Amino acids of the alpha1B-adrenergic receptor involved in agonist binding: differences in docking catecholamines to receptor subtypes

Evaluating the conformational space of the active site of D2 dopamine receptor. Scope and limitations of the standard docking methods

We report here for the first time the potential energy surfaces (PES) of phenyletilamine (PEA) and meta-tyramine (m-OH-PEA) at the D₂ dopamine receptor (D2DR) binding site. PESs not only allow us to observe all the critical points of the surface (minimums, maximums, and transition states), but also to note the ease or difficulty that each local minima have for their conformational inter-conversions and therefore know the conformational flexibility that these ligands have in their active sites. Taking advantage of possessing this valuable information, we analyze how accurate a standard docking study is in these cases. Our results indicate that although we have to be careful in how to carry out this type of study and to consider performing some extra-simulations, docking calculations can be satisfactory. In order to analyze in detail the different molecular interactions that are stabilizing the different ligand-receptor (L-R) complexes, we carried out quantum theory of atoms in molecules (QTAIM) computations and NMR shielding calculations. Although some of these techniques are a bit tedious and require more computational time, our results demonstrate the importance of performing computational simulations using different types of combined techniques (docking/MD/hybrid QM-MM/QTAIM and NMR shielding calculations) in order to obtain more accurate results. Our results allow us to understand in details the molecular interactions stabilizing and destabilizing the different L-R complexes reported here. Thus, the different activities observed for dopamine (DA), m-OH-PEA, and PEA can be clearly explained at molecular level.

Motions around conserved helical weak spots facilitate GPCR activation

G protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) participate in most physiological processes and are important drug targets in many therapeutic areas. Recently, many GPCR X‐ray structures became available, facilitating detailed studies of their sequence‐structure‐mobility‐function relations. We show that the functional role of many conserved GPCR sequence motifs is to create weak spots in the transmembrane helices that provide the structural plasticity necessary for ligand binding and signaling. Different receptor families use different conserved sequence motifs to obtain similar helix irregularities that allow for the same motions upon GPCR activation. These conserved motions come together to facilitate the timely release of the conserved sodium ion to the cytosol. Most GPCR crystal structures could be determined only after stabilization of the transmembrane helices by mutations that remove weak spots. These mutations often lead to diminished binding of agonists, but not antagonists, which logically agrees with the fact that large helix rearrangements occur only upon agonist binding. Upon activation, six of the seven TM helices in GPCRs undergo helix motions and/or deformations facilitated by weak spots in these helices. The location of these weak spots is much more conserved than the sequence motifs that cause them. Knowledge about these weak spots helps understand the activation process of GPCRs and thus helps design medicines.

Critical APJ receptor residues in extracellular domains that influence effector selectivity

Human APJ receptor/apelin receptor (APJR), activated by apelin peptide isoforms, regulates a wide range of physiological processes. The role of extracellular loop (ECL) domain residues of APJR in ligand binding and receptor activation has not been established yet. Based on multiple sequence alignment of APJ receptor from various organisms, we identified conserved residues in the extracellular domains. Alanine substitutions of specific residues were characterized to evaluate their ligand binding efficiency and G_q -, G_i -, and β-arrestin-mediated signaling. Mutation-dependent variation in ligand binding and signaling was observed. W¹⁹⁷ A in ECL2 and L²⁷⁶ L²⁷⁷ W²⁷⁹ -AAA in ECL3 were deficient in G_i and β-arrestin signaling pathways with relatively preserved G_q -mediated signaling. T¹⁶⁹ T¹⁷⁰ -AA, Y¹⁸² A, and T¹⁹⁰ A mutants in ECL2 showed impaired β-arrestin-dependent cell signaling while maintaining G protein_- mediated signaling. Structural comparison with angiotensin II type I receptor revealed the importance of ECL2 and ECL3 residues in APJR ligand binding and signaling. Our results unequivocally confirm the specific role of these ECL residues in ligand binding and in orchestrating receptor conformations that are involved in preferential/biased signaling functions.

Aminergic GPCR-Ligand Interactions: A Chemical and Structural Map of Receptor Mutation Data

The aminergic family of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) plays an important role in various diseases and represents a major drug discovery target class. Structure determination of all major aminergic subfamilies has enabled structure-based ligand design for these receptors. Site-directed mutagenesis data provides an invaluable complementary source of information for elucidating the structural determinants of binding of different ligand chemotypes. The current study provides a comparative analysis of 6692 mutation data points on 34 aminergic GPCR subtypes, covering the chemical space of 540 unique ligands from mutagenesis experiments and information from experimentally determined structures of 52 distinct aminergic receptor-ligand complexes. The integrated analysis enables detailed investigation of structural receptor-ligand interactions and assessment of the transferability of combined binding mode and mutation data across ligand chemotypes and receptor subtypes. An overview is provided of the possibilities and limitations of using mutation data to guide the design of novel aminergic receptor ligands.

Determinants of Ligand Subtype-Selectivity at α1A-Adrenoceptor Revealed Using Saturation Transfer Difference (STD) NMR

α_1A- and α_1B-adrenoceptors (α_1A-AR and α_1B-AR) are closely related G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) that modulate the cardiovascular and nervous systems in response to binding epinephrine and norepinephrine. The GPCR gene superfamily is made up of numerous subfamilies that, like α_1A-AR and α_1B-AR, are activated by the same endogenous agonists but may modulate different physiological processes. A major challenge in GPCR research and drug discovery is determining how compounds interact with receptors at the molecular level, especially to assist in the optimization of drug leads. Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR) can provide great insight into ligand-binding epitopes, modes, and kinetics. Ideally, ligand-based NMR methods require purified, well-behaved protein samples. The instