{"id":22320,"date":"2018-09-21T11:32:33","date_gmt":"2018-09-21T11:32:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/?p=22320"},"modified":"2020-04-23T10:41:38","modified_gmt":"2020-04-23T10:41:38","slug":"molecular-docking-and-drug-likeness-for-the-identification-of-inhibitory-action-of-acetogenins-from-annona-muricata-as-potential-anticancer-against-hypoxia-inducible-factor-1-alpha","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/vol11no3\/molecular-docking-and-drug-likeness-for-the-identification-of-inhibitory-action-of-acetogenins-from-annona-muricata-as-potential-anticancer-against-hypoxia-inducible-factor-1-alpha\/","title":{"rendered":"Molecular Docking and Drug-Likeness for the Identification of Inhibitory Action of Acetogenins from Annona Muricata as Potential Anticancer Against Hypoxia Inducible Factor 1 Alpha"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

Hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1) is a transcription factor that controls the expression of gene that involved in tumorigenesis and metastases of malignancies.1,2<\/sup>\u00a0The HIF-1\u03b1 level could be enhanced within breast oncog\u00e9nesis, and it closely related with other tumor biomarkers.3<\/sup>\u00a0HIF-1\u03b1 plays an important role in binding the consensus sequence 5\u2032-RCGTG-3\u2032 (which R is purine) at the response elements of hipoxia to target genes.4<\/sup>\u00a0The transcription process of various genes are activated by HIF-1, including glycolytic enzymes, gluconeogenesis, mediating glucose transporters, growth factors, high-energy phosphate metabolism, heme metabolism, iron transport, erythropoiesis, synthesis of nitric oxide, and regulation of vasomotor. Therefore, HIF-1 possibly promotes the tumor cell viability in hypoxic circumstances.5,6<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Hypoxia induces tumor cell proliferation, metastasis, and \u00a0the rate of cell apoptosis.7<\/sup>\u00a0Moreover, HIF-1 is considered as a starting point of angiogenic process in tumor cells by transcription activation of cancer-related gene, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) gene.8<\/sup>\u00a0The level of HIF-1\u03b1 escalates the pathological stage which is higher in poorly differentiated lesions than in well-differentiated lesions.3\u00a0<\/sup>The enhanced levels of HIF-1\u03b1 are strongly related with high proliferation and enhanced ER as well as VEGF expressions.9<\/sup>\u00a0Therefore, the high level of HIF-1\u03b1 has potency in associating with further massive tumors.3<\/sup><\/p>\n

Natural bioactive compounds which are derived from plants have been used for maintaining health and remedies in many years. The phytochemical constituents in plants have been a critical pipeline for the discovery of bioactive substances in pharmaceutical field.10\u00a0<\/sup>A. muricata <\/em>\u00a0or Graviola has been greatly pressumed to have valuable natural products that play important role in affecting anticancer activity.11\u00a0<\/sup>A<\/em>. muricata<\/em> leaves have been used to investigate of numerous numbers of human diseases, including cancers.10\u00a0<\/sup>The highly constituents screening are most possibly affected by its major bioactive components known as annonaceous Acetogenins (AGEs). 12\u00a0<\/sup>Many studies reported that isolated AGEs from different extracts of the plants have significant antiproliferative effects against various cancer cell lines.10\u00a0<\/sup>However, some of these studies have defined the staple mechanism of action. Recent in-vitro studies showed inhibition action of ethyl acetate extract from A. muricata <\/em>leaves combating lung cancer cells (A549) and colon cancer cells (HCT-116 and HT-29).10,13<\/sup>\u00a0The leaf extract was capable of inducing colon carcinoma and lung cancer cells apoptosis by way of mitocondrial route. This antiproliferative effect was associated with cell cycle involved in the G1 phase. Moreover, the migration and invasion of colon cancer cells were significantly halted by the leaf extract.14-16<\/sup><\/p>\n

The aim of this research is to determine the inhibition mechanism by bioactive compounds of A. muricata \u00a0<\/em>interact with HIF-1\u03b1. To study the binding interactions of bioactive compounds with HIF-1\u03b1 through molecular docking methods. Computational methodologies have become a crucial component in drug discovery program, which involves identification to lead optimization. Molecular modeling is one of the methodologies primarily used as hit identification tool when only structure of target and its active or binding site are available.17<\/sup>\u00a0Docking method is an energy-based scoring function which identifies the energetically most favorable ligand conformation that binds to the target.18<\/sup><\/p>\n

Method<\/strong><\/p>\n

Protein Structure Preparation<\/strong><\/p>\n

The amino acid sequence of HIF-1\u03b1 (Entry PDB code : 4z1v) was retrieved from RSCB Protein Database.19<\/sup>\u00a0The attached ligand in the protein structure was removed from the binding site and saved to a new file format: pdbqt. The Gasteiger charges and the solvation condition were added to the protein structure using the AutoDockTool.20<\/sup><\/p>\n

Ligand Structures Preparation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ligands which are AGEs consisting of\u00a0 eight 3D structures \u00a0of natural bioactive compounds originally belong to A. muricata \u00a0<\/em>and one anticancer drug for molecular docking experiments and their conformational energy were minimized by using MMFF94 force field. 8 molecules of AGEs. The molecule structures are retrieved from PubChem database (Fig. 3). The structures were scored based on their physicochemical properties under Chemicalize (ChemAxon) and Molsoft platforms.21,22<\/sup>\u00a0These physicochemical properties are important for developing drug candidate in every stages from design to pre-clinical study.<\/p>\n

Drug likeness analysis of A. muricata <\/em><\/strong>\u00a0<\/em>bioactive compounds<\/strong><\/p>\n

3D structures of Cinchona alkaloids were analyzed using a program based on the physicochemical properties, Molsoft Drug – Likeness. Determination of physicochemical properties is important in the development of drug candidates in all stages ranging from study design through pre- clinical trials.22<\/sup><\/p>\n

Molecular Docking of HIF-1\u03b1 and A. Muricata <\/em><\/strong>\u00a0<\/em>Bioactive Compounds<\/strong><\/p>\n

The three dimension structure of protein and ligands were prepared in pdb format. Molecular docking simulation was run by Autodock Vina (Vina, The Scripps Institute).23<\/sup>\u00a0The AutodockTools \u00a0(ADL) was utilized in minimizing energy and adding the partial charges of polar hydrogens of receptor (protein). The ligands were prepared with flexible torsion angles and the protein was prepared in a static (rigid) form. Furthermore, protein and ligands were kept in pdbqt formats which suitable for docking simulation. The affinity binding were calculated as total intermolecular energies (kcal\/mol) which involved hydrogen bond, Van Der Walls force, desolvation and electrostatic energies. On the other hand, the apropriate torsion angles of ligand is also induced as internal ligand energy. The docking program evaluated the lowest binding energy (LBE) to obtain the best binding mode. The Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD) which less than 2.0 \u00c5 was scored\u00a0 during running docking program.<\/p>\n

Results<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bioactive compounds isolated from A. muricata <\/em>, including annomuricin A, annomuricin B, annomuricin C, annomuricin E, annomutacin, murihexocin A, murihexocin B, murihexocin C, and gefitinib (Figure 1) were docked into binding pocket of HIF-1\u03b1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"Figure<\/td>\nFigure 1: AGEs compound of A. muricata <\/em>\u00a0leaves: a. annomuricin A; b. annomuricin B; c. annomuricin C; d. annomuricin E; e. annomutacin; \u00a0f. murihexocin A; g. murihexocin B; h. murihexocin C; i. gefitinib.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Click here to View figure<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

