1. Introduction
The use of plants for medicinal purposes has indeed been a practice dating back to ancient civilizations. Plants contain a myriad of bioactive compounds that have been utilized by humans for treating various ailments and promoting health. With the emergence of pharmaceutical chemistry in the 19th century, the exploration of plant-derived substances for drug development intensified [
1,
2].
One notable example of a plant with medicinal properties is white willow (Salix alba L.), a member of the genus Salix and the family Salicaceae. Willows are a diverse group of plants, ranging from small shrubs to towering trees, with white willow typically falling on the smaller end of the spectrum. White willow, also known as salicin willow, has a long history of use for its health benefits, spanning thousands of years.
Salicaceae, commonly known as the Willow and Poplar family, has undergone taxonomic revisions to encompass additional genera beyond its traditional members,
Populus (poplar) and
Salix (willow). While traditionally limited to Northern temperate regions and characterized by the presence of catkins, the family now includes many tropical members from the Flacourtiaceae family, which do not produce catkins[
3,
4].
This expansion has increased the family’s diversity to approximately 56 genera and 1,220 species, as of 2016.
Members of the Salicaceae family are renowned for their rapid growth, with many species being trees or shrubs. They hold significant economic value due to their versatility:
Salicaceae species are cultivated for their wood, which is used in various applications such as construction, furniture making, and woodworking.
The fast-growing nature of these trees makes them suitable for paper production, contributing to the pulp and paper industry.
The flexible twigs of willow species are utilized in crafts such as basket weaving, caning, and manufacturing woven fences and lattices.
Historically, Salicaceae species have been employed for making items like fences, snowshoes, arrow shafts, fish traps, whistles, nets, and rope.
They serve as a source of renewable energy, providing biomass fuel for heating and power generation.
Many Salicaceae species are cultivated for their aesthetic appeal in gardens and landscapes.
These plants play a role in environmental enhancement by aiding in soil erosion control. Their extensive root systems help stabilize soil in areas prone to erosion, making them valuable for land reclamation and restoration projects.
The active compound in white willow, salicin, has been recognized for its anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties. It is chemically similar to aspirin and serves as a precursor to the synthesis of acetylsalicylic acid, the active ingredient in aspirin. Due to its ability to alleviate pain and reduce inflammation, white willow has been traditionally employed to treat conditions such as headaches, muscle pain, and arthritis.
Research conducted on white willow has provided insights into its pharmacological effects and potential therapeutic applications. Studies have suggested its efficacy in managing various forms of pain and inflammation, often with fewer side effects compared to synthetic alternatives.
Overall, white willow exemplifies the rich tradition of utilizing plant-derived remedies for healing purposes, demonstrating the ongoing relevance of natural products in modern healthcare practices[
5,
6].
White willow (Salix alba) indeed has a rich history of medicinal use dating back thousands of years, as you’ve outlined. The use of its bark, containing salicin, for pain relief and inflammation management was widespread across various ancient civilizations, indicating its efficacy and value in traditional medicine.
The mention of Hippocrates recommending chewing willow bark and using willow leaves for childbirth pain demonstrates the recognition of its analgesic properties since ancient times. Furthermore, its use in treating a variety of ailments such as rheumatic pain, back pain, toothache, menstrual cramps, sore throat, fever, and headache highlights its versatility in addressing different types of pain and inflammatory conditions.
Modern research has also validated many of these traditional uses of white willow bark. It’s recognized for its anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects, attributed mainly to salicin’s conversion to salicylic acid in the body, which shares pharmacological similarities with aspirin.
However, it’s essential to note that while white willow bark can offer relief for various conditions, it may not be suitable for everyone, particularly those with certain medical conditions or allergies. As with any herbal remedy, it’s advisable to consult with a healthcare professional before use, especially if you’re pregnant, nursing, or taking other medications [
7,
8].
The study conducted aimed to explore various aspects of willow bark’s medicinal properties. Specifically, they investigated the antimicrobial activity of ethanol extract from Salix alba (white willow) bark.
The antimicrobial activity assessment likely involved testing the extract against various microorganisms to determine its effectiveness in inhibiting their growth. This is particularly relevant given the historical use of willow bark in traditional medicine for treating infections.
Additionally, determining the total phenolic content and antioxidant activity provides insights into the extract’s chemical composition and potential health benefits. Phenolic compounds are known for their antioxidant properties, which play a crucial role in protecting cells from oxidative damage and reducing the risk of various diseases.
Overall, this study aimed to contribute to the understanding of the medicinal properties of willow bark extract, particularly in terms of its antimicrobial and antioxidant activities. Such research is essential for validating its traditional use and exploring its potential applications in modern medicine[
6].
4. Discussion
After the specific incubation period of 72 hours at 35°C, the results were analyzed. Bacterial development and the inhibition zone of the test extract were observed on the culture medium plates. The willow plant extract analyzed showed moderate antimicrobial activity and had an inhibition zone diameter of 17 mm for
Escherichia coli ATCC 8739 and 15.5 mm for
Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538, as illustrated in
Figure 12.
Regarding the antibacterial effect, the results obtained in this study are supported by the data presented in the specialized literature.
Some researches [
58] tested the antimicrobial effect of bioproducts obtained from the bark of
Salix sp. by extractions assisted by ultrasound, made with (alcohol + ethyl acetate). The results obtained by them showed that the bioproducts obtained exhibit antimicrobial effects against
S. aureus,
B. cereus,
B. megatherium,
S. fexeneri,
B. anthracis,
P. aeruginosa,
S. boydi and
E. coli, which obtain inhibition diameters located between (10-11) mm.
Other researchers [
59] in the tests carried out with extracts obtained from the bark of
Salix alba, report antimicrobial effects for
E. coli,
S. aureus and
L. monocytes, for which they obtain the inhibition diameters situated between (0.5-3.08) mm.
Another researchers [
60,
61] in the investigations carried out with the crude bioproducts obtained from the bark of
Salix sp. by extraction with a mixture of methanol:water:acetic acid, have reported that these contain catechin, hydroxybenzoic acid, naringenin, piceol, quercitin, salicylic acid and their derivatives.
The tests carried out with these crude extracts reveal that they inhibit the development of
S. aureus (the CFU number is reduced from 108 to 102 in the range of the brut extract concentrations situated between (625-2500) µg/mL [
60].
If the extraction is carried out in n-hexane, ethyl acetate or methanol, the resulting crude extracts inhibit the development of E. coli for which inhibited diameters between 7.8-11.7 mm are obtained) and S. aureus (the inhibition diameters obtained were situated between 7.2 and 14.5 mm). In the case of bioproducts obtained by extraction in an aqueous medi-um, the scientific literature reports antimicrobial effects for E. coli (inhibition diameter = 13 mm) and S. aureus (MIC = 0.38 mg/mL) [
62,
63].
In the tests carried out by some researchers [
64] on aqueous extracts obtained from 6 species of Salix sp., an antimicrobial effect was put into evidence for S. aureus (MIC= 0.6-0.8) mg/mL. The following compounds were identified in the aqueous extracts obtained sug-ars (glucose, fructose, sucrose), salicin, picein and catechin [
64].
In 2023, other studies [
65,
66] have reported strong antimicrobial effects for S. aureus and S. aureus MRSA [
65], as well for C. albicans [
57]. If the extractions from the bark of Salix alba is assisted by ultra-sound or microwaves, the brut extracts obtained have antibacterial effects for P. aeruginosa as well (inhibition diameters obtained = 8-19 mm).
Regarding the docking simulations results obtained for Escherichia coli, as show in
Figure 13 and
Figure 14 and
Table 1, using CLC software, the docking score for salicin is close to novo-biocin, suggesting strong interactions, as depicted by the formed hydrogen bonds among with ASP 1069 common amino acid residue. Although with a slightly lower score, salicin forms more hydrogen bonds, 10 compared to novobiocin which forms 6, suggesting a bet-ter complexation. The same situation is observed when performing studies on 1S14 re-ceptor fragment, using Molegro software, as given in
Table 2. The score obtained for sali-cin is comparable with novobiocin (- 98.29 versus -100.89), but more interactions given by salicin. Accordingly, a strong antimicrobial effect of salicin against Escherichia coli can be expected.
Concerning the interactions occurring in complex with Staphylococcus aureus DNA gyrase, with both software, CLC and Molegro, respectively, as shown in
Table 3 and its corresponding pictures (
Figure 16 and
Figure 17, respectively), and
Table 4, in accordance with
Figure 18 and
Figure 19, respectively, very strong interactions are observed, both for salicin, and for ciprofloxacin. Additionally, ciprofloxacin shows steric interactions with Mn co-factor and steric interactions with SER1084 and ARG458, on chain B. As expected, the docking score for ciprofloxacin is greater in both cases, showing a stronger effect against Staphylococcus aureus than salicin. The magnitude of the docking score obtained for salicin, leads us to think that it could be used as an antimicrobial agent for less severe infections, with good therapeutic outcomes.
The results of docking simulations for Candida albicans, show lower docking score for salicin than for the native ligand, thus suggesting a weaker affinity of salicin and conse-quently, poor antimicrobial activity against this patogen.
Figure 1.
Structures of reported flavonoids from the genus Salix.
Figure 1.
Structures of reported flavonoids from the genus Salix.
Figure 2.
Structures of reported phenolic glycosides from genus Salix.
Figure 2.
Structures of reported phenolic glycosides from genus Salix.
Figure 9.
Conversion of Salicin→Saligenin→Salicylic Acid [
52].
Figure 9.
Conversion of Salicin→Saligenin→Salicylic Acid [
52].
Figure 13.
Hydrogen bonds between salicin co-crystallized ligand (novobiocin) receptor,amino acids residues from 1S14 receptor,obtained using CLC software.
Figure 13.
Hydrogen bonds between salicin co-crystallized ligand (novobiocin) receptor,amino acids residues from 1S14 receptor,obtained using CLC software.
Figure 14.
Hydrogen bonds between and amino acids residues from 1S14 obtained using CLC software.
Figure 14.
Hydrogen bonds between and amino acids residues from 1S14 obtained using CLC software.
Figure 15.
Hydrogen bonds between co-crystallized ligand (Novobiocin). and amino acids residues from 1S14 receptor, obtained with Molegro software.
Figure 15.
Hydrogen bonds between co-crystallized ligand (Novobiocin). and amino acids residues from 1S14 receptor, obtained with Molegro software.
Figure 16.
Hydrogen bonds between co-crystallized ligand (ciprofloxacin) and amino acids residues from 2XCT receptor.
Figure 16.
Hydrogen bonds between co-crystallized ligand (ciprofloxacin) and amino acids residues from 2XCT receptor.
Figure 17.
Hydrogen bonds between salicin and amino acids residues from 2XCT receptor.
Figure 17.
Hydrogen bonds between salicin and amino acids residues from 2XCT receptor.
Figure 18.
Hydrogen bonds between co-crystallized ligand (Ciprofloxacin) and amino acids residues from 2XCT receptor.
Figure 18.
Hydrogen bonds between co-crystallized ligand (Ciprofloxacin) and amino acids residues from 2XCT receptor.
Figure 19.
Hydrogen bonds between salicin and amino acids residues from 2XCT receptor.
Figure 19.
Hydrogen bonds between salicin and amino acids residues from 2XCT receptor.
Figure 20.
Hydrogen bonds between co-crystallized ligand (NDP) and amino acids residues from 1AI9 receptor.
Figure 20.
Hydrogen bonds between co-crystallized ligand (NDP) and amino acids residues from 1AI9 receptor.
