Gabriëlle M. Donné-Op den Kelder

Modelling and mutation studies on the histamine H1-receptor agonist binding site reveal different binding modes for H1-agonists: Asp116 (TM3) has a constitutive role in receptor stimulation.

SummaryA modelling study has been carried out, investigating the binding of histamine (Hist), 2-methylhistamine (2-MeHist) and 2-phenylhistamine (2-PhHist) at two postulated agonistic binding sites on transmembrane domain 5 (TM5) of the histamine H1-receptor. For this purpose a conformational analysis study was performed on three particular residues of TM5, i.e., Lys200, Thr203 and Asn207, for which a functional role in binding has been proposed. The most favourable results were obtained for the interaction between Hist and the Lys200/Asn207 pair. Therefore, Lys200 was subsequently mutated and converted to an alanine, resulting in a 50-fold decrease of H1-receptor stimulation by histamine. Altogether, the data suggest that the Lys200/Asn207 pair is important for activation of the H1-receptor by histamine. In contrast, analogues of 2-PhHist seem to belong to a distinct subclass of histamine agonists and an alternative mode of binding is proposed in which the 2-phenyl ring binds to the same receptor location as one of the aromatic rings of classical histamine H1-antagonists. Subsequently, the binding modes of the agonists Hist, 2-MeHist and 2-PhHist and the H1-antagonist cyproheptadine were evaluated in three different seven-α-helical models of the H1-receptor built in homology with bacteriorhodopsin, but using three different alignments. Our findings suggest that the position of the carboxylate group of Asp116 (TM3) within the receptor pocket depends on whether an agonist or an antagonist binds to the protein; a conformational change of this aspartate residue upon agonist binding is expected to play an essential role in receptor stimulation.

A preliminary 3D model for cytochrome P450 2D6 constructed by homology model building

SummaryA homology model building study of cytochrome P450 2D6 has been carried out based on the crystal structure of cytochrome P450 101. The primary sequences of P450 101 and P450 2D6 were aligned by making use of an automated alignment procedure. This alignment was adjusted manually by matching α-helices (C, D, G, I, J, K and L) and β-sheets (β3/β4) of P450 101 that are proposed to be conserved in membrane-bound P450s (Ouzounis and Melvin [Eur. J. Biochem., 198 (1991) 307]) to the corresponding regions in the primary amino acid sequence of P450 2D6. Furthermore, α-helices B, B′ and F were found to be conserved in P450 2D6. No significant homology between the remaining regions of P450 101 and P450 2D6 could be found and these regions were therefore deleted. A 3D model of P450 2D6 was constructed by copying the coordinates of the residues from the crystal structure of P450 101 to the corresponding residues in P450 2D6. The regions without a significant homology with P450 101 were not incorporated into the model. After energy-minimization of the resulting 3D model of P450 2D6, possible active site residues were identified by fitting the substrates debrisoquine and dextrometorphan into the proposed active site. Both substrates could be positioned into a planar pocket near the heme region formed by residues Val370, Pro371, Leu372, Trp316, and part of the oxygen binding site of P450 2D6. Furthermore, the carboxylate group of either Asp100 or Asp301 was identified as a possible candidate for the proposed interaction with basic nitrogen atom(s) of the substrates. These findings are in accordance with a recently published predictive model for substrates of P450 2D6 [Koymans et al., Chem. Res. Toxicol., 5 (1992) 211].

Is there a difference in the affinity of histamine H1 receptor antagonists for CNS and peripheral receptors? An in vitro study

An extended series of structurally different histamine H1 receptor antagonists was investigated for binding at central and peripheral histamine H1 receptors in vitro. Antagonist affinities were measured by displacements of [3H]mepyramine from both guinea-pig cerebellum and lung membrane suspensions. Single [3H]mepyramine binding sites with identical affinity for [3H]mepyramine were found in both tissues; however, the H1 receptor density was 6-fold lower in lungs than in cerebellum. None of the antagonists tested showed substantial preference for either of the receptors. It is concluded from the displacement data that there is no difference between the antagonist binding sites of cerebellum and lung H1 receptors.

