In silico exploration of Qur’anic-based natural products as potential anticancer BRAF inhibitors via structure-based virtual screening

Evita Sari; Gerry Nugraha; Deden Mula Saputra

doi:10.35814/jifi.v24i2.2138

Authors

Evita Sari Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Technology, Universitas ‘Aisyiyah, Palembang, 30961, Indonesia
Gerry Nugraha Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Technology, Universitas ‘Aisyiyah, Palembang, 30961, Indonesia
Deden Mula Saputra Department of Ilmu al-Quran dan Tafsir, STIQ Al-Lathifiyyah, Palembang, 30151, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35814/jifi.v24i2.2138

Keywords:

ADMET, BRAF inhibitor, cancer, molecular docking, structure-based virtual screening

Abstract

The BRAF V600E mutation, namely the substitution of valine (non-polar/hydrophobic) with Glutamic Acid (polar/negative) at position 600, mimics biological phosphorylation and stabilizes the kinase in a permanently active conformation (constitutive activation) promoting uncontrolled melanoma cell proliferation. First-generation synthetic inhibitors, such as vemurafenib and dabrafenib, face challenges of clinical resistance owing to protein dimerization. This study aimed to identify novel BRAF V600E inhibitors through an in silico evaluation of the binding affinity and ADMET safety profile of bioactive compounds from 32 Qurʼanic natural product plants, utilizing a structure-based virtual screening of 2,308 compounds (2,301 valid compounds after structural filtration). The target (PDB: 3OG7, empirical crystallography resolution 2.45 Å; R-free: 0.258; R-work: 0.212) was used as the receptor. Molecular docking was performed using AutoDock 4.2 with the Lamarckian Genetic Algorithm (LGA). Validation was carried out through 100 redocking replications with a median RMSD value of 0.377 Å (range 0.31–0.43 Å), well below the validity threshold of 2.0 Å. A total of 1,310 compounds (56.9%) meet the SBVS criteria based on interactions at the Cys532 and Asp594 hotspot residues. The three best candidates from ginger (Zingiber officinale): (1) Diarylheptanoid Ketone Derivative (-11.37 kcal/mol), (2) Glycosylated Gingerol Derivative (-10.58 kcal/mol), and (3) Hexahydrocurcumin Analog (-10.57 kcal/mol), show the highest binding affinity and met Lipinski’s Ro5. Ginger derivatives represent promising lead compounds targeting type IIB kinases, with binding energies reaching -11 kcal/mol. However, prior to clinical trials, molecular optimization is recommended to mitigate the risk of cardiotoxicity (hERG, probability 0.635 in compound 3) and hepatotoxicity (DILI, probability 0.364 in compound 2).

References

[1] F. Bray et al., “Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries,” CA. Cancer J. Clin., vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 229–263, May 2024, doi: 10.3322/caac.21834.

[2] S. Imani, G. Roozitalab, M. Emadi, A. Moradi, P. Behzadi, and P. Jabbarzadeh Kaboli, “The evolution of BRAF-targeted therapies in melanoma: overcoming hurdles and unleashing novel strategies,” Front. Oncol., vol. 14, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1504142.

[3] F. A. Dain Md Opo et al., “Identification of novel natural drug candidates against BRAF mutated carcinoma; An integrative in-silico structure-based pharmacophore modeling and virtual screening process,” Front. Chem., vol. 10, no. October, pp. 1–21, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fchem.2022.986376.

[4] V. Subbiah et al., “Dabrafenib plus trametinib in BRAFV600E-mutated rare cancers: the phase 2 ROAR trial,” Nat. Med., vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1103–1112, May 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41591-023-02321-8.

[5] Y. Shang et al., “BRAF inhibitor resistance in melanoma: from resistance mechanisms to therapeutic innovations,” Mol. Biomed., vol. 7, no. 1, p. 27, Mar. 2026, doi: 10.1186/s43556-026-00425-4.

[6] Y. Ravi et al., “Anticancer potential of Thymoquinone from Nigella sativa L.: An in-silico and cytotoxicity study,” PLoS One, vol. 20, no. 6 June, pp. 1–19, 2025, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323804.

[7] S. Jenardhan et al., “Efficacy of Olive Oil in the reduction of the risk for Colorectal Cancer – A Systematic Review,” Int. J. Sci. Res. Biol. Sci., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 27–35, 2025, doi: 10.26438/ijsrbs.v12i1.667.

[8] A. Rauf et al., “The Role of Pomegranate ( Punica granatum ) in Cancer Prevention and Treatment: Modulating Signaling Pathways From Inflammation to Metastasis,” Food Sci. Nutr., vol. 13, no. 2, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.1002/fsn3.4674.

[9] M. K. Samota, M. Rawat, M. Kaur, and D. Garg, “Gingerol: extraction methods, health implications, bioavailability and signaling pathways Mahesh,” pp. 1652–1669, 2024, doi: 10.1039/d4fb00135d.

[10] A. Kmail, “Honey and cancer : from traditional medicine to modern adjuvant therapy,” no. February, pp. 1–18, 2026, doi: 10.3389/fonc.2026.1745285.

[11] G. Nugraha (2026). “Qur'anic-Based Natural Compound Database (Version v1.0.0) [Dataset],” Zenodo, doi: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22101904.

[12] S. Nafisa, S. U. Noor, A. Azkannufuus, and Y. Noviani, “Cosmos caudatus Kunth. Leaf Extract Herbal Nanosuspension Formulations, Characterization, and Cytotoxicity Approach Against MCF-7 Breast Cancer Cells,” J. Ilmu Kefarmasian Indones., vol. 21, no. 2, p. 286, 2023, doi: 10.35814/jifi.v21i2.1481.

[13] A. Altharawi and S. M. Alqahtani, “Integrative Computational Chemistry Approaches in Modern Drug Discovery: Advances in Docking, Pharmacophore Modeling, Molecular Dynamics, and Virtual Screening,” Pharmaceutics, vol. 18, no. 5, p. 565, May 2026, doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics18050565.

[14] E. H. B. Maia, L. C. Assis, T. A. de Oliveira, A. M. da Silva, and A. G. Taranto, “Structure-Based Virtual Screening: From Classical to Artificial Intelligence,” Front. Chem., vol. 8, no. April, 2020, doi: 10.3389/fchem.2020.00343.

[15] G. Nugraha and E. P. Istyastono, “Virtual target construction for structure-based screening in the discovery of histamine h2 receptor ligands,” Int. J. Appl. Pharm., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1–3, 2021, doi: 10.22159/ijap.2021v13i3.41202.

[16] Y. S. Kurniawan et al., “Molecular Docking and Molecular Dynamic Investigations of Xanthone-Chalcone Derivatives against Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor for Preliminary Discovery of Novel Anticancer Agent,” Indones. J. Chem., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 250–266, 2024, doi: 10.22146/ijc.88449.

[17] B. Wu et al., “Novel natural inhibitors targeting B-RAF(V600E) by computational study,” Bioengineered, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 2970–2983, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1080/21655979.2021.1943113.

[18] J. Carlsson and A. Luttens, “Structure-based virtual screening of vast chemical space as a starting point for drug discovery,” Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., vol. 87, p. 102829, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2024.102829.

[19] G. Simanullang, A. M. Rahayyu, N. A. Nabila, A. Hammami, and I. K. Wardani, “Molecular docking and pharmacokinetic prediction of isoniazid and curcumin compounds against N-acetyltransferase 2 (NAT2) protein,” J. Ilmu Kefarmasian Indones., vol. 23, no. 2, p. 305, 2025, doi: 10.35814/jifi.v23i2.1699.

[20] A. B. Umar and A. Uzairu, “Virtual screening, pharmacokinetic, and DFT studies of anticancer compounds as potential V600E-BRAF kinase inhibitors,” J. Taibah Univ. Med. Sci., vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 933–946, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2023.01.013.

[21] E. Madej et al., “Vemurafenib and Dabrafenib Downregulates RIPK4 Level,” Cancers (Basel)., vol. 15, no. 3, p. 918, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.3390/cancers15030918.

[22] T. Żołek, A. Mazurek, and I. P. Grudzinski, “In Silico Studies of Novel Vemurafenib Derivatives as BRAF Kinase Inhibitors,” Molecules, vol. 28, no. 13, p. 5273, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.3390/molecules28135273.

[23] A. K. Singh et al., “Challenges and Opportunities in the Crusade of BRAF Inhibitors: From 2002 to 2022,” ACS Omega, vol. 8, no. 31, pp. 27819–27844, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1021/acsomega.3c00332.

[24] C. A. Lipinski, F. Lombardo, B. W. Dominy, and P. J. Feeney, “Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings 1PII of original article: S0169-409X(96)00423-1. The article was originally published in Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 23 (1997),” Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev., vol. 46, no. 1–3, pp. 3–26, Mar. 2001, doi: 10.1016/S0169-409X(00)00129-0.

[25] J. I. Vandenberg, M. D. Perry, M. J. Perrin, S. A. Mann, Y. Ke, and A. P. Hill, “hERG K(+) channels: structure, function, and clinical significance.,” Physiol. Rev., vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 1393–1478, 2012, doi: 10.1152/physrev.00036.2011.

[26] J. Zhang et al., “Computational toxicology in drug discovery: applications of artificial intelligence in ADMET and toxicity prediction,” Brief. Bioinform., vol. 26, no. 5, 2025, doi: 10.1093/bib/bbaf533.

[27] L. Fu et al., “ADMETlab 3.0: an updated comprehensive online ADMET prediction platform enhanced with broader coverage, improved performance, API functionality and decision support,” Nucleic Acids Res., vol. 52, no. W1, pp. W422–W431, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1093/nar/gkae236.

[28] A. Rutz et al., “The LOTUS initiative for open knowledge management in natural products research,” Elife, vol. 11, pp. 1–41, May 2022, doi: 10.7554/eLife.70780.

[29] J. B. Baell and G. A. Holloway, “New substructure filters for removal of pan assay interference compounds (PAINS) from screening libraries and for their exclusion in bioassays,” J. Med. Chem., vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 2719–2740, 2010, doi: 10.1021/jm901137j.