Dhananjayan Karthik1, Pulak Majumder2, Sivanandy Palanisamy3, Kalathil Khairunnisa4, Varsha Venugopal5. 1. Department of Pharmacology, Amrita School of Pharmacy, AIMS Health Science Campus, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University, Kochi, Kerala, India. 2. Department of Pharmacognosy, Acharya & B.M.Reddy College of Pharmacy, Bangalore, Karnataka, India. 3. Department of Pharmacy Practice, International Medical University, Kualalampur, Malaysia. 4. Department of Pharmacology, Grace College of Pharmacy, Palakkad, Kerala, India. 5. Department of Pharmacognosy, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Abstract
Kinase Suppressor of Ras (KSR) is a molecular scaffold that interacts with the core kinase components of the ERK cascade, Raf, MEK, ERK to provide spatial and temporal regulation of Ras-dependent ERK cascade signaling. Interruption of this mechanism can have a high influence in inhibiting the downstream signaling of the mutated tyrosine kinase receptor kinase upon ligand binding. Still none of the studies targeted to prevent the binding of Raf, MEK binding on kinase suppressor of RAS. In that perspective the cysteine rich C1 domain of scaffold proteins kinase suppressor of Ras-1 was targeted rather than its ATP binding site with small ligand molecules like flavones and anthocyanidins and analyzed through insilico docking studies. The binding energy evaluation shows the importance of hydroxyl groups at various positions on the flavone and anthocyanidin nucleus. Over all binding interaction shows these ligands occupied the potential sites of cysteine rich C1 domain of scaffold protein KSR.
Kinase Suppressor of Ras (KSR) is a molecular scaffold that interacts with the core kinase components of the ERK cascade, Raf, MEK, ERK to provide spatial and temporal regulation of Ras-dependent ERK cascade signaling. Interruption of this mechanism can have a high influence in inhibiting the downstream signaling of the mutated tyrosine kinase receptor kinase upon ligand binding. Still none of the studies targeted to prevent the binding of Raf, MEK binding on kinase suppressor of RAS. In that perspective the cysteine rich C1 domain of scaffold proteins kinase suppressor of Ras-1 was targeted rather than its ATP binding site with small ligand molecules like flavones and anthocyanidins and analyzed through insilico docking studies. The binding energy evaluation shows the importance of hydroxyl groups at various positions on the flavone and anthocyanidin nucleus. Over all binding interaction shows these ligands occupied the potential sites of cysteine rich C1 domain of scaffold protein KSR.
Entities:
Keywords:
AutoDock 4.2.6; Kinase suppressor of Ras; MAPK signaling; Neoplasia; anthocyanidins; flavones; in silico docking
Mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway refers to a
module of three kinases which are activated by sequentially
phosphorylating each other in response to a diverse range of
stimuli, such as cytokines, growth factors, neurotransmitters,
cellular stress and cell adherence [1]. Accordingly, the pathway
plays a pivotal role in many key cellular processes, ranging
from growth control in all its variations, cell differentiation
and survival to cellular adaptation to chemical and physical
stress. Augmentation in activity or mutations in receptor
tyrosine kinases, that leads to neoplasia [2,
3]. Receptor
linked tyrosine kinases such as the epidermal growth factor
receptor (EGFR) are activated by extracellular ligands. Binding
of epidermal growth factor (EGF) to the EGFR activates the
tyrosine kinase activity of the cytoplasmic domain of the
receptor. The EGFR becomes phosphorylated on tyrosine
residues. Docking proteins such as GRB2 contains an SH2
domain that binds to the phosphotyrosine residues of the
activated receptor [4]. GRB2 binds to the guanine nucleotide
exchange factor SOS by way of the two SH3 domains of GRB2.
When the GRB2-SOS complex docks to phosphorylated EGFR,
SOS becomes activated. Activated SOS then promotes the
removal of GDP from a member of the Ras subfamily (most
notably H-Ras or K-Ras). Ras can then bind GTP and become
active [5]In between all these signaling process there is a role of
scaffolding proteins for the activation of Raf [6,
7]. Scaffolds
are defined as proteins with several domains that bind two or
more components of a signaling pathway simultaneously.