The lowest binding energy (LBE) to the target protein was murihexocin A (-7.9 kcal\/mol). The binding interactions between A. muricata <\/em>\u00a0bioactive compounds with of HIF-1\u03b1 \u00a0binding pocket residues were analysed as shown in Table 1.<\/p>\n

Table 1: Binding interactions between A. muricata <\/em>\u00a0bioactive compounds with of HIF-1\u03b1 \u00a0binding pocket residues.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Compound<\/strong><\/td>\nLBE (kcal\/mol)<\/strong><\/td>\nH-bonding<\/strong><\/td>\nHydrophobic Interaction with HIF-1\u03b1\u00a0 residues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Annomuricin A<\/strong><\/td>\n-6.7<\/td>\n3<\/td>\nTyr-93, Tyr-102, Asp-104, Leu-186, Leu-188, Gln-147, His-199, Phe-207, Ile-281, Asp-201, Arg-238, Gln-239, Trp-296, His-279<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Annomuricin B<\/strong><\/td>\n-7.2<\/td>\n2<\/td>\nThr-149, Thr-183, Ser-184, Leu-186, Trp-296, Ile-281, Gln-203, Asp-201, Arg-238, His-199, Gln-239, Tyr-102, Thr-196, His-279<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Annomuricin C<\/strong><\/td>\n-7.1<\/td>\n2<\/td>\nSer-184, Asn-294, Asn-205, Trp-296, Tyr-93, Tyr-102, Arg-238, Asp-104, Asp-237, Gln-239, Tyr-103<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Annomuricin E<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n

-7.3<\/td>\n2<\/td>\nTrp-296, Gln-203, Asp-201, Arg-238, Asp-237, Pro-235, Gln-239, Tyr-102, Ile-281, Leu-188, Asn-294, Thr-196, Tyr-103, Thr-196, Lys-214<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Annomutacin<\/strong><\/td>\n-6.9<\/td>\n0<\/td>\nThr-183, Ser-184, Gln-203, Trp-296, Leu-186, Arg-238, His-199, Tyr-102, His-279, Thr-196, Ile-281, Gln-147, Trp-296, Ser-184<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Murihexocin A<\/strong><\/td>\n-7.9<\/td>\n1<\/td>\nThr-183, Trp-296, Tyr-102, His-199, Gln-147, Gln-203, Glu-202, Ser-184,\u00a0 Pro-235, Gln-239, Tyr-103, Ile-281<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Murihexocin B<\/strong><\/td>\n-6.7<\/td>\n0<\/td>\nTyr-93, Asp104, Tyr-102, Trp-296, Leu-166, Ser-184, Arg-238, Asp-201, Gln-203, Glu-202, Tyr-93, Asp-104, Gln-239<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Murihexocin C<\/strong><\/td>\n-7.6<\/td>\n2<\/td>\nGln-147, Thr-196, His-199, Gln-203, Arg-238, His-279, Asn-294, Ser-184,<\/p>\n

Phe-207, Gln-203, Trp-296, Leu-188<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Gefitinib <\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n

-7.9<\/td>\n2<\/td>\nGln-147, Thr-196, His-279, Asn-294, Ser-164, Gln-203, Arg-238, Gln-239, Tyr-102, Tyr-103, Phe-207<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

From docking result, murihexocin A compound interacted hydrophobically with Thr-183, Trp-296, Tyr-102, His-199, Gln-147, Gln-203, Glu-202, Ser-184,\u00a0 Pro-235, Gln-239, Tyr-103, and Ile-281 in the binding pocket of HIF-1\u03b1.<\/p>\n

