Research Article | Open Access
A. Sowmiya1, Santhoshkumar Jayakodi1, K.A. Selvam2 and K. Sangeetha1
1Department of Biotechnology, Saveetha School of Engineering, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Thandalam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
2Department of Microbiology, Indo-American College, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Article Number: 9470 | © The Author(s). 2024
J Pure Appl Microbiol. 2024;18(3):1674-1683. https://doi.org/10.22207/JPAM.18.3.16
Received: 05 April 2024 | Accepted: 20 June 2024 | Published online: 22 July 2024
Issue online: September 2024
Abstract

Targeting the class A Beta lactamases Omega loop is an ideal way to combat drug resistance because of its significant role in the catalytic activity and deacylation process inhibition. Therefore, the molecular docking approach with computerized peptide-based in silico screening has been applied for the identification of inhibitors of TEM-type βLs. Among the subjected 105 peptides, Chrombacin (-47.8 KJ/mol), Gassericin A (-35.7 KJ/mol), Duramycin (-34.1 KJ/mol), Brevinin-1DYa (-34.0 KJ/mol), Amoebapore A (-31.2 KJ/mol), Mundticin ATO6 (-29.0 KJ/mol), Lactocyclicin Q (-26.3 KJ/mol), Cinnamycin (-25.9 KJ/mol showed highest binding energy. Among the peptides that showed the highest docking score Elafin, Cinnamycin, Duramycin interacted with Lys 73 of the α domain of catalytic residues of TEM-1 Beta lactamases, whereas Taromycin A, Gassericin A interacted with Lys 234 of the β domain, depicting a strong inhibition and also exhibited desirable physicochemical properties. Hence further in vitro examination of these cyclic peptides against the resistant strains is warranted to help design further novel inhibitors based on their scaffolds and also for the development of an effective drug combination regime.

Keywords

Cyclic Peptides, Protein-Peptide Docking, Allergenicity, Toxicity, TEM-1 Beta-lactamases

Introduction

Beta-lactamases are responsible for catalyzing β-lactam antibiotic hydrolysis, which is the most common factor for drug resistance in bacteria.1 Depending on fundamental sequence homogeneity, β-lactamases are classified into distinct four classes such as A-D, and among them, catalytic serine is the principal nucleophile in A, C and D of β-lactamases classes. β-lactamases of class B are metalloenzymes that hydrolyze the β-lactam ring using zinc ions.2

Class A β-lactamases show a wide spectrum of hydrolysis of substrate for penicillin, cephalosporins, and carbapenems.3,4 By acylating the serine residue in the active-site in key PBPs, Beta-lactam antibiotics impede the proliferation of replicating microorganisms.5 Thus, these enzymes are unable to affect the cross-linking of peptide chains to form peptidoglycan through the final phases of cell wall structure.

TEM-1 Beta-lactamases, class A enzymes are encoded by plasmids in Gram-negative bacteria.6 The amino acid sequence of the blaTEM-1 gene is altered by mutations, which gives the enzyme a wider range of cephalosporin hydrolysis capabilities and protects it against mechanism-based inhibitors, which can lead to the establishment of resistance by TEM-1 β-lactamases.7,8

TEM-1, TEM-2 or SHV-1 genes give rise to ESBLs by modifying the amino acids near the active site of the enzyme. Escherichia coli and Klebsiella of Enterobacteriaceae encode the plasmids that are easily interchanged between bacterial species.9

TEM-1-β-lactamase is comprised of 286 amino acid residues of MW 28,500 and lacks the first 23 (3-25) amino acid region, which is a signal peptide.10 Two Cys residues (C77, C123) in mature TEM-1-β-lactamase form a disulfide bond, making it distinct from other class A enzymes.11 The conformations of the catalytic cleft areas, found at the two-domain contact, are extremely similar. The amino acid residues Ser-70, Ser-130, Lys -73, Lys-234 and Glu-166 of class A β-lactamases are found to be catalytic and are bound to the substrate by either hydrophobic or ionic interactions.12

