4.6 Article

Interaction of Human C5a with the Major Peptide Fragments of C5aR1: Direct Evidence in Support of Two-Site Binding Paradigm

期刊

ACS OMEGA
卷 6, 期 35, 页码 22876-22887

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.1c03400

关键词

-

资金

  1. SERB [EMR/2016/000681]
  2. CSIR, New Delhi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study provides biophysical validation of the hypothesized two-site binding interactions of C5a with C5aR1, improving understanding of the physiological and pathological roles of the complement system. The findings may advance the development of new-generation antibodies and neutraligands targeting C5a for modulating its interaction with C5aR1.
The C5a receptor's (C5aR1) physiological function in various tissues depends on its high-affinity binding to the cationic proinflammatory glycoprotein C5a, produced during the activation of the complement system. However, an overstimulated complement can quickly alter the C5a-C5aR1 function from physiological to pathological, as has been noted in the case of several chronic inflammation-induced diseases like asthma, lung injury, multiorgan failure, sepsis, and now COVID-19. In the absence of the structural data, the current study provides the confirmatory biophysical validation of the hypothesized two-site binding interactions of C5a, involving (i) the N-terminus (NT) peptide (Site1) and (ii) the extracellular loop 2 (ECL2) peptide of the extracellular surface (ECS) of the C5aR1 (Site2), as illustrated earlier in the reported model structural complex of C5a-C5aR1. The biophysical and computational data elaborated in the study provides an improved understanding of the C5a-C5aR1 interaction at an atomistic resolution, highlighting the energetic importance of the aspartic acids on the NT-peptide of C5aR1 toward binding of C5a. The current study can potentially advance the search and optimization of new-generation alternative antibodies as well as neutraligands targeting the C5a to modulate its interaction with C5aR1.

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

4.6
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