Literature DB >> 32737667

Benchmarking GPCR homology model template selection in combination with de novo loop generation.

Gregory L Szwabowski1, Paige N Castleman1, Chandler K Sears1, Lee H Wink1, Judith A Cole2, Daniel L Baker1, Abby L Parrill3,4.   

Abstract

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCR) comprise the largest family of membrane proteins and are of considerable interest as targets for drug development. However, many GPCR structures remain unsolved. To address the structural ambiguity of these receptors, computational tools such as homology modeling and loop modeling are often employed to generate predictive receptor structures. Here we combined both methods to benchmark a protocol incorporating homology modeling based on a locally selected template and extracellular loop modeling that additionally evaluates the presence of template ligands during these modeling steps. Ligands were also docked using three docking methods and two pose selection methods to elucidate an optimal ligand pose selection method. Results suggest that local template-based homology models followed by loop modeling produce more accurate and predictive receptor models than models produced without loop modeling, with decreases in average receptor and ligand RMSD of 0.54 Å and 2.91 Å, respectively. Ligand docking results showcased the ability of MOE induced fit docking to produce ligand poses with atom root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) values at least 0.20 Å lower (on average) than the other two methods benchmarked in this study. In addition, pose selection methods (software-based scoring, ligand complementation) selected lower RMSD poses with MOE induced fit docking than either of the other methods (averaging at least 1.57 Å lower), indicating that MOE induced fit docking is most suited for docking into GPCR homology models in our hands. In addition, target receptor models produced with a template ligand present throughout the modeling process most often produced target ligand poses with RMSD values ≤ 4.5 Å and Tanimoto coefficients > 0.6 after selection based on ligand complementation than target receptor models produced in the absence of template ligands. Overall, the findings produced by this study support the use of local template homology modeling in combination with de novo ECL2 modeling in the presence of a ligand from the template crystal structure to generate GPCR models intended to study ligand binding interactions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Comparative modeling; Comparative protein modeling; G protein-coupled receptor; GPCR; Homology modeling; Ligand docking; Ligand identification; Loop modeling

Year:  2020        PMID: 32737667      PMCID: PMC7484324          DOI: 10.1007/s10822-020-00325-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des        ISSN: 0920-654X            Impact factor:   3.686


  33 in total

1.  Structures of the CXCR4 chemokine GPCR with small-molecule and cyclic peptide antagonists.

Authors:  Beili Wu; Ellen Y T Chien; Clifford D Mol; Gustavo Fenalti; Wei Liu; Vsevolod Katritch; Ruben Abagyan; Alexei Brooun; Peter Wells; F Christopher Bi; Damon J Hamel; Peter Kuhn; Tracy M Handel; Vadim Cherezov; Raymond C Stevens
Journal:  Science       Date:  2010-10-07       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Protein structure prediction and analysis using the Robetta server.

Authors:  David E Kim; Dylan Chivian; David Baker
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2004-07-01       Impact factor: 16.971

3.  GPCR homology model template selection benchmarking: Global versus local similarity measures.

Authors:  Paige N Castleman; Chandler K Sears; Judith A Cole; Daniel L Baker; Abby L Parrill
Journal:  J Mol Graph Model       Date:  2018-10-21       Impact factor: 2.518

4.  Determination of atomic desolvation energies from the structures of crystallized proteins.

Authors:  C Zhang; G Vasmatzis; J L Cornette; C DeLisi
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  1997-04-04       Impact factor: 5.469

5.  Orphan receptor ligand discovery by pickpocketing pharmacological neighbors.

Authors:  Tony Ngo; Andrey V Ilatovskiy; Alastair G Stewart; James L J Coleman; Fiona M McRobb; R Peter Riek; Robert M Graham; Ruben Abagyan; Irina Kufareva; Nicola J Smith
Journal:  Nat Chem Biol       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 15.040

6.  Structures of the Human PGD2 Receptor CRTH2 Reveal Novel Mechanisms for Ligand Recognition.

Authors:  Lei Wang; Dandan Yao; R N V Krishna Deepak; Heng Liu; Qingpin Xiao; Hao Fan; Weimin Gong; Zhiyi Wei; Cheng Zhang
Journal:  Mol Cell       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 17.970

Review 7.  Understanding the common themes and diverse roles of the second extracellular loop (ECL2) of the GPCR super-family.

Authors:  Michael J Woolley; Alex C Conner
Journal:  Mol Cell Endocrinol       Date:  2016-11-27       Impact factor: 4.102

8.  Structural basis for selectivity and diversity in angiotensin II receptors.

Authors:  Haitao Zhang; Gye Won Han; Alexander Batyuk; Andrii Ishchenko; Kate L White; Nilkanth Patel; Anastasiia Sadybekov; Beata Zamlynny; Michael T Rudd; Kaspar Hollenstein; Alexandra Tolstikova; Thomas A White; Mark S Hunter; Uwe Weierstall; Wei Liu; Kerim Babaoglu; Eric L Moore; Ryan D Katz; Jennifer M Shipman; Margarita Garcia-Calvo; Sujata Sharma; Payal Sheth; Stephen M Soisson; Raymond C Stevens; Vsevolod Katritch; Vadim Cherezov
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2017-04-05       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Improvements to robotics-inspired conformational sampling in rosetta.

Authors:  Amelie Stein; Tanja Kortemme
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Pharmacogenomics of GPCR Drug Targets.

Authors:  Alexander S Hauser; Sreenivas Chavali; Ikuo Masuho; Leonie J Jahn; Kirill A Martemyanov; David E Gloriam; M Madan Babu
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 41.582

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.