In Silico Repurposing of Fluoxetine: Targeting the MvfR Protein of Pseudomonas aeruginosa
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32350/bsr.82.04Keywords:
Repurposing, antimicrobialresistance, MvfR (Multi Virulence factor Regulator) inhibitor, Antimicrobial resistanceAbstract
Fluoxetine is mainly used as a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. However, studies have shown that it may also have antimicrobial properties and antivirulence effects. This study utilized an in-silico repurposing and drug repositioning methodology on fluoxetine (an antidepressant drug) against Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. The goal was to focus on a protein called MvfR/PqsR. This MvfR/PqsR protein is important, for controlling how bad a germ is and how it forms a group of germs that stick together. To find some compounds that can work with this MvfR/PqsR protein we used computers to test a lot of different things. We also used computers to see how a medicine called fluoxetine interacts with the MvfR/PqsR protein. Then we made some versions of fluoxetine that are similar but a little different to see if they can work better with the MvfR/PqsR protein. These derivatives were then checked using docking analysis and ADMET profiling. The assessment included how well they bind, their pharmacokinetics and safety details. Lab experiments were also done to confirm the results. These tests looked at the activity and biofilm inhibition of fluoxetine against Mvfr protein. Fluoxetine showed a binding affinity with the MvfR receptor at -8.4 kcal/mol. The antibacterial activity was confirmed through experiments. The minimum amount needed to inhibit growth was 0.5 mg/mL. A significant decrease in biofilm biomass was seen at p = 0.005. This shows a reduction in biofilm. Some derivatives showed binding interactions. They also had ADMET profiles compared to the original compound. The research suggests that fluoxetine could work as an antivirulence agent against Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections by targeting MvfR. The findings support using existing drugs for purposes as a good way to find antimicrobials. However more experiments and, in studies are needed to confirm the therapeutic importance. More work is required to understand the potential of fluoxetine and its derivatives. The results are promising, further research is necessary.
Downloads
References
1. Lyu J, Chen H, Bao J, et al. Clinical distribution and drug resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Guangzhou, China from 2017 to 2021. J Clin Med. 2023;12(3):e1189. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12031189
2. Chen YT, Yang KX, Dai ZY, et al. Repressed central carbon metabolism and its effect on related metabolic pathways in cefoperazone/sulbactam-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:e847634. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.847634
3. Mukherjee S, Bassler BL. Bacterial quorum sensing in complex and dynamically changing environments. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2019;17(6):371-382. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-019-0186-5
4. Al-Wrafy F, Brzozowska E, Górska S, Gamian A. Pathogenic factors of Pseudomonas aeruginosa—the role of biofilm in pathogenicity and as a target for phage therapy. Adv Hyg Exp Med. 2017;71:78-91. https://doi.org/10. 5604/01.3001.0010.3792
5. Elfadadny A, Ragab RF, AlHarbi M, et al. Antimicrobial resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: navigating clinical impacts, current resistance trends, and innovations in breaking therapies. Front Microbiol. 2024;15:e1374466. https://doi.org/10. 3389/fmicb.2024.1374466
6. Li XY, Liu XG, Dong ZL, et al. The distribution, drug susceptibility, and dynamic trends of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in a tertiary hospital in China during 2016–2022. Infect Drug Resist. 2023;16:3525-3533. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR. S408956
7. Pang Z, Raudonis R, Glick BR, Lin TJ, Cheng Z. Antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: mechanisms and alternative therapeutic strategies. Biotechnol Adv. 2019;37(1):177-192. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2018.11.013
8. Donlan RM. Biofilms: microbial life on surfaces. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8(9):881-890. https://doi.org/ 10.3201/eid0809.020063
9. Kunwar A, Shrestha P, Shrestha S, Thapa S, Shrestha S, Amatya NM. Detection of biofilm formation among Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from burn patients. Burns Open. 2021;5(3):125-129. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.burnso.2021.04.001
10. Rollet C, Gal L, Guzzo J. Biofilm-detached cells, a transition from a sessile to a planktonic phenotype: a comparative study of adhesion and physiological characteristics in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2009;290(2):135-142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2008.01423.x
11. Crespo A, Blanco-Cabra N, Torrents E. Aerobic vitamin B12 biosynthesis is essential for Pseudomonas aeruginosa class II ribonucleotide reductase activity during planktonic and biofilm growth. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:e986. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.00986
12. Ghafoor A, Hay ID, Rehm BHA. Role of exopolysaccharides in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm formation and architecture. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77(15):5238-5246. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM. 00637-11
13. Coughlan LM, Cotter PD, Hill C, Alvarez-Ordóñez A. New weapons to fight old enemies: novel strategies for the (bio)control of bacterial biofilms in the food industry. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:e1641. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fmicb.2016.01641
14. Yan S, Wu G. Can biofilm be reversed through quorum sensing in Pseudomonas aeruginosa? Front Microbiol. 2019;10:e1582. https://doi. org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01582
15. Mukherjee S, Jemielita M, Stergioula V, Tikhonov M, Bassler BL. Photosensing and quorum sensing are integrated to control Pseudomonas aeruginosa collective behaviors. PLoS Biol. 2019;17(12):e3000579. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000579
16. Ramatla T, Nkhebenyane J, Lekota KE, et al. Global prevalence and antibiotic resistance profiles of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa reported from 2014 to 2024: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Microbiol. 2025;16:e1599070.
17. D’Costa VM, King CE, Kalan L, et al. Antibiotic resistance is ancient. Nature. 2011;477(7365):457-461. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10388
18. Gaze WH, Krone SM, Larsson DGJ, et al. Influence of humans on evolution and mobilization of environmental antibiotic resistome. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013;19(7):e120871. https://doi.org/ 10.3201/eid1907.120871
19. Vieira TF, Magalhães RP, Cerqueira NM, Simões M, Sousa SF. Targeting Pseudomonas aeruginosa MvfR in the battle against biofilm formation: a multi-level computational approach. Mol Syst Des Eng. 2022;7(10):1294-1306. https://doi.org/10.1039/ D2ME00088A
20. Allegretta G, Maurer CK, Eberhard J, et al. In-depth profiling of MvfR-regulated small molecules in Pseudomonas aeruginosa after quorum sensing inhibitor treatment. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:e924. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00924
21. Li H, Maimaitiming M, Zhou Y, et al. Discovery of marine natural products as promising antibiotics against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Mar Drugs. 2022;20(3):e192. https://doi.org/10.3390/md20030192
22. Sadiq S, Rana NF, Zahid MA, et al. Virtual screening of FDA-approved drugs against LasR of Pseudomonas aeruginosa for antibiofilm potential. Molecules. 2020;25(16):e3723. https:// doi.org/10.3390/molecules25163723
23. Yang J, Guo K, Ren X, et al. Integrative multi-omics approach for drug repositioning in Alzheimer disease. Precis Med. 2025:e100050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prmedi.2025.100050
24. Barbarossa A, Rosato A, Corbo F, et al. Non-antibiotic drug repositioning as an alternative antimicrobial approach. Antibiotics. 2022;11(6):e816. https:// doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11060816
25. Jayaraman P, Sakharkar MK, Lim CS, Tang TH, Sakharkar KR. Activity and interactions of antibiotic and phytochemical combinations against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in vitro. Int J Biol Sci. 2010;6(6):556-568. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.6.556
26. Das IJ, Bhatta K, Sarangi I, Samal HB. Innovative computational approaches in drug discovery and design. In: Adv Pharmacol. Elsevier; 2025:1-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.apha.2025.01.006
27. Khan MA, Masood A, Ali K, Farid N, Bashir A, Dar MS. Green synthesis of silver, starch, and zinc oxide mediated nanoparticles with probiotics and plant extracts, their characterization and antibacterial activity. Microb Pathog. 2024;196:e107012. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.micpath.2024.107012
28. Karkuzhali K, Manivannan N, Venkatesan S. Antimicrobial activity of crude metabolites of Vitis vinifera using methanol extract against clinical pathogens. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2024;16(Suppl 2):S1186-S1190. https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_521_23
29. Chadha J, Mudgil U, Khullar L, Ahuja P, Harjai K. Revitalizing common drugs for antibacterial, quorum quenching, and antivirulence potential against Pseudomonas aeruginosa: in vitro and in silico insights. 3 Biotech. 2024;14(10):e219. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s13205-024-04070-y
30. Daina A, Michielin O, Zoete V. SwissADME: a free web tool to evaluate pharmacokinetics, drug-likeness and medicinal chemistry friendliness of small molecules. Sci Rep. 2017;7:e42717. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/srep42717
31. Pires DE, Blundell TL, Ascher DB. pkCSM: predicting small-molecule pharmacokinetic and toxicity properties using graph-based signatures. J Med Chem. 2015;58(9):4066-4072. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.5b00104
32. Banerjee P, Kemmler E, Dunkel M, Preissner R. ProTox 3.0: a webserver for the prediction of toxicity of chemicals. Nucleic Acids Res. 2024;52(W1):W513-W520. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkae303
33. LeMoyne R, Mastroianni T, Whiting D, Tomycz N. Application of deep learning to distinguish multiple deep brain stimulation parameter configurations for the treatment of Parkinson disease. In: IEEE. 2020:1106-1111. https://doi.org/10. 1109/ICMLA51294.2020.00178
34. Dick A, Cocklin S. Bioisosteric replacement as a tool in anti-HIV drug design. Pharmaceuticals. 2020;13(3):e36. https://doi.org/10. 3390/ph13030036
35. Wheeler KM, Oh MW, Fusco J, et al. MvfR shapes Pseudomonas aeruginosa interactions in polymicrobial contexts: implications for targeted quorum-sensing inhibition. Cells. 2025;14(10):e744. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells14100744
36. Vieira TF, Magalhães RP, Simões M, Sousa SF. Drug repurposing targeting Pseudomonas aeruginosa MvfR using docking, virtual screening, molecular dynamics, and free-energy calculations. Antibiotics. 2022;11(2):e185. https://doi.org/10. 3390/antibiotics11020185
37. Almihyawi RA, Al-Hasani HM, Jassim TS, Muhseen ZT, Zhang S, Chen G. Molecular insights into binding mode and interactions of structure-based virtually screened inhibitors for Pseudomonas aeruginosa MvfR. Molecules. 2021;26(22):e6811. https://doi.org/10. 3390/molecules26226811
38. Schütz C, Ho DK, Hamed MM, et al. A new PqsR inverse agonist potentiates tobramycin efficacy to eradicate Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Adv Sci. 2021;8(12):e2004369. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/advs.202004369
39. Maura D, Rahme LG. Pharmacological inhibition of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa MvfR quorum-sensing system interferes with biofilm formation and potentiates antibiotic-mediated biofilm disruption. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(12):e01362-17. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01362-17
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mumtaz Zarkhaiz, Affhan Shoaib
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
BSR follows an open-access publishing policy and full text of all published articles is available free, immediately upon publication of an issue. The journal’s contents are published and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) license. Thus, the work submitted to the journal implies that it is original, unpublished work of the authors (neither published previously nor accepted/under consideration for publication elsewhere). On acceptance of a manuscript for publication, a corresponding author on the behalf of all co-authors of the manuscript will sign and submit a completed the Copyright and Author Consent Form.
