Short Commentary
Volume 3, Issue 6

In Silico Molecular Docking of Ketoconazole as Topoisomerase I Inhibitors: A Computational Approach

Nishfar K1,2*; Jai Kumar1,2

1Department of Pharmacology, Grace College of Pharmacy, Kodunthirapully, Palakkad 678004, Kerala, India.
2Affilated to Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur 680596, Kerala, India.

Corresponding Author :

Nishfar K

Tel: 8590117740;
Email: nishfar.k77@gmail.com

Received : Jan 08, 2025   Accepted : Feb 05, 2025   Published : Feb 12, 2025   Archived : www.meddiscoveries.org

Citation: Nishfar K, Kumar J. In Silico Molecular Docking of Ketoconazole as Topoisomerase I Inhibitors: A Computational Approach. Med Discoveries. 2025; 4(2): 1244.
Copyright: © 2025 Nishfar K. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Using an in-silico technique, the current work sought to find novel drug-like compounds with anticancer characteristics. The human topoisomerase 1-DNA complex (PDB ID 1A35) is selected as the protein. Ketoconazole, which is an antifungal agent is used as the ligand in this study along with irinotecan as the standard were sketched using chemdraw ultra 8.0 and converted to 3D forms. Both the protein and ligand were energy minimised for docking studies. Ligands are evaluated by Lipinski’s rule of five and docked with 1A35 enzyme with autodock vina in PyRx software. The resulting binding energy for ketoconazole is -8.4 kcal/mol and for irinotecan is -8.4 kcal/mol. The visualization of interactions is done using Biovia Discovery Studio 2024 Client. The study reveals the possibility of Ketoconazole in relevant anticancer activity, focusing on its drug-target interaction, contributes to anti-cancer drug discovery.

Keywords: Ketoconazole; Molecular docking; In silico study; AutoDock vina; Topoisomerase I; Lipinski’s rule of five; Anticancer agents.

Cancer is a group of linked disorder characterised by uncontrolled division of abnormal and non-productive cells which continue to exist and proliferate within the specific site of the body, may or may not spread to the surrounding tissues [1,2]. Cancer is a gene related condition which is caused by variety of genetic or habitual or environmental conditions such as UV or ionizing radiations, alcohol, tobacco smoke, aflatoxins, arsenic, or other chemicals or biological agents (virus or bacteria) [3,4,9]. Cancer cells are having multiple faulty chromosomes and DNA repair mechanism, which dodges apoptosis and proliferate continuously and exists as immature cells [13,15].

According to NCDIR India in 2022, about 1.4 lakhs of new cases were reported which makes probably one in nine people will face cancer in their lifetime [3]. Also, lung cancer is prominent in males and breast cancer in females. According to non-communicable diseases, cancer ranked second in death rate by 18.1% [11].

Since now, there is no ideal treatment protocol approved for cancer. Recent development of drugs in cancer treatment is either costly or are having numerous side effect including fatigue, nausea, vomiting, hair loss, anaemia, neutropenia, lymphedema, and secondary carcinoma [4,5].

This study is about in silico evaluation of ketoconazole as a topoisomerase I inhibitor in cancer treatment. Ketoconazole is currently marketed as an antifungal drug for topical administration [20]. It acts by inhibiting the fungal sterol synthesis, inhibiting the fungal cell wall and fungal proliferation [12]. It is expected to inhibit the cancer cells by topoisomerase I inhibition.

In this paper we are reporting the docking analysis of ketoconazole against topoisomerase I enzyme. The docking was performed to predict the binding affinity of the ketoconazole against this enzyme. Thus, the study produces useful data on repurposing of ketoconazole in treatment of cancer. The reference used is irinotecan.

In this study a number of softwares are used for different purposes.

Table 1: List of softwares used and their purposes.
Sl no. Software’s Purposes
1 ChemDraw Ultra 8.0 to create the 2D structure of ligands.
2 Chem3D Pro 8.0 to create3D model and for ligand energy minimization
3 MOE (Molecular Operating Environment) For protein energy minimization
4 PyRx Autodock vina software virtual screening tool
5 Biovia Discovery Studio Visualisation and Interpreting docking results

Preparation of protein

Human topoisomerase 1/DNA complex protein having PDB ID 1A35 was downloaded from www.pdb.org in PDB format. It was then energy minimised using MOE software.