The agonistic binding site at the histamine H2 receptor. I. Theoretical investigations of histamine binding to an oligopeptide mimicking a part of the fifth transmembrane alpha-helix.

SummaryMutation studies on the histamine H2 receptor were reported by Gantz et al. [J. Biol. Chem., 267 (1992) 20840], which indicate that both the mutation of the fifth transmembrane Asp186 (to Ala186) alone or in combination with Thr190 (to Ala190) maintained, albeit partially, the cAMP response to histamine. Recently, we have shown that histamine binds to the histamine H2 receptor as a monocation in its proximal tautomeric form, and, moreover, we suggested that a proton is donated from the receptor towards the tele-position of the agonist, thereby triggering the biological effect [Nederkoorn et al., J. Mol. Graph., 12 (1994) 242; Eriks et al., Mol. Pharmacol., 44 (1993) 886]. These findings result in a close resemblance with the catalytic triad (consisting of Ser, His and Asp) found in serine proteases. Thr190 resembles a triads serine residue closely, and could also act as a proton donor. However, the mutation of Thr190 to Ala190 — the latter is unable to function as a proton donor — does not completely abolish the agonistic cAMP response. At the fifth transmembrane α-helix of the histamine H2 receptor near the extracellular surface, another amino acid is present, i.e. Tyr182, so an alternative couple of amino acids, Tyr182 and Asp186, could constitute the histamine binding site at the fifth α-helix instead of the (mutated) couple Asp186 and Thr190. In the first part of our present study, this hypothesis is investigated with the aid of an oligopeptide with an α-helical backbone, which represents a part of the fifth transmembrane helix. Both molecular mechanics and ab initio data lead to the conclusion that the Tyr182/Asp186 couple is most likely to act as the binding site for the imidazole ring present in histamine.

The agonistic binding site at the histamine H2 receptor. II. Theoretical investigations of histamine binding to receptor models of the seven alpha-helical transmembrane domain.

SummaryIn the first part (pp. 461–478 in this issue) of this study regarding the histamine H2 receptor agonistic binding site, the best possible interactions of histamine with an α-helical oligopeptide, mimicking a part of the fifth transmembrane α-helical domain (TM5) of the histamine H2 receptor, were considered. It was established that histamine can only bind via two H-bonds with a pure α-helical TM5, when the binding site consists of Tyr182/Asp186 and not of the Asp186/Thr190 couple. In this second part, two particular three-dimensional models of G-protein-coupled receptors previously reported in the literature are compared in relation to agonist binding at the histamine H2 receptor. The differences between these two receptor models are discussed in relation to the general benefits and limitations of such receptor models. Also the pros and cons of simplifying receptor models to a relatively easy-to-deal-with oligopeptide for mimicking agonistic binding to an agonistic binding site are addressed. Within complete receptor models, the simultaneous interaction of histamine with both TM3 and TM5 can be analysed. The earlier suggested three-point interaction of histamine with the histamine H2 receptor can be explored. Our results demonstrate that a three-point interaction cannot be established for the Asp98/Asp186/Thr190 binding site in either of the investigated receptor models, whereas histamine can form three H-bonds in case the agonistic binding site is constituted by the Asp98/Tyr182/Asp186 triplet. Furthermore this latter triplet is seen to be able to accommodate a series of substituted histamine analogues with known histamine H2 agonistic activity as well.