Figure 21.
Hydrogen bonds between salicin and amino acids residues from 1AI9 receptor.
Figure 21.
Hydrogen bonds between salicin and amino acids residues from 1AI9 receptor.
Figure 22.
Hydrogen bonds between co-crystallized ligand (NDP) and amino acids residues from 1AI9 receptor.
Figure 22.
Hydrogen bonds between co-crystallized ligand (NDP) and amino acids residues from 1AI9 receptor.
Figure 23.
Hydrogen bonds between salicin and amino acids residues from 1AI9 receptor.
Figure 23.
Hydrogen bonds between salicin and amino acids residues from 1AI9 receptor.
Table 1.
The list of intermolecular interactions between the ligand molecules docked with 1S14 (CLC software).
Table 1.
The list of intermolecular interactions between the ligand molecules docked with 1S14 (CLC software).
Ligand |
Score |
RMSD (Å) |
Amino acids group interaction |
Hydrogen bond |
Bond Length (Å) |
NOV |
-51.89 |
0.77 |
ASP 1077, ARG 1132, PRO 1075, ALA 1086, MET 1074, ARG 1072, GLY 1073, THR 1163, ILE 1090, ASP 1069, GLY 1071, GLU 1046, ASN 1042, SER 1043, ASP 1045 |
O sp3 (O3) – O sp2 ASP 1077 O sp3 (O3) – O sp2 ASP 1077 O sp3 (O11) – N sp2 ARG 1132 O sp3 (O11) – N sp2 ARG 1132 N sp3(N1) – O sp2 ASP 1069 O sp3 (O6) – O sp2 ASN 1042 |
3.122 2.686 3.152 3.106 2.645 2.730 |
Salicin |
-49.75 |
0.06 |
LEU 1091, ILE 1090, VAL 1039, VAL 1067, ASN 1042, VAL 1165, SER 1043, SER 1164, ASP 1069, GLU 1046, THR 1163, MET 1074, GLY 1162, GLY 1071, GLY 1073, ARG 1072, PRO 1075, ARG 1132. |
O sp3 (O7) – O sp3 SER 1043 O sp3 (O7) – N sp2 SER 1043 O sp3 (O7) – O sp2 ASP 1069 O sp3 (O5) – O sp2 ASP 1069 O sp3 (O5) – O sp2 ASP 1069 O sp3 (O5) – O sp3 THR 1163 O sp3 (O3) – O sp2 GLU 1046 O sp3 (O3) – N sp2 ARG 1072 O sp3 (O3) – N sp2 GLY 1073 O sp3 (O4) – O sp2 GLY 1073 |
2.678 3.200 3.100 2.824 3.286 2.656 2.660 2.950 2.780 3.044 |
Table 2.
The list of intermolecular interactions between the ligand molecules docked with 1S14 (Molegro software).
Table 2.
The list of intermolecular interactions between the ligand molecules docked with 1S14 (Molegro software).
