Potential Dual Targeting of EGFR and VEGFR2 by Repurposed Drugs for Cholangiocarcinoma: A Molecular Docking Study

Abstract

Objective: Cholangiocarcinoma is an aggressive hepatobiliary malignancy characterized by high mortality, late-stage diagnosis, and limited systemic treatment options. The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2) signaling pathways play central roles in tumor cell proliferation, survival, and tumor angiogenesis. This study investigated the potential inhibitory interactions of three commonly used non-oncologic drugs, doxycycline, propranolol, and metformin, with EGFR and VEGFR2 using molecular docking analysis, and compared their binding profiles with that of sorafenib, a reference multi-target kinase inhibitor.

Materials and Methods: The crystal structures of EGFR (PDB ID: 1M17) and VEGFR2 (PDB ID: 4ASD) kinase domains were retrieved from the Protein Data Bank and prepared using OpenBabel. Three-dimensional ligand structures were generated from SMILES representations using RDKit, energy-minimized with the MMFF94 force field, and converted to PDBQT format using Meeko. Docking simulations were performed with AutoDock Vina (version 1.2). The docking protocol was validated by multi-pose redocking of the co-crystallized ligands (erlotinib and sorafenib), with the lowest root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) value reported. Ligand-protein interactions were evaluated using an in-house geometric classification algorithm and independently verified using the Receptor-Ligand Interactions module of BIOVIA Discovery Studio Visualizer. Drug-likeness and physicochemical properties were assessed using RDKit according to Lipinski's rule of five.

Results: Docking protocol validation yielded RMSD values of 1.32 Å for EGFR and 0.30 Å for VEGFR2, confirming the reliability of the docking workflow. Among the repurposing candidates, doxycycline exhibited the strongest binding affinity toward both EGFR (-8.82 kcal/mol) and VEGFR2 (-8.17 kcal/mol), with binding energies approaching those of the reference compound sorafenib (EGFR: -9.01 kcal/mol; VEGFR2: -10.54 kcal/mol). Propranolol showed moderate binding affinity, whereas metformin displayed the weakest interactions with both targets. Doxycycline formed conventional hydrogen bonds with the catalytic Asp831 (DFG motif) and hinge-region Thr766 residues of EGFR, and with Asp1046 (DFG motif) and Asp814 residues of VEGFR2. All investigated compounds satisfied Lipinski's rule of five.

Conclusion: These findings highlight doxycycline as a noteworthy in silico dual-target candidate against EGFR and VEGFR2 in cholangiocarcinoma, warranting further experimental evaluation. The validated docking workflow and consistent interaction patterns support this observation; however, these findings remain hypothesis-generating and require confirmation through experimental studies before any biological or therapeutic conclusions can be drawn.

Keywords

• Cholangiocarcinoma
• EGFR
• VEGFR2
• drug repurposing
• molecular docking
• doxycycline
• AutoDock Vina

Kolanjiyokarsinom İçin Yeniden Konumlandırılan İlaçların EGFR ve VEGFR2'yi Potansiyel Çift Hedeflemesi: Bir Moleküler Docking Çalışması

Abstract

Amaç: Kolanjiokarsinom; yüksek mortalite, geç evrede tanı ve sınırlı sistemik tedavi seçenekleriyle karakterize agresif bir hepatobiliyer malignitedir. Epidermal büyüme faktörü reseptörü (EGFR) ve vasküler endotelyal büyüme faktörü reseptörü 2 (VEGFR2) sinyal yolakları, tümör hücre proliferasyonu, sağkalımı ve tümör anjiyogenezinde merkezi rol oynamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, yaygın kullanılan üç onkolojik olmayan ilacın doksisiklin, propranolol ve metformin EGFR ve VEGFR2 ile potansiyel inhibitör etkileşimleri moleküler docking analiziyle araştırılmış ve bağlanma profilleri referans çok-hedefli bir kinaz inhibitörü olan sorafenib ile karşılaştırılmıştır.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: EGFR (PDB ID: 1M17) ve VEGFR2 (PDB ID: 4ASD) kinaz domainlerinin kristal yapıları Protein Veri Bankası’ndan temin edilmiş ve OpenBabel ile hazırlanmıştır. Üç boyutlu ligand yapıları RDKit kullanılarak SMILES gösterimlerinden üretilmiş, MMFF94 kuvvet alanı ile enerjisi minimize edilmiş ve Meeko ile PDBQT formatına dönüştürülmüştür. Docking simülasyonları AutoDock Vina (versiyon 1.2) ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Docking protokolü, ko-kristalize ligandların (erlotinib ve sorafenib) çoklu-poz redocking’i ile doğrulanmış, en düşük RMSD (kök ortalama kare sapması) değeri raporlanmıştır. Ligand-protein etkileşimleri özgün bir geometrik sınıflandırma algoritmasıyla değerlendirilmiş ve BIOVIA Discovery Studio Visualizer’ın Receptor-Ligand Interactions modülüyle bağımsız olarak doğrulanmıştır. İlaç benzerliği ve fizikokimyasal özellikler, Lipinski’nin beşli kuralına göre RDKit kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir.

