Anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities of tanshinone IIA, carnosic acid, rosmarinic acid, salvianolic acid, baicalein, and glycyrrhetinic acid between computational and in vitro insights

• Published in: RSC advances 2021-09, Vol.11 (47), p.29267-29286
• Main Authors: Elebeedy, Dalia, Elkhatib, Walid F, Kandeil, Ahmed, Ghanem, Aml, Kutkat, Omnia, Alnajjar, Radwan, Saleh, Marwa A, Abd El Maksoud, Ahmed I, Badawy, Ingy, Al-Karmalawy, Ahmed A
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acids; Chemistry; Molecular docking; Molecular dynamics; Proteins; Receptors; Rosmarinic acid; Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; Tanshinones
• ISSN: 2046-2069; 2046-2069
• DOI: 10.1039/d1ra05268c

Six compounds namely, tanshinone IIA (1), carnosic acid (2), rosmarinic acid (3), salvianolic acid B (4), baicalein (5), and glycyrrhetinic acid (6) were screened for their anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities against both the spike (S) and main protease (Mpro) receptors using molecular docking studies. Molecular docking recommended the superior affinities of both salvianolic acid B (4) and glycyrrhetinic acid (6) as the common results from the previously published computational articles. On the other hand, their actual anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities were tested using plaque reduction assay to calculate their IC values after measuring their CC values using MTT assay on Vero E6 cells. Surprisingly, tanshinone IIA (1) was the most promising member with IC equals 4.08 ng μl . Also, both carnosic acid (2) and rosmarinic acid (3) showed promising IC values of 15.37 and 25.47 ng μl , respectively. However, salvianolic acid (4) showed a weak anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity with an IC value equals 58.29 ng μl . Furthermore, molecular dynamics simulations for 100 ns were performed for the most active compound from the computational point of view (salvianolic acid 4), besides, the most active one biologically (tanshinone IIA 1) on both the S and Mpro complexes of them (four different molecular dynamics processes) to confirm the docking results and give more insights regarding the stability of both compounds inside the SARS-CoV-2 mentioned receptors, respectively. Also, to understand the mechanism of action for the tested compounds towards SARS-CoV-2 inhibition it was necessary to examine the mode of action for the most two promising compounds, tanshinone IIA (1) and carnosic acid (2). Both compounds (1 and 2) showed very promising virucidal activity with a most prominent inhibitory effect on viral adsorption rather than its replication. This recommended the predicted activity of the two compounds against the S protein of SARS-CoV-2 rather than its Mpro protein. Our results could be very promising to rearrange the previously mentioned compounds based on their actual inhibitory activities towards SARS-CoV-2 and to search for the reasons behind the great differences between their and results against SARS-CoV-2. Finally, we recommend further advanced preclinical and clinical studies especially for tanshinone IIA (1) to be rapidly applied in COVID-19 management either alone or in combination with carnosic acid (2), rosmarinic acid (3), and/or salvianolic acid (4).