A new model for the agonistic binding site on the histamine H2-receptor: The catalytic triad in serine proteases as a model for the binding site of

The historical model for the agonistic binding site on the histamine H2-receptor is based on a postulated activation mechanism: it has been suggested that the histamine monocation binds to the histamine H2-receptor via the formation of three hydrogen bonds. The cationic ammonium group in the side chain and the -NH- group in the tau-position of the imidazole act as proton donors, whereas the =N- atom in the pi-position of the imidazole acts as a proton acceptor. Participation of the ammonium group in H-bonding with a presumed negative charge on the receptor leads to a decrease in positive charge, which is thought to induce a tautomeric change in the imidazole ring system from N tau-H to N pi-H. A consequence of this tautomeric shift is the donation of a proton from the receptor to the agonist on one side, while on the other side a proton is donated from the agonist to the receptor. The propose tautomeric shift has been suggested to trigger the H2-stimulating effect. However, this model for the constitution of the agonistic binding site and the accessory activation mechanism cannot explain the weak histamine H2-activity of beta-histine and the activity of several other recently synthesized H2-agonists. Based on a thorough literature study and with the aid of molecular electrostatic potentials (MEPs) we demonstrate that the sulphur atom present in histamine H2-agonists as dimaprit and 2-amino-5-(2-aminoethyl)thiazole does not function as a proton acceptor, which implicitly means that a tautomeric shift is not a prerequisite for H2-stimulation. As a consequence, the model for the agonistic binding site is adjusted, resulting in a strong resemblance to the nature and orientation of the amino acids constituting the catalytic triad in serine proteases. Within this concept, the N pi-H tautomer of histamine is the biologically active form, in contrast with the existing model in which the N tau-H tautomer is the active form.

The histamine H1-receptor antagonist binding site. Part I: Active conformation of cyproheptadine

SummaryThe active conformation of several histamine H1-antagonists is investigated. As a template molecule we used the antagonist cyproheptadine, which consists of a piperidylene ring connected to a tricyclic system. The piperidylene moiety is shown to be flexible. The global minimum is a chair conformation but, additionally, a second chair and various boat conformations have to be considered, as their energies are less than 5 kcal/mol above the energy of the global minimum. Two semi-rigid histamine H1-antagonists, phenindamine and triprolidine, were fitted onto the various conformations of cyproheptadine in order to derive the pharmacologically active conformation of cyproheptadine. At the same time, the active conformation of both phenindamine and triprolidine was derived. It is demonstrated that, within the receptor-bound conformation of cyproheptadine, the piperidylene ring most probably exists in a boat form.

Distance geometry analysis of ligand binding to drug receptor sites.

The method known as ‘distance geometry approach’ for receptor mapping procedures is discussed. In this method a ligand binding to a certain receptor is considered as a collection of ligand points. Binding sites of the receptor are either ‘empty’ or ‘filled’ site points; a ligand point might bind to an empty site point; filled site points indicate that at that point no binding is possible. A binding mode of a ligand is a list of which ligand points coincide with which empty binding sites. The applicability of the method for QSAR studies is discussed; as examples are mentioned the dihydrofolate reductase, β1- and β2-receptors. Finally, some ideas on future developments in receptor mapping are discussed.

A New Mechanism for G Protein Activation

We present a new model, which is mainly based on observations stemming from rod outer segments (ROSs), since in these segments transducin is largely abundant and the system is therefore deal for studying G protein activation. Throughout, we assume that findings for one particular type of G protein present in a certain species and tissue can be used to infer the activation mechanism or G proteins in general. Within the new model, all experimental findings concerning exchange reactions are explained, as well as the observation that phosphorylation reactions regulate G protein functioning.1–4 Also the seemingly contradictory results an interpretations of Vuong and co-workers5–7 and the observed nucleotide levels reported by Robinson and Hagins8 are brought into accordance within this model. Figure 7.1 summarizes our ideas regarding, in our opinion, a more satisfactory mechanism for G protein activation than is provided by the classic model; the new model is discussed step by step in the subsequent subsections.

Conclusions and Future Perspectives

We have summarized those bioenergetical processes which we applied to GPCR signalling, and presented a new model for transmembrane signal transduction mediated via (ligand-induced) GPCR and G protein activation. The classical model for G protein activation is based on an exchange mechanism followed by GTP hydrolysis. Our new model is based on GTP synthesis from GDP and Pi, also followed by GTP hydrolysis. Because of amplification levels (1) (synthesis) and (3) (exchange) depicted in Figure 7.1, both the classical and our new model will give rise to similar nucleotide exchange patterns.