Bulgular: Docking protokolü doğrulaması, EGFR için 1.32 Å ve VEGFR2 için 0.30 Å RMSD değerleri vermiş, docking iş akışının güvenilirliğini teyit etmiştir. Repozisyon adayları arasında doksisiklin, hem EGFR’ye (-8.82 kcal/mol) hem de VEGFR2’ye (-8.17 kcal/mol) karşı en güçlü bağlanma afinitesini göstermiş olup, bu değerler referans bileşik sorafenibinkine (EGFR: -9.01 kcal/mol; VEGFR2: -10.54 kcal/mol) yaklaşmaktadır. Propranolol orta düzeyde bağlanma afinitesi gösterirken, metformin her iki hedefle de en zayıf etkileşimi sergilemiştir. Doksisiklin, EGFR’nin katalitik Asp831 (DFG motifi) ve menteşe bölgesi Thr766 kalıntılarıyla, VEGFR2’nin ise Asp1046 (DFG motifi) ve Asp814 kalıntılarıyla konvansiyonel hidrojen bağları oluşturmuştur. İncelenen tüm bileşikler Lipinski’nin beşli kuralına uymuştur.

Sonuç: Bu bulgular, doksisiklini kolanjiokarsinomda EGFR ve VEGFR2’ye karşı dikkat çekici bir in silico çift-hedefli aday olarak öne çıkarmakta olup, daha ileri deneysel değerlendirmeyi gerekli kılmaktadır. Doğrulanmış docking iş akışı ve tutarlı etkileşim örüntüleri bu gözlemi desteklemektedir; ancak bu bulgular hipotez üretici niteliktedir ve herhangi bir biyolojik veya terapötik sonuca varılmadan önce deneysel çalışmalarla doğrulanması gerekmektedir.

Keywords

• Kolanjiyokarsinom
• EGFR
• VEGFR2
• ilaç yeniden konumlandırma
• moleküler docking
• doksisiklin
• AutoDock Vina

References

1. J. M. Banales, J. J. G. Marin, A. Lamarca, P. M. Rodrigues, S. A. Khan, L. R. Roberts, et al., "Cholangiocarcinoma 2020: the next horizon in mechanisms and management," Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, vol. 17, pp. 557-588, Sep 2020.
2. A. E. Sirica, G. J. Gores, J. D. Groopman, F. M. Selaru, M. Strazzabosco, X. Wei Wang, et al., "Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Continuing Challenges and Translational Advances," Hepatology, vol. 69, pp. 1803-1815, Apr 2019.
3. H. Sung, J. Ferlay, R. L. Siegel, M. Laversanne, I. Soerjomataram, A. Jemal, et al., "Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries," CA Cancer J Clin, vol. 71, pp. 209-249, May 2021.
4. S. I. Ilyas and G. J. Gores, "Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of cholangiocarcinoma," Gastroenterology, vol. 145, pp. 1215-29, Dec 2013.
5. P. J. Brindley, M. Bachini, S. I. Ilyas, S. A. Khan, A. Loukas, A. E. Sirica, et al., "Cholangiocarcinoma," Nat Rev Dis Primers, vol. 7, p. 65, Sep 9 2021.
6. D. Y. Oh, A. Ruth He, S. Qin, L. T. Chen, T. Okusaka, A. Vogel, et al., "Durvalumab plus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer," NEJM Evid, vol. 1, p. EVIDoa2200015, Aug 2022.
7. D. Y. Oh, A. R. He, M. Bouattour, T. Okusaka, S. Qin, L. T. Chen, et al., "Durvalumab or placebo plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in participants with advanced biliary tract cancer (TOPAZ-1): updated overall survival from a randomised phase 3 study," Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, vol. 9, pp. 694-704, Aug 2024.
8. G. K. Abou-Alfa, V. Sahai, A. Hollebecque, G. Vaccaro, D. Melisi, R. Al-Rajabi, et al., "Pemigatinib for previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study," Lancet Oncol, vol. 21, pp. 671-684, May 2020.

