4.7 Article

Molecular Determinants of Ligand Binding Modes in the Histamine H4 Receptor: Linking Ligand-Based Three-Dimensional Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (3D-QSAR) Models to in Silico Guided Receptor Mutagenesis Studies

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 54, 期 23, 页码 8136-8147

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jm201042n

关键词

-

资金

  1. Top Institute Pharma [D1.105]
  2. The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [NWO] [700.59.408]
  3. 700.59.408], and COST Action [BM0806]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The histamine H-4 receptor (H4R) is a G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) that plays an important role in inflammation. Similar to the homologous histamine H-3 receptor (H3R), two acidic residues in the HA binding pocket, D-3.32 and E-5.46, act as essential hydrogen bond acceptors of positively ionizable hydrogen bond donors in H4R ligands. Given the symmetric distribution of these complementary pharmacophore features in H4R and its ligands, different alternative ligand binding mode hypotheses have been proposed. The current study focuses on the elucidation of the molecular determinants of H4R-ligand binding modes by combining (3D) quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR), protein homology modeling, molecular dynamics simulations, and site-directed mutagenesis studies. We have designed and synthesized a series of clobenpropit (N-(4-chlorobenzyl)-S-[3-(4(5)-imidazolyl)propyl]isothiourea) derivatives to investigate H4R-ligand interactions and ligand binding orientations. Interestingly, our studies indicate that clobenpropit (2) itself can bind to H4R in two distinct binding modes, while the addition of a cyclohexyl group to the clobenpropit isothiourea moiety allows VUF5228 (5) to adopt only one specific binding mode in the HA binding pocket. Our ligand-steered, experimentally supported protein modeling method gives new insights into ligand recognition by H4R and can be used as a general approach to elucidate the structure of protein-ligand complexes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据