Lal et al.
Table 5. Docking Energy of Ligands
S.No.
Compound
Docking Energy
1.
C 36 H 10 BiCl F N 2 O
2 15
6
-9.73380e+01
2.
C 34 H 6 BiBr F N 2 O
2 15
4
-8.923914e+01
3.
C 38 H 14 BiBr F N 2 O
2 15
6
-1.023187e+02
4.
C 21 H 5 BiClF 10 NO
-8.654765e+01
5.
C 20 H 3 BiBrF 10 NO 2
-8.810764e+01
6.
C 22 H 7 BiBrF 10 NO 3
-8.853886e+01
7.
C 27 H 36 BiN 3
-9.179234e+01
8.
C 27 H 36 BiN 3
-9.179234e+01
9.
C 27 H 36 BiN 3
-9.306476e+01
On calculating docking energy as tabulated above it was observed that docking
energy for 5-chloro-1-[(5-chloro-6-methoxy-2,3-dioxo-2,3-dihydro-1H-indol-1-
yl)
tris(pentafluorophenyl)bismuthanyl]-6-methoxy-2,3-dihydro-1H-indole-2,3-
dione,
({2-[bis({2-[(dimethylamino)methyl]phenyl})bismuthanyl]phenyl}methyl)
dimethylamine,
({3-[bis({3-[(dimethylamino)methyl]phenyl})bismuthanyl]phenyl}methyl)
dimethylamine and
({4-[bis({4-[(dimethylamino)methyl]phenyl})bismuthanyl]phenyl}methyl)
dimethylamine
has the least docking energy. As lesser the docking energy means more Binding
affinity and hence better association between ligand and the target protein.
Conclusion
Out of these 3 the compound C27H36BiN3 ({2-[bis({2-[(dimethylamino)
methyl]phenyl}) bismuthanyl]phenyl}methyl)dimethyl shows best drug-likeness
(molecular property bioactivity score) and Docking energy as it shows best
compatibility with the Lipinski’s rule of five and has the most near values a drug
should have as suggested by Lipinski rule. Hence according to the present study
it can be suggested that the study of this organobismuth compound C27H36BiN3
({2-[bis({2-[(dimethylamino)methyl]phenyl})bismuthanyl]phenyl}methyl)
dimethyl can be the first step in the development of novel agent which can act as
act as an anti-tumor drug. Further investigations will be necessary to clarify not
only the effects of this drug on tumor-associated angionegesis / vasculogenesis
and tumor cell survival but also the procedure for controlling its own effects.
162
International Journal of Bioinformatics and Biological Sciences : v.2 n.3&4. Dec. 2014