Computational analysis identifies cannabidiol and cannabinol as effective inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 entry, suggesting new therapeutic targets.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) enters host cells when the spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) engages angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). Cannabinoid scaffolds have recently been reported to bind S1/RBD, block spike-mediated membrane fusion, and modulate host inflammatory pathways, making them attractive candidates for entry inhibition. Here, we applied an integrated computational pipeline to prioritize cannabis-derived compounds as interfacial blockers of the RBD–ACE2 complex across variants. Eleven phytocannabinoids were docked into the wild-type (WT) RBD–ACE2 interface, identifying three cavities, with ligands preferentially occupying pocket 1. Complexes were subjected to triplicate 200 ns all-atom molecular dynamics (MD) simulations for WT, Delta, and Omicron BA.1 RBD–ACE2. Binding energetics were quantified using molecular mechanics/generalized Born surface area (MM/GBSA) and solvated interaction energy (SIE), and per-residue contributions were analyzed together with solvent-accessible surface area (SASA) and residue interaction networks. Among all compounds, cannabidiol (CBD) and cannabinol (CBN) were the only ligands that remained stably bound in pocket 1 for all variants. CBN showed the most favorable ligand–complex binding in WT, whereas CBD preserved favorable binding in Omicron BA.1 despite reduced interface burial, indicating that van der Waals/electrostatic complementarity and solvation, rather than surface coverage alone, govern affinity. Both ligands weakened modeled RBD–ACE2 binding by perturbing hot-spot residues centered on Y505 or N501Y in RBD and E37, A387, and R393 in ACE2. Overall, our results highlight CBD and CBN as tractable, variant-spanning interface disruptors and illustrate how MD-based free-energy calculations can support computational drug discovery against evolving viral protein–protein interfaces.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kongtaworn et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: