Literature DB >> 26453085

Towards predictive docking at aminergic G-protein coupled receptors.

Jan Jakubík1, Esam E El-Fakahany2, Vladimír Doležal3.   

Abstract

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are hard to crystallize. However, attempts to predict their structure have boomed as a result of advancements in crystallographic techniques. This trend has allowed computer-aided molecular modeling of GPCRs. We analyzed the performance of four molecular modeling programs in pose evaluation of re-docked antagonists / inverse agonists to 11 original crystal structures of aminergic GPCRs using an induced fit-docking procedure. AutoDock and Glide were used for docking. AutoDock binding energy function, GlideXP, Prime MM-GB/SA, and YASARA binding function were used for pose scoring. Root mean square deviation (RMSD) of the best pose ranged from 0.09 to 1.58 Å, and median RMSD of the top 60 poses ranged from 1.47 to 3.83 Å. However, RMSD of the top pose ranged from 0.13 to 7.33 Å and ranking of the best pose ranged from the 1st to 60th out of 60 poses. Moreover, analysis of ligand-receptor interactions of top poses revealed substantial differences from interactions found in crystallographic structures. Bad ranking of top poses and discrepancies between top docked poses and crystal structures render current simple docking methods unsuitable for predictive modeling of receptor-ligand interactions. Prime MM-GB/SA optimized for 3NY9 by multiple linear regression did not work well at 3NY8 and 3NYA, structures of the same receptor with different ligands. However, 9 of 11 trajectories of molecular dynamics simulations by Desmond of top poses converged with trajectories of crystal structures. Key interactions were properly detected for all structures. This procedure also worked well for cross-docking of tested β2-adrenergic antagonists. Thus, this procedure represents a possible way to predict interactions of antagonists with aminergic GPCRs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Induced-fit docking; Ligand-receptor interaction; Molecular dynamics; Pose scoring

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26453085     DOI: 10.1007/s00894-015-2824-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mol Model        ISSN: 0948-5023            Impact factor:   1.810


  47 in total

1.  Consensus scoring: A method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins.

Authors:  P S Charifson; J J Corkery; M A Murcko; W P Walters
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  1999-12-16       Impact factor: 7.446

2.  SFCHECK: a unified set of procedures for evaluating the quality of macromolecular structure-factor data and their agreement with the atomic model.

Authors:  A A Vaguine; J Richelle; S J Wodak
Journal:  Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr       Date:  1999-01-01

3.  Increasing the precision of comparative models with YASARA NOVA--a self-parameterizing force field.

Authors:  Elmar Krieger; Günther Koraimann; Gert Vriend
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2002-05-15

4.  Announcing the worldwide Protein Data Bank.

Authors:  Helen Berman; Kim Henrick; Haruki Nakamura
Journal:  Nat Struct Biol       Date:  2003-12

5.  Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy.

Authors:  Richard A Friesner; Jay L Banks; Robert B Murphy; Thomas A Halgren; Jasna J Klicic; Daniel T Mainz; Matthew P Repasky; Eric H Knoll; Mee Shelley; Jason K Perry; David E Shaw; Perry Francis; Peter S Shenkin
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2004-03-25       Impact factor: 7.446

6.  The Uppsala Electron-Density Server.

Authors:  Gerard J Kleywegt; Mark R Harris; Jin Yu Zou; Thomas C Taylor; Anders Wählby; T Alwyn Jones
Journal:  Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr       Date:  2004-11-26

Review 7.  Improvements, trends, and new ideas in molecular docking: 2012-2013 in review.

Authors:  Elizabeth Yuriev; Jessica Holien; Paul A Ramsland
Journal:  J Mol Recognit       Date:  2015-03-21       Impact factor: 2.137

8.  Identifying ligand binding sites and poses using GPU-accelerated Hamiltonian replica exchange molecular dynamics.

Authors:  Kai Wang; John D Chodera; Yanzhi Yang; Michael R Shirts
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2013-12-03       Impact factor: 3.686

9.  AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility.

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

10.  Structure and dynamics of the M3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor.

Authors:  Andrew C Kruse; Jianxin Hu; Albert C Pan; Daniel H Arlow; Daniel M Rosenbaum; Erica Rosemond; Hillary F Green; Tong Liu; Pil Seok Chae; Ron O Dror; David E Shaw; William I Weis; Jürgen Wess; Brian K Kobilka
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-02-22       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  5 in total

1.  Novel M2 -selective, Gi -biased agonists of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors.

Authors:  Alena Randáková; Dominik Nelic; Dana Ungerová; Peter Nwokoye; Qiwen Su; Vladimír Doležal; Esam E El-Fakahany; John Boulos; Jan Jakubík
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  2020-02-15       Impact factor: 8.739

2.  Structure and ligand-binding mechanism of the human OX1 and OX2 orexin receptors.

Authors:  Jie Yin; Kerim Babaoglu; Chad A Brautigam; Lindsay Clark; Zhenhua Shao; Thomas H Scheuermann; Charles M Harrell; Anthony L Gotter; Anthony J Roecker; Christopher J Winrow; John J Renger; Paul J Coleman; Daniel M Rosenbaum
Journal:  Nat Struct Mol Biol       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 15.369

3.  Binding of N-methylscopolamine to the extracellular domain of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors.

Authors:  Jan Jakubík; Alena Randáková; Pavel Zimčík; Esam E El-Fakahany; Vladimír Doležal
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-01-16       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Design, sythesis and evaluation of a series of 3- or 4-alkoxy substituted phenoxy derivatives as PPARs agonists.

Authors:  Jun Zhang; Xue-Jiao Wang; Xin Liu; Yi Huan; Miao-Miao Yang; Zhu-Fang Shen; Wen-Qing Jia; Zhi Jing; Shu-Qing Wang; Wei-Ren Xu; Xian-Chao Cheng; Run-Ling Wang
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-03-28

5.  In silico Prediction, Characterization, Molecular Docking, and Dynamic Studies on Fungal SDRs as Novel Targets for Searching Potential Fungicides Against Fusarium Wilt in Tomato.

Authors:  Mohd Aamir; Vinay Kumar Singh; Manish Kumar Dubey; Mukesh Meena; Sarvesh Pratap Kashyap; Sudheer Kumar Katari; Ram Sanmukh Upadhyay; Amineni Umamaheswari; Surendra Singh
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 5.810

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.