mx/Compendio/CNIS/cnis.html.

PubChem: Ligands. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 74 .

Drugbank: Ligands. https://go.drugbank.com 75 .

ZINC database: Ligands. http://zinc.docking.org 76 .

Extended data

Figshare: Identification of potential inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 S protein–ACE2 interaction by in silico drug repurposing, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14466333 77

This project contains the underlying data file:

  • -

    Table_E1_DrugsAccessionNumber.xlsx (Accession numbers of drugs used for docking simulations)

Data is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0)

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ruy E. Pineda-Silva for the supporting work in data acquisition; Martha C. Silva-Martinez, MD. and Omar Pineda-Gama, MD. for advice, assistance, and their valuable feedback.

Funding Statement

Work supported by Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT), “APOYO PARA PROYECTOS DE INVESTIGACIÓN CIENTÍFICA, DESARROLLO TECNOLÓGICO E INNOVACIÓN EN SALUD ANTE LA CONTINGENCIA POR COVID-19” grant no. C-295/2020 to GAS-M. DC-A is a post-doctoral researcher supported with a fellowship from Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT), México (grant no. Estancias Posdoctorales por México – Estancia posdoctoral de incidencia 1er Año 2020 - 1)

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

References

  • 1. Ryu WS: CHAPTER 21 – New Emerging Viruses.In Molecular Virology of Human Pathogenic Viruses.Academic Press,2017;1:289–302. [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Afrough B, Dowall S, Hewson R: Emerging viruses and current strategies for vaccine intervention. Clin Exp Immunol. 2019;196(2):157–166. 10.1111/cei.13295 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Payne S: Family Coronaviridae. Viruses. 2017;149–158. 10.1016/b978-0-12-803109-4.00017-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Masters P, Perlman S: CHAPTER 28 – Coronaviridae. In Fields Virology, 6th Edition. (ed. Knipe, David M.; Howley, P. M.), Lippincott Williams & Wilkins,2013;1:826–858. [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Li F: Structure, Function, and Evolution of Coronavirus Spike Proteins. Annu Rev Virol. 2016;3(1):237–261. 10.1146/annurev-virology-110615-042301 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Ksiazek TG, Erdman D, Goldsmith CS, et al. : A novel coronavirus associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(20):1953–66. 10.1056/NEJMoa030781 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Guan Y, Zheng BJ, He YQ, et al. : Isolation and characterization of viruses related to the SARS coronavirus from animals in Southern China. Science. 2003;302(5643):276–278. 10.1126/science.1087139 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Ren LL, Wang YM, Wu ZQ, et al. : Identification of a novel coronavirus causing severe pneumonia in human: a descriptive study. Chin Med J (Engl). 2020;133(9):1015–1024. 10.1097/CM9.0000000000000722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, et al. : Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020;395(10223):497–506. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. WHO: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. Emergencies - Dis. 2020. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Lu H: Drug treatment options for the 2019-new coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Biosci Trends. 2020;14(1):69–71. 10.5582/bst.2020.01020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Sheahan TP, Sims AC, Leist SR, et al. : Comparative therapeutic efficacy of remdesivir and combination lopinavir, ritonavir, and interferon beta against MERS-CoV. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):222. 10.1038/s41467-019-13940-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Pillaiyar T, Meenakshisundaram S, Manickam M: Recent discovery and development of inhibitors targeting coronaviruses. Drug Discov Today. 2020;25(4):668–688. 10.1016/j.drudis.2020.01.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Yoo CB, Jones PA: Epigenetic therapy of cancer: past, present and future. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006;5(1):37–50. 10.1038/nrd1930 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Kim JM, Chung YS, Jo HJ, et al. : Identification of coronavirus isolated from a patient in Korea with covid-19. Osong Public Health Res Perspect. 2020;11(1):3–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Mazzon M, Marsh M: Targeting viral entry as a strategy for broad-spectrum antivirals [version 1; peer review: 3 approved]. F1000Res. 2019;8:F1000 Faculty Rev-1628. 10.12688/f1000research.19694.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Hoffmann M, Kleine-Weber H, Schroeder S, et al. : SARS-CoV-2 Cell Entry Depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and Is Blocked by a Clinically Proven Protease Inhibitor. Cell. 2020;181(2):271–280.e8. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Li F, Li W, Farzan M, et al. : Structure of SARS coronavirus spike receptor-binding domain complexed with receptor. Science. 2005;309(5742):1864–8. 10.1126/science.1116480 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Sui J, Li W, Murakami A, et al. : Potent neutralization of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus by a human mAb to S1 protein that blocks receptor association. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101(8):2536–41. 10.1073/pnas.0307140101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Shang J, Ye G, Shi K, et al. : Structural basis of receptor recognition by SARS-CoV-2. Nature. 2020;581(7807):221–224. 10.1038/s41586-020-2179-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Gil C, Martinez A: Is drug repurposing really the future of drug discovery or is new innovation truly the way forward? Expert Opin Drug Discov. 2021;16(8):829–831. 10.1080/17460441.2021.1912733 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Sriram K, Insel PA: A hypothesis for pathobiology and treatment of COVID-19: The centrality of ACE1/ACE2 imbalance. Br J Pharmacol. 2020;177(21):4825–4844. 10.1111/bph.15082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Zhang H, Penninger JM, Li Y, et al. : Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as a SARS-CoV-2 receptor: molecular mechanisms and potential therapeutic target. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(4):586–590. 10.1007/s00134-020-05985-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Gurwitz D: Angiotensin receptor blockers as tentative SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics. Drug Dev Res. 2020;81(5):537–540. 10.1002/ddr.21656 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Jia H, Neptune E, Cui H: Targeting ACE2 for COVID-19 Therapy: Opportunities and Challenges. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2021;64(4):416–425. 10.1165/rcmb.2020-0322PS [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Chemical Computing Group ULC: Molecular Operating Environment (MOE), 2019.01. 1010 Sherbooke St. West, Suite #910, Montreal, QC, Canada, H3A 2R7. 2021. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Brunton LL, Dandan-Hilal R, Knollmann BC: Goodman&Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics Ed 13th. McGrawHill Educ. 2018. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Katzung BG, Masters SB, Trevor AJ: Basic & Clinical Pharmacology Edition 12th. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Walls AC, Park YJ, Tortorici MA, et al. : Structure, function, and antigenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein. Cell. 2020;181(2):281–292.e6. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.058 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Wang Q, Zhang Y, Wu L, et al. : Structural and functional basis of SARS-CoV-2 entry by using human ACE2. Cell. 2020;181(4):894–904.e9. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.03.045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Lan J, Ge J, Yu J, et al. : Structure of the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain bound to the ACE2 receptor. Nature. 2020;581(7807):215–220. 10.1038/s41586-020-2180-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Gui M, Song W, Zhou H, et al. : Cryo-electron microscopy structures of the SARS-CoV spike glycoprotein reveal a prerequisite conformational state for receptor binding. Cell Res. 2017;27(1):119–129. 10.1038/cr.2016.152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Hulswit RJG, de Haan CAM, Bosch BJ: Coronavirus spike protein and tropism changes. Adv Virus Res. 2016;96:29–57. 10.1016/bs.aivir.2016.08.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Yan R, Zhang Y, Li Y, et al. : Structural basis for the recognition of SARS-CoV-2 by full-length human ACE2. Science. 2020;367(6485):1444–1448. 10.1126/science.abb2762 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Wrapp D, Wang N, Corbett KS, et al. : Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation. Science. 2020;367(6483):1260–1263. 10.1126/science.abb2507 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Mattenberger F, Vila-Nistal M, Geller R: Increased RNA virus population diversity improves adaptability. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):6824. 10.1038/s41598-021-86375-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Xia S, Yan L, Xu W, et al. : A pan-coronavirus fusion inhibitor targeting the HR1 domain of human coronavirus spike. Sci Adv. 2019;5(4):eaav4580. 10.1126/sciadv.aav4580 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Shah M, Ahmad B, Choi S, et al. : Mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD are responsible for stronger ACE2 binding and poor anti-SARS-CoV mAbs cross-neutralization. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2020;18:3402–3414. 10.1016/j.csbj.2020.11.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Jin Z, Du X, Xu Y, et al. : Structure of M pro from SARS-CoV-2 and discovery of its inhibitors. Nature. 