Preparation of ligand (ketoconazole): The 2D structure of ketoconazole was prepared using CHEMDRAW ULTRA 8.0 software. It was then converted to 3D using chem 3D pro-8.0. also, the energy minimization was done with MOE software and was saved in PDB format.

Lipinski’s rule: Lipinski’s rule of five was used to predict the pharmacokinetic property of a drug based on it’s certain physiochemical parameters such as molecular weight (< 500 Da), number of hydrogen bond acceptors (< 10), number of hydrogen bond donors (< 5), partition coefficient ie; log P value (< 5). According to this rule, the ligand must not violate more than one condition [6].

Docking studies: The ligand (ketoconazole) is then made to interact with the protein (1A35) and molecular docking is done. Docking studies provides with information regarding the interaction of the drug with the enzyme, binding affinity and binding energy. The molecular docking helps to simulate these interactions in detail.

In this study the docking was performed in pyRx software, by uploading the energy minimised protein (1A35) and ligand (ketoconazole) in PDB format, and performed the docking using a virtual screening tool, autodockvina pyRx. The docking results was analysed using BioVia discovery studio.

The docking results were compared with the docking of standard drug of irinotecan in the similar way as that of the molecular docking of ketoconazole. The different binding interactions and binding energy will be compared.

Table 2: Lipinski’s rule of five.
Lipinski’s parameter Values of ketoconazole Limit
Molecular weight 517.40Da < 500Da
Number of hydrogen bond acceptors 5 < 10
Number of hydrogen bond donors 0 <5
Log P value 3.42 <5
Number of violations 1

Image is Not Display Check it
Figure 1: 3D diagram showing enzyme with PDB ID 1A35: human topoisomerase enzyme 1/DNA complex.

Image is Not Display Check it
Figure 2: 3d showing Interaction of ligand (ketoconazole) with enzyme (1A35).

Image is Not Display Check it
Figure 3: 2D diagram representing interaction of ketoconazole with enzyme.

Image is Not Display Check it
Figure 4: 3D structure of irinotecan bound with PDB ID 1a35 enzyme.

Image is Not Display Check it
Figure 5: 2D diagram representing interaction of irinotecan with 1a35 enzyme.

Lipinski’s rule

The drug or ligand, ketoconazole passes the rule. Lipinski’s rule states four criteria, out of which the drug should not violate not more than one rule. The criteria include, the molecule should be within the limit of <500Da molecular weight, <10 hydrogen bond acceptors, <5 hydrogen bond donors, <5 log P value, for optimum pharmacokinetic property. Ketoconazole passes all the conditions except the molecular weight (517.40Da). However, the drug passes lipinski’s rule of five [6].

Docking studies

The binding energy of the ketoconazole was found to be -8.2 kcal/mol-1, while that of the standard drug (irinotecan) was found to be -8.4 kcal/mol-1. This shows that ketoconazole shows almost similar binding affinity when compared to standard. In molecular docking studies, binding energy describes the stability of the interaction [7,14]. The more negative the binding energy, more stronger the binding affinity, the more stable the ligand-receptor interaction [14]. The RMSD (root mean square deviation) value will be used to measure the closeness of the geometry of protein-ligand interaction to that of the predicted geometry [8]. In this study, the RMSD value is 0.

In contrast, the drug ketoconazole shows negative binding affinity values much alike that of irinotecan. The amino acid residue involved in the interactions of ketoconazole with enzymes are ARG A:364 by conventional hydrogen bond, LYS A:493, ARG A:488, GLY A:363 by Carbon-Hydrogen bond, ARG A:488 by Pi-sigma residue, DG D;115 by Pi-lone pair residue, LYS A:532, ALA A:489 by Pi-Alkyl residue, and THR A:501, ASP A:533, HIS A:367, PHE A:361, GLY A:363, LYS A:587, GLY A:490, ASN A:491 by van der Waals forces, which together contributes to the topoisomerase 1/DNA complex inhibitory actions and corresponding anti-cancer activity.