The two steps of acylation and deacylation includes the removal of proton from the catalytic residue Ser70 in class A β-lactamases.13,14 The amide bond 456 of β-lactam is broken by oxygen present in Ser70 through a carbonyl group and acyl-intermediate formation occurs after the acylation step. Ser70, Glu166, Asn170 which coordinated water molecules during acylation become active and attack the covalent bond within the acyl-intermediate structure. This enables the β-lactam antibiotic to hydrolyse and the enzyme to regenerate.15,16 Similar to this, it has been discovered that the residues Glu166 and Asn170 present in the TEM-1 Ω-loop active site coordinate the hydrolytic water and are essential for diacylation and also the change in Glu166 residue results in the stable acyl-enzyme intermediates formation. Further, mutation increased the catalytic activity of the enzymes resulting in the faster inactivation of the existing drugs.17

Hence, to combat the present resistance pattern, a deeper understanding of the interacting molecules at the active site of TEM is required, and thus through in silico screening, cyclic plant and animal peptides were explored for their molecular interaction with TEM-1 Beta-lactamases.

Materials and Methods

Protein preparation and peptide screening
Potential 105 cyclic peptides of both plant and animal origin were collected from the APD data repository (https://aps.unmc.edu/). The structure of peptides directly available in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) (https://www.rcsb.org/) was retrieved and the Pepstor and Swiss models were used to model the unavailable structures.18 The structure of the TEM-1 beta-lactamase protein (PDB ID: 5HVI) with a resolution of 1.64 Å was retrieved from the protein data bank.

Molecular docking
TEM-1 Beta-lactamase as the receptor molecule and peptide as the ligand, protein-protein docking analysis was performed using flexible docking in the HADDOCK webserver19 and ClusPro.20

Physicochemical properties
Physicochemical properties were assessed using the Expasy protparam tool (https://web.expasy.org/protparam/).21 Extinction coefficient, molecular weight, predicted half-life, aliphatic index, instability index, theoretical PI and grand average of hydropathicity (GRAVY) are among the pertinent properties provided by this tool and for which the peptides were evaluated.

Predicting toxicity and allergenicity
An allergenicity prediction web server was used to predict the allergenic characteristics of the peptides (https://ddg-pharmfac.net/AllergenFP/).22 ToxinPred webserver was used to predict the peptide toxicity (https://webs.iiitd.edu.in/raghava/toxinpred/).23

RESULTS

Protein-protein docking was employed to predict the binding affinities of the peptides against TEM-1 Beta-lactamase. Among the subjected 105 peptides, Chrombacin (-47.8 KJ/mol), Gassericin A (-35.7 KJ/mol), Duramycin (-34.1 KJ/mol), Brevinin-1DYa (-34.0 KJ/mol), Amoebapore A (-31.2KJ/mol), Mundticin ATO6 (-29.0 KJ/mol), Lactocyclicin Q (-26.3 KJ/mol), Cinnamycin (-25.9KJ/mol), Amylocyclicin (-25.3 KJ/mol), Brevinin-1DYb (-24.1 Kj/mol), Palustrin-2c (-23.9KJ/mol ), P-04 (-23.6 KJ/mol), Taromycin A (-22.9 KJ/mol), Japonicin-1(-22.7 KJ/mol), Guentherin (-20.7 KJ/mol), Elafin (-20.4KJ/mol) revealed the maximum binding energy and the binding energies of remaining peptides are exhibited in Table 1.

Table (1):
Binding Energy of cyclic peptides against the TEM-1 beta-lactamases

No.
Name
Haddock Binding Affinity Kj/mol
ClusPro Binding Affinity Kj/mol
1
Amoebapore A
-31.2
-940.5
2
Amylocyclicin
-25.3
-771.0
3
Brevenin-1DYa
-34.0
-1228.2
4
Brevenin-1Dyb
-24.1
-1142.2
5
Chrombacin
-47.8
-1165.3
6
Cinnamycin
-25.9
-1015.2
7
Duramycin
-34.1
-1001.8
8
Elafin
-20.4
-1080.0
9
Gassericin A
-35.7
-1341.8
10
Guentherin
-20.7
-903.3
11
Japonicin-1
-22.7
-1100.0
12
Lactocyclicin Q
-26.3
-1012.4
13
Mundicitin ATO6
-29.0
-949.9
14
P-04
-23.6
-1123.1
15
Palustin-2c
-23.9
-1106.0
16
Taromycin A
-22.9
-802.0

Chrombacin interacted with the amino acid residues Tyr 105, Ala 170, and Arg 241 of TEM beta-lactamases and formed 11 hydrogen bonds. Likewise, Lactocyclicin Q formed five hydrogen bonds in which Val 21 interacted with Gln 99 at a distance of 2.79. Mundicitin ATO6 formed 3 hydrogen bonds and 1 salt bridge in which Lys 43 interacted with Asn 100 at a distance of 2.72. Amylocyclicin formed eleven hydrogen bonds in which Lys 59 interacted with Asp 101 at a distance of 2.81. Brevenin 1 DYB formed three hydrogen bonds in which Lys 19 interacted with Val 103 at a distance of 2.81. Pro 3 and Arg 244 interacted to establish one hydrogen bond with Japonicin-1 at a distance of 3.11. Elafin formed twelve hydrogen bonds and 2 salt bridges in which Glu 3 interacted with Lys 73 of the TEM-1 Ω-loop at a distance of 2.66. Cinnamycin formed five hydrogen bonds in which Asn 17 interacted with Lys 73 at a distance of 2.69. Duramycin formed five hydrogen bonds in which Asn 17 interacted with Lys 73 at a distance of 2.69. The hydrogen bond interactions of other peptides with the hydrogen bond distance are depicted in Table 2 and Figure.

Table (2):
Molecular Interaction profile of the compounds against the target TEM-1 beta-lactamases

No.
Peptide
Peptide sequence
Hydrogen bond interaction
Distance (Å)
1
Amoebapore A
GEILCNLCTGLINTLENLLTTKGADKVKDYISSLCNKASGFIATLCTKVLDFGIDKLIQLIEDKVDANAICAKIHAC
LYS111-ASP66
GLY218-GLU2
ASN276-GLU2
2.59
2.93
2.94
2
Amylocyclicin
LASTLGISTAAAKKAIDIIDAASTIASIISLIGIVTGAGAISYAIVATAKTMIKKYGKKYAAAW
ASP101-LYS59
ASN132-THR9
GLY236-ILE7
ALA237-ILE7
GLY242-SER8
ARG244-SER3
GLN269-GLY37
GLN269-ILE34
ARG275-THR36
ARG275-THR36
ASN276-THR4
2.81
3.13
2.77
3.07
2.92
2.83
2.80
2.75
3.11
2.77
2.84
3
Brevenin-1DYa
FLSLALAALPKFLCLVFKKC
4
Brevenin-1Dyb
FLSLALAALPKLFCLIFKKC
VAL103-LYS19
PRO219-LEU6
ASN276-LEU6
2.81
2.81
3.28
5
Chrombacin
AAEFPDFYDSEEQMGPHQEAEDEKDRADQRVLTEEEKKELENLAAMDLELQKIAEKFSQR
TYR105-SER10
ASN170-MET14
ASN170-GLU19
ALA172-MET14
ARG241-GLU12
ARG241-ASP9
ARG241-ASP9
ARG241-GLU12
ARG244-TYR8
ARG244-TYR8
ARG275-GLU12
ASN276-GLU3
3.20
2.88
3.11
2.70
2.77
2.69
2.72
2.66
2.88
3.16
2.63
3.10
6
Cinnamycin
CRQSCSFGPFTFVCDGNTK
LYS73-ASN17
ASN132-VAL13
ASN136-GLY16
ASN170-ASN17
ARG275-THR11
2.69
3.04
2.85
2.89
2.68
7
Duramycin
CKQSCSFGPFTFVCDGNTK
LYS73-ASN17
TYR105-ASP15
ASN132-GLY16
ASN132-ASN17
ASN13-LYS19
2.69
2.64
3.03
2.97
2.68
8
Elafin
AQEPVKGPVSTKPGSCPIILIRCAMLNPPNRCLKDTDCPGIKKCCEGSCGMACFVPQ
LYS73-GLU3
TYR105-GLU3
TYR105-LYS6
ALA126-LYS12
ASP131-LYS12
ASP214-LYS12
LYS215-SER10
LYS215-LYS12
LYS215-PRO13
ARG244-PRO4
ARG244-LYS6
ARG244-LYS6
2.66
2.85
2.74
3.21
3.09
2.63
2.64
2.77
3.19
2.75
2.64
2.83
9
Gassericin A
IYWIADQFGIHLATGTARKLLDAMASGASLGTAFAAILGVTLPAWALAAAGALGATAA
PRO167-ARG18
LYS215-GLN7
LYS234-ASP6
GLY236-ASP6
GLY238-ALA13
ARG244-ASP6
ARG244-ASP6
ARG244-ASP6
ARG275-PHE8
ARG275-ALA5
2.84
2.78
2.68
3.11
2.82
2.76
2.87
2.90
2.71
3.05
10
Guentherin
VIDDLKKVAKKVRRELLCKKHHKKLN
TYR105-ILE2
ASP131-LYS6
ASN170-ASP4
GLY218-LYS19
ASP273-GLU15
ASP273-LYS11
ASP273-ARG14
ASN276-GLU15
3.17
2.53
2.75
2.77
2.69
2.68
312
2.67
11
Japonicin-1
FFPIGVFCKIFKTC
ARG244-PRO3
3.11
12
Lactocyclicin Q
LIDHLGAPRWAVDTILGAIAVGNLASWVLALVPGPGWAVKAGLATAAAIVKHQGKAAAAAW
GLN99-VAL21
TYR105-ASP13
ASP273-ASP3
ARG275-ILE2
ARG275-ASP3
2.79
2.92
2.71
2.88
2.79
13
Mundicitin ATO6
KYYGNGVSCNKKGCSVDWGKAIGIIGNNSAANLATGGAAGWSK
ASN100-LYS43
ASP101-LYS43
ARG275-SER15
2.72
2.59
2.87
14
P-04
FSLFFPYAALKWLRKLLKK
LYS215-TRP12
GLY218-LYS15
ARG275-TYR7
2.71
2.69
3.33
15
Palustrin-2c
GFLSTVKNLATNVAGTVIDTLKCKVTGGCRS
16
Taromycin A
WNDTGKDADGAEY
LYS234-GLU12
GLY236-GLU12
ARG244-GLU12
2.63
2.78
2.59

