F2F-2020198-00X for COVID-19
c19early.org
COVID-19 Treatment Clinical Evidence
COVID-19 involves the interplay of 400+ viral and host proteins and factors, providing many therapeutic targets.
c19early analyzes 6,000+ studies for 210+ treatments—over 17 million hours of research.
Only three high-profit early treatments are approved in the US.
In reality, many treatments reduce risk,
with 25 low-cost treatments approved across 163 countries.
-
Naso/
oropharyngeal treatment Effective Treatment directly to the primary source of initial infection. -
Healthy lifestyles Protective Exercise, sunlight, a healthy diet, and good sleep all reduce risk.
-
Immune support Effective Vitamins A, C, D, and zinc show reduced risk, as with other viruses.
-
Thermotherapy Effective Methods for increasing internal body temperature, enhancing immune system function.
-
Systemic agents Effective Many systemic agents reduce risk, and may be required when infection progresses.
-
High-profit systemic agents Conditional Effective, but with greater access and cost barriers.
-
Monoclonal antibodies Limited Utility Effective but rarely used—high cost, variant dependence, IV/SC admin.
-
Acetaminophen Harmful Increased risk of severe outcomes and mortality.
-
Remdesivir Harmful Increased mortality with longer followup. Increased kidney and liver injury, cardiac disorders.
F2F-2020198-00X may be beneficial for
COVID-19 according to the study below.
COVID-19 involves the interplay of 400+ viral and host proteins and factors providing many therapeutic targets.
Scientists have proposed 11,000+ potential treatments.
c19early.org analyzes
210+ treatments.
We have not reviewed F2F-2020198-00X in detail.
, Molecular Recognition of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro Inhibitors: Insights from Cheminformatics and Quantum Chemistry, Molecules, doi:10.3390/molecules30102174
The SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro), essential for viral replication, remains a prime target for antiviral drug design against COVID-19 and related coronaviruses. In this study, we present a systematic investigation into the molecular determinants of Mpro inhibition using an integrated approach combining large-scale data mining, cheminformatics, and quantum chemical calculations. A curated dataset comprising 963 high-resolution structures of Mpro–ligand complexes—348 covalent and 615 non-covalent inhibitors—was mined from the Protein Data Bank. Cheminformatics analysis revealed distinct physicochemical profiles for each inhibitor class: covalent inhibitors tend to exhibit higher hydrogen bonding capacity and sp3 character, while non-covalent inhibitors are enriched in aromatic rings and exhibit greater aromaticity and lipophilicity. A novel descriptor, Weighted Hydrogen Bond Count (WHBC), normalized for molecular size, revealed a notable inverse correlation with aromatic ring count, suggesting a compensatory relationship between hydrogen bonding and π-mediated interactions. To elucidate the energetic underpinnings of molecular recognition, 40 representative inhibitors (20 covalent, 20 non-covalent) were selected based on principal component analysis and aromatic ring content. Quantum mechanical calculations at the double-hybrid B2PLYP/def2-QZVP level quantified non-bonded interaction energies, revealing that covalent inhibitors derive binding strength primarily through hydrogen bonding (~63.8%), whereas non-covalent inhibitors depend predominantly on π–π stacking and CH–π interactions (~62.8%). Representative binding pocket analyses further substantiate these findings: the covalent inhibitor F2F-2020198-00X exhibited strong hydrogen bonds with residues such as Glu166 and His163, while the non-covalent inhibitor EDG-MED-10fcb19e-1 engaged in extensive π-mediated interactions with residues like His41, Met49, and Met165. The distinct interaction patterns led to the establishment of pharmacophore models, highlighting key recognition motifs for both covalent and non-covalent inhibitors. Our findings underscore the critical role of aromaticity and non-bonded π interactions in driving binding affinity, complementing or, in some cases, substituting for hydrogen bonding, and offer a robust framework for the rational design of next-generation Mpro inhibitors with improved selectivity and resistance profiles.