Cancer is a group of disease which is first reported even before 3000 BC [19] and the study of cancer and its treatment has been started by Hippocrates [3], till now an ideal treatment for cancer has not been developed [18]. In this study, the evaluation of the effect of ketoconazole on topoisomerase I enzyme was performed by molecular docking technique. It results that ketoconazole binding energy of -8.2 kcal/mol-1, which is closer to binding energy of -8.4 kcal/mol-1 by irinotecan (standard). Taking consideration of the difference in cost effectiveness, effectiveness, adverse reactions and resistance in different individuals, ketoconazole could be effectively used for anti-cancer property.

Acknowledgment: This work was supported by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala Under UG Research Appreciation Award Scheme 2024.

  1. Ferlay J, Erwik M, Lam F, Colombet M, Mery L, Piñeros M. Global Cancer Laboratory: Cancer Today. lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2020.
  2. World Health Organization. Fact Sheet, Cancer, 3rd February. 2020.
  3. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Statistics and Side Effects of Cancer, Understanding Cancer. 2024.
  4. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Side Effects of Cancer Treatment, Cancer Survivors. 2024.
  5. Julie Grisham. FDA Approves New Drug for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with ROS1 Fusions. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. 2024.
  6. Bethany Halford. Wrestling With Lipinski’s Rule of Five, Chemical and Engineering News. 2023: 101.
  7. Larisa Evanova, Mati Karelson. The Impact of Software Used and The Type of Target Protein in Molecular Docking Accuracy, National Library of Medicine. 2022.
  8. Eric W Bell, Yang Zhang. Dockrmsd: An Open-Source Tool for Atom Mapping and RMSD Calculation Of symmetric Molecules Through Graph Isomorphism, Journal of Cheminformatics. 2019; 11: 40.
  9. A Saini, M Kumar, S Bhatt, V Saini, A Malik. Cancer Causes and Treatments. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Research Pg No. 2022.
  10. CRI Staff. Understanding The Causes of Cancer: Lifestyle, Environmental and Genetic Factors. Cancer Research Institute, New York, USA. 2019.
  11. Navneeth Singh, Sushma Agarwal, Sabita Jiwani, Anant Mohan, Prasanth Penumau, et al. Lung Cancer In India. Journal of Thoracic Oncology. 2021: 6.
  12. Hadeer Sinawe, Damain Casadesus. Ketoconazole, Bookshelf. National Library of Medicine. 2023.
  13. Xialong Meng, Jiezhong, Shuying Liu, Mollianne Murray, Ana M Gonzalez Angulo. A New Hypothesis for Cancer Mechanism. Cancer Metastasis. National Library of Medicine. 2011.
  14. Afolabi J Owoloye, Funmilayo C Ligali, Ojochenemi A Enejoh, Adesola Z Musa, Oluwagbemiga Aina, Emmanuel T Idowu, et al. Molecular Docking, Simulation and Binding Free Energy Analysis of Small Molecules as Pfht1 Inhibitors. Journal Of Public Library of Science, USA. 2022.
  15. Nurkhalida Kamal, Muna Abdulsalam Ilowefah, Ayah Rebhi Hilles, Nurul Adlina Anua, Tahani Awin, et al. Genesis and Mechanism of Some Cancer Types and An Overview on The Role of Diet and Nutrition in Cancer Prevention. Pubmed Central. 2022.
  16. Mayo Clinic. Cancer Survivors: Late Effects of Cancer Treatment. Www.Mayoclinic.Org.
  17. National Cancer Institute, 23rd December 2015. Risk Factors of Cancer. USA.
  18. Ruibin Lyu. Survival Analysis of Lung Cancer Patients from TCGA Cohort. Advances In Lung Cancer. 2020; 9: 1-15.
  19. Hajdu SI. A Note from History: Landmarks in History of Cancer, Part 1. Cancer. 2011; 117: 1097-1102.
  20. Hajdu SI. A Note from History: Landmarks in History of Cancer, Part 1. Cancer. 2011; 117: 1097-1102.
+