ArticleIn silico pharmacology2025
Virtual screening and molecular dynamic simulations of
Article in In silico pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dissimilatory sulfite reductase (DSR) plays a crucial role in the metabolism of sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB), which contribute to environmental hazards such as biocorrosion and sulfide pollution. The search for effective DSR inhibitors has been challenging due to the difficulty in culturing strict anaerobes. In this study, we employed molecular docking and 100 ns molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to screen 248 microbially-derived compounds for their potential as DSR inhibitors. Based on docking scores, nine hit compounds were identified, with dehydrocitreaglycon A exhibiting the highest binding affinity (-9.4 kcal/mol), followed by citreamicin theta A and etamycin. Hydrogen bond interaction analysis revealed that key active site residues, including Arg83, Arg101, and Lys215, played significant roles in ligand binding. MD simulations revealed varying stability among the DSR-compound complexes, with arisugacin A demonstrating the highest stability and minimal fluctuations, while antimycin A1 and peniciadametizine A showed the highest instability. The principal component analysis (PCA) indicated greater conformational flexibility in complexes with antimycin A1, etamycin, citreamicin theta A, and terretonin G. Binding free energy calculations confirmed that dehydrocitreaglycon A (-112.13 kJ/mol) and strobilurin (-107.66 kJ/mol) had the most favorable interactions with DSR. Furthermore, an in silico environmental toxicity assessment indicated that some compounds, such as salmochelin sx, posed higher toxicity risks, whereas others, like dehydrocitreaglycon A, showed lower environmental impact. Overall, our findings highlight strobilurin, arisugacin A, and dehydrocitreaglycon A as promising DSR inhibitors, warranting further investigation for potential applications in SRB control. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40203-025-00367-9.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.