Figure. Molecular interactions of the cyclic peptides A. Elafin, B. Duramycin, C. Cinnamycin against the TEM-1 beta-lactamases

In the hydrogen bond interaction the left side amino acid residues represents TEM-1
Beta-lactamases and the right side residues represents different cyclic peptides.

Hydrogen bond interaction are represented by blue lines between TEM-1
Beta-lactamases and the different cyclic peptides. Elafin formed twelve hydrogen bonds, whereas Cinnamycin and Durmaycin formed five hydrogen bonds representing the stabilisation and interaction with key residues.

The tested peptides were non-toxic, and by way of the AllergenFp web server, the non-allergenic peptides were screened. 16 peptides out of 105 peptides are non-allergenic and 13 peptides were non-toxic. Table 3 represents allergenic and toxic profile of the subjected peptides.

Table (3):
Toxicity and allergenicity profile of cyclic peptides

No.
Compounds
Allergenic
Toxic
1
Amoebapore A
Non-allergenic
Toxic
2
Amylocyclicin
Non-allergenic
Non-toxic
3
Brevenin-1DYa
Non-allergenic
Non-toxic
4
Brevenin-1Dyb
Non-allergenic
Non-toxic
5
Chrombacin
Non-allergenic
Non-toxic
6
Cinnamycin
Non-allergenic
Non-toxic
7
Duramycin
Non-allergenic
Non-toxic
8
Elafin
Non-allergenic
Toxic
9
Gassericin A
Non-allergenic
Non-toxic
10
Guentherin
Non-allergenic
Non-toxic
11
Japonicin-1
Non-allergenic
Non-toxic
12
Lactocyclicin Q
Non-allergenic
Toxic
13
Mundicitin ATO6
Non-allergenic
Non-toxic
14
P-04
Non-allergenic
Non-toxic
15
Palustrin-2c
Non-allergenic
Non-toxic
16
Taromycin A
Non-allergenic
Non-toxic

Hence in the subjected analysis, Chrombacin, Cinnamycin, Duramycin, Guentherin, Elafin, Mundicitin ATO6, and Taromycin A were found to be non-polar and exhibited a positive Gravy while the remaining compounds were found to be polar. Brevenin 1 DYA, Brevenin 1DYB, Japonicin 1, and P-04 displayed a relatively low half-life of 1.1 hours and the remaining compounds exhibited an increased half-life of 30 hours. Table 4 displays the physicochemical features of the tested peptides.