9. G. K. Abou-Alfa, T. Macarulla, M. M. Javle, R. K. Kelley, S. J. Lubner, J. Adeva, et al., "Ivosidenib in IDH1-mutant, chemotherapy-refractory cholangiocarcinoma (ClarIDHy): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study," Lancet Oncol, vol. 21, pp. 796-807, Jun 2020.
10. Y. Yarden and M. X. Sliwkowski, "Untangling the ErbB signalling network," Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, vol. 2, pp. 127-37, Feb 2001.
11. D. Sia, V. Tovar, A. Moeini, and J. M. Llovet, "Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: pathogenesis and rationale for molecular therapies," Oncogene, vol. 32, pp. 4861-70, Oct 10 2013.
12. R. Roskoski, Jr., "ErbB/HER protein-tyrosine kinases: Structures and small molecule inhibitors," Pharmacol Res, vol. 87, pp. 42-59, Sep 2014.
13. M. Shibuya and L. Claesson-Welsh, "Signal transduction by VEGF receptors in regulation of angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis," Exp Cell Res, vol. 312, pp. 549-60, Mar 10 2006.
14. K. Ashina, Y. Tsubosaka, K. Kobayashi, K. Omori, and T. Murata, "VEGF-induced blood flow increase causes vascular hyper-permeability in vivo," Biochem Biophys Res Commun, vol. 464, pp. 590-5, Aug 21 2015.
15. R. S. Apte, D. S. Chen, and N. Ferrara, "VEGF in Signaling and Disease: Beyond Discovery and Development," Cell, vol. 176, pp. 1248-1264, Mar 7 2019.
16. Y. Yamamoto, J. Matsui, T. Matsushima, H. Obaishi, K. Miyazaki, K. Nakamura, et al., "Lenvatinib, an angiogenesis inhibitor targeting VEGFR/FGFR, shows broad antitumor activity in human tumor xenograft models associated with microvessel density and pericyte coverage," Vasc Cell, vol. 6, p. 18, 2014.
17. M. McTigue, B. W. Murray, J. H. Chen, Y. L. Deng, J. Solowiej, and R. S. Kania, "Molecular conformations, interactions, and properties associated with drug efficiency and clinical performance among VEGFR TK inhibitors," Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, vol. 109, pp. 18281-9, Nov 6 2012.
18. J. M. Llovet, S. Ricci, V. Mazzaferro, P. Hilgard, E. Gane, J. F. Blanc, et al., "Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma," N Engl J Med, vol. 359, pp. 378-90, Jul 24 2008.
19. S. Pushpakom, F. Iorio, P. A. Eyers, K. J. Escott, S. Hopper, A. Wells, et al., "Drug repurposing: progress, challenges and recommendations," Nat Rev Drug Discov, vol. 18, pp. 41-58, Jan 2019.
20. C. Verbaanderd, L. Meheus, I. Huys, and P. Pantziarka, "Repurposing Drugs in Oncology: Next Steps," Trends Cancer, vol. 3, pp. 543-546, Aug 2017.
21. R. S. Fife, G. W. Sledge, Jr., S. Sissons, and B. Zerler, "Effects of tetracyclines on angiogenesis in vitro," Cancer Lett, vol. 153, pp. 75-8, May 29 2000.
22. R. Lamb, B. Ozsvari, C. L. Lisanti, H. B. Tanowitz, A. Howell, U. E. Martinez-Outschoorn, et al., "Antibiotics that target mitochondria effectively eradicate cancer stem cells, across multiple tumor types: treating cancer like an infectious disease," Oncotarget, vol. 6, pp. 4569-84, Mar 10 2015.
