Reverse Docking Approach Reveals the Negative Effect of Caffeine Toxicity on Glutamate GluR2 Receptor

Jump To References Section

Authors

  • Hasan Ansari
     Amity Institute of Biotechnology, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Campus, Lucknow - 226028, Uttar Pradesh ,IN
  • Prekshi Garg
     Amity Institute of Biotechnology, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Campus, Lucknow - 226028, Uttar Pradesh ,IN
  • Radhika Rastogi
     Saraswati Dental College, Lucknow - 227105, Uttar Pradesh ,IN
  • Rekha Sharma
     Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Degree College, Gonda - 271003, Uttar Pradesh ,IN
  • Prachi Srivastava
     Amity Institute of Biotechnology, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Campus, Lucknow - 226028, Uttar Pradesh ,IN

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18311/ti/2023/v30i3/33446

Keywords:

Caffeine, Glutamate GluR2, Neurological Disorders, Reverse Docking

Abstract

In the past decade, the consumption of caffeine has increased exponentially throughout the world. Caffeine is now not only limits to coffee but is present in several desserts and other beverages as well. Caffeine is a psychostimulant that helps in improving your performance but its excessive consumption can also affect the cognitive functions of the Central Nervous System (CNS) negatively. The present research is an attempt to understand the mechanism of caffeine action in blocking central nervous system receptors thereby affecting brain function adversely. The reverse docking approach of computational biology has been implied to visualize the interaction of several neurotransmitter receptors with caffeine. Reverse molecular docking is an approach for determining the effect of a ligand on a range of receptors. The binding energy of the receptors with caffeine is considered for determining the best receptor-ligand complex. A list of 7 different neurotransmitters was identified through a literature study and taken into consideration in the current research. The molecular interaction of the human neuro-receptors was seen with caffeine using AutoDock4.0 to study the impact of caffeine on several biological processes of the human brain. The molecular docking approach identifies glutamate gluR2 receptor to be adversely affected by caffeine toxicity thereby affecting the neurotransmission process in the human nervous system.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2023-09-20

How to Cite

Ansari, H., Garg, P., Rastogi, R., Sharma, R., & Srivastava, P. (2023). Reverse Docking Approach Reveals the Negative Effect of Caffeine Toxicity on Glutamate GluR2 Receptor. Toxicology International, 30(3), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.18311/ti/2023/v30i3/33446

Issue

Volume 30, Issue 3, July-September 2023

Section

Articles
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
Received 2023-03-31
Accepted 2023-05-30
Published 2023-09-20

 

References

Pardo MA, Gironza NSC. Effects of caffeine on the fertility of Hermetia illucens (Stratiomyidae), fed with Coffee Pulp. Toxicol Int. 2022; 27(3-4):202-10.

Evans J, Richards JR, Battisti AS. Caffeine. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022. PMID: 30137774.

McLellan TM, Caldwell JA, Lieberman HR. A review of caffeine’s effects on cognitive, physical and occupational performance. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016; 71:294-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.09.001 PMID: 27612937. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.09.001

Ingraham C, Ferdman RA. A coffee addict’s guide to the universe. The Washington Post; 2015

Fiani B, Zhu L, Musch BL, Briceno S, Andel R, Sadeq N, Ansari AZ. The neurophysiology of caffeine as a central nervous system stimulant and the resultant effects on cognitive function. Cureus. 2021; 13(5). https://doi. org/10.7759/cureus.15032 PMID: 34150383; PMCID: PMC8202818. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.15032

Niyonambaza SD, Kumar P, Xing P, Mathault J, De Koninck P, Boisselier E, et al. A review of neurotransmitters sensing methods for neuro-engineering research. Appl Sci. 2019; 9(21):4719. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9214719 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app9214719

Kerage D, Sloan EK, Mattarollo SR, McCombe PA. Interaction of neurotransmitters and neurochemicals with lymphocytes. J Neuroimmunol. 2019; 332:99-111. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroim.2019.04.006 PMID: 30999218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroim.2019.04.006

Teleanu RI, Niculescu AG, Roza E, Vladâcenco O, Grumezescu AM, Teleanu DM. Neurotransmitters-key factors in neurological and neurodegenerative disorders of the central nervous system. Int J Mol Sci. 2022; 23(11):5954. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23115954 PMID: 35682631; PMCID: PMC9180936. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23115954

Pal MM. Glutamate: The master neurotransmitter and its implications in chronic stress and mood disorders. Front Hum Neurosci. 2021;15. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fnhum.2021.722323. PMID 34776901. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.722323

Crupi R, Impellizzeri D, Cuzzocrea S. Role of metabotropic glutamate receptors in neurological disorders. Front Mol Neurosci. 2019; 12:20. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fnmol.2019.00020 PMID: 30800054; PMCID: PMC6375857. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnmol.2019.00020

Dingledine RB, Borges K, Bowie D, Traynelis SF. The glutamate receptor ion channels. Pharmacol Rev. 1999; 51(1):7-61. PMID 10049997.

