Stefan Mordalski

Generic GPCR residue numbers – aligning topology maps while minding the gaps

Generic residue numbers facilitate comparisons of, for example, mutational effects, ligand interactions, and structural motifs. The numbering scheme by Ballesteros and Weinstein for residues within the class A GPCRs (G protein-coupled receptors) has more than 1100 citations, and the recent crystal structures for classes B, C, and F now call for a community consensus in residue numbering within and across these classes. Furthermore, the structural era has uncovered helix bulges and constrictions that offset the generic residue numbers. The use of generic residue numbers depends on convenient access by pharmacologists, chemists, and structural biologists. We review the generic residue numbering schemes for each GPCR class, as well as a complementary structure-based scheme, and provide illustrative examples and GPCR database (GPCRDB) web tools to number any receptor sequence or structure.

GPCRdb: the G protein‐coupled receptor database – an introduction

GPCRs make up the largest family of human membrane proteins and of drug targets. Recent advances in GPCR pharmacology and crystallography have shed new light on signal transduction, allosteric modulation and biased signalling, translating into new mechanisms and principles for drug design. The GPCR database, GPCRdb, has served the community for over 20 years and has recently been extended to include a more multidisciplinary audience. This review is intended to introduce new users to the services in GPCRdb, which meets three overall purposes: firstly, to provide reference data in an integrated, annotated and structured fashion, with a focus on sequences, structures, single‐point mutations and ligand interactions. Secondly, to equip the community with a suite of web tools for swift analysis of structures, sequence similarities, receptor relationships, and ligand target profiles. Thirdly, to facilitate dissemination through interactive diagrams of, for example, receptor residue topologies, phylogenetic relationships and crystal structure statistics. Herein, these services are described for the first time; visitors and guides are provided with good practices for their utilization. Finally, we describe complementary databases cross‐referenced by GPCRdb and web servers with corresponding functionality.

Protein binding site analysis by means of structural interaction fingerprint patterns.

We introduce a new approach to the known concept of interaction profiles, based on Structural Interaction Fingerprints (SIFt), for precise and rapid binding site description. A set of scripts for batch generation and analysis of SIFt were prepared, and the implementation is computationally efficient and supports parallelization. It is based on a 9-digit binary interaction pattern that describes physical ligand-protein interactions in structures and models of ligand-protein complexes. The tool performs analysis and identifies binding site residues (crucial and auxiliary) and classifies interactions according to type (hydrophobic, aromatic, charge, polar, side chain, and backbone). It is convenient and easy to use, and gives manageable output data for both, interpretation and further processing. In the presented Letter, SIFts are applied to analyze binding sites in models of antagonist-5-HT7 receptor complexes and structures of cyclin dependent kinase 2-ligand complexes.

A linear combination of pharmacophore hypotheses as a new tool in search of new active compounds--an application for 5-HT1A receptor ligands.

This study explores a new approach to pharmacophore screening involving the use of an optimized linear combination of models instead of a single hypothesis. The implementation and evaluation of the developed methodology are performed for a complete known chemical space of 5-HT1AR ligands (3616 active compounds with K i < 100 nM) acquired from the ChEMBL database. Clusters generated from three different methods were the basis for the individual pharmacophore hypotheses, which were assembled into optimal combinations to maximize the different coefficients, namely, MCC, accuracy and recall, to measure the screening performance. Various factors that influence filtering efficiency, including clustering methods, the composition of test sets (random, the most diverse and cluster population-dependent) and hit mode (the compound must fit at least one or two models from a final combination) were investigated. This method outmatched both single hypothesis and random linear combination approaches.

Impact of Template Choice on Homology Model Efficiency in Virtual Screening

Homology modeling is a reliable method of predicting the three-dimensional structures of proteins that lack NMR or X-ray crystallographic data. It employs the assumption that a structural resemblance exists between closely related proteins. Despite the availability of many crystal structures of possible templates, only the closest ones are chosen for homology modeling purposes. To validate the aforementioned approach, we performed homology modeling of four serotonin receptors (5-HT1AR, 5-HT2AR, 5-HT6R, 5-HT7R) for virtual screening purposes, using 10 available G-Protein Coupled Receptors (GPCR) templates with diverse evolutionary distances to the targets, with various approaches to alignment construction and model building. The resulting models were further validated in two steps by means of ligand docking and enrichment calculation, using Glide software. The final quality of the models was determined in virtual screening-like experiments by the AUROC score of the resulting ROC curves. The outcome of this research showed that no correlation between sequence identity and model quality was found, leading to the conclusion that the closest phylogenetic relative is not always the best template for homology modeling.