They bring signaling partners in close proximity to each other,
link them in a multi-enzyme complex and facilitate their
functional interaction. Within this complex, the kinases are
shielded from the deactivating phosphatases, and interference
with other signaling cascades is minimized [8,
9].Kinase Suppressor of Ras (KSR1) is a molecular scaffold that
interacts with the core kinase components of the ERK cascade,
Raf, MEK, and ERK and provides spatial and temporal
regulation of Ras-dependent ERK cascade signaling. CK2 is a
component of the KSR1 scaffold complex that contributes to
Raf kinase activation [10]. Raf-1 is a ceramide-activated kinase
and that its C1 domain is involved in the ceramide-mediated
response, Whereas KSR1 and its C1 domain is not getting
activated in the same manner [11]. Unlike Raf-1, however, the
kinase domain of KSR1 appears to be non-functional,
suggesting that KSR-1 does not promote Ras signaling by
phosphorylating target molecules [12,
13,
14]. So instead of
targeting kinase domain, ligands directed at the cysteine rich
C1 domain would have better functional activity in preventing
Ras signaling upon inducing conformational changes along the
scaffold protein preventing Raf-1, ERK binding to their site on
KSR1. The crystal structure of cysteine rich C1 domain of
kinase suppressor of Ras is shown in the (Figure 1). The
conserved KSR1 domains include a 40 residue region unique to
KSR1 proteins (CA1), a proline-rich region (CA2), a cysteine
rich C1 domain (CA3), a serine/threonine-rich region (CA4),
and a putative kinase domain (CA5). Similar to the domain
organization of Raf-1, the smaller conserved domains of KSR1
are found in the N-terminal region, while the kinase-like
domain occupies the C-terminal half of the protein. Unlike Raf
1, however, the kinase domain of KSR1 appears to be non
functional, suggesting that KSR1 does not promote Ras
signaling by phosphorylating target molecules. C1 domains
are defined as regions of approximately 50 amino acid residues
that contain the motif HX10-12CX2CX11-19CX2CX4 HX2-4CX5-9C
[15]. C1A and C1B are the two repeat C1 domains located
within the same protein. C1 domains were initially identified
as the phorbol ester and 1, 2-dialyglycerol binding moieties of
the protein kinase C (PKC) family of serine/ threonine kinases
[16]. Ligands antagonizing the KSR1 scaffold activity and
thereby interrupting the MAPK signaling pathway are not
available yet. But researches were started focusing on to
analyse its potential in binding with small molecules like
flavonoids and other phytoconstituents. Present study focuses
on binding affinity of some selected anthocyanidins and
flavones on the basis of existing reviews [17]. Rare flavonoids
like 2'-Hydroxygenistein was found to occupy the Raf binding
site of KSR [18].
Figure 1
A) The schematic diagram shows the domains of
knase suppressor of Ras with their terminals. The cysteine rich
C1 domain − CA3 is emphasized to show their protein
structure makup. The marking ( ) shown in the image indicates
the respective beta sheets; B) Secondary structure showing the
beta sheets (β1, β2, β3, β4, β5) containing amino acid residue at
the gorge. The mesh diagram with encircled areas shows the
gorge of KSR C1 domain. (Images have been visualized using
Accelrys discovery studio 4.0 and Pymol viewer). The
schematic diagram is created based on the information as per
the literature.
