A nicotinamide-based derivative was designed as an antiproliferative VEGFR-2 inhibitor with the key pharmacophoric features needed to interact with the VEGFR-2 catalytic pocket. The ability of the designed congener ((E)-N-(4-(1-(2-(4-benzamidobenzoyl)hydrazono)ethyl)phenyl)nicotinamide), compound 10, to bind with the VEGFR-2 enzyme was demonstrated by molecular docking studies. Furthermore, six various MD simulations studies established the excellent binding of compound 10 with VEGFR-2 over 100 ns, exhibiting optimum dynamics. MM-GBSA confirmed the proper binding with a total exact binding energy of −38.36 Kcal/Mol. MM-GBSA studies also revealed the crucial amino acids in the binding through the free binding energy decomposition and declared the interactions variation of compound 10 inside VEGFR-2 via the Protein–Ligand Interaction Profiler (PLIP). Being new, its molecular structure was optimized by DFT. The DFT studies also confirmed the binding mode of compound 10 with the VEGFR-2. ADMET (in silico) profiling indicated the examined compound’s acceptable range of drug-likeness. The designed compound was synthesized through the condensation of N-(4-(hydrazinecarbonyl)phenyl)benzamide with N-(4-acetylphenyl)nicotinamide, where the carbonyl group has been replaced by an imine group. The in-vitro studies were consonant with the obtained in silico results as compound 10 prohibited VEGFR-2 with an IC₅₀ value of 51 nM. Compound 10 also showed antiproliferative effects against MCF-7 and HCT 116 cancer cell lines with IC₅₀ values of 8.25 and 6.48 μM, revealing magnificent selectivity indexes of 12.89 and 16.41, respectively.

Four new nicotinamide-based derivatives were designed as antiangiogenic VEGFR-2 inhibitors. The congeners were synthesized possessing the pharmacophoric essential features to bind correctly with the VEGFR-2 active pocket. All members were evaluated for their cytotoxic and VEGFR-2 inhibitory potentialities. Compound 6 was the most potent showingIC₅₀ values of 9.3 ± 0.02 and 7.8 ± 0.025 µM against HCT-116 and HepG-2 cells, respectively, and IC₅₀ of 60.83 nM regarding VEGFR-2 enzyme inhibition. Compound 6 arrested the growth of HCT-116 cells at the pre-G1 and G2-M phases. Further, it induced both early and late apoptosis. Additionally, compound 6 caused a significant decrease in TNF-α and IL6 by 66.42% and 57.34%, respectively. The considered compounds had similar docking performances to that of sorafenib against the VEGFR-2 (PDB ID: 2OH4). The correct binding of compound 6 with VEGFR-2 was validated using MD simulations, and MM-GPSA calculations.

As a continuation of our earlier work against SARS-CoV-2, seven FDA-approved drugs were designated as the best SARS-CoV-2 nsp16-nsp10 2′-o-methyltransferase (2′OMTase) inhibitors through 3009 compounds. The in silico inhibitory potential of the examined compounds against SARS-CoV-2 nsp16-nsp10 2′-o-methyltransferase (PDB ID: (6W4H) was conducted through a multi-step screening approach. At the beginning, molecular fingerprints experiment with SAM (S-Adenosylmethionine), the co-crystallized ligand of the targeted enzyme, unveiled the resemblance of 147 drugs. Then, a structural similarity experiment recommended 26 compounds. Therefore, the 26 compounds were docked against 2′OMTase to reveal the potential inhibitory effect of seven promising compounds (Protirelin, (1187), Calcium folinate (1913), Raltegravir (1995), Regadenoson (2176), Ertapenem (2396), Methylergometrine (2532), and Thiamine pyrophosphate hydrochloride (2612)). Out of the docked ligands, Ertapenem (2396) showed an ideal binding mode like that of the co-crystallized ligand (SAM). It occupied all sub-pockets of the active site and bound the crucial amino acids. Accordingly, some MD simulation experiments (RMSD, RMSF, R_g, SASA, and H-bonding) have been conducted for the 2′OMTase—Ertapenem complex over 100 ns. The performed MD experiments verified the correct binding mode of Ertapenem against 2′OMTase exhibiting low energy and optimal dynamics. Finally, MM-PBSA studies indicated that Ertapenem bonded advantageously to the targeted protein with a free energy value of −43 KJ/mol. Furthermore, the binding free energy analysis revealed the essential amino acids of 2′OMTase that served positively to the binding. The achieved results bring hope to find a treatment for COVID-19 via in vitro and in vivo studies for the pointed compounds.

Proceeding our prior studies of SARS-CoV-2, the inhibitory potential against SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) has been investigated for a collection of 3009 clinical and FDA-approved drugs. A multi-phase in silico approach has been employed in this study. Initially, a molecular fingerprint experiment of Remdesivir (RTP), the co-crystallized ligand of the examined protein, revealed the most similar 150 compounds. Among them, 30 compounds were selected after a structure similarity experiment. Subsequently, the most similar 30 compounds were docked against SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (PDB ID: 7BV2). Aloin 359, Baicalin 456, Cefadroxil 1273, Sophoricoside 1459, Hyperoside 2109, and Vitexin 2286 exhibited the most precise binding modes, as well as the best binding energies. To confirm the obtained results, MD simulations experiments have been conducted for Hyperoside 2109, the natural flavonoid glycoside that exhibited the best docking scores, against RdRp (PDB ID: 7BV2) for 100 ns. The achieved results authenticated the correct binding of 2109, showing low energy and optimum dynamics. Our team presents these outcomes for scientists all over the world to advance in vitro and in vivo examinations against COVID-19 for the promising compounds.

Purpose: This study aimed at describing the experience of academic staff and students with distance education, during the COVID-19 pandemic, at a college of pharmacy in Saudi Arabia. Methods: This study used a mixed-method approach. The first phase implemented a survey that targeted both academic staff and students to evaluate their experiences with distance education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Then, a focus group discussion was conducted to explore, in-depth, their experience. The survey consisted of five domains as follows: readiness for the shift to distance education during the full and partial lockdown, perception towards distance education, barriers against distance education, and the acquisitions due to distance education. A five-point Likert scale was used to assess participants’ responses to the different domains (mean score ± standard deviation). Results: Seventy-eight percent of the academic staff and 65% of the students responded to the survey. Participants’ views were positive for readiness for the shift to distance education during the full lockdown (3.89± 0.42 for academic staff and 3.82± 0.50 for students) with almost similar evaluation for the readiness during the blended learning period (3.91± 0.44 for staff and 3.83± 0.59 for students). The findings showed a generally positive perception towards distance education (3.59± 0.67 for academic staff and 3.47± 0.64 for students). The acquisitions due to distance education were also positive (3.95± 0.72 for academic staff and 3.78± 0.77 for students). Nonetheless, some barriers that affected distance education were raised with an overall neutral view from both academic staff (3.31± 0.72) and students (3.31± 0.64), with different responses for the individual items. Qualitative findings from the focus group discussions explored the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges, with emphasis on the areas for improvement. Conclusion: Although the shift for distance education was out of a sudden, participants showed overall positive views about their experience with distance education and highlighted areas for improvement.