GPCRdb in 2018: adding GPCR structure models and ligands

Abstract G protein-coupled receptors are the most abundant mediators of both human signalling processes and therapeutic effects. Herein, we report GPCRome-wide homology models of unprecedented quality, and roughly 150 000 GPCR ligands with data on biological activities and commercial availability. Based on the strategy of ‘Less model – more Xtal’, each model exploits both a main template and alternative local templates. This achieved higher similarity to new structures than any of the existing resources, and refined crystal structures with missing or distorted regions. Models are provided for inactive, intermediate and active states—except for classes C and F that so far only have inactive templates. The ligand database has separate browsers for: (i) target selection by receptor, family or class, (ii) ligand filtering based on cross-experiment activities (min, max and mean) or chemical properties, (iii) ligand source data and (iv) commercial availability. SMILES structures and activity spreadsheets can be downloaded for further processing. Furthermore, three recent landmark publications on GPCR drugs, G protein selectivity and genetic variants have been accompanied with resources that now let readers view and analyse the findings themselves in GPCRdb. Altogether, this update will enable scientific investigation for the wider GPCR community. GPCRdb is available at http://www.gpcrdb.org.

A new crystal structure fragment-based pharmacophore method for G protein-coupled receptors

We have developed a new method for the building of pharmacophores for G protein-coupled receptors, a major drug target family. The method is a combination of the ligand- and target-based pharmacophore methods and founded on the extraction of structural fragments, interacting ligand moiety and receptor residue pairs, from crystal structure complexes. We describe the procedure to collect a library with more than 250 fragments covering 29 residue positions within the generic transmembrane binding pocket. We describe how the library fragments are recombined and inferred to build pharmacophores for new targets. A validating retrospective virtual screening of histamine H1 and H3 receptor pharmacophores yielded area-under-the-curves of 0.88 and 0.82, respectively. The fragment-based method has the unique advantage that it can be applied to targets for which no (homologous) crystal structures or ligands are known. 47% of the class A G protein-coupled receptors can be targeted with at least four-element pharmacophores. The fragment libraries can also be used to grow known ligands or for rotamer refinement of homology models. Researchers can download the complete fragment library or a subset matching their receptor of interest using our new tool in GPCRDB.

An application of machine learning methods to structural interaction fingerprints—a case study of kinase inhibitors

In this Letter, we present a novel methodology of searching for biologically active compounds, which is based on the combination of docking experiments and analysis of the results by machine learning methods. The study was performed for 5 different protein kinases, and several sets of compounds (active, inactive and assumed inactives) were docked into their targets. The resulting ligand-protein complexes were represented by the means of structural interaction fingerprints profiles (SIFts profiles) that constituted an input for ML methods. The developed protocol was found to be superior to the combination of classification algorithms with the standard fingerprint MACCSFP.

Multi-Step Protocol for Automatic Evaluation of Docking Results Based on Machine Learning Methods—A Case Study of Serotonin Receptors 5-HT6 and 5-HT7

Molecular docking, despite its undeniable usefulness in computer-aided drug design protocols and the increasing sophistication of tools used in the prediction of ligand-protein interaction energies, is still connected with a problem of effective results analysis. In this study, a novel protocol for the automatic evaluation of numerous docking results is presented, being a combination of Structural Interaction Fingerprints and Spectrophores descriptors, machine-learning techniques, and multi-step results analysis. Such an approach takes into consideration the performance of a particular learning algorithm (five machine learning methods were applied), the performance of the docking algorithm itself, the variety of conformations returned from the docking experiment, and the receptor structure (homology models were constructed on five different templates). Evaluation using compounds active toward 5-HT6 and 5-HT7 receptors, as well as additional analysis carried out for beta-2 adrenergic receptor ligands, proved that the methodology is a viable tool for supporting virtual screening protocols, enabling proper discrimination between active and inactive compounds.

From Homology Models to a Set of Predictive Binding Pockets–a 5-HT1A Receptor Case Study

Despite its remarkable importance in the arena of drug design, serotonin 1A receptor (5-HT1A) has been elusive to the X-ray crystallography community. This lack of direct structural information not only hampers our knowledge regarding the binding modes of many popular ligands (including the endogenous neurotransmitter-serotonin), but also limits the search for more potent compounds. In this paper we shed new light on the 3D pharmacological properties of the 5-HT1A receptor by using a ligand-guided approach (ALiBERO) grounded in the Internal Coordinate Mechanics (ICM) docking platform. Starting from a homology template and set of known actives, the method introduces receptor flexibility via Normal Mode Analysis and Monte Carlo sampling, to generate a subset of pockets that display enriched discrimination of actives from inactives in retrospective docking. Here, we thoroughly investigated the repercussions of using different protein templates and the effect of compound selection on screening performance. Finally, the best resulting protein models were applied prospectively in a large virtual screening campaign, in which two new active compounds were identified that were chemically distinct from those described in the literature.