2020;582(7811):289–293. 10.1038/s41586-020-2223-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Wang P, Liu Y, Zhang G, et al. : Screening and Identification of Lassa Virus Entry Inhibitors from an FDA-Approved Drug Library. J Virol. 2018;92(16):e00954–18. 10.1128/JVI.00954-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Barrows NJ, Campos RK, Powell ST, et al. : A Screen of FDA-Approved Drugs for Inhibitors of Zika Virus Infection. Cell Host Microbe. 2016;20(2):259–70. 10.1016/j.chom.2016.07.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Shim A, Song JH, Kwon BE, et al. : Therapeutic and prophylactic activity of itraconazole against human rhinovirus infection in a murine model. Sci Rep. 2016;6:23110. 10.1038/srep23110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Sekiba K, Otsuka M, Ohno M, et al. : Inhibition of HBV Transcription From cccDNA With Nitazoxanide by Targeting the HBx–DDB1 Interaction. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;7(2):297–312. 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2018.10.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Compalati E, Baena-Cagnani R, Penagos M, et al. : Systematic review on the efficacy of fexofenadine in seasonal allergic rhinitis: A meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2011;156(1):1–15. 10.1159/000321896 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Farag A, Wang P, Boys IN, et al. : Identification of Atovaquone, Ouabain and Mebendazole as FDA Approved Drugs Tar-geting SARS-CoV-2 (Version 4). ChemRxiv. 2020. 10.26434/chemrxiv.12003930 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Singh S, Florez H: Coronavirus disease 2019 drug discovery through molecular docking [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Res. 2020;9:502. 10.12688/f1000research.24218.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Du QS, Wang SQ, Zhu Y, et al. : Polyprotein cleavage mechanism of SARS CoV M pro and chemical modification of the octapeptide. Peptides. 2004;25(11):1857–64. 10.1016/j.peptides.2004.06.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Adam D, Hostalek U, Tröster K: 5-day cefixime therapy for bacterial pharyngitis and/or tonsillitis: comparison with 10-day penicillin V therapy. Cefixime Study Group. Infection. 1995;23 Suppl 2:S83–6. 10.1007/BF01742990 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. McMillan A, Young H: The treatment of pharyngeal gonorrhoea with a single oral dose of cefixime. Int J STD AIDS. 2007;18(4):253–4. 10.1258/095646207780658971 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Gonzalez-Zorn B: Antibiotic use in the COVID-19 crisis in Spain. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021;27(4):646–647. 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.09.055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Kajinami K, Takekoshi N, Saito Y: Pitavastatin: Efficacy and safety profiles of a novel synthetic HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor. Cardiovasc Drug Rev. 2003;21(3):199–215. 10.1111/j.1527-3466.2003.tb00116.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Shrivastava-Ranjan P, Flint M, Bergeron É, et al. : Statins suppress Ebola virus infectivity by interfering with glycoprotein processing. mBio. 2018;9(3):e00660–18. 10.1128/mBio.00660-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Saku K, Zhang B, Noda K, et al. : Randomized head-to-head comparison of pitavastatin, atorvastatin, and rosuvastatin for safety and efficacy (quantity and quality of LDL): the PATROL trial. Circ J. 2011;75(6):1493–505. 10.1253/circj.cj-10-1281 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Reiner Ž, Hatamipour M, Banach M, et al. : Statins and the Covid-19 main protease: In silico evidence on direct interaction. Arch Med Sci. 2020;16(3):490–496. 10.5114/aoms.2020.94655 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Baby K, Maity S, Mehta CH, et al. : Targeting SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase: An in silico drug repurposing for COVID-19 [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Res. 2020;9:1166. 10.12688/f1000research.26359.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Cvetkovic RS, Goa KL: Lopinavir/ritonavir: A review of its use in the management of HIV infection. Drugs. 2003;63(8):769–802. 10.2165/00003495-200363080-00004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. de Wilde AH, Jochmans D, Posthuma CC, et al. : Screening of an FDA-approved compound library identifies four small-molecule inhibitors of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus replication in cell culture. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(8):4875–84. 10.1128/AAC.03011-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Chu CM, Cheng VC, Hung IF, et al. : Role of lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of SARS: Initial virological and clinical findings. Thorax. 2004;59(3):252–6. 