The molecular interaction of murihexocin A with HIF-1\u03b1 \u00a0is illustrated in Fig. 2. Murihexocin A interacted with HIF-1\u03b1 was stabilized by hydrogen bond between nitrogen atom of\u00a0 carboxamide group of Ser-184 side chain with hydrogen from hydroxyl group of murihexocin A.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00a0\"Figure<\/td>\nFigure 2: a. Complex interaction between murihexocin A and HIF-1\u03b1 in ribbon-stick form; b. Complex interaction between murihexocin A and HIF-1\u03b1 in HIF-1\u03b1 binding pocket.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Click here to View figure<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Drug likeness properties of A. muricata <\/em>\u00a0bioactive molecules and comercial anticancer drug molecule, gefitinib were calculated using Molsoft Drug \u2013 Likeness program.<\/p>\n

Table 2: Drug likeness properties of A. muricata <\/em>\u00a0bioactive molecules and commercial anticancer drug molecule.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Compound<\/strong><\/td>\nDrug Likeness<\/strong><\/td>\nLog P<\/strong><\/td>\nMolecular weight (g\/mol)<\/strong><\/td>\nTPSA (A2<\/sup>)<\/strong><\/td>\nStereocenter number**<\/strong><\/td>\nViolation of Lipinski`s Rule**<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Annomuricin A<\/td>\n-0,08<\/td>\n5.65<\/td>\n646.40<\/td>\n28.29<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Annomuricin B<\/td>\n0.04<\/td>\n5.7<\/td>\n628.88<\/td>\n65.52<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Annomuricin C<\/td>\n-0,99<\/td>\n4.81<\/td>\n648.42<\/td>\n112.24<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Annomuricin E<\/td>\n-0.24<\/td>\n4,33<\/td>\n646.47<\/td>\n28.29<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Annomutacin<\/td>\n0.04<\/td>\n4.81<\/td>\n647.45<\/td>\n65.52<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Murihexocin A<\/td>\n-0,99<\/td>\n4,33<\/td>\n628.88<\/td>\n112.24<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Murihexocin B<\/td>\n-0.24<\/td>\n4.81<\/td>\n648.41<\/td>\n28.29<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Murihexocin C<\/td>\n0.04<\/td>\n4,33<\/td>\n648.40<\/td>\n65.52<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Gefitinib<\/td>\n-0.24<\/td>\n4,33<\/td>\n446.15<\/td>\n56.07<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Discussions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The analysis of molecular docking has shown that the selected bioactive compounds interacted at similar site as triterpene with a different binding mode. The calculated lowest binding energy (LBE) values of the protein-ligand complexes are exhibited in Table 1. LBE is combined energy of the intermolecular energy and the free energy torsion which indicating the likeable interactions and strong binding with main amino acid residues at the binding pocket of the receptor. On the other hand, LBE also performed the intermolecular energy which was calculated based on the set of total energy which involved hydrophobic interaction, hydrogen bond interaction, electrostatic potential and desolvation free energy.<\/p>\n

In order to find the best lead as anticancer agent from A. muricata <\/em>\u00a0bioactive compounds, we evaluated drug likeness properties of eight AGEs compounds compared with one commercial anticancer drug compound, gefitinib. It was found that all bioactive compounds had one violation of Lipinski`s rule of five, based on molecular weight. All molecular weight was above 500 g\/mol, which means too big as a drug.\u00a0 However, according to docking result, murihexocin A was the best lead as anticancer agent and it could be used as a model for further analysis both in-vitro and in-vivo.<\/p>\n