Haskó G, Linden J, Cronstein B, Pacher P. Adenosine receptors: Therapeutic aspects for inflammatory and immune diseases. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2008; 7(9):759-70. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd2638 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd2638

Talhada D, Rabenstein M, Ruscher K. The role of dopaminergic immune cell signalling in poststroke inflammation. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2018; 11. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1756286418774225 PMID 29774058. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1756286418774225

Jin Z, Mendu SK, Birnir B. GABA is an effective immunomodulatory molecule. Amino Acids. 2013; 45(1):87-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00726-011-1193-7 PMID 22160261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00726-011-1193-7

Fallarino F, Volpi C, Fazio F, Notartomaso S, Vacca C, Busceti C, et al. Metabotropic glutamate receptor-4 modulates adaptive immunity and restrains neuroinflammation. Nat Med. 2010; 16(8):897-902. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nm.2183 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.2183

Fujii T, Mashimo M, Moriwaki Y, Misawa H, Ono S, Horiguchi K, et al. Expression and function of the cholinergic system in immune cells. Front Immunol. 2017; 8:1085. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2017.01085 PMID 28932225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2017.01085

Herr N, Bode C, Duerschmied D. The effects of serotonin in immune cells. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2017; 4:48. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2017.00048 PMID 28775986. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2017.00048

Burley SK, Berman HM, Kleywegt GJ, Markley JL, Nakamura H, Velankar S. Protein Data Bank (PDB): The single global macromolecular structure archive. Methods in Molecular Biology (Clifton, N.J.). 2017; 1607(2017):627- 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7000-1_26 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7000-1_26

Mistry J, Bateman A, Finn RD. Predicting active site residue annotations in the Pfam database. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007; 8:298. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-8-298 PMID 17688688. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-8-298

Meng X-Y, Zhang H-X, Mezei M, Cui M. Molecular docking: A powerful approach for structure-based drug discovery. Curr Comput Aided Drug Des. 2011; 7(2):146-57. https://doi.org/10.2174/157340911795677602 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/157340911795677602

Al-Karmalawy AA, Dahab MA, Metwaly AM, Elhady SS, Elkaeed EB, Eissa IH, et al. Molecular docking and dynamics simulation revealed the potential inhibitory activity of ACEIs against SARS-CoV-2 targeting the hACE2 receptor. Front Chem. 2021; 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fchem.2021.661230 PMID 34017819. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2021.661230

Jendele L, Krivak R, Skoda P, Novotny M, Hoksza D. PrankWeb: A web server for ligand binding site prediction and visualization. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019; 47(W1):W345- 9. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz424 PMID: 31114880; PMCID: PMC6602436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz424

Morris GM, Huey R, Lindstrom W, Sanner MF, Belew RK, Goodsell DS, et al. AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J Comput Chem. 2009; 30(16):2785-91. https://doi. org/10.1002/jcc.21256 PMID: 19399780; PMCID: PMC2760638. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21256

Yadav SK, Pandey SK, Singh VK, Goel Y, Kumar A, Singh SM. Molecular docking studies of 3-bromopyruvate and its derivatives to metabolic regulatory enzymes: Implication in designing of novel anticancer therapeutic strategies. PLOS One. 2017; 12(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0176403. PMID 28463978. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176403

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. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-4682-10-63 PMID: 24156411; PMCID: PMC3819668. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-4682-10-63

Cho HW. How much caffeine is too much for young adolescents? Osong Public Health Res Perspect. 2018; 9(6):287-8. https://doi.org/10.24171/j.phrp.2018.9.6.01 PMID: 30584491; PMCID: PMC6296805. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24171/j.phrp.2018.9.6.01

Orbeta RL, Overpeck MD, Ramcharran D, Kogan MD, Ledsky R. High caffeine intake in adolescents: Associations with difficulty sleeping and feeling tired in the morning. J Adolesc Health. 2006; 38(4):451-3. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.05.014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.05.014

Knight CA, Knight I, Mitchell DC. Beverage caffeine intakes in young children in Canada and the US. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2006; 67(2):96-9. https://doi.org/10.3148/67.2.2006.96 PMID: 16759437. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3148/67.2.2006.96