4.6 Article

Ligand Binding Ensembles Determine Graded Agonist Efficacies at a G Protein-coupled Receptor

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 291, 期 31, 页码 16375-16389

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M116.735431

关键词

-

资金

  1. international doctoral program (Elite Network of Bavaria) Receptor Dynamics: Emerging Paradigms for Novel Drugs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

G protein-coupled receptors constitute the largest family of membrane receptors and modulate almost every physiological process in humans. Binding of agonists to G protein-coupled receptors induces a shift from inactive to active receptor conformations. Biophysical studies of the dynamic equilibrium of receptors suggest that a portion of receptors can remain in inactive states even in the presence of saturating concentrations of agonist and G protein mimetic. However, the molecular details of agonist-bound inactive receptors are poorly understood. Here we use the model of bitopic orthosteric/allosteric (i.e. dualsteric) agonists for muscarinic M-2 receptors to demonstrate the existence and function of such inactive agonist.receptor complexes on a molecular level. Using all-atom molecular dynamics simulations, dynophores (i.e. a combination of static three-dimensional pharmacophores and molecular dynamics-based conformational sampling), ligand design, and receptor mutagenesis, we show that inactive agonist.receptor complexes can result from agonist binding to the allosteric vestibule alone, whereas the dualsteric binding mode produces active receptors. Each agonist forms a distinct ligand binding ensemble, and different agonist efficacies depend on the fraction of purely allosteric (i.e. inactive) versus dualsteric (i.e. active) binding modes. We propose that this concept may explain why agonist.receptor complexes can be inactive and that adopting multiple binding modes may be generalized also to small agonists where binding modes will be only subtly different and confined to only one binding site.

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