4.3 Article

Simplified modeling approach suggests structural mechanisms for constitutive activation of the C5a receptor

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/prot.22918

关键词

GPCR; molecular modeling; constitutive activation; C5a receptor

资金

  1. NIH [GM 71634, GM63720]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molecular modeling of conformational changes occurring in the transmembrane region of the complement factor 5a receptor (C5aR) during receptor activation was performed by comparing two constitutively active mutants (CAMs) of C5aR, NQ (I124N/L127Q), and F251A, to those of the wildtype C5aR and NQ-N296A (I124N/L127Q/N296A), which have the wild-type phenotype. Modeling involved comprehensive sampling of various rotations of TM helices aligned to the crystal template of the dark-adapted rhodopsin along their long axes. By assuming that the relative energies of the spontaneously activated states of CAMs should be lower or at least comparable to energies characteristic for the ground states, we selected the plausible models for the conformational states associated with constitutive activation in C5aR. The modeling revealed that the hydrogen bonds between the side chains of D82-N119, S85-N119, and S131-C221 characteristic for the ground state were replaced by the hydrogen bonds D82-N296, N296-Y300, and S131-R134, respectively, in the activated states. Also, conformational transitions that: occurred upon activation were hindered by contacts between the side chains of L127 and F251. The results rationalize the available data of mutagenesis in C5aR and offer the first specific molecular mechanism for the loss of constitutive activity in NQ-N296A. Our results also contributed to understanding the general structural mechanisms of activation in G-protein-coupled receptors lacking the ionic lock, R-3.50 and E/D-6.30. Importantly, these results were obtained by modeling approaches that deliberately simplify many elements in order to explore potential conformations of GPCRs involving large-scale molecular movements.

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

4.3
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