COMPUTATIONAL INSIGHTS INTO THE ALLOSTERIC INHIBITION OF BACE1 BY SULFORAPHANE: A MOLECULAR DOCKING AND DYNAMICS STUDY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22159/ijap.2026v18i2.57436Keywords:
Alzheimer’s disease, BACE1, Sulforaphane, Molecular dynamics, Allosteric inhibitorAbstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the allosteric binding site and dynamic stability of the sulforaphane-BACE1 complex to provide structural insights into its selective inhibition mechanism.
Methods: Molecular docking was performed using YASARA Structure, followed by five independent 10 ns molecular dynamics simulations conducted with GROMACS to evaluate the stability of the sulforaphane–BACE1 complex. Key interactions and stability parameters were analyzed using RMSD-based metrics and interaction fingerprint profiling.
Results: Global docking identified 35 possible binding pockets, with one predominant allosteric site showing the most favorable binding energy and clustering. Molecular dynamics simulations revealed that sulforaphane maintained stable orientations in two of five trajectories (R2 and R4), indicating replica-dependent stability consistent with moderate affinity and allosteric flexibility. Interaction analysis highlighted persistent hydrophobic contacts with ALA173, LEU172, PRO313, GLU315, and ASP323 as major stabilizing residues.
Conclusion: Sulforaphane demonstrates moderate but reproducible allosteric binding to BACE1, primarily stabilized by hydrophobic interactions and key polar contacts. These findings establish a structural model supporting sulforaphane’s selective modulation of BACE1 and provide a computational framework for designing improved allosteric inhibitors for Alzheimer’s disease therapy.
References
1. Nichols E, Steinmetz JD, Vollset SE, Fukutaki K, Chalek J, Allah FA. Estimation of the global prevalence of dementia in 2019 and forecasted prevalence in 2050: an analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. Lancet Public Health. 2022;7(2):e105-25. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00249-8.
2. Xiaopeng Z, Jing Y, Xia L, Xingsheng W, Juan D, Yan L. Global burden of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias in adults aged 65 y and older, 1991-2021: population-based study. Front Public Health. 2025;13:1585711. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1585711, PMID 40666154.
3. Sakshi K, Mote S, Supekar A, Saudar S. A review on antibody of aducanumab- reduces the progression of Alzheimer disease. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2023;5(1):15-22. doi: 10.33545/26647222.2023.v5.i1a.28.
4. De Strooper B, Karran E. The cellular phase of Alzheimer’s disease. Cell. 2016;164(4):603-15. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.12.056, PMID 26871627.
5. Swetha G, Raj A, Tabassum S, Chhakchhuak DZ. Oxidative stress in Alzheimer’s disease-evaluating the amyloid beta hypothesis. Int J Curr Pharm Sci. 2021;13(5):32-8. doi: 10.22159/ijcpr.2021v13i5.1906.
6. Vassar R. BACE1 inhibitor drugs in clinical trials for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2014;6(9):89. doi: 10.1186/s13195-014-0089-7, PMID 25621019.
7. Hampel H, Vassar R, De Strooper BD, Hardy J, Willem M, Singh N. The β-secretase BACE1 in Alzheimer’s disease. Biol Psychiatry. 2021;89(8):745-56. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.02.001, PMID 32223911.
8. Abubakar MB, Sanusi KO, Ugusman A, Mohamed W, Kamal H, Ibrahim NH. Alzheimer’s disease: an update and insights into pathophysiology. Front Aging Neurosci. 2022;14:742408. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.742408, PMID 35431894.
9. Kamatham PT, Shukla R, Khatri DK, Vora LK. Pathogenesis diagnostics and therapeutics for Alzheimer’s disease: breaking the memory barrier. Ageing Res Rev. 2024;101:102481. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2024.102481, PMID 39236855.
10. Fujimoto K, Matsuoka E, Asada N, Tadano G, Yamamoto T, Nakahara K. Structure-based design of selective β-Site amyloid precursor protein cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE1) inhibitors: targeting the flap to gain selectivity over BACE2. J Med Chem. 2019;62(10):5080-95. doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.9b00309, PMID 31021626.
11. Schepici G, Bramanti P, Mazzon E. Efficacy of sulforaphane in neurodegenerative diseases. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(22):8637. doi: 10.3390/ijms21228637, PMID 33207780.
12. Zhang Y, LV C, Sun J, Song X, Makaza N, Wu Y. Protective effects of broccoli extracts and sulforaphane against hydrogen peroxide induced oxidative stress in B16 cells. J Funct Foods. 2021;87:104833. doi: 10.1016/j.jff.2021.104833.
13. Youn K, Yoon JH, Lee N, Lim G, Lee J, Sang S. Discovery of sulforaphane as a potent BACE1 inhibitor based on kinetics and computational studies. Nutrients. 2020;12(10):3026. doi: 10.3390/nu12103026, PMID 33023225.
14. Shakil S, Rizvi SM, Greig NH. High throughput virtual screening and molecular dynamics simulation for identifying a putative inhibitor of bacterial CTX-M-15. Antibiotics (Basel). 2021;10(5):474. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics10050474, PMID 33919115.
15. Hollingsworth SA, Dror RO. Molecular dynamics simulation for all. Neuron. 2018;99(6):1129-43. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.08.011, PMID 30236283.
16. Agu PC, Afiukwa CA, Orji OU, Ezeh EM, Ofoke IH, Ogbu CO. Molecular docking as a tool for the discovery of molecular targets of nutraceuticals in diseases management. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):13398. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-40160-2, PMID 37592012.
17. Dnyandev KM, Babasaheb GV, Chandrashekhar KV, Chandrakant MA, Vasant OK. A review on molecular docking. IRJPAC. 2021;22(3):60-8. doi: 10.9734/irjpac/2021/v22i330396.
18. Istyastono EP, Octa Riswanto FD. Molecular dynamics simulations of the caffeic acid interactions to dipeptidyl peptidase IV. Int J App Pharm. 2022;14(4):274-8. doi: 10.22159/ijap.2022v14i4.44631.
19. Istyastono EP. Simulasi dan validasi penambatan molekul dengan pugasan YASARA-structure. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University Press; 2023.
20. Wiranata BI, Istyastono EP. Interaction dynamics of caffeine in the human acetylcholinesterase binding pocket. J Food Pharm Sci. 2025;13(1):1-9. doi: 10.22146/jfps.16533.
21. Istyastono EP, Yuniarti N, Prasasty VD, Mungkasi S, Waskitha SS, Yanuar MR. Caffeic acid in spent coffee grounds as a dual inhibitor for MMP-9 and DPP-4 enzymes. Molecules. 2023;28(20):7182. doi: 10.3390/molecules28207182, PMID 37894660.
22. Makeneni S, Thieker DF, Woods RJ. Applying pose clustering and md simulations to eliminate false positives in molecular docking. J Chem Inf Model. 2018;58(3):605-14. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00588, PMID 29431438.
23. Clark JJ, Orban ZJ, Carlson HA. Predicting binding sites from unbound versus bound protein structures. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):15856. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-72906-7, PMID 32985584.
24. Liu K, Watanabe E, Kokubo H. Exploring the stability of ligand binding modes to proteins by molecular dynamics simulations. J Comput Aid Mol Des. 2017;31(2):201-11. doi: 10.1007/s10822-016-0005-2, PMID 28074360.
25. Liu K, Kokubo H. Exploring the stability of ligand binding modes to proteins by molecular dynamics simulations: a cross-docking study. J Chem Inf Model. 2017;57(10):2514-22. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00412, PMID 28902511.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2026 MITSUE OKA, MALA HIKMAWAN PRIMANA, BONIFACIUS IVAN WIRANATA, ENADE PERDANA ISTYASTONO, PERDANA ISTYASTONO, FLORENTINUS DIKA OCTA RISWANTO
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.