EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
Newer congeners of doxycycline – do they hold promise for periodontal therapy?
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Center of Medical and Bio-allied Health Sciences Research, Ajman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates
 
2
Sree Balaji Dental College and Hospital, Bharath University, Chennai, India
 
 
Submission date: 2021-11-19
 
 
Acceptance date: 2022-08-14
 
 
Publication date: 2022-09-19
 
 
Arch Med Sci Civil Dis 2022;7(1):16-23
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Periodontitis is a very common polymicrobial infection of the oral cavity with wide systemic implications. It is influenced by multiple aspects, such as virulence of bacteria, the host response and resistance of bacteria to antibiotics, both within and outside the biofilm. Commonly, antibiotics are employed to break this vicious activity of microbes. There is a lacuna in the literature regarding the comparative efficacy of newer congeners of doxycycline. The aim of the study was to objectively compare the binding capacity of newer congeners of doxycycline with clinically significant targets relevant to periodontitis.

Material and methods:
A total of 5 drugs, viz. doxycycline, tigecycline, eravacycline, sarecycline and omadacycline, were selected, and molecular docking studies were performed with four targets: gingipain, FimA, interleukin-1β and estrogen receptor β. The studies were performed using AutoDock version 4. The results were reported based on the binding free energy, electrostatic interaction and intermolecular attraction. These values were compared and reported.

Results:
The drugs selected showed good binding to all four targets but had many differences in binding efficacy. Omadacycline, tigecycline, sarecycline, and doxycycline revealed 100% binding efficacy by occupying the core amino acid residues (444 HIS, 477 CYS and 388 ASP) over the target protein.

Conclusions:
Doxycycline can be replaced with omadacycline for clinical use. This result warrants future clinical investigations on omadacycline for periodontal therapy in both local and systemic administration.

 
REFERENCES (34)
1.
Vitkov L, Muñoz LE, Knopf J, et al. Connection between periodontitis-induced low-grade endotoxemia and systemic diseases: neutrophils as protagonists and targets. Int J Mol Sci 2021; 22: 4647.
 
2.
Hajishengallis G, Chavakis T. Local and systemic mechanisms linking periodontal disease and inflammatory comorbidities. Nat Rev Immunol 2021; 21: 426-40.
 
3.
Nazir MA. Prevalence of periodontal disease, its association with systemic diseases and prevention. Int J Health Sci 2017; 11: 72-80.
 
4.
Almerich-Silla JM, Almiñana-Pastor PJ, Boronat-Catalá M, Bellot-Arcís C, Montiel-Company JM. Socioeconomic factors and severity of periodontal disease in adults (35-44 years). A cross sectional study. J Clin Exp Dent 2017; 9: e988-94.
 
5.
Xu W, Zhou W, Wang H, Liang S. Roles of Porphyromonas gingivalis and its virulence factors in periodontitis. Adv Protein Chem Struct Biol 2020; 120: 45-84.
 
6.
Sang-Ngoen T, Czumbel LM, Sadaeng W, et al. Orally administered probiotics decrease aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans but not other periodontal pathogenic bacteria counts in the oral cavity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol 2021; 12: 682656.
 
7.
He Z, Zhang X, Song Z, et al. Quercetin inhibits virulence properties of Porphyromas gingivalis in periodontal disease. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 18313.
 
8.
Suárez LJ, Garzón H, Arboleda S, Rodríguez A. Oral dysbiosis and autoimmunity: from local periodontal responses to an imbalanced systemic immunity. A review. Front Immunol 2020; 11: 591255.
 
9.
Rodrigues RS, Silveira VR, Rego RO. Analysis of Porphyromonas gingivalis fimA genotypes in severe periodontitis patients. Braz Oral Res 2020; 34: e090.
 
10.
Mahalakshmi K, Krishnan P, Chandrasekaran SC. Detection of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans leukotoxin and fimbria-associated protein gene genotypes among periodontitis patients and healthy controls: a case-control study. Dent Res J 2018; 15: 185-90.
 
11.
Moreno S, Contreras A. Functional differences of Porphyromonas gingivalis Fimbriae in determining periodontal disease pathogenesis: a literature review. Colomb Med 2013; 44: 48-56.
 