Table (4):
Physicochemical features of different cyclic peptides

No.
Name
Molecular weight
Theoretical PI
Estimated half-life
Instability index
Grand average of hydropathicity
1
Amoebapore A
8244.70
5.65
30 hours
24.71
0.406
2
Amylocyclicin
6399.62
9.82
5.5 hours
2.65
0.850
3
Brevenin-1DYa
2225.87
9.39
1.1 hours
21.25
1.585
4
Brevenin-1Dyb
2239.89
9.39
1.1 hours
17.00
1.600
5
Chrombacin
7057.66
4.29
4.4 hours
60.03
-1.307
6
Cinnamycin
2097.37
7.96
1.2 hours
77.73
-0.221
7
Duamycin
2069.35
7.95
1.2 hours
80.05
-0.189
8
Elafin
6007.20
8.51
4.4 hours
57.38
-0.019
9
Gassericin A
5671.60
6.75
20 hours
3.73
0.997
10
Guentherin
3140.87
10.23
100 hours
27.69
-0.923
11
Japonicin-1
1650.07
8.90
1.1 hours
6.24
1.350
12
Lactocyclicin Q
6078.16
9.70
5.5 hours
8.94
0.826
13
Mundicitin ATO6
4289.81
9.45
1.3 hours
6.27
-0.253
14
P-04
2369.97
10.58
1.1 hours
35.30
0.332
15
Palustrin 2c
3154.69
9.39
30 hours
3.51
0.345
16
Taromycin A
1441.43
3.84
2.8 hours
-18.96
-1.654
DISCUSSION

Treatment of infectious diseases is difficult due to increased bacterial resistance and also is a significant global health concern.24 Beta-lactamases have developed mutations that could exhibit resistance to inhibitors.8 Despite the effectiveness of some combination regimens, beta-lactamase enzymes mutate exhibiting resistance to the inhibitors and consequently, emphasizing the requirement of newer drugs or a newer combination regime.

The unique loop structure known as the omega loop is a non-regular structural motif resembling the upper-case Greek letter omega (Ω), is present in all serine beta-lactamases and is crucial for maintaining the stability between the enzyme and substrate. Specifically, it has been demonstrated that the conserved Ω-loop of class A beta-lactamases is essential to the hydrolytic process during beta-lactam hydrolysis. The omega loop (Ω-loop), a conserved non-active site structural domain seen in class A serine β-lactamases (SBLs), is thought to contain a glutamic acid residue that directly contributes to the hydrolysis of β-lactam antibiotics by supplying a water molecule during catalysis. Hence, targeting the β-lactamases’ Ω-loop could increase the potency of β-lactam antibiotics and ultimately decrease β-lactam resistance. Thus, In this study, the cyclic peptides were screened to target against the conserved Ω-loop of class A beta-lactamases and thus subsequently the identified hit compounds may function as inhibitors of β-lactamase, lowering the minimum inhibitory concentrations and profoundly altering the resistance profile of β-lactams in bacteria.

Among the peptides which showed the highest docking score Elafin, Cinnamycin, Duramycin interacted with Lys 73 of the a domain of catalytic residues of TEM-1 Beta-lactamases whereas Taromycin A, Gassericin A interacted with Lys 234 of the b domain. However, none of the peptides showed any interaction with the other residues of the catalytic site of the SDN-loop amino acids (Asn132 & Ser130) and Ω-loop residues (Glu166 & Asn170).

Lys 73 residue in the Ω-loop of TEM-type beta-lactamase in its apo form interacts with Glu166. The residues Asn170 and Lys 73 of the Ω-loop formed hydrogen bond in the active site when Glu166 loses a proton and the distributed charged residues of active sites have been altered during the binding of antibiotics to the enzyme. Specifically, Lys73 residue deprotonates and attacks Ser70 nucleophilically, causing it to deprotonate as well. An acyl-enzyme covalent complex is produced as a result of this interaction of the Beta-lactam ring with antibiotic’s carbonyl carbon atom. Hence the compounds Elafin, Cinnamycin, and Duramycin interacting with Lys 73 of TEM-1 beta-lactamases may aid in preventing resistance and the hydrolysis process.17

All serine beta-lactamases of classes A, C, and D have an expanded second loop referred to as the Ω-loop. The Ω-loop of TEM-type β-Lactamases is situated at the base of the active region of the enzyme and consists of 16 residues (Arg164–Asp179). Glu166 is an essential component in the hydrolysis of β-lactams and is substantially conserved in class A β-Lactamases. However, none of the peptides interacted with Glu 166 in our study.17

Asp 4 of Guentherin A interacted with the Asn 170 residue located at the bottom of the enzymatic active site of TEM-type Ω-loop bLs which is comprised of 16 aminoacid residues from Arg164 to Asp179. Met 14 of the peptide interacted with the Chrombacin Ala 172 at the hydrogen bond distance of 2.70, and Agr 18 of Gassericin A interacted with the Pro 167 at 2.83. Notably, none of the compounds tested reacted with the highly prevalent residue Glu166 of class A, which is important for the hydrolysis of β-lactams.25

The N-terminal portion for the omega loop (Arg164–Asn170 residues) in TEM-type bLs has a stiff conformation, while Arg 164 is involved in maintaining bottleneck loop structure. The proximity of these residues to one another can be attributed to a-helix formation by the Pro167–Asn170 residues.

Before the catalytically active orientations form, the Peptidyl-proline bond (Glu166–Pro167) must be formed in trans configuration and the hydrogen bonding complex occurs with Glu166, Asn170 and water molecule.17 However, the disturbances at these specific sites were not observed in our interaction analysis.

Mutations in the loop destabilize the conformation due to the rapid exchange of water molecules close to the Ω-loop, thus increasing the catalytic effectiveness of ceftazidime and cefotaxime hydrolysis, in specific, the substitution Arg164Ser maintains a hydrogen bond between Ser164 and Asp179, which further stabilize the omega loop conformation and has been observed commonly amongst clinical strains producing TEM-type β-Lactamases.26

Hence, the design and identification of new molecules that could inhibit this process of inactivation are required to overcome this resistance, and hence the screened peptides in this study provide a clear insight into the interaction with the active site and also on their conformation. According to CAPRI (Critical Assessment of Predicted Interactions) experiments, HADDOCK and ClusPro are found to be the best automated protein docking systems. HADDOCK uses Fast Fourier Transforms (FFTs)-based rigid-body docking techniques and as a part of the preliminary investigation in this study, the cyclic peptides were subjected to the class A Beta-lactamases Omega loop, and hence in futuristic studies , the lead compound could be further validated by in vitro antibacterial studies against the resistant strains.27-29

Substantial reports exist on the antimicrobial activity of reported peptides. Gassericin A bacteriocin produced by Lactobacillus gasseri LA39 has shown antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus, Listeria monocytogenes, and Bacillus cereus.30 Likewise, the 19-amino acid tetracyclic lanthipeptide Duramycin by streptomycetes and  Brevinin-1 ,skin peptide from  H. rugulosus exhibited antimicrobial activities.

Cinnamycin (19-residue tetracyclic peptide) of the lantibiotic family possesses the thioether amino acids meso-lanthionine and (2S,3S,6R)-3-methyllanthionine and are formed by cross-linking serine or threonine with cysteine, and has the potential to locate and rupture PE-containing membranes, including those found in bacteria and cancer cells, due to its specific binding to PE lipids.31

Elafin is an antimicrobial peptide that has exhibited antibacterial activity against  Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and likewise, Japonicin-1 has demonstrated effective antimicrobial activity against Staphylococcus aureus and MRSA. Lactocyclicin Q has a cyclic structure with a 19-residue tetracyclic peptide bound at N and C termini and showed antimicrobial activity against Lactococcus and Enterococcus. Taromycins A and B showed calcium ion-dependent broad-spectrum antibacterial activity against MRSA and E. faecium.32

Therefore, our research provides more details on how these specific peptides interact with TEM-Bl, which could aid in the development of efficient medications to combat bacterial strains that are resistant to current beta-lactam antibiotics and also for a combinational regime.

