Mark Slack
University of St. Gallen
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Mark Slack.
Biochemistry | 2012
Alexander Heifetz; G. Benjamin Morris; Philip C. Biggin; Oliver Barker; Tara Fryatt; Jonathan Mark Bentley; David Hallett; Dominique Manikowski; Sandeep Pal; Rita Reifegerste; Mark Slack; Richard J. Law
The class A G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) Orexin-1 (OX1) and Orexin-2 (OX2) are located predominantly in the brain and are linked to a range of different physiological functions, including the control of feeding, energy metabolism, modulation of neuro-endocrine function, and regulation of the sleep-wake cycle. Site-directed mutagenesis (SDM) and domain exchange (chimera) studies have provided important insight into key features of the OX1 and OX2 binding sites. However, the precise determinants of antagonist binding and selectivity are still not fully known. In this work, we used homology modeling of OX receptors to direct further SDM studies. These SDM studies were followed by molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to rationalize the full scope of the SDM data and to explain the role of each mutated residue in the binding and selectivity of a set of OX antagonists: Almorexant (dual OX1 and OX2 antagonist), SB-674042 (OX1 selective antagonist), EMPA (OX2 selective antagonist), and others. Our primary interest was focused on transmembrane helix 3 (TM3), which is identified as being of great importance for the selectivity of OX antagonists. These studies revealed conformational differences between the TM3 helices of OX1 and OX2, resulting from differences in amino acid sequences of the OX receptors that affect key interhelical interactions formed between TM3 and neighboring TM domains. The MD simulation protocol used here, which was followed by flexible docking studies, went beyond the use of static models and allowed for a more detailed exploration of the OX structures. In this work, we have demonstrated how even small differences in the amino acid sequences of GPCRs can lead to significant differences in structure, antagonist binding affinity, and selectivity of these receptors. The MD simulations allowed refinement of the OX receptor models to a degree that was not possible with static homology modeling alone and provided a deeper rationalization of the SDM data obtained. To validate these findings and to demonstrate that they can be usefully applied to the design of novel, very selective OX antagonists, we show here two examples of antagonists designed in house: EP-109-0092 (OX1 selective) and EP-009-0513 (OX2 selective).
Biochemistry | 2013
A Heifetz; Oliver Barker; G B Morris; Richard J. Law; Mark Slack; Philip C. Biggin
The class A G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) Orexin-1 (OX1) and Orexin-2 (OX2) are located predominantly in the brain and are linked to a range of different physiological functions, including the control of feeding, energy metabolism, modulation of neuro-endocrine function, and regulation of the sleep–wake cycle. The natural agonists for OX1 and OX2 are two neuropeptides, Orexin-A and Orexin-B, which have activity at both receptors. Site-directed mutagenesis (SDM) has been reported on both the receptors and the peptides and has provided important insight into key features responsible for agonist activity. However, the structural interpretation of how these data are linked together is still lacking. In this work, we produced and used SDM data, homology modeling followed by MD simulation, and ensemble-flexible docking to generate binding poses of the Orexin peptides in the OX receptors to rationalize the SDM data. We also developed a protein pairwise similarity comparing method (ProS) and a GPCR-likeness assessment score (GLAS) to explore the structural data generated within a molecular dynamics simulation and to help distinguish between different GPCR substates. The results demonstrate how these newly developed methods of structural assessment for GPCRs can be used to provide a working model of neuropeptide–Orexin receptor interaction.
Medicinal Chemistry | 2013
Alex; er Heifetz; Michael P. Mazanetz; Tim James; eep Pal; Richard J. Law; Mark Slack; Philip C. Biggin
G-Protein Coupled Receptors (GPCRs) have enormous physiological and biomedical importance, being the primary target of a large number of modern drugs. The availability of structural information of the binding site of the targeted GPCR plays a key role in rationalization, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the drug discovery process. However, obtaining structural information on GPCRs using X-ray crystallography or NMR requires a large investment of time and is technically very challenging. This situation significantly limits the ability of these methods to have an impact in drug discovery for GPCR targets in the short term and hence there is an urgent need for other effective and cost-efficient alternatives. We present here a practical approach that integrates GPCR modelling with fragment based screening to provide structural insights on the H3 and H4 histamine receptor binding sites. This approach creates a cost-efficient new avenue for structure-based drug design (SBDD) against GPCR targets. We report here a success of using this protocol for the discovery of selective and dual H3 and H4 antagonists. Our fragment screen yielded 44 H3, 21 H4 selective and 20 dual fragment hits. These fragments were used to construct high- quality H3 and H4 models followed by binding site exploration and structure based virtual screening (VS). Overall, 172 compounds were purchased for testing based on the virtual screening results. Of the 74 compounds predicted to have dual activity, 33 had activity against one or other of the two receptors (44%), of which 17 had activity against both. Of the 19 compounds predicted to be H3 selective, 13 were active against H3 (68%) and 10 of these also had selectivity over H4. Of the 79 compounds predicted to be H4 selective, 36 were active against H4 (45%) and 2 of these also had selectivity over H3
Archive | 2010
Franz Dürrenberger; Susanna Burckhardt; Peter Otto Geisser; Wilm Buhr; Felix Funk; Julia Marie Bainbridge; Vincent Anthony Corden; Stephen Martin Courntey; Tara Fryatt; Stefan Jaeger; Mark Peter Ridgill; Mark Slack; Christopher John Yarnold; Wei Tsung Yau
Archive | 2012
Susan Boyce; Wilm Buhr; Susanna Burckhardt; Vincent Anthony Corden; Stephen Martin Courtney; Tara Davenport; Graham Dawson; Franz Dürrenberger; Albertus Antonius Ellenbroek; Felix Funk; Peter Otto Geisser; Mark Peter Ridgill; Mark Slack; Christopher John Yarnold
Archive | 2010
Franz Dürrenberger; Susanna Burckhardt; Peter Otto Geisser; Wilm Buhr; Felix Funk; Vincent Anthony Corden; Tara Fryatt; Stefan Jaeger; Mark Slack; Christopher John Yarnold; Wei Tsung Yau; Stephen Martin Courtney
Archive | 2008
Jonathan Mark Bentley; Darshan Gunvant Vaidya; Alexander Heifetz; Mark Slack
Archive | 2011
Jonathan Mark Bentley; Tara Davenport; Mark Slack
Archive | 2010
Franz Dürrenberger; Susanna Burckhardt; Peter Otto Geisser; Felix Funk; Wilm Buhr; Vincent Anthony Corden; Stephen Martin Courntey; Stefan Jaeger; Mark Slack; Christopher John Yarnold; Wei Tsung Yau
Archive | 2012
Franz Dürrenberger; Susanna Burckhardt; Wilm Buhr; Peter Otto Geisser; Felix Funk; Vincent Anthony Corden; Stephen Martin Courtney; Tara Davenport; Stefan Jaeger; Mark Peter Ridgill; Mark Slack; Christopher John Yarnold; Wei Tsung Yau