Page 213 - EJMO-9-3
P. 213

Eurasian Journal of
            Medicine and Oncology                                              FN3K–Nrf2 axis inhibition in breast cancer

























            Figure 2. Comparative structural models of human FN3K derived from
            top-ranked homology templates. The figure illustrates three homology
            models generated during the structure prediction of human FN3K.
            Model-1 (top left): Based on a template from Arabidopsis thaliana,
            showing the highest sequence identity (90.61%) and a GMQE score of
            0.94, indicating high structural reliability. Model-2 (top right): Built
            from a template with 38.57% sequence identity and a GMQE of 0.70.
            Model-3 (bottom): Constructed using a template with 40.67% identity
            and GMQE of 0.68
            Abbreviations: FN3K: Fructosamine-3-kinase; GMQE: Global model
            quality estimation

            confirming that the model meets the validation criteria for
            acceptable stereochemistry. Overall, the combination of
            high sequence similarity, favorable GMQE and QMEAN
            scores,  and  validation  through  PROCHECK  suggests
            that Model-1 is a robust and accurate representation
            of the human FN3K enzyme structure. This structural   Figure 3. Ramachandran plot of the modeled human FN3K structure
            model (Figure 4) provides a solid foundation for further   generated by PROCHECK. The plot depicts the distribution of backbone
            computational and experimental studies aimed at    dihedral angles (ϕ and ψ) for amino acid residues in the modeled FN3K
            understanding the functional implications and potential   protein. Among 309 residues, 92.8% are located within the most favored
                                                               regions, 6.8% within additionally allowed regions, and 0.4% within
            applications of human FN3K.                        generously allowed regions. No residues were observed in disallowed
                                                               regions, indicating the stereochemical validity of the predicted protein
            3.1.2. VS and docking results                      structure
            SBVS yielded multiple candidate compounds with strong   Abbreviations: FN3K: Fructosamine-3-kinase
            predicted binding affinities toward FN3K, as indicated
            by  favorable  docking  scores.  The  selection  criteria  for   further evaluation. Table 2 summarizes the top six docked
            potential hits included both numerical docking scores and   molecules, highlighting their docking scores, molecular
            qualitative assessments of key ligand–protein interactions,   weights,  and  specific  amino  acid  interactions  within  the
            such as hydrogen bonding, hydrophobic contacts, and π–π   FN3K binding pocket. Notably, oxaliplatin, ritonavir,
            stacking. Among the docked molecules, a subset exhibited   lansoprazole, and capivasertib demonstrated strong
            significantly higher binding affinities and more favorable   interactions with key residues, such as CYS A:24, LYS A:41,
            interaction profiles compared to others. To ensure the   and ASP A:217 – suggesting a conserved binding motif
            selection of the most potent inhibitors, a rank-based selection   critical for effective FN3K inhibition.
            approach was applied, wherein the top 10% of ligands or   3.1.3. ADMET analysis of hit compounds
            the top 10 ranked compounds with the most negative Glide
            docking scores were shortlisted. This approach ensured   To further validate the potential hits, the  top-ranked
            that only the best-performing molecules – those predicted   candidates were subjected to additional rounds of analysis.
            to have the highest binding affinity – were prioritized for   This included a review of their physicochemical properties



            Volume 9 Issue 3 (2025)                        205                         doi: 10.36922/EJMO025150114
   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218