Approximately 133 acetogenins (AGEs) from different medicinal plants, such as A<\/em>nnona<\/em> muricata<\/em>,<\/em> Annona squamosa<\/em> Linn., Asiminatriloba<\/em> (paw paw), and Cherimolia<\/em> were reported have in-vitro anticancer activities against various cancer cell lines. Some AGEs such as asimin, asiminecin, asiminocin, and asiminacin have shown exceptionally high cytotoxicity for malignancies in three major tissues: breast, lung, and colon. Moreover, in-vivo data have been documented along with the tumor cell types, animal used, route of administration and dosage information. Some AGEs including annonacin, desacetyluvaricin, bullatacin, and bullatalicin have demonstrated significant in-vivo tumor growth inhibitory activities.24-26<\/sup><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Medicinal plants play important roles in the development of modern therapeutic agents. This study conclusively demonstrated that A<\/em>.<\/em> muricata<\/em> was a good natural source of various phytochemical constituents. On the basis of our results, it can be concluded that the annonaceous AGEs were powerful phytochemicals found in A<\/em>.<\/em> muricata<\/em>, which offers protective effect against cancer. In agreement with the lowest binding energy,\u00a0 annomuricin A, annomuricin B, annomuricin C, annomuricin E, annomutacin, murihexocin A, murihexocin B, murihexocin C and gefitinib were\u00a0 found -6.1, -7.2, -7.1, -7.3, -6.9, -7.9, -6.7, -7.6 and -7.9 kcal\/mol, respectively. Murihexocin A showed similar LBE value with gefitinib. Thus, murihexocin A was selected to be the best lead as anticancer agent in silico. These in silico results could be beneficial as a compound model for further experimentally in-vitro and in-vivo assays to elucidate the exact mechanism of inhibitory activity and to examine its potential therapeutic effects.<\/p>\n

Conflict of Interest<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is no conflict of interest.<\/p>\n

