4.4 Article

Ligand-Specific Structural Changes in the Vitamin D Receptor in Solution

期刊

BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 50, 期 51, 页码 11025-11033

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/bi201637p

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
  2. U.S. National Institutes of Health
  3. National Magnetic Resonance Facility at Madison [P41 RR0231, P41 RR02301-25S1, R01 DC009018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vitamin D receptor (VDR) is a member of the nuclear hormone receptor superfamily. When bound to a variety of vitamin D analogues, VDR manifests a wide diversity of physiological actions. The molecular mechanism by which different vitamin D analogues cause specific responses is not understood. The published crystallographic structures of the ligand binding domain of VDR (VDR-LBD) complexed with ligands that have differential biological activities have exhibited identical protein conformations. Here we report that rat VDR-LBD (rVDR-LBD) in solution exhibits differential chemical shifts when bound to three ligands that cause diverse responses: the natural hormone, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D(3) [1,25(OH)(2)D(3)], a potent agonist analogue, 2-methylene-19-nor-(20S)-1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D(3) [2MD], and an antagonist, 2-methylene-(22E)-(24R)-25-carbobutoxy-26,27-cyclo-22-dehydro-1 alpha,24-dihydroxy-19-norvitamin D(3) [OU-72]. Ligand-specific chemical shifts mapped not only to residues at or near the binding pocket but also to residues remote from the ligand binding site. The complexes of rVDR-LBD with native hormone and the potent agonist 2MD exhibited chemical shift differences in signals from helix-12, which is part of the AF2 transactivation domain that appears to play a role in the selective recruitment of coactivators. By contrast, formation of the complex of rVDR-LBD with the antagonist OU-72 led to disappearance of signals from residues in helices-11 and -12. We present evidence that disorder in this region of the receptor in the antagonist complex prevents the attachment of coactivators.

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

4.4
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