4.5 Article

Homology modeling and molecular docking studies of Drosophila and Aedes sex peptide receptors

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR GRAPHICS & MODELLING
卷 66, 期 -, 页码 115-122

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmgm.2016.03.014

关键词

Drosophila sex peptide receptor; G protein-coupled receptor; GPCR modeling; Docking; Binding site prediction; BiHelix/SuperBiHelix; GEnSeMBLE; Pyrazolodiazepine

资金

  1. GIST-Caltech Research Collaboration Project

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Drosophila melanogaster sex peptide receptor (DrmSPR), which is a G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR), is known as the specific receptor for sex peptide (SP). It is responsible for the reproductive behavior in the Drosophila model system; in particular, it is involved in the post-mating responses such as the increase in egg-laying ability and decrease in receptivity in females. In a previous study, we discovered a small molecule agonist of DrmSPR for the first time, which could not, however, activate Aedes aegypti SPR (AedesSPR). To investigate the binding mechanism of the small molecule agonist of DrmSPR, the ensemble structures of low-lying packing structures of DrmSPR and AedesSPR were assembled using the GEnSeMBLE (GPCR Ensemble of Structures in Membrane BiLayer Environment) method. The generated homology models exhibited the typical pattern of inter-helical interactions of the class A GPCRs. The docking experiments of the small molecule agonist suggest that Tyr(5.35) and Phe(2.67) residues may be involved in a hydrophobic interaction and that Ser(3.25) forms a hydrogen bond with the agonist. Additionally, we found that the docking results were consistent with the experimental data of the reference compounds with variable agonistic activities. Moreover, a potential distinction of the putative binding sites in two GPCR models of DrmSPR and AedesSPR, which was determined in this study, can explain the selective action of the agonist for DrmSPR but not for AedesSPR. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. 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