In silico comparison between the mutated and wild type androgen receptors and their influence on the selection of optimum androgenic receptor blocker for treatment of prostate cancer

TL;DR

This study compares mutated and normal androgen receptors in prostate cancer to find better drug blockers using computational methods.

Contribution

The study identifies key binding sites and evaluates drug affinities for mutated and wild-type androgen receptors in prostate cancer treatment.

Findings

Mutated androgen receptor (T877A) shows reduced affinity for testosterone and dihydrotestosterone compared to the wild type.

Second-generation antagonists like Enzalutamide and Apalutamide show minimal affinity changes between wild and mutated receptors.

Flutamide and Nilutamide show increased affinity for the mutated receptor compared to Bicalutamide.

Abstract

Background: Prostate cancer is a disease that occurs in men aged more than 50 years. In Iraq, 8.89 men per 100,000 population suffer from prostate cancer, with the incidence being 14,016 cases and mortality being 6,367 cases. Despite advances in treatment against prostate cancer, it can become resistant to drugs. Therefore, the aim of current study was to search and identify binding sites for the repositioning of drugs by computational methods (docking).

Methods: Based on the protein structure of the wild androgen receptor, the analysis parameters (22x22x22 on the X, Y, and Z axes) were established.

Results: The interactions of the natural ligands with androgen receptor were 10.0 (testosterone) and 10.8 (dihydrotestosterone) while mutated androgen receptor (T877A) had a low affinity with testosterone and dihydrotestosterone (-5.3 and -6.7, respectively). In the interactions of both receptors with the reported inhibitors (antagonists), a decrease with Bicalutamide (-8.3 and -4.3, respectively) and an increase in affinity with Flutamide and Nilutamide (-7.7 and 8.6, wild AR; -8.7 and -9.3 AR T877A) were observed. As for Enzalutamide and Apalutamide (second-generation antagonists), the change was minimal between wild androgen receptor and T877A (-7.6 and -7.7; -7.3 and -7.3, respectively). The change in the affinity of the ligands with androgen receptor and androgen receptor T877A shows how a mutation alters the bonds between these molecules.

Conclusion: The identification of key sites and potent inhibitors against abnormal androgen receptor functions will enrich prostate cancer treatments.

Figures