In silico studies like protein-ligand docking has been carried out
in order to find out a lead molecule for antagonizing the effect
of KSR1. In this study latest version of Auto Dock 4.2.6 was
utilized. AutoDock 4.2.6 features improved input checking and
an output format suitable for automated analysis. Multiple
search methods can be used in a single 4.2.6 job. Auto Dock
4.2.6 is an advanced docking platform which utilizes monte
carlo simulated annealing and Lamarckian genetic algorithm
(LGA) to create a set of possible conformations. LGA is used as
a global optimizer and energy minimization as a local search
method. For the evaluation of possible orientations, AMBER
force field model in conjunction with free energy scoring
function is used. Coordinate files preparation, atomic affinities
(AutoGrid) calculation was made. Semi empirical free energy
force field is used to evaluate conformations during docking.
The Ligand and protein stay in an unbound conformation.
Then binding is evaluated in two steps by force field. Force
field evaluates intramolecular energetics during the translation
from their unbounded states to the conformation of both
ligand and protein into the form of bound state [19,
20]
Methodology
The crystal structure of the scaffold protein cysteine rich C1
domain of kinase suppressor of Ras was downloaded from
RCSB protein data bank bearing the PDB code – 1KBE.
Molecular docking was performed with MGL (Molecular
Graphics Laboratory) tools–latest version of AutoDock 4.2.6
(release date: 2014-08-01), ligands were designed using Chem
sketch [21]. Energy minimization was done with Chem Office
package- Chem 3D ultra [22]. Interactive Graphic visualizers
like Accelrys Discovery studio visualizer 4.0 [23], PyMol
visualizer [24] was used.
Enzyme preparation and Ligand preparation:
Investigational ligands have designed and the ligands were
optimized for energy minimization using MM2 force field
[25].
The optimized ligands were shown in Figure 2.The ligands
were selected according to the Lipinski's rule of five
[26].
According to the drug likeness properties, the ligands showed
zero violation of the Lipinski rule of five. Macromolecule has
to be prepared, prior to docking process. Preparation involves
removal of water molecule and any unwanted hetero atoms,
because these will interfere in docking process. After refining
enzyme macromolecule is saved as .pdb execution file.
Figure 2
Energy minimized 3D-ligands used for docking
study visualized in accelrys discovery studio 4.0
Validation of molecular docking:
To know the accuracy of molecular docking, the co-crystallized
ligand was retrieved and again re-docked on to the binding
site of ksr domain. If the RMSD value of the docked ligand is
found to be less than 2.0Å, then the docking methodology is
reliable [27].
Still current investigation is a prediction studies,
we have retrieved the ligand (2-hydroxygenistein) from crystal
structure as reported from the literature quoted in background
section of this article from our previous findings and validated
their docking efficiency.
Docking methodology:
Molecular docking was performed in making enzyme
molecule rigid and ligand to get flexible, in this way different
conformation arises during each run and the best conformer
fits with lowest binding energy (kcal/mol). Auto Dock
4.2.6was used to automatically dock the ligands to the enzyme.
In the latest version of Auto Dock 4.2.6 under windows
platform, cygwin interface is not needed to perform the
docking study. Rigid docking was performed using latest
version of AutoDock 4.2 (4.2.6). The enzyme molecule is
loaded and stored as ksr.pdb after assigning hydrogen bonds
and kollman charges. The investigation ligand was loaded and
their torsions along with rotatable bonds were assigned and
the file is saved as ligand.pdbqt. Grid menu is toggled, after
loading enzyme.pdbqt the map files were selected directly
with setting up grid points with 106 × 124 × 74 dimensions for
the searching of ligand within the active site of the enzyme
molecule. This way the grid parameter files are created with
setting up of map files directly. Followed by, setting up of
docking parameter files with search parameter as genetic
algorithm and docking parameter utilizing Lamarckian genetic
algorithm. The Lamarckian genetic algorithm (LGA) was
applied to deal with the protein– inhibitor interactions. These
so-called state variables are the inhibitors genotype, and the
resulting atomic coordinates together with the interaction and
the intra-molecular energies are the inhibitors phenotype. The
environmental adaptation of the phenotype is reverse
transcribed into its genotype and become heritable traits. Each
docking cycle or generation, consists of a regimen of fitness
evaluation, crossover, mutation, and selection. Following up of
grid parameter files (gpf) and docking log files (dlg), the
command prompt is toggled and commands are typed in step
wise for autogrid and autodock execution. The docked
structures of the inhibitors are generated after a maximum
number of evaluations [28].
