红背山麻杆叶的化学成分研究(Ⅱ)——黄酮和苯乙醇苷类化合物

采用80％丙酮提取物的水萃取部位,利用凝胶、MCI、反相碳18、及 Toyopearl Butyl-650C 柱色谱进行分离纯化得到7个黄酮和3个苯乙醇苷类化合物。根据化合物的波谱数据分析鉴定为槲皮素(1)、槲皮苷(2)、异懈皮苷(3)、芦丁(4)、异牡荆素(5)、牡荆素(6)、木犀草素-7-O-α-L-鼠李糖(1→6)-β-D-葡萄糖苷(7)、2-phenethylβ-D-glucoside(8)、icariside D1(9)、2-苯乙基-D-芸香甙(10)。其中化合物1-3、5-6、8-10为首次从本属植物中分离得到。     

Crystal structures of multidrug-resistant HIV-1 protease in complex with two potent anti-malarial compounds

Two potent inhibitors (compounds 1 and 2) of malarial aspartyl protease, plasmepsin-II, were evaluated against wild type (NL4-3) and multidrug-resistant clinical isolate 769 (MDR) variants of human immunodeficiency virus type-1 (HIV-1) aspartyl protease. Enzyme inhibition assays showed that both 1 and 2 have better potency against NL4-3 than against MDR protease. Crystal structures of MDR protease in complex with 1 and 2 were solved and analyzed. Crystallographic analysis revealed that the MDR protease exhibits a typical wide-open conformation of the flaps (Gly48 to Gly52) causing an overall expansion in the active site cavity, which, in turn caused unstable binding of the inhibitors. Due to the expansion of the active site cavity, both compounds showed loss of direct contacts with the MDR protease compared to the docking models of NL4-3. Multiple water molecules showed a rich network of hydrogen bonds contributing to the stability of the ligand binding in the distorted binding pockets of the MDR protease in both crystal structures. Docking analysis of 1 and 2 showed a decrease in the binding affinity for both compounds against MDR supporting our structure-function studies. Thus, compounds 1 and 2 show promising inhibitory activity against HIV-1 protease variants and hence are good candidates for further development to enhance their potency against NL4-3 as well as MDR HIV-1 protease variants.     

Cardiovascular risk management in rheumatoid arthritis: are we still waiting for the first step?

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with a similar cardiovascular risk to that in diabetes, and therefore cardiovascular risk management (CV-RM) - that is, identification and treatment of cardiovascular risk factors (CRFs) - is mandatory. However, whether and to what extent this is done in daily clinical practice is unknown. In a retrospective cohort investigation, CV-RM was therefore compared between rheumatologists and primary care physicians (PCPs). Remarkably, CRFs in RA were less frequently identified and managed by rheumatologists in comparison with PCPs. In addition, PCPs assessed CRFs less frequently in RA than in diabetes. Obviously, there is a clear need for improvement of CV-RM in RA and this should be a joint effort from the rheumatologist and the PCP.Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an increased cardiovascular (CV) risk that appears similar to that in diabetes. This observation highlights the significant CV burden in RA. In 1999, the American Diabetes Association and the American Heart Association published a statement for prevention of CV disease in diabetes. Since then, the CV risk in diabetes has been substantially lower than in earlier decades. Given the increased CV risk in RA, screening, identification of cardiovascular risk factors (CRFs) and cardiovascular risk management (CV-RM) are also highly needed as recommended by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). The increased risk in RA is attributed to systemic inflammation as well as increased prevalence of CRFs. Hence, we should aim for tight disease control and control of CRFs.Presently unknown is whether and to what extent CV-RM is translated into clinical practice. In a retrospective cohort-comprising 251 patients with RA, 251 patients with diabetes, and 251 general population individuals-Desai and colleagues therefore investigated the identification and management of CRFs by rheumatologists and primary care physicians (PCPs) [1]. RA patients had to be registered at the University of Michigan Health System for at least 12 months between June 2007 and April 2012 and had been evaluated both by their rheumatologist as well as the PCP. CRFs of interest were smoking, exercise, weight, blood pressure, lipid profile, and fasting blood glucose.In RA, PCPs identified and managed most CRFs more frequently than rheumatologists. Secondly, identification of CRFs by rheumatologists in RA patients with elevated C-reactive protein levels was not different as compared with those with normal C-reactive protein levels. A third important observation was that PCPs identified and managed CRFs more frequently in patients with diabetes, followed by general population individuals and least often in RA patients. These striking results raise several issues.First, it is hard to believe that the largely absent CV-RM by rheumatologists is explained by under-recognition because the increased CV risk in RA must presently be well known among rheumatologists. A large amount of literature on this topic has been published over the last decade. Additionally, the necessity to screen, identify, and manage CRFs is incorporated into training programmes for rheumatology residents [2]. Against this background, it is important to realise that there is a lag time between the publication of the EULAR guideline and its actual implementation (that is, the guideline was published in 2010 [3] while the current study started in 2007). In other words, CV-RM in today''s clinical practice might have been improved, but not yet recognised.Second, that the CV risk in RA is related to the inflammatory burden is well known. Nevertheless, the present study did not indicate that there is more attention for CV-RM by rheumatologists in patients with a higher inflammatory load.Third, undertreatment of the increased CV risk in RA by PCPs might be explained by under-recognition because CRFs were assessed more frequently in diabetes in comparison with RA.The EULAR guidelines recommend screening and identification of CRFs in all RA patients, and, if indicated according to CV risk-prediction charts, adequate management. As accurate assessment of CV risk depends on RA characteristics, the EULAR favoured individualising risk assessment. Hence, a risk multiplication factor of 1.5 should be used in the presence of two of the following criteria: disease duration >10 years, rheumatoid factor, and/or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide positivity or the presence of extra-articular manifestations. However, alternative approaches have been suggested - for example, increasing the age of an RA patient by 10 years to obtain a more precise CV risk estimate or to use other risk scores. Perhaps this lack of an RA-specific CV risk-prediction model hampers CV-RM implementation. Obviously, this discussion can only be solved by developing a RA-specific CV risk-prediction model, but this will take several years to complete.One may obviously argue that, due to its retrospective design, the strength of the conclusions of Desai and colleagues may be limited; however, they are in line with other recently published literature and thus confirm extending evidence that CV-RM is poorly conducted in RA, both by rheumatologists and PCPs. Another argument against CV-RM in RA is that we should wait until trials have been conducted that demonstrate the efficacy of statins and antihypertensive agents in RA. However, it will be (many) years before specific risk models are available and withholding cardiopreventive drugs that are very likely to work also in our high-risk population is unethical. Moreover, it is important to realise that, due to the decreased incidence of CV events in the last decades, CV prevention trials are nowadays very difficult to conduct. For instance, the TRACE-RA study [4] - a large placebo-controlled double-blind primary CV prevention trial in RA with atorvastatin - was stopped prematurely owing to the very low number of CV events that occurred.Altogether, the study from Desai and colleagues provides three important clues for improvement of CV-RM in RA. First, more education is urgently needed for both rheumatologists and PCPs. Second, it is important to realise that the contribution of higher prevalence CRFs in RA is one side of the coin, but the other side is effective suppression of the inflammation. The latter is a clear task for the rheumatologist. Third, CV care of a RA patient should be a joint effort by the rheumatologist and the PCP, and they should collaborate and agree on who performs the screening, identification, and, if required, management of CRFs.     