23. C. Léauté-Labrèze, P. Hoeger, J. Mazereeuw-Hautier, L. Guibaud, E. Baselga, G. Posiunas, et al., "A randomized, controlled trial of oral propranolol in infantile hemangioma," N Engl J Med, vol. 372, pp. 735-46, Feb 19 2015.
24. E. Pasquier, J. Street, C. Pouchy, M. Carre, A. J. Gifford, J. Murray, et al., "β-blockers increase response to chemotherapy via direct antitumour and anti-angiogenic mechanisms in neuroblastoma," Br J Cancer, vol. 108, pp. 2485-94, Jun 25 2013.
25. M. Pollak, "Metformin and other biguanides in oncology: advancing the research agenda," Cancer Prev Res (Phila), vol. 3, pp. 1060-5, Sep 2010.
26. J. Stamos, M. X. Sliwkowski, and C. Eigenbrot, "Structure of the epidermal growth factor receptor kinase domain alone and in complex with a 4-anilinoquinazoline inhibitor," J Biol Chem, vol. 277, pp. 46265-72, Nov 29 2002.
27. N. M. O'Boyle, M. Banck, C. A. James, C. Morley, T. Vandermeersch, and G. R. Hutchison, "Open Babel: An open chemical toolbox," J Cheminform, vol. 3, p. 33, Oct 7 2011.
28. G. Landrum, "RDKit: Open-source cheminformatics," Available: https://www.rdkit.org. Accessed: Jul. 29, 2026.
29. O. Trott and A. J. Olson, "AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading," J Comput Chem, vol. 31, pp. 455-61, Jan 30 2010.
30. J. Eberhardt, D. Santos-Martins, A. F. Tillack, and S. Forli, "AutoDock Vina 1.2.0: New Docking Methods, Expanded Force Field, and Python Bindings," J Chem Inf Model, vol. 61, pp. 3891-3898, Aug 23 2021.
31. Dassault Systèmes BIOVIA, Discovery Studio Visualizer, Release 2025, San Diego: Dassault Systèmes; 2025. Available: https://www.3ds.com/products/biovia/discovery-studio/visualization. Accessed: Jul. 29, 2026.
32. 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," Adv Drug Deliv Rev, vol. 46, pp. 3-26, Mar 1 2001.
33. P. J. Chaudhari, A. R. Nemade, and A. A. Shirkhedkar, "Recent updates on potential of VEGFR-2 small-molecule inhibitors as anticancer agents," RSC Adv, vol. 14, pp. 33384-33417, Oct 17 2024.
34. V. S. Jerra, B. Ramachandran, S. Shareef, A. Carrillo-Bermejo, R. Sundararaj, and S. Venkatesan, "Molecular docking aided machine learning for the identification of potential VEGFR inhibitors against renal cell carcinoma," Med Oncol, vol. 41, p. 198, Jul 9 2024.
35. D. Abdelmalek, K. Bedchich, F. Smaoui, S. Kraiem, M. A. Mosrati, and M. S. Aifa, "Identifying potential inhibitors for wild-type EGFR tyrosine kinase through a cross-talk pathway strategy and an in-silico drug repurposing method," PLoS One, vol. 21, p. e0350847, 2026.
36. T. I. Barron, R. M. Connolly, L. Sharp, K. Bennett, and K. Visvanathan, "Beta blockers and breast cancer mortality: a population- based study," J Clin Oncol, vol. 29, pp. 2635-44, Jul 1 2011.
37. A. Decensi, M. Puntoni, P. Goodwin, M. Cazzaniga, A. Gennari, B. Bonanni, et al., "Metformin and cancer risk in diabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis," Cancer Prev Res (Phila), vol. 3, pp. 1451-61, Nov 2010.