Ligand |
Score |
Group interaction |
Hydrogen bond |
Bond Length, (Å) |
Steric interactions |
Distance (Å) |
NOV |
-100.89
|
ALA 1086, ARG 1072, ARG 1132, ASN 1042, ASP 1045, ASP 1069, ASP 1077, GLU 1046, GLY 1073, ILE 1090, MET 1074, PRO 1075, SER 1043, THR1163 |
O sp3 (O1) – O sp2 ASN 1042 N sp2(N1) – O sp2 ASP 1069 O sp3 (O3) – O sp3 ASP 1077 O sp3 (O11) – N sp2 ARG 1132 O sp2 (O11) – N sp2 ARG 1132 |
2.729 2.645 2.685 3.105 3.152 |
C sp2 (C18) – N sp2 ARG 1077 C sp2 (C8) – N sp2 ARG 1072
|
3.17 3.16
|
Salicin
|
-98.29
|
ARG 1072, ARG 1132, ASN 1042, ASP 1069, GLU 1046, GLY 1071, GLY 1073, GLY 1162, ILE 1090, MET 1074, PRO 1075, SER 1043, THR 1163, VAL 1039, VAL 1067, VAL 1165 |
O sp3 (O7) – O sp2 VAL 1039 O sp3 (O7) – O sp3 SER 1043 O sp3 (O5) – O sp2 ASP 1069 O sp3 (O5) – O sp3 THR 1063 O sp3 (O3) – N sp2 GLY 1073 O sp3 (O3) - N sp2 ARG 1072 O sp3 (O3) - O sp2 GLU 1046 O sp3 (O3) - O sp2 GLY 1073 |
2.735 2.818 2.835 2.601 2.743 2.942 2.617 3.082 |
C sp3 (C12) – C sp3 MET 1074 O sp3 (O5) – C sp3 THR 1163 O sp3 (O3) – C sp3 GLU 1046 O sp3 (O3) – C sp2 GLU 1046
|
3.150 2.933 3.063 2.903 |
Table 3.
The list of intermolecular interactions between the ligand molecules docked with 2XCT (CLC software).
Table 3.
The list of intermolecular interactions between the ligand molecules docked with 2XCT (CLC software).
Ligand |
Score |
RMSD |
Group interaction |
Hydrogen bond |
Bond Length (Å) |
CPF |
-80.60 |
0.67 |
ASP 437, SER 1085, SER 1084, GLY 1082, GLY 459, LYS 460, ARG 458, GLU 477, DA 13:H, DC 12:H |
O sp2 (O1) – O sp3 SER 1084:B O sp2 (O2) – O sp3 SER 1084:B |
2.489 2.604 |
Salcin |
-64.52 |
0.44 |
ASP 437, SER 1084, GLY 459, DT 10:G, DG 9:G, DT 8:E, DG 7:E, DA 13:H, DC 12>H |
O sp3 (O7) – O sp2 DT 8:E O sp3 (O7) – N sp2 DA 13:H O sp3 (O5) – O sp3 DG 9:G O sp3 (O4) – O sp3 DG 9:G O sp3 (O4) – O sp2 DC 12:H O sp3 (O3) – O sp3 DA 13:H |
2.881 3.016 2.844 3.069 3.006 3.070 |
Table 4.
The list of intermolecular interactions between the ligand molecules docked with 2XCT (MOLEGRO).
Table 4.
The list of intermolecular interactions between the ligand molecules docked with 2XCT (MOLEGRO).
Ligand |
Mol Dock Score |
Molecule Contributions |
Hydrogen bond |
Bond Length (Å) |
Electrostatic interactions / Steric interactions |
Distance (Å) |
CPF |
-121.47 |
ARG 458:B, ASP 512:B, ASP 1083:B, GLU 1088:B, GLY 459:B, GLY 1082:B, LYS 417:B, LYS 460:B, LYS 1043:B, SER 1084:B, ARG 1122:D, LYS 1066:D, *DA…DA:G, **DT. DA:H. |
O sp2 (O1) – O sp3 SER 1084:B
|
2.489 |
Electrostatic interactions O sp2 (O1) – Mn O sp2 (O2) – Mn |
2.089 4.409 |
Steric interactions O sp2 (O2) – C sp3 from SER 1084:B C sp2 (C3) – O sp3 from SER 1084:B C sp3 (C16) – C sp3 from ARG 458:B |
3.024 2.932 3.152 |
Salicin |
-94.21 |
ARG 458:B, ASN 476:B, ASP 437:B, GLU 477:B, GLY 459:B, *DA…DA:G, **DT. DA:H. |
O sp3 (O7) – O sp3 ASP 437:B O sp3 (O7) – O sp2 ASP 437:B O sp3 (O7) – O sp3 *DA…DA:G O sp3 (O5) – N sp2 *DA…DA:G O sp3 (O5) – O sp3 **DT. DA:H O sp3 (O3) – O sp2 ARG 458:B O sp3 (O6) – O sp2 GLU 477:B O sp3 (O6) – O sp3 **DT. DA:H O sp3 (O6) – N sp2 **DT. DA:H |
3.190 2.996 3.226 2.460 2.950 3.094 3.168 3.052 3.429 |
C sp3 (C9) – N sp2 ARG 458:B C sp3 (C13) – O sp2 GLU 477:B |
2.695 3.219 |
Table 5.