10.1136/thorax.2003.012658 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Cao B, Wang Y, Wen D, et al. : A Trial of Lopinavir–Ritonavir in Adults Hospitalized with Severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(19):1787–1799. 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Hanania NA, Donohue JF, Nelson H, et al. : The safety and efficacy of arformoterol and formoterol in COPD. COPD. 2010;7(1):17–31. 10.3109/15412550903499498 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Yamaya M, Nishimura H, Deng X, et al. : Inhibitory effects of glycopyrronium, formoterol, and budesonide on coronavirus HCoV-229E replication and cytokine production by primary cultures of human nasal and tracheal epithelial cells. Respir Investig. 2020;58(3):155–168. 10.1016/j.resinv.2019.12.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Arya R, Das A, Prashar V, et al. : Potential inhibitors against papain-like protease of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from FDA approved drugs. ChemRxiv. 2020. 10.26434/chemrxiv.11860011.v2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Pakes GE, Brogden RN, Heel RC, et al. : Ipratropium Bromide: A Review of its Pharmacological Properties and Therapeutic Efficacy in Asthma and Chronic Bronchitis. Drugs. 1980;20(4):237–66. 10.2165/00003495-198020040-00001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Aaron SD: The use of ipratropium bromide for the management of acute asthma exacerbation in adults and children: A systematic review. J Asthma. 2001;38(7):521–30. 10.1081/jas-100107116 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Chen X, Zhang G, Tang Y, et al. : The coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia with spontaneous pneumothorax: A case report. BMC Infect Dis. 2020;20(1):662. 10.1186/s12879-020-05384-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Rzetelna H, Rosa CFPA, Kirzner M, et al. : Clinical Assessment of the Use of Propinox Hydrochloride and Scopolamine Hydrochloride in the Treatment of Abdominal Colic: A Retrospective, Comparative Study. Int J Clin Med. 2016;7(7):474–480. 10.4236/ijcm.2016.77052 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Gründlingh J: Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference 38th edition. J Forensic Leg Med. 2014;28:54. 10.1016/j.jflm.2014.10.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Whiting SJ, Calvo MS, Vatanparast H: Current understanding of vitamin D metabolism, nutritional status, and role in disease prevention. Nutrition in the Prevention and Treatment of Disease. 2017;937–967. 10.1016/B978-0-12-802928-2.00043-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Urashima M, Segawa T, Okazaki M, et al. : Randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to prevent seasonal influenza A in schoolchildren. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;91(5):1255–60. 10.3945/ajcn.2009.29094 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Zhou J, Du J, Huang L, et al. : Preventive effects of Vitamin D on seasonal influenza a in infants: A multicenter, randomized, open, controlled clinical trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2018;37(8):749–754. 10.1097/INF.0000000000001890 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Mansueto P, Seidita A, Vitale G, et al. : Vitamin D deficiency in HIV infection: Not only a bone disorder. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:735615. 10.1155/2015/735615 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Murdaca G, Pioggia G, Negrini S: Vitamin D and Covid-19: an update on evidence and potential therapeutic implications. Clin Mol Allergy. 2020;18(1):23. 10.1186/s12948-020-00139-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Gheblawi M, Wang K, Viveiros A, et al. : Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2: SARS-CoV-2 Receptor and Regulator of the Renin-Angiotensin System: Celebrating the 20th Anniversary of the Discovery of ACE2. Circ Res. 2020;126(10):1456–1474. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Kim S, Chen J, Cheng T, et al. : PubChem in 2021: new data content and improved web interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49(D1):D1388–D1395. 10.1093/nar/gkaa971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. Wishart DS, Feunang YD, Guo AC, et al. : DrugBank 5.0: a major update to the DrugBank database for 2018. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(D1):D1074–D1082. 10.1093/nar/gkx1037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76. Sterling T, Irwin JJ: ZINC 15--Ligand Discovery for Everyone. J Chem Inf Model. 2015;55(11):2324–2337. 10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00559 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77. Tristán-Flores FE, Casique-Aguirre D, Pliego-Arrega R, et al. : Table_E1_DrugsAccessionNumber.xlsx. Figshare. 2021. 10.6084/m9.figshare.14466333 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
F1000Res. 2021 Nov 26. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.78910.r99909

Reviewer response for version 2

Fernando Yepes-Calderon 1

No further comments to make.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Medical devices development, Medical Imaging, Methods development

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2021 Nov 22. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.78910.r99910

Reviewer response for version 2

Yogendra Nayak 1

The revision of the manuscript by the authors looks satisfactory to index the article.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Pharmacy and Pharmacology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2021 Sep 21. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.55408.r93444

Reviewer response for version 1

Yogendra Nayak 1, Krishnaprasad Baby 2

I am pleased to write the review for this manuscript. In this manuscript, authors have used computational tools to predict the activity of a suitable drug to treat/ prevent COVID-19. The specific target can prevent the entry of SARS-CoV-2 in human body. Thus keeping the receptor for virus entry ACE2, the available drugs are screened for their binding efficacy, which indirectly correlates the biological activity. Though the computational predictions are widely accepted, this manuscript has few limitations in its current form. Hence, I would suggest minor changes or amendments might be necessary before acceptance. Followings are a few of them:

Abstract:

  • As the pandemic is dynamically changing the numbers, giving a country specific might not hold good. I suggest to add the data related to the world-wide data can be put.

    An important observation is the number of drugs from US-FDA can be written the same number as it was mentioned later in the manuscript (1,283 may not be correct). 

Introduction:

  • I feel many places few more additional support from the literature is required. Which can be strengthened by citing references. 

Methods:

  • Molecule selection for docking appears incorrect. It is protein selection for ligand docking. Moreover, authors have optimised the protein structure, which should have been more appropriate. The resolution of 6VW1 is missing. The rationale for taking  6VW1 appears missing in methodology. 

    Database preparation appears incorrect. It can be dataset/ or ligand preparation. When DrugBank/ZINC15 was accessed is missing (month of accession). Which version of ZINC library was used is missing. Most importantly, the reason why ligands conformation was generated is missing.

Results:

  • Table 3, the details regarding generation of data appears missing. I feel the detailed legends can be given.

  • The current gold standard for molecular activity prediction is MD simulation, this can be tried by authors.

Discussion:

  • In the methodology the number of drugs selected were 1283, but here it changed to 1300. This looks inconsistent.

  • In the methodology, authors have mentioned that they have generated some conformers. Which conformation of drugs were active?

  • Overall, I feel the discussion part appears very weak and lacks substantial evidence for how these drugs could be used in COVID-19.

Conclusions:

  • The conclusion can be made simple by reducing the number of sentences. Most of the journals will not accept citations (references) in conclusions. Hence, the authors can give a thought to modify the conclusion by keeping their views only on objectives/ aims.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Pharmacy and Pharmacology

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2021 Oct 29.
Guillermo A Silva-Martinez 1

We thank the reviewer for the detailed revision of our paper and for suggesting improvements.

Abstract:

  • As the pandemic is dynamically changing the numbers, giving a country specific might not hold good. I suggest to add the data related to the world-wide data can be put.

  • An important observation is the number of drugs from US-FDA can be written the same number as it was mentioned later in the manuscript (1,283 may not be correct). 

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion to improve the impact of our abstract. US-FDA approved drug number was corrected.

Introduction:

  • I feel many places few more additional support from the literature is required. Which can be strengthened by citing references. 

Response: We agree with the reviewer's observation, however, we believe that the introduction provides the necessary information to be in context to the overall objective of our work.

Methods:

  • Molecule selection for docking appears incorrect. It is protein selection for ligand docking. Moreover, authors have optimized the protein structure, which should have been more appropriate. The resolution of 6VW1 is missing. The rationale for taking 6VW1 appears missing in methodology. 

    Database preparation appears incorrect. It can be dataset/ or ligand preparation. When DrugBank/ZINC15 was accessed is missing (month of accession). Which version of ZINC library was used is missing. Most importantly, the reason why ligands conformation was generated is missing.

    Response: We thank the reviewer for the comments and for suggesting improvements. Changes on the subsections mentioned above were made. Resolution of 6VW1, the rationale of using that structure and accession date to databases were added to the manuscript. In the “Protein selection for ligand docking”, it is now clearly specified that rigid molecular docking is carrying out. In this type of docking, protein orientation is fixed and only ligands are allowed to vary their orientation, therefore each conformer allow to simulate this variation. We assumed that no further explanation was needed.

Results:

  • Table 3, the details regarding generation of data appears missing. I feel the detailed legends can be given.

    Response: We shortlisted nine drugs based on their risk of teratogenicity, route of administration, interaction with other drugs, side effects and by their background as pharmacological therapy for the treatment of respiratory diseases. It is described in the Results section, subsection Virtual Screening and Molecular docking, paragraph 3.

  • The current gold standard for molecular activity prediction is MD simulation, this can be tried by authors.

    Response: We agree with the reviewer comment. Unfortunately, we do not have the computational infrastructure or access to supercomputer cluster to run MD. We are trying to run MD on our workstations, but those simulations will take time. However, we feel that our work is a valid approximation for COVID19 drug repurposing.

Discussion:

  • In the methodology the number of drugs selected where 1283, but here it changed to 1300. this looks in consistency.

     Response: We thank reviewer comment. See response above.

  • In the methodology, authors have mentioned that they have generated some conformers. Which conformation of drugs were active?

    Response: In order to generate active conformers for docking simulation, we impose a 3 kcal/mol limit on strain energy, which means that conformation elucidates under these criteria can occur under physiological conditions and maintain their activity. Methodology section was restructured to be more clear.

  • Overall, I feel the discussion part appears very weak and lacks substantial evidence for how these drugs could be used in COVID-19.

    Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We feel that most of the relevant evidence -to date of manuscript submission- regarding COVID19 and the potential inhibitors, were discussed.

Conclusions:

  • The conclusion can be made simple by reducing the number of sentences. Most of the journals will not accept citations (references) in conclusions. Hence, the authors can give a thought to modify the conclusion by keeping their views only on objectives/ aims.

    Response: We thank the reviewer for this observation. This section was restructured.

F1000Res. 2021 Jun 18. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.55408.r85900

Reviewer response for version 1

Fernando Yepes-Calderon 1

Authors use molecular docking tools to test existing medicine in their efficacy to impede the S protein-ACE2 binding and thus, disabling the entry point of Cov2 to human cells.

The authors use a solid justification to support this project. Since medicine creation is an expensive and long-lasting task, verifying if some active molecules in already FDA-approved medicine might block the binding between the S-protein and the ACE2 is an excellent alternate path.

The document is generally well organized and pleasant to read. I suggest adding some corrections to the abstract as follows.

Background 

A new coronavirus outbreak, firstly reported in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, causes COVID-19, which symptoms are similar to SARS-atypical pneumonia. Worldwide, around 116 million cases and 2.57 million deaths are reported, with new cases increasing mortality every day. To date, there is no specific commercial treatment to control the infection.