Results & Discussion
The actual (native) conformation of co-crystallized ligand (2'-
hydroxygenistein) and re-docked conformation of the same
ligand (2'-hydroxygenistein) is shown in Figure 3. The RMSD
of all atoms between these two conformations is 1.7430Å. From
that validation, investigating ligands are concluded to run for
docking calculations.
Figure 3
Validation of molecular docking. Surface image
showing the native conformation and docked conformation of
co-crystallized ligand (Image generated using Pymol Version
1.1)
Binding affinity and dissociation constant:
AutoDock 4.2 uses a semi-empirical free energy force field to
evaluate conformations during docking simulations. The force
field was parameterized using a large number of protein
inhibitor complexes. The force field evaluates binding in two
steps. The ligand and protein start in an unbound
conformation. In the first step, the intramolecular energetics is
estimated for the transition from these unbound states to the
conformation of the ligand and protein in the bound state. The
second step then evaluates the intermolecular energetic of
combining the ligand and protein in their bound conformation.
Table 1
list out the lowest binding energy of ligands at the
gorge of the C1 domain of scaffold protein (KSR1). Among the
investigated ligands cyanidin, Chrysin and Apigenin showed
free energy of binding (ΔG) values -6.73, -6.56, -6.08 kcal/mol
with a dissociation constant of 12.0uM, 15.66uM, 35.04uM
respectively. Whereas ligands like delphinidin, acacetin and
taxifolin possessed a considerable free energy of binding (ΔG)
5.74,-5.69, and -4.86 respectively.
Crystal structure of kinase suppressor of Ras-1 and its specificity :
The cysteine rich C1 domain is the investigational target site
for the prediction on binding affinity character of flavonoids.
KSR is an essential scaffolding protein to co-ordinate the
assembly of Raf-MEK-ERK complexes in MAPK pathway of
cellular proliferation [29]. The cysteine rich C1 domain
containing amino acid chains extend from Gly 330 to Arg378.
Aminoacids exposed at the active site gorge where Cys 346,
Lys365, Gln344, Gln356, Trp341, Ile354, Phe355, Lys358,
Lys365, Asn368 and Lys369, Lys365, Phe366. The crystal
structure of C1 domain of KSR1 was found to contain cysteine
residues at Cys377, Cys370, Cys366, Cys362, Cys 359, Cys349,
and Cys 346.
Interaction analysis of flavones and anthocyanidins:
Occupancy of acacetin flexed their C7 hydroxyl groups
towards Asn368 (2.04 Å) formed a hydrogen bonding but the
opposite strand containing Thr338 (Figure 4 &
Figure 5) doesn't
involved in interaction even though oxygen atom of acacetin is
in near vicinity. But in case of delphinidin, C7 hydroxyl group
was replaced with a trihydroxyl phenyl group interacted at
Thr338 (2.03 Å) through hydrogen bonding but that was absent
in acacetin where it favored against Asn368. Where asC7
hydroxyl groups of taxifolin Hbond with the Thr338 (1.04 Å) at
their catalytic site. Apigenin at its lowest binding energy (-
6.08kcal/mol) showed its interaction at Lys369 (2.03Å) where
interaction was found to be absent through repeated docking
studies and even in different poses generated during their run.
This shows the Lys369 directed interaction of C7 hydroxyl
groups of apigenin. Cyanidin with its free energy of binding (-
6.73kcal/mol) has a differential interaction at Phe355 and
Val357 as a fragmentation type. On analyzing their
hydrophobic interaction, they found to interact with Trp341
(5.22 Å) and Lys365 (3.15 Å). This makes their affinity stronger
than other ligands under investigation. Bioflavonoids
investigated in this study were found to interact with amino
acids like ASN368, LYS365. Table 4 shows the amino acids
involved in hydrogen bond interaction with the investigating
ligands. Aminoacid residues at beta sheets β1, β4 was found to
interact with the bioflavonoids and this gorge is the potential
area of interaction.