The list of intermolecular interactions between the compounds docked with 1AI9 (CLC software).
Table 5.
The list of intermolecular interactions between the compounds docked with 1AI9 (CLC software).
Ligand |
Score |
RMSD (Å) |
Group interaction |
Hydrogen Bond |
Bond Length (Å) |
Co-crystallized NDP |
-79.35 |
2.86 |
LEU 121, GLU 120, SER 95, TYR 118, GLU 116, ILE 117, SER 94, ARG 79, ILE 9, ALA 93, VAL 10, SER 78, LEU 77, ILE 112, GLY 113, MET 54, ALA 11, GLY 114, ILE 19, THR 147, GLY 20, TYR 21, PHE 36, ARG 56, LYS 57, THR 58, MET 25, GLY 23, PRO 26, LYS 24 |
N sp2 (N7N) – O sp2 ILE 112 O sp3 (O2D) – O sp2 ILE 19 O sp3 (O4D) – N sp2 ALA 115 O sp3 (O5D) – N sp2 ALA 115 O sp2 (O2N) – O sp3 THR 58 O sp2 (O2N – N sp2 THR 58 O sp2 (O2A) – N sp2 ALA 115 O sp2 (O2A) – N sp2 GLU 116 O sp3 (O3B) – O sp2 GLU 116 O sp3 (O3B) – N sp3 LYS 57 O sp2 (O2X) – N sp3 LYS 57 O sp2 (O2X) – N sp2 ARG 56 O sp2 (O1X) – N sp2 ARG 79 O sp2 (O3X) – N sp2 ARG 79 O sp2 (O3X) – N sp2 ARG 79 N sp2 (N3A) – N sp2 SER 78 |
3.069 2.649 3.335 3.394 2.977 3.194 3.111 2.733 2.892 2.924 2.772 2.365 2.698 2,984 3.061 3.286 |
Salicin |
-57.52 |
0.26 |
SER 89, ARG 79, GLU 120, LEU 121, ILE 96, GLU 116, SER 95, SER 94, SER 78, SER 80, LEU 77, GLY 55, ALA 93, ARG 56, LYS 57, THR 58, MET 54 |
O sp3 (O7) - O sp3 GLU 116 O sp3 (O7) – N sp2 ARG 79 O sp3 (O7) – N sp2 ARG 79 O sp3 (O5) – N sp2 ARG 79 O sp3 (O5) – N sp2 ARG 79 O sp3 (O3) – N sp2 ARG 56 O sp3 (O4) – N sp2 ARG 56 O sp3 (O4) – N sp3 LYS 57 O sp3 (O4) – N sp2 LYS 57 O sp3 (O6) – N sp2 LYS 57 O sp3 (O6) – N sp2 ARG 56 O sp3 (O2) – N sp2 ARG 79 O sp3 (O2) – N sp2 ARG 79 O sp3 (O2) – N sp2 ARG 79 |
3.096 3.157 3.045 2.642 2.727 2.608 3.246 3.295 3.123 2.875 3.116 3.174 3.066 3.145 |
Table 6.
The list of docking interactions between the ligand molecules and 1AI9 using MOLEGRO VIRTUAL DOCKER Software.
Table 6.
The list of docking interactions between the ligand molecules and 1AI9 using MOLEGRO VIRTUAL DOCKER Software.
