Literature DB >> 10956209

CoMFA-based prediction of agonist affinities at recombinant wild type versus serine to alanine point mutated D2 dopamine receptors.

R E Wilcox1, W H Huang, M Y Brusniak, D M Wilcox, R S Pearlman, M M Teeter, C J DuRand, B L Wiens, K A Neve.   

Abstract

Agonist affinity changes dramatically as a result of serine to alanine mutations (S193A, S194A, and S197A) within the fifth transmembrane region of D2 dopamine receptors and other receptors for monoamine neurotransmitters. However, agonist 2D-structure does not predict which drugs will be sensitive to which point mutations. Modeling drug-receptor interactions at the 3D level offers considerably more promise in this regard. In particular, a comparison of the same test set of agonists across receptors differing minimally (point mutations) offers promise to enhance the understanding of the structural bases for drug-receptor interactions. We have previously shown that comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA) can be applied to comparisons of affinity at recombinant D1 and D2 dopamine receptors for the same set of agonists, a differential QSAR. Here, we predicted agonist K(L) for the same set of agonists at wild type D2 vs S193A, S194A, and S197A receptors using CoMFA. Each model used bromocriptine as the template. ln(1/K(L)) values for the low-affinity agonist binding conformation at recombinant wild type and mutant D2 dopamine receptors stably expressed in C6 glioma cells were used as the target property for the CoMFA of the 16 aligned agonist structures. The resulting CoMFA models yielded cross-validated R(2) (q(2)) values ranging from 0.835 to 0.864 and simple R(2) values ranging from 0.999 to 1.000. Predictions of test compound affinities at WT and each mutant receptor were close to measured affinity values. This finding confirmed the predictive ability of the models and their differences from one another. The results strongly support the idea that CoMFA models of the same training set of compounds applied to WT vs mutant receptors can accurately predict differences in drug affinity at each. Furthermore, in a "proof of principle", two different templates were used to derive the CoMFA model for the WT and S193A mutant receptors. Pergolide was chosen as an alternate template because it showed a significant increase in affinity as a result of the S193A mutation. In this instance both the bromocriptine- and pergolide-based CoMFA models were similar to one another but different from those for the WT receptor using bromocriptine- or pergolide- as templates. The pergolide-based S193A model was more strikingly different from that of the WT receptor than was the bromocriptine-based S193A model. This suggests that a "dual-template" approach to differential CoMFA may have special value in elucidating key differences across related receptor types and in determining important elements of the drug-receptor interaction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10956209     DOI: 10.1021/jm990526y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Chem        ISSN: 0022-2623            Impact factor:   7.446


  9 in total

1.  High-affinity interactions of ligands at recombinant guinea pig 5HT7 receptors.

Authors:  R E Wilcox; J E Ragan; R S Pearlman; M Y Brusniak; R M Eglen; D W Bonhaus; T E Tenner; J D Miller
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  A sub-pathway based method to identify candidate drugs for glioblastomas.

Authors:  Yong-ri Zheng; Kai Kang; Jian-jiao Wang
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2014-08-22       Impact factor: 3.064

3.  Transmembrane segment five serines of the D4 dopamine receptor uniquely influence the interactions of dopamine, norepinephrine, and Ro10-4548.

Authors:  David F Cummings; Spencer S Ericksen; Angela Goetz; John A Schetz
Journal:  J Pharmacol Exp Ther       Date:  2010-03-09       Impact factor: 4.030

4.  Molecular Determinants of the Intrinsic Efficacy of the Antipsychotic Aripiprazole.

Authors:  Carmen Klein Herenbrink; Ravi Verma; Herman D Lim; Anitha Kopinathan; Alastair Keen; Jeremy Shonberg; Christopher J Draper-Joyce; Peter J Scammells; Arthur Christopoulos; Jonathan A Javitch; Ben Capuano; Lei Shi; J Robert Lane
Journal:  ACS Chem Biol       Date:  2019-08-05       Impact factor: 5.100

5.  Tetrahydroisoquinolines acting as dopaminergic ligands. A molecular modeling study using MD simulations and QM calculations.

Authors:  Sebastián Andujar; Fernando Suvire; Inmaculada Berenguer; Nuria Cabedo; Paloma Marín; Laura Moreno; María Dolores Ivorra; Diego Cortes; Ricardo D Enriz
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2011-04-27       Impact factor: 1.810

Review 6.  Dopamine and Dopamine-Related Ligands Can Bind Not Only to Dopamine Receptors.

Authors:  Jaromir Myslivecek
Journal:  Life (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-19

7.  Investigation of D₂ receptor-agonist interactions using a combination of pharmacophore and receptor homology modeling.

Authors:  Marcus Malo; Lars Brive; Kristina Luthman; Peder Svensson
Journal:  ChemMedChem       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 3.466

8.  Novel Molecule Exhibiting Selective Affinity for GABAA Receptor Subtypes.

Authors:  Cecilia M Borghese; Melissa Herman; Lawrence D Snell; Keri J Lawrence; Hyun-Young Lee; Donald S Backos; Lauren A Vanderlinden; R Adron Harris; Marisa Roberto; Paula L Hoffman; Boris Tabakoff
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-07-24       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Molecular determinants of juvenile hormone action as revealed by 3D QSAR analysis in Drosophila.

Authors:  Denisa Liszeková; Maja Polakovicová; Milan Beno; Robert Farkas
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-06-23       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.