Figure 4
Image showing the binding interactions of the
ligands used in the study along with their hydrogen bond
length (Å). Images generated using MGLtools AutoDock 4.2.6
package (release date: 2014-08-01)
Figure 5
The gorge occupied area of cyanidin (left) has been
emphasized (right), showing the non-bonding interactions
(hydrophobic and hydrogen bond interactions) at the gorge of
cystein rich C1domain of kinase suppressor of RAS. Image
generated using acclerys discovery studio 4.0. Pale blue colour
indicates the hydrophobic interaction and yellow colour
indicates the hydrogen bonding.
Ligands structural specificity:
Experimental analysis on structure of KSR1 C1 domain
showed that the lower two thirds of the protein surface are
composed largely of positively charged residues. Located at
the top of the C1 domain is a local hydrophobic region formed
by residues in the hairpin structure; namely, L342, V345, M353,
I354 and F355. These hydrophobic residues constitute the
predicted ligand-binding pocket of the KSR1 C1 domain. The
functional specificity and the structural features of the KSR1-
C1 regulatory domains can provide valuable insight into their
ligand-binding properties [30]. On analyzing ligand's
structural specificity towards the hydrophobic site of ksr1, it
explains the role of hydroxyl groups at C7 of flavone nucleus
was found to interact through hydrogen bonding with most of
the amino acids along the beta sheet ARG 363, LYS365,
ASN368, and LYS369 (Figure 6). Some of the ligands showed
fragmental binding (GLY356 and PHE355; LYS369; THR338)
with the aminoacid residues. Lowest free energy of binding
was shown by cyanidin which contains C7 hydroxyl group
doesn't have any interaction at the gorge area. But instead the
C4'substituted hydroxyl groups has its interaction through
hydrogen bonding with Gly356 (1.919Å). Chrysin and taxifolin
showed major interaction with ASN 368 and LYS 365. Over all
from these binding affinity studies, the amino acids along the
beta sheet (β4 and β5) has most of the interaction with the
ligands and this might elicit conformational changes in the
scaffold. This way these ligands can interrupt in Raf binding
prior to ERK and Ras activation in Neoplasia through
interaction at cysteine rich C1 domain of kinase suppressor of
Ras-1.
Figure 6
The ligands (1 to 6 as shown in table 1) above the
crystal structure shows the hydroxyl groups (black dotted
circles) involved in interaction through hydrogen bonding at
the receptor site. A) Most of the interactions were with the
amino acids along the beta sheet ARG 363, LYS365, ASN368,
and LYS369 and B) Surface image with ligand (acacetin)
positioning at its lowest binding energy (ΔG) at the gorge
along the β4 and β5.
Conclusion
Computational designing and docking studies of potential bio
flavonoids and anthocyanidins exhibited better binding
affinity with kinase suppressor of Ras, the scaffold protein of
MAPK signaling pathway. The binding energy evaluation
shows the importance of hydroxyl groups at various positions
on the flavone and anthocyanidin nucleus. Over all binding
interaction shows these ligands occupied the essential area of
Cysteine rich C1 domain of kinase suppressor of Ras-1. These
ligands can be evaluated for in-vitro ksr-1 binding affinity
studies and can be added as lead molecules in the
development of drugs on targeting neoplasia through
inhibition of MAPK signaling pathways.
Authors: Daniel A Ritt; Ming Zhou; Thomas P Conrads; Timothy D Veenstra; Terry D Copeland; Deborah K Morrison Journal: Curr Biol Date: 2006-12-14 Impact factor: 10.834
Authors: Garrett M Morris; Ruth Huey; William Lindstrom; Michel F Sanner; Richard K Belew; David S Goodsell; Arthur J Olson Journal: J Comput Chem Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.376