Ligand |
Mol Dock Score |
Molecule contributions |
Hydrogen bond |
Bond Length (Å) |
Electrostatic interactions / Steric interactions |
Distance (Å) |
Co-crystallized NDP |
-155.24 |
ALA 11, ALA 12, ALA 93, ALA 115, ARG 49, ARG 56, ARG 67, ARG 72, ARG 79, ARG 191, ASP 87, ASP 146, GLU 32, GLU 60, GLU 82, GLU 84, GLU 97, GLU 116, GLU 120, GLY 20, GLY 23, GLY 55, GLY 113, GLY 114, HIS 92, ILE 19, ILE 112, ILE 117, LEU 77, LEU 121, LYS 3, LYS 14, LYS 22, LYS 24, LYS 31, LYS 37, LYS 45, LYS 57, LYS 65, LYS 150, LYS 158, LYS 178, LYS 192, MET 25, SER 78, SER 80, SER 94, SER 95, THR 58, THR 147, TRP 27, TYR 21, TYR 118, VAL 10 |
N sp2 (N7N) – O sp2 ILE 19 N sp2 (N7N) – O sp2 ALA 11 O sp3 (O7N) – N sp2 ALA 11 O sp3 (O7N) – N sp2 ALA 11 O sp3 (O4D) – N sp2 ALA 115 O sp3 (O5D) – N sp2 ALA 115 O sp2 (O2A) – N sp2 GLY 114 O sp2 (O2A) – O sp3 THR 58 O sp2 (O2A) – N sp2 THR 58 O sp2 (O2N) – N sp2 GLU 116 O sp2 (O1A) – N sp2 GLU 116 O sp2 (O1A) – N sp2 ILE 117 O sp3 (O3B) – N sp3 LYS 57 O sp2 (O2X) – N sp2 ARG 56 O sp2 (O1X) – N sp2 ARG 56 O sp2 (O1X) – O sp3 SER 78 O sp2 (O3X) – N sp2 ARG 79 O sp2 (O3X) – N sp2 ARG 79 |
3.204 2.887 3.093 3.514 3.437 2.930 2.813 2.565 3.218 3.109 3.405 3.302 2.585 3.199 2.893 2.455 2.757 2.545 |
Electrostatic interactions O sp2 (O2X) – N sp2 ARG 79 O sp2 (O2X) – N sp2 ARG 56 O sp3 (O2X) – N sp3 LYS 57 O sp2 (O1X) – N sp2 ARG 79 O sp2 (O1X) – N sp2 ARG 79 O sp2 (O3X) – N sp2 ARG 56 |
3.716 3.199 4.399 2.545 4.247 3.681 |
Steric interactions O sp2 (O1A) – N sp2 GLY 114 O sp2 (O2A) – C sp3 GLY 114 O sp2 (O1X) – C sp3 SER 78 |
3.109 3.181 3.153
|
Salicin |
- 94.82 |
ARG 56, ARG 79, GLU 116, GLU 120, GLY 55, ILE 117, LEU 77, LEU 121, LYS 57, SER 78, SER 94, SER 95 |
O sp3 (O7) - O sp3 GLU 116 O sp3 (O7) – N sp2 ARG 79 O sp3 (O7) – N sp2 ARG 79 O sp3 (O5) – N sp2 ARG 79 O sp3 (O5) – N sp2 ARG 79 O sp3 (O3) – N sp2 ARG 56 O sp3 (O4) – N sp2 ARG 56 O sp3 (O4) – N sp2 LYS 57 O sp3 (O4) – O sp2 GLU 116 |
2.810 3.000 3.052 2.961 2.909 3.318 2.855 2.798 3.110 |
O sp3 (O4) – C sp3 LYS 57 |
2.939 |
Table 7.
Calculated properties of salicin.
Table 7.
Calculated properties of salicin.
Compounds |
Atoms |
Weight [Daltons] |
Flexible bonds |
Lipinski violations |
Hydrogen donors |
Hydrogen acceptors |
Log P |
Salicin |
38 |
286.28 |
4 |
0 |
5 |
7 |
1.68 |