CONCLUSION

Elafin, Cinnamycin, and Duramycin interacted with Lys 73 of the a domain of the catalytic residues in TEM-1 beta-lactamases depicting their unique mechanism of preventing the hydrolysis process. On the other hand, Taromycin A and Gassericin A exhibited a different yet equally significant interaction by binding with Lys 234 of the b domain. These distinct binding sites underscore their potential as robust inhibitors of TEM-type β-lactamases, a novel aspect of their inhibitory action. Also, favorable physicochemical characteristics were displayed by all five compounds. These characteristics enhance their potential efficacy and stability as antibiotic agents. The unique binding interactions suggest that these compounds could be developed into highly effective inhibitors capable of overcoming the mechanisms of resistance exhibited by TEM-type β-lactamases.

Hence, it is imperative to conduct further in vitro testing of Elafin, Cinnamycin, Duramycin, Taromycin A, and Gassericin A against resistant bacterial strains to validate their inhibitory efficacy, which could lead to breakthroughs in the fight against antibiotic-resistant bacteria, paving the way for novel therapeutic strategies.

Declarations

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
None.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTION
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

FUNDING
None.

DATA AVAILABILITY
All datasets generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript.

ETHICS STATEMENT
Not applicable.

References
  1. Frere JM. Beta-lactamases and bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Mol Microbiol. 1995;16(3):385-395.
    Crossref
  2. Paterson DL, Bonomo RA. Extended-spectrum β-lactamases: a clinical update. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2005;18(4):657-686.
    Crossref
  3. Walsh, Timothi R. Clinically significant carbapenemases: an update. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2008;21(4):367-371.
    Crossref
  4. Walther-Rasmussen J, Hoiby N. Class A carbapenemases. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;60(3):470-482.
    Crossref
  5. Spratt BG. Penicillin-binding Proteins and the Future of β-Lactam Antibiotics: The Seventh Fleming Lecture. Microbiology. 1983;129(5):1247-1260.
    Crossref
  6. Shah AA, Hasan F, Ahmed S, Hameed A. Characteristics, epidemiology and clinical importance of emerging strains of Gram-negative bacilli producing extended-spectrum β-lactamases. Res Microbiol. 2004;155(6):409-421.
    Crossref
  7. Chaibi EB, Sirot D, Paul G, Labia R. Inhibitor-resistant TEM β-lactamases: phenotypic, genetic and biochemical characteristics. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1999;43(4):447-458.
    Crossref
  8. Knox JR. Extended-spectrum and inhibitor-resistant TEM-type beta-lactamases: mutations, specificity, and three-dimensional structure. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995;39(12):2593-2601.
    Crossref
  9. Bajpai T, Pandey M, Varma M, Bhatambare GS. Prevalence of TEM, SHV, and CTX-M Beta-Lactamase genes in the urinary isolates of a tertiary care hospital. Avicenna J Med. 2017;7(01):12-16.
    Crossref
  10. Baldwin TO, Ziegler MM. The biochemistry and molecular biology of bacterial bioluminescence. Chemistry and Biochemistry of Flavoenzymes. 2019:467-530.
  11. Agarwal N, Poluri KM. Dissecting the Molecular Properties of Nanoscale Materials Using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy. Spectroscopy and Characterization of Nanomaterials and Novel Materials: Experiments, Modeling, Simulations, and Applications. 2022:101-148.
    Crossref
  12. Louie GV, Brownlie PD, Lambert R, et al. Structure of porphobilinogen deaminase reveals a flexible multidomain polymerase with a single catalytic site. Nature. 1992;359(6390):33-39.
    Crossref
  13. Christensen H, Martin MT, Waley SG. Beta-lactamases as fully efficient enzymes. Determination of all the rate constants in the acyl-enzyme mechanism. Biochem J. 1990;266(3):853.
  14. Chen CC, Smith TJ, Kapadia G, et al. Structure and kinetics of the β-lactamase mutants S70A and K73H from Staphylococcus aureus PC1. Biochemistry. 1996;35(38):12251-12258.
    Crossref
  15. Strynadka NC, Adachi H, Jensen SE, et al. Molecular structure of the acyl-enzyme intermediate in β-lactam hydrolysis at 1.7 A resolution. Nature. 1992;359(6397):700-705.
    Crossref
  16. Jelsch C, Mourey L, Masson JM, Samama JP. Crystal structure of Escherichia coli TEM1 β-lactamase at 1.8 ֵ resolution. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics. 1993;16(4):364-383.
    Crossref
  17. Egorov A, Rubtsova M, Grigorenko V, Uporov I, Veselovsky A. The role of the Ω-loop in regulation of the catalytic activity of TEM-type β-lactamases. Biomolecules. 2019;9(12):854.
    Crossref
  18. Waterhouse A, Bertoni M, Bienert S, et al. SWISS-MODEL: homology modelling of protein structures and complexes. Nucleic Acids Research. 2018;46(W1):W296-303.
    Crossref
  19. de Vries SJ, Van Dijk M, Bonvin AM. The HADDOCK web server for data-driven biomolecular docking. Nat Protoc. 2010;5(5):883-897.
    Crossref
  20. Kozakov D, Hall DR, Xia B, et al. The ClusPro web server for protein-protein docking. Nat Protoc. 2017;12(2):255-278.
    Crossref
  21. Gasteiger E, Hoogland C, Gattiker A, et al. Protein identification and analysis tools on the ExPASy server. Humana Press. 2005:571-607.
    Crossref
  22. Dimitrov I, Naneva L, Doytchinova I, Bangov I. AllergenFP: allergenicity prediction by descriptor fingerprints. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(6):846-851.
    Crossref
  23. Gupta S, Kapoor P, Chaudhary K, Gautam A, Kumar R, Raghava GP. In silico approach for predicting toxicity of peptides and proteins. PloS one. 2013;8(9):e73957.
    Crossref
  24. Prestinaci F, Pezzotti P, Pantosti A. Antimicrobial resistance: a global multifaceted phenomenon. Pathog Glob Health. 2015;109(7):309-318.
    Crossref
  25. Gan BH, Gaynord J, Rowe SM, Deingruber T, Spring DR. The multifaceted nature of antimicrobial peptides: Current synthetic chemistry approaches and future directions. Chem Soc Rev. 2021;50(13):7820-7880.
    Crossref
  26. Yu H, Yan Y, Zhang C, Dalby PA. Two strategies to engineer flexible loops for improved enzyme thermostability. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):41212.
    Crossref
  27. Pagadala NS, Syed K, Tuszynski J. Software for molecular docking: a review. Biophys Rev. 2017;9(2): 91-102.
    Crossref
  28. Torchala M, Moal IH, Chaleil RA, Fernandez-Recio J, Bates PA. SwarmDock: a server for flexible protein-protein docking. Bioinformatics. 2013;29(6):807-809.
    Crossref
  29. Ravikant DV, Elber R. PIE-efficient filters and coarse grained potentials for unbound protein-protein docking. Proteins. 2010;78(2):400-419.
    Crossref
  30. Kawai Y, Kemperman R, Kok J, Saito T. The circular bacteriocins gassericin A and circularin A. Curr Protein Pep Sci. 2004;5(5):393-398.
    Crossref
  31. Widdick DA, Dodd HM, Barraille P, Bibb MJ. Cloning and engineering of the cinnamycin biosynthetic gene cluster from Streptomyces cinnamoneus cinnamoneus DSM 40005. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(7):4316-4321.
    Crossref
  32. Bellemare A, Vernoux N, Morin S, Gagne SM, Bourbonnais Y. Structural and antimicrobial properties of human pre-elafin/trappin-2 and derived peptides against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. BMC Microbiol. 2010;10:1-3.
    Crossref

Article Metrics

Article View: 1330

Share This Article

© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License which permits unrestricted use, sharing, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.