Conserved hydrogen bonds and water molecules in MDR HIV-1 protease substrate complexes

The success of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in anti-HIV therapy is severely compromised by the rapidly developing drug resistance. HIV-1 protease inhibitors, part of HAART, are losing their potency and efficacy in inhibiting the target. Multi-drug resistant (MDR) 769 HIV-1 protease (resistant mutations at residues 10, 36, 46, 54, 62, 63, 71, 82, 84, 90) was selected for the present study to understand the binding to its natural substrates. The nine crystal structures of MDR769 HIV-1 protease substrate hepta-peptide complexes were analyzed in order to reveal the conserved structural elements for the purpose of drug design against MDR HIV-1 protease. Our structural studies demonstrated that highly conserved hydrogen bonds between the protease and substrate peptides, together with the conserved crystallographic water molecules, played a crucial role in the substrate recognition, substrate stabilization and protease stabilization. In addition, the absence of the key flap-ligand bridging water molecule might imply a different catalytic mechanism of MDR769 HIV-1 protease compared to that of wild type (WT) HIV-1 protease.     

Ligand modifications to reduce the relative resistance of multi-drug resistant HIV-1 protease

Proper proteolytic processing of the HIV-1 Gag/Pol polyprotein is required for HIV infection and viral replication. This feature has made HIV-1 protease an attractive target for antiretroviral drug design for the treatment of HIV-1 infected patients. To examine the role of the P1 and P1′positions of the substrate in inhibitory efficacy of multi-drug resistant HIV-1 protease 769 (MDR 769), we performed a series of structure–function studies. Using the original CA/p2 cleavage site sequence, we generated heptapeptides containing one reduced peptide bond with an L to F and A to F double mutation at P1 and P1′ (F-r-F), and an A to F at P1′ (L-r-F) resulting in P1/P1′ modified ligands. Here, we present an analysis of co-crystal structures of CA/p2 F-r-F, and CA/p2 L-r-F in complex with MDR 769. To examine conformational changes in the complex structure, molecular dynamic (MD) simulations were performed with MDR769–ligand complexes. MD trajectories show the isobutyl group of both the lopinavir analog and the CA/p2 L-r-F substrate cause a conformational change of in the active site of MDR 769. IC₅₀ measurements suggest the non identical P1/P1′ ligands (CA/p2 L-r-F and lopinavir analog) are more effective against MDR proteases as opposed to identical P1/P1′ligands. Our results suggest that a non identical P1/P1′composition may be more favorable for the inhibition of MDR 769 as they induce conformational changes in the active site of the enzyme resulting in disruption of the two-fold symmetry of the protease, thus, stabilizing the inhibitor in the active site.