4.5 Article

Molecular modelling of subtypes (α2A, α2B and α2C) of α2-adrenoceptors: A comparative study

期刊

NEUROCHEMISTRY INTERNATIONAL
卷 55, 期 6, 页码 355-361

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuint.2009.05.004

关键词

alpha(2)-Adrenoceptor; Subtype selectivity; Homology modelling; Docking; Binding free energy; AutoDock

资金

  1. National Office for Research and Technology (NKTH)
  2. National Science Funding [K 73389]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The therapeutic usefulness of current agents that activate the three alpha(2)-adrenoceptors, alpha(2A), alpha(2B) and alpha(2C) is limited by their lack of subtype selectivity. One approach to the development of subtype-selective agents is the in silico docking of potential ligands to the receptors in quantitative molecular modeling studies. Because the crystal structure of the alpha(2)-adrenoceptors is not known, we used homology modeling based on the published structure of bovine rhodopsin. We developed individual models for each of the three receptors, which were found to accurately represent published data from both radioligand binding mutagenesis experiments. Using 18 non-subtype-selective agents to validate the models, the calculated transformed and the experimental binding free energies were satisfactory correlated (r(A)(2) = 0.888, r(B)(2) = 0.887, r(C)(2) = 0.790). The binding pockets differed in size (482-619 angstrom(3)) with the alpha(2B) receptor subtype having the largest and the alpha(2C) the smallest cavity. The binding sites for all three subtypes were found to be essentially identical with the exception of two subtype-specific residues, and thus we were unable to identify any significant differences in the interactions of ligands with the three receptor subtypes. Although, the binding properties of all three receptors are very similar, the differences in pocket volume and two subtype-specific residues in the binding pocket might play an as yet undocumented role in subtype selectivity. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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