Spencer E. Hall

Prediction of structure and function of G protein-coupled receptors

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) mediate our sense of vision, smell, taste, and pain. They are also involved in cell recognition and communication processes, and hence have emerged as a prominent superfamily for drug targets. Unfortunately, the atomic-level structure is available for only one GPCR (bovine rhodopsin), making it difficult to use structure-based methods to design drugs and mutation experiments. We have recently developed first principles methods (MembStruk and HierDock) for predicting structure of GPCRs, and for predicting the ligand binding sites and relative binding affinities. Comparing to the one case with structural data, bovine rhodopsin, we find good accuracy in both the structure of the protein and of the bound ligand. We report here the application of MembStruk and HierDock to β1-adrenergic receptor, endothelial differential gene 6, mouse and rat I7 olfactory receptors, and human sweet receptor. We find that the predicted structure of β1-adrenergic receptor leads to a binding site for epinephrine that agrees well with the mutation experiments. Similarly the predicted binding sites and affinities for endothelial differential gene 6, mouse and rat I7 olfactory receptors, and human sweet receptor are consistent with the available experimental data. These predicted structures and binding sites allow the design of mutation experiments to validate and improve the structure and function prediction methods. As these structures are validated they can be used as targets for the design of new receptor-selective antagonists or agonists for GPCRs.

Elucidation of Binding Sites of Dual Antagonists in the Human Chemokine Receptors CCR2 and CCR5

Design of dual antagonists for the chemokine receptors CCR2 and CCR5 will be greatly facilitated by knowledge of the structural differences of their binding sites. Thus, we computationally predicted the binding site of the dual CCR2/CCR5 antagonist N-dimethyl-N-[4-[[[2-(4-methylphenyl)-6,7-dihydro-5H-benzohepten-8-yl] carbonyl]amino]benzyl]tetrahydro-2H-pyran-4-aminium (TAK-779), and a CCR2-specific antagonist N-(carbamoylmethyl)-3-trifluoromethyl benzamido-parachlorobenzyl 3-aminopyrrolidine (Teijin compound 1) in an ensemble of predicted structures of human CCR2 and CCR5. Based on our predictions of the protein-ligand interactions, we examined the activity of the antagonists for cells expressing thirteen mutants of CCR2 and five mutants of CCR5. The results show that residues Trp982.60 and Thr2927.40 contribute significantly to the efficacy of both TAK-779 and Teijin compound 1, whereas His1213.33 and Ile2636.55 contribute significantly only to the antagonistic effect of Teijin compound 1 at CCR2. Mutation of residues Trp862.60 and Tyr1083.32 adversely affected the efficacy of TAK-779 in antagonizing CCR5-mediated chemotaxis. Y49A1.39 and E291A7.39 mutants of CCR2 showed a complete loss of CCL2 binding and chemotaxis, despite robust cell surface expression, suggesting that these residues are critical in maintaining the correct receptor architecture. Modeling studies support the hypothesis that the residues Tyr491.39, Trp982.60, Tyr1203.32, and Glu2917.39 of CCR2 form a tight network of aromatic cluster and polar contacts between transmembrane helices 1, 2, 3, and 7.

Test of the Binding Threshold Hypothesis for olfactory receptors: explanation of the differential binding of ketones to the mouse and human orthologs of olfactory receptor 912-93.

We tested the Binding Threshold Hypothesis (BTH) for activation of olfactory receptors (ORs): To activate an OR, the odorant must bind to the OR with binding energy above some threshold value. The olfactory receptor (OR) 912‐93 is known experimentally to be activated by ketones in mouse, but is inactive to ketones in human, despite an amino acid sequence identity of ∼66%. To investigate the origins of this difference, we used the MembStruk first‐principles method to predict the tertiary structure of the mouse OR 912‐93 (mOR912‐93), and the HierDock first‐principles method to predict the binding site for ketones to this receptor. We found that the strong binding of ketones to mOR912‐93 is dominated by a hydrogen bond of the ketone carbonyl group to Ser105. All ketones predicted to have a binding energy stronger than EBindThresh = 26 kcal/mol were observed experimentally to activate this OR, while the two ketones predicted to bind more weakly do not. In addition, we predict that 2‐undecanone and 2‐dodecanone both bind sufficiently strongly to activate mOR912‐93. A similar binding site for ketones was predicted in hOR912‐93, but the binding is much weaker because the human ortholog has a Gly at the position of Ser105. We predict that mutating this Gly to Ser in human should lead to activation of hOR912‐93 by these ketones. Experimental substantiations of the above predictions would provide further tests of the validity of the BTH, our predicted 3D structures, and our predicted binding sites for these ORs.

The Predicted 3D Structures of the Human M1 Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptor with Agonist or Antagonist Bound

The muscarinic acetylcholine G‐protein‐coupled receptors are implicated in diseases ranging from cognitive dysfunctions to smooth‐muscle disorders. To provide a structural basis for drug design, we used the MembStruk computational method to predict the 3D structure of the human M1 muscarinic receptor. We validated this structure by using the HierDock method to predict the binding sites for three agonists and four antagonists. The intermolecular ligand–receptor contacts at the predicted binding sites agree well with deductions from available mutagenesis experiments, and the calculated relative binding energies correlate with measured binding affinities. The predicted binding site of all four antagonists is located between transmembrane (TM) helices 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, whereas the three agonists prefer a site involving residues from TM3, TM6, and TM7. We find that Trp 157(4) contributes directly to antagonist binding, whereas Pro 159(4) provides an indirect conformational switch to position Trp 157(4) in the binding site (the number in parentheses indicates the TM helix). This explains the large decrease in ligand binding affinity and signaling efficacy by mutations of Trp 157(4) and Pro 159(4) not previously explained by homology models. We also found that Asp 105(3) and aromatic residues Tyr 381(6), Tyr 404(7), and Tyr 408(7) are critical for binding the quaternary ammonium head group of the ligand through cation–π interactions. For ligands with a charged tertiary amine head group, we suggest that proton transfer from the ligand to Asp 105(3) occurs upon binding. Furthermore, we found that an extensive aromatic network involving Tyr 106(3), Trp 157(4), Phe 197(5), Trp 378(6), and Tyr 381(6) is important in stabilizing antagonist binding. For antagonists with two terminal phenyl rings, this aromatic network extends to Trp 164(4), Tyr 179(extracellular loop 2), and Phe 390(6) located at the extracellular end of the TMs. We find that Asn 382(6) forms hydrogen bonds with selected antagonists. Tyr381(6) and Ser 109(3) form hydrogen bonds with the ester moiety of acetylcholine, which binds in the gauche conformation.

Importance of receptor flexibility in binding of cyclam compounds to the chemokine receptor CXCR4.

We have elucidated the binding sites of four moncyclam and one bicyclam antagonist AMD3100, in the human chemokine receptor CXCR4. Using the predicted structural models of CXCR4, we have further predicted the binding sites of these cyclam compounds. We used the computational method LITiCon to map the differences in receptor structure stabilized by the mono and bicyclam compounds. Accounting for the receptor flexibility lead to a single binding mode for the cyclam compounds, that has not been possible previously using a single receptor structural model and fixed receptor docking algorithms. There are several notable differences in the receptor conformations stabilized by monocyclam antagonist compared to a bicylam antagonist. The loading of the Cu(2+) ions in the cyclam compounds, shrinks the size of the cyclam rings and the residue D262(6.58) plays an important role in bonding to the copper ion in the monocylam compounds while residue E288(7.39) is important for the bicyclam compound.