12.
Kwak A, Lee Y, Kim H, Kim S. Intracellular interleukin (IL)-1 family cytokine processing enzyme. Arch Pharm Res 2016; 39: 1556-64.
 
13.
Cheng R, Wu Z, Li M, Shao M, Hu T. Interleukin-1 is a potential therapeutic target for periodontitis: a narrative review. Int J Oral Sci 2020; 12: 2.
 
14.
Hienz SA, Paliwal S, Ivanovski S. Mechanisms of bone resorption in periodontitis. J Immunol Res 2015; 2015: 615486.
 
15.
Olsen I, Potempa J. Strategies for the inhibition of gingipains for the potential treatment of periodontitis and associated systemic diseases. J Oral Microbiol 2014; 6. DOI: 10.3402/jom.v6.24800.
 
16.
Wang H, Zhang W, Wang W, Zhang L. The prevalence of fimA genotypes of Porphyromonas gingivalis in patients with chronic periodontitis: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2020; 15: e0240251.
 
17.
Enersen M, Nakano K, Amano A. Porphyromonas gingivalis fimbriae. J Oral Microbiol 2013; 5. DOI: 10.3402/jom.v5i0.20265.
 
18.
Azam SS, Abbasi SW. Molecular docking studies for the identification of novel melatoninergic inhibitors for acetylserotonin-O-methyltransferase using different docking routines. Theor Biol Med Model 2013; 10: 63.
 
19.
Muegge I, Rarey M. Small molecule docking and scoring. Rev Comp Chem 2001; 17: 1-60.
 
20.
Sousa SF, Fernandes PA, Ramos MJ. Protein-ligand docking: current status and future challenges. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinf 2006, 65: 15-26.
 
21.
Abrão F, Silva T, Moura C, et al. Oleoresins and naturally occurring compounds of Copaifera genus as antibacterial and antivirulence agents against periodontal pathogens. Sci Rep 2021; 11: 4953.
 
22.
Guevara T, Rodríguez-Banqueri A, Lasica AM, et al. Structural determinants of inhibition of Porphyromonas gingivalis gingipain K by KYT-36, a potent, selective, and bioavailable peptidase inhibitor. Sci Rep 2019; 9: 4935.
 
23.
Qingping X, Mikio S, Satoshi S. A distinct type of pilus from the human microbiome. Cell 2016; 165: 690-703.
 
24.
Shibata S, Shoji M, Okada K, et al. Structure of polymerized type V pilin reveals assembly mechanism involving protease-mediated strand exchange. Nat Microbiol 2020; 5: 830-7.
 
25.
Halim SA, Jawad M. Attempt to explore the binding mechanism of IL1 inhibitors via molecular docking studies. Med Chem 2015; 5: 10.
 
26.
Balaji B, Ramanathan M. Prediction of estrogen receptor  ligands potency and selectivity by docking and MM-GBSA scoring methods using three different scaffolds. J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem 2012; 27: 832-44.
 
27.
Grande F, Rizzuti B, Occhiuzzi MA, et al. Identification by molecular docking of homoisoflavones from leopoldia comosa as ligands of estrogen receptors. Molecules 2018; 23: 894.
 
28.
Morris GM, Huey R, Lindstrom W, et al. AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J Comput Chem 2009; 30: 2785-91.
 
29.
Trott O, Olson AJ. AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J Comput Chem 2010; 31: 455-61.
 
30.
Spasovski S, Belazelkoska Z, Popovska M, et al. Clinical therapeutic effects of the application of doxycycline in the treatment of periodontal disease. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2016; 4: 152-7.
 
31.
Pushpakom S, Iorio F, Eyers PA, et al. Drug repurposing: progress, challenges and recommendations. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2019; 18: 41-58.
 
32.
Duan G, Ji C, Zhang JZ. Developing an effective polarizable bond method for small molecules with application to optimized molecular docking. RSC Advances 2020; 10: 15530-40.
 
33.
Heifetz A, Katchalski-Katzir E, Eisenstein M. Electrostatics in protein-protein docking. Protein Sci 2002; 11: 571-87.
 
34.
Bitencourt-Ferreira G, Veit-Acosta M, de Azevedo WF Jr. Electrostatic Energy in protein-ligand complexes. Methods Mol Biol 2019; 2053: 67-77.
 
ISSN:2451-0637
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top