Acknowledgement<\/strong><\/p>\n

Authors would like to thank The Scientific Committee of Department of Anatomical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Indonesia for the support to accomplish this work.<\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Harris\u00a0 A. L.\u00a0 Hypoxia\u2014a key regulatory factor in tumour growth. Nature Reviews Cancer.\u00a0<\/em>2002;2(1):38-47.
    \nCrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  2. Semenza G. L.\u00a0 Targeting HIF-1 for cancer therapy. Nature Reviews Cancer.\u00a0<\/em>2003;3(10):721-732.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  3. Bos R., et al.\u00a0 Levels of hypoxia-inducible factor-1\u03b1 during breast carcino genes is. Journal of the national cancer institute.\u00a0<\/em>2001;93(4):309-314.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  4. Semenza G. L.\u00a0 Defining the role of hypoxia-inducible factor 1 in cancer biology and therapeutics. Oncogene.\u00a0<\/em>2010;29(5):625-634.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  5. Seeber L. M., et al. The role of hypoxia inducible factor-1alpha in gynecological cancer. Critical reviews in oncology.hematology.\u00a0<\/em>\u00a02011;78: 173-184.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  6. Seeber L. M., et al. Necrosis related HIF-1\u03b1 expression predicts prognosis in patients with endometrioid endometrial carcinoma. BMC cancer.\u00a0<\/em>2010;10(1):307-314.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  7. Muz B., de la Puente P., Azab F & Azab A. K.\u00a0 The role of hypoxia in cancer progression, angiogenesis, metastasis, and resistance to therapy. Hypoxia.\u00a0<\/em>2015;3:83-92.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  8. Aldebasi Y. H., Rahmani A. H., Khan A. A & Aly S. M.\u00a0 The effect of vascular endothelial growth factor in the progression of bladder cancer and diabetic retinopathy. International journal of clinical and experimental medicine.\u00a0<\/em>2013;6(4):239-251.<\/li>\n
  9. Li Q., Ma R & Zhang M.\u00a0 Co Cl 2 increases the expression of hypoxic markers HIF\u20111\u03b1, VEGF and CXCR4 in breast cancer MCF\u20117 cells. Oncology letters.\u00a0<\/em>2018;15(1):1119-1124.<\/li>\n
  10. Moghadamtousi S. Z., et al.\u00a0 Annona muricata (Annonaceae): a review of its traditional uses, isolated acetogenins and biological activities. International journal of molecular sciences.\u00a0<\/em>2015;16(7):15625-15658.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  11. Rosdi M. N. M., Daud N. N. N. N. M., Zulkifli R. M & Ya’akob H. Cytotoxic effect of Annona muricata Linn leaves extract on Capan-1 cells. Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science.\u00a0<\/em>2015;5(5):45-48.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  12. Rupprecht J. K., Hui Y. H\u00a0 & McLaughlin J. L.\u00a0 An nonaceous ace to genins\u00a0 a review. Journal of natural products.\u00a0<\/em>1990;53(2):237-278.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  13. Yang C., et al. Synergistic interactions among flavonoids and ace togenins in Graviola (Annona muricata) leaves confer protection against prostate cancer. Carcinogenesis.\u00a0<\/em>2015;36(6):656-665.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  14. Moghadamtousi S. Z., et al. A nnona muricata leaves induce G1 cell cycle arrest and apoptosis through mitochondria-mediated pathway in human HCT-116 and HT-29 colon cancer cells. Journal of ethno pharmacology.\u00a0<\/em>2014;156:277-289.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  15. Pieme C. A., et al. An ti proliferative activity and induction of apoptosis by Annona muricata (Annonaceae) extract on human cancer cells. BMC complementary and alternative medicine.\u00a0<\/em>2014;14:516.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  16. Najmuddin S. U. F. S., Romli M. F., Hamid\u00a0 M., Alitheen N. B & Rahman N. M. A. N. A.\u00a0 Anti-cancer effect of Annona Muricata Linn Leaves Crude Extract (AMCE) on breast cancer cell line. BMC complementary and alternative medicine.\u00a0<\/em>2016;16:311.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  17. Arnold K., Bordoli L., Kopp J & Schwede T.\u00a0 The SWISS-MODEL workspace: a web-based environment for protein structure homology modelling. Bioinformatics.\u00a0<\/em>2006;22(2):195-201.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  18. Kitchen D.B., Decornez H., Furr J. R & Bajorath J. Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nature reviews Drug discovery.\u00a0<\/em>2004;3(11):935-949.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  19. Berman H., Henrick K & Nakamura H.\u00a0 Announcing the worldwide protein data bank. Nature Structural and Molecular Biology.\u00a0<\/em>\u00a02003;10(12):980.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  20. Huey R., Morris G.M & Forli S.\u00a0 Using AutoDock 4 and AutoDock Vina with Auto Dock Tools A Tutorial. The Scripps Research Institute Molecular Graphics Laboratory.\u00a0<\/em>2012.<\/li>\n
  21. Weber L., Royal Soc Chemistry Thomas Graham House Science Park Milton Rd, Cambridge CB4 0WF, Cambs, England. 2008;5:65-66.<\/li>\n
  22. Arnautova Y. A., Abagyan R. A & Totrov M. Development of a new physics\u2010based internal coordinate mechanics force field and its application to protein loop modeling. Proteins Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics.\u00a0<\/em>2011;79(2):477-498.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  23. Trott O & Olson A. J.\u00a0 Auto Dock Vina improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function efficient optimization and multi threading. Journal of computational chemistry.\u00a0<\/em>2010;31(2):455-461.<\/li>\n
  24. Mangal M., Khan I ., M &\u00a0 Agarwal M. S.\u00a0 Acetogenins as potential anticancer agents. Anti-Cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry Formerly Current Medicinal Chemistry-Anti-Cancer Agents.\u00a0<\/em>2016;16(2):138-159.<\/li>\n
  25. Qayed W.S., Aboraia A. S., Abdel-Rahman H. M & Youssef\u00a0 A. F. Annonaceous acetogenins as a new anticancer agent. Der Pharma Chemica.\u00a0<\/em>2015;7(6):24-35.<\/li>\n
  26. Yang R.m., et al. Anticancer effect of total an no naceous ace togenins on hep a to carcinoma. Chinese journal of integrative medicine.\u00a0<\/em>2015;2:682-688.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Introduction Hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1) is a transcription factor that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[59],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22320","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-vol11no3"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22320","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22320"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22320\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":32403,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22320\/revisions\/32403"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22320"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22320"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22320"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}