4.6 Article

Molecular interactions of cyclam and bicyclam non-peptide antagonists with the CXCR4 chemokine receptor

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 276, 期 17, 页码 14153-14160

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M010429200

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The non-peptide CXCR4 receptor antagonist AMD3100, which is a potent blocker of human immunodeficiency virus cell entry, is a symmetrical bicyclam composed of two identical 1,4,8,11-tetraazacyclotetradecane (cyclam) moieties connected by a relatively rigid phenylenebismethylene linker. Based on the known strong propensity of the cyclam moiety to bind carboxylic acid groups, receptor mutagenesis identified Asp(171) and Asp(262), located in transmembrane domain (TM) TV and TM-VI, respectively, at each end of the main ligand-binding crevice of the CXCR4 receptor, as being essential for the ability of AMD3100 to block the binding of the chemokine ligand stromal cell-derived factor (SDF)-1 alpha as well as the binding of the receptor antibody 12G5. The free cyclam moiety had no effect on 12G5 binding, but blocked SDF-1 alpha binding with an affinity of 3 muM through interaction with Asp(171). The effect on SDF-1 alpha binding of a series of bicyclam analogs with variable chemical linkers was found to rely either only on Asp(171), i.e. the bicyclams acted as the isolated cyclam, or on both Asp(171) and Asp(262), i.e, they acted as AMD3100, depending on the length and the chemical nature of the linker between the two cyclam moieties. A positive correlation was found between the dependence of these compounds on Asp(262) for binding and their potency as anti-human immunodeficiency virus agents, It is concluded that AMD3100 acts on the CXCR4 receptor through binding to Asp(171), TM-IV and Asp(262) in TM-VI with each of its cyclam moieties, and it is suggested that part of its function is associated with a conformational constraint imposed upon the receptor by the connecting phenylenebismethylene linker.

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