Stoichiometry and geometry of the CXC chemokine receptor 4 complex with CXC ligand 12: molecular modeling and experimental validation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111:E5363-E5372. [PMID: 25468967 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1417037111]

Structure and ligand-binding mechanism of the human OX1 and OX2 orexin receptors

The orexin (also known as hypocretin) G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) regulate sleep and other behavioral functions in mammals, and are therapeutic targets for sleep and wake disorders. The human receptors hOX1R and hOX2R, which are 64% identical in sequence, have overlapping but distinct physiological functions and potential therapeutic profiles. We determined structures of hOX1R bound to the OX1R-selective antagonist SB-674042 and the dual antagonist suvorexant at 2.8-Å and 2.75-Å resolution, respectively, and used molecular modeling to illuminate mechanisms of antagonist subtype selectivity between hOX1R and hOX2R. The hOX1R structures also reveal a conserved amphipathic α-helix, in the extracellular N-terminal region, that interacts with orexin-A and is essential for high-potency neuropeptide activation at both receptors. The orexin-receptor crystal structures are valuable tools for the design and development of selective orexin-receptor antagonists and agonists.

Disulfide Trapping for Modeling and Structure Determination of Receptor: Chemokine Complexes

Despite the recent breakthrough advances in GPCR crystallography, structure determination of protein-protein complexes involving chemokine receptors and their endogenous chemokine ligands remains challenging. Here, we describe disulfide trapping, a methodology for generating irreversible covalent binary protein complexes from unbound protein partners by introducing two cysteine residues, one per interaction partner, at selected positions within their interaction interface. Disulfide trapping can serve at least two distinct purposes: (i) stabilization of the complex to assist structural studies and/or (ii) determination of pairwise residue proximities to guide molecular modeling. Methods for characterization of disulfide-trapped complexes are described and evaluated in terms of throughput, sensitivity, and specificity toward the most energetically favorable crosslinks. Due to abundance of native disulfide bonds at receptor:chemokine interfaces, disulfide trapping of their complexes can be associated with intramolecular disulfide shuffling and result in misfolding of the component proteins; because of this, evidence from several experiments is typically needed to firmly establish a positive disulfide crosslink. An optimal pipeline that maximizes throughput and minimizes time and costs by early triage of unsuccessful candidate constructs is proposed.

Use of network model to explore dynamic and allosteric properties of three GPCR homodimers

We used an elastic network model and protein structure network to study three class A GPCR homodimers.

Production of Chemokine/Chemokine Receptor Complexes for Structural Biophysical Studies

The development of methods for expression and purification of seven-transmembrane receptors has led to an increase in structural and biophysical data and greatly improved the understanding of receptor structure and function. For chemokine receptors, this has been highlighted by the determination of crystal structures of CXCR4 and CCR5 in complex with small-molecule antagonists, followed recently by two receptor/chemokine complexes; CXCR4 in complex with vMIP-II and US28 in complex with the CX3CL1. However, these studies cover only a few of the many chemokines and chemokine receptors and production of stable receptor/chemokine complexes remains a challenging task. Here, we present a method for producing purified complexes between chemokine receptors and chemokines by coexpression in Sf9 cells. Using the complex between atypical chemokine receptor 3 and its native chemokine CXCL12 as an example, we describe the virus production, protein expression, and purification process as well as reconstitution into different membrane mimics. This method provides an efficient way of producing pure receptor/chemokine complexes and has been used to successfully produce receptor/chemokine complexes for CXC as well as CC receptors.

Diversity and Inter-Connections in the CXCR4 Chemokine Receptor/Ligand Family: Molecular Perspectives

CXCR4 and its ligand CXCL12 mediate the homing of progenitor cells in the bone marrow and their recruitment to sites of injury, as well as affect processes such as cell arrest, survival, and angiogenesis. CXCL12 was long thought to be the sole CXCR4 ligand, but more recently the atypical chemokine macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) was identified as an alternative, non-cognate ligand for CXCR4 and shown to mediate chemotaxis and arrest of CXCR4-expressing T-cells. This has complicated the understanding of CXCR4-mediated signaling and associated biological processes. Compared to CXCL12/CXCR4-induced signaling, only few details are known on MIF/CXCR4-mediated signaling and it remains unclear to which extent MIF and CXCL12 reciprocally influence CXCR4 binding and signaling. Furthermore, the atypical chemokine receptor 3 (ACKR3) (previously CXCR7) has added to the complexity of CXCR4 signaling due to its ability to bind CXCL12 and MIF, and to evoke CXCL12- and MIF-triggered signaling independently of CXCR4. Also, extracellular ubiquitin (eUb) and the viral protein gp120 (HIV) have been reported as CXCR4 ligands, whereas viral chemokine vMIP-II (Herpesvirus) and human β3-defensin (HBD-3) have been identified as CXCR4 antagonists. This review will provide insight into the diversity and inter-connections in the CXCR4 receptor/ligand family. We will discuss signaling pathways initiated by binding of CXCL12 vs. MIF to CXCR4, elaborate on how ACKR3 affects CXCR4 signaling, and summarize biological functions of CXCR4 signaling mediated by CXCL12 or MIF. Also, we will discuss eUb and gp120 as alternative ligands for CXCR4, and describe vMIP-II and HBD-3 as antagonists for CXCR4. Detailed insight into biological effects of CXCR4 signaling und underlying mechanisms, including diversity of CXCR4 ligands and inter-connections with other (chemokine) receptors, is clinically important, as the CXCR4 antagonist AMD3100 has been approved as stem cell mobilizer in specific disease settings.

Progress toward rationally designed small-molecule peptide and peptidomimetic CXCR4 antagonists

Over the last 5 years, X-ray structures of CXCR4 in complex with three different ligands (the small-molecule antagonist IT1t, the polypeptide antagonist CVX15 and the viral chemokine antagonist vMIP-II) have been released. In addition to the inherent scientific value of these specific X-ray structures, they provide a reliable structural foundation for studies of the molecular interactions between CXCR4 and its key peptide ligands (CXCL12 and HIV-1 gp120), and serve as valuable templates for further development of small-molecule CXCR4 antagonists with therapeutic potential. We here review recent computational studies of the molecular interactions between CXCR4 and its peptide ligands – based on the X-ray structures of CXCR4 – and the current status of small-molecule peptide and peptidomimetic CXCR4 antagonists.

Chemokine and chemokine receptor structure and interactions: implications for therapeutic strategies

The control of cell migration by chemokines involves interactions with two types of receptors: seven transmembrane chemokine-type G protein-coupled receptors and cell surface or extracellular matrix-associated glycosaminoglycans. Coordinated interaction of chemokines with both types of receptors is required for directional migration of cells in numerous physiological and pathological processes. Accumulated structural information, culminating most recently in the structure of a chemokine receptor in complex with a chemokine, has led to a view where chemokine oligomers bind to glycosaminoglycans through epitopes formed when chemokine subunits come together, while chemokine monomers bind to receptors in a pseudo two-step mechanism of receptor activation. Exploitation of this structural knowledge has and will continue to provide important information for therapeutic strategies, as described in this review.

Structural biology. Crystal structure of the chemokine receptor CXCR4 in complex with a viral chemokine

Chemokines and their receptors control cell migration during development, immune system responses, and in numerous diseases, including inflammation and cancer. The structural basis of receptor:chemokine recognition has been a long-standing unanswered question due to the challenges of structure determination for membrane protein complexes. Here, we report the crystal structure of the chemokine receptor CXCR4 in complex with the viral chemokine antagonist vMIP-II at 3.1 angstrom resolution. The structure revealed a 1:1 stoichiometry and a more extensive binding interface than anticipated from the paradigmatic two-site model. The structure helped rationalize a large body of mutagenesis data and together with modeling provided insights into CXCR4 interactions with its endogenous ligand CXCL12, its ability to recognize diverse ligands, and the specificity of CC and CXC receptors for their respective chemokines.

Experiment-Guided Molecular Modeling of Protein-Protein Complexes Involving GPCRs

Experimental structure determination for G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) and especially their complexes with protein and peptide ligands is at its infancy. In the absence of complex structures, molecular modeling and docking play a large role not only by providing a proper 3D context for interpretation of biochemical and biophysical data, but also by prospectively guiding experiments. Experimentally confirmed restraints may help improve the accuracy and information content of the computational models. Here we present a hybrid molecular modeling protocol that integrates heterogeneous experimental data with force field-based calculations in the stochastic global optimization of the conformations and relative orientations of binding partners. Some experimental data, such as pharmacophore-like chemical fields or disulfide-trapping restraints, can be seamlessly incorporated in the protocol, while other types of data are more useful at the stage of solution filtering. The protocol was successfully applied to modeling and design of a stable construct that resulted in crystallization of the first complex between a chemokine and its receptor. Examples from this work are used to illustrate the steps of the protocol. The utility of different types of experimental data for modeling and docking is discussed and caveats associated with data misinterpretation are highlighted.