Repurpose drugs targeting the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor represent an alternative strategy to block the binding of CoV2's protein S and forestall virus adhesion, internalization, and replication in the host cell.

Methods

We performed rigid molecular docking using the receptor-binding domain at the S1 subunit of the S protein (RBDS1)-ACE2 (PDB ID:6VW1) interaction site and 1,283 FDA-approved drugs. The docking score, frequency of the drug in the receptor site, and interactions at the binding site residues were used as analyzing criteria.

Results

This research yielded 40 drugs labeled as potential inhibitors of RBD S1-ACE2 interaction. Among the inhibitors, compounds such as ipratropium, formoterol, and fexofenadine can be found. Specialists employ these drugs to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, asthma, and almost any respiratory infection.

Conclusions: Our results will serve as the basis for in vitro and in vivo studies to evaluate the potential use of those drugs to generate

affordable and convenient therapies to treat COVID-19.

The proposed modifications focus on keeping the communications global. The CoV2 numbers in Mexico are absent in this suggested abstract since the authors provide worldwide numbers. I also shortened some sentences and fixed some wrongly used singulars.

  1. Correct the hyphenation in the whole document. If the authors are using a latex template, use the command \hyphenation{co-rrect, se-pa-ra-tion, sche-me}.

    Events: Janu-ary and associ-ated  (intro, paragraph 2), lig-and (methods, paragraph 2).

  2. Introduction, page 3, paragraph 2.  Current events suggest that Covid19 is not only lethal in the elder or patients with chronic diseases. I might suggest deleting this statement.

  3. Introduction, page 3, paragraph 2. something is missing in this paragraph. Also, the statement may be misleading; the actual spread and high contamination levels are proof of non-efficiency. If isolation and the other measurements were effective, what would be the sense for the proposal?

  4. In subsection "Database preparation," you have information already provided in the first subsection of the methods.

  5. Discussion, page 7, paragraph 1. In "ACE2 expression it is" the authors might have two nouns in the same sentence.

Regarding the methodology, the authors used a standard: importing the macromolecule, edit or delete water molecules, add hydrogens, add charges, and the ligand.  Did the authors have any particular issue during the process? In case affirmative, add it to assert reproducibility.

The list of potential inhibitors is highly appreciated. The authors presented the interactions of the selected drugs nicely.

I suggest the authors reinforcing their discussion with arguments derived from the mutation capacity of the retrovirus that might render current vaccination not entirely compelling. Therefore, the presented alternatives could set as plausible options for treatment.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Medical devices development, Medical Imaging, Methods development

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2021 Oct 29.
Guillermo A Silva-Martinez 1

We thank you for the detailed revision of our paper and for suggesting improvements. Also, we want to apologize for the long delay on our response, we were waiting for a second reviewer report to edit our manuscript.

Authors use molecular docking tools to test existing medicine in their efficacy to impede the S protein-ACE2 binding and thus, disabling the entry point of Cov2 to human cells.

The authors use a solid justification to support this project. Since medicine creation is an expensive and long-lasting task, verifying if some active molecules in already FDA-approved medicine might block the binding between the S-protein and the ACE2 is an excellent alternate path.

The document is generally well organized and pleasant to read. I suggest adding some corrections to the abstract as follows.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the detailed revision of our paper and for suggesting improvements. We are pleased that you found the structure of the writing to be pleasant.

Background 

A new coronavirus outbreak, firstly reported in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, causes COVID-19, which symptoms are similar to SARS-atypical pneumonia. Worldwide, around 116 million cases and 2.57 million deaths are reported, with new cases increasing mortality every day. To date, there is no specific commercial treatment to control the infection.

Repurpose drugs targeting the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor represent an alternative strategy to block the binding of CoV2's protein S and forestall virus adhesion, internalization, and replication in the host cell.

Methods

We performed rigid molecular docking using the receptor-binding domain at the S1 subunit of the S protein (RBDS1)-ACE2 (PDB ID:6VW1) interaction site and 1,283 FDA-approved drugs. The docking score, frequency of the drug in the receptor site, and interactions at the binding site residues were used as analyzing criteria.

Results

This research yielded 40 drugs labeled as potential inhibitors of RBD S1-ACE2 interaction. Among the inhibitors, compounds such as ipratropium, formoterol, and fexofenadine can be found. Specialists employ these drugs to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, asthma, and almost any respiratory infection.

Conclusions: Our results will serve as the basis for in vitro and in vivo studies to evaluate the potential use of those drugs to generate affordable and convenient therapies to treat COVID-19.

  • Response: Taking into account your contribution, in the manuscript the abstract has been improved and better organized.

The proposed modifications focus on keeping the communications global. The CoV2 numbers in Mexico are absent in this suggested abstract since the authors provide worldwide numbers. I also shortened some sentences and fixed some wrongly used singulars. 

 

  1. Correct the hyphenation in the whole document. If the authors are using a latex template, use the command \hyphenation{co-rrect, se-pa-ra-tion, sche-me}.

    Events: Janu-ary and associ-ated  (intro, paragraph 2), lig-and (methods, paragraph 2).

    Response: We thank the reviewer for this observation. The hyphenation has been corrected in the whole manuscript.

  2. Introduction, page 3, paragraph 2.  Current events suggest that Covid19 is not only lethal in the elder or patients with chronic diseases. I might suggest deleting this statement.

    Response: We agree with the reviewer's observation, however it’s important to remark that adult individuals (over 40 years) and patients with comorbidities are prone to death by COVID 19 disease. This paragraph was restructured.

  3. Introduction, page 3, paragraph 2. something is missing in this paragraph. Also, the statement may be misleading; the actual spread and high contamination levels are proof of non-efficiency. If isolation and the other measurements were effective, what would be the sense for the proposal?

    Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. This paragraph was rewritten.

  4. In subsection "Database preparation," you have information already provided in the first subsection of the methods.

    Response: We thank to reviewer for this comment. Changes were made in this section.

  5. Discussion, page 7, paragraph 1. In "ACE2 expression it is" the authors might have two nouns in the same sentence.

    Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Changes were made in this section.

Regarding the methodology, the authors used a standard: importing the macromolecule, edit or delete water molecules, add hydrogens, add charges, and the ligand.  Did the authors have any particular issue during the process? In case affirmative, add it to assert reproducibility.

Response: We do not have any issue during the structure preparation; therefore, reproducibility can be achieved without any problem.

The list of potential inhibitors is highly appreciated. The authors presented the interactions of the selected drugs nicely.

Response: We appreciate that the reviewer finds our data well-presented.

I suggest the authors reinforcing their discussion with arguments derived from the mutation capacity of the retrovirus that might render current vaccination not entirely compelling. Therefore, the presented alternatives could set as plausible options for treatment.

Response: We thank the reviewer for suggesting improvements to our discussion section. Reinforced of the discussion section were made in the manuscript taking reviewers suggestion.

Associated Data

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

    Data Availability Statement

    Source data

    Protein Data Bank: Crystal structure of SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD S1) of the spike protein in a complex with the ACE2 receptor. https://identifiers.org/pdb:6vw1.

    Ministry of Health of Mexico: Drug list used by the Ministry of Health of Mexico (June 2020 version). http://www.csg.gob.mx/Compendio/CNIS/cnis.html.

    PubChem: Ligands. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 74 .

    Drugbank: Ligands. https://go.drugbank.com 75 .

    ZINC database: Ligands. http://zinc.docking.org 76 .

    Extended data

    Figshare: Identification of potential inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 S protein–ACE2 interaction by in silico drug repurposing, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14466333 77

    This project contains the underlying data file:

    • -

      Table_E1_DrugsAccessionNumber.xlsx (Accession numbers of drugs used for docking simulations)

    Data is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0)


    Articles from F1000Research are provided here courtesy of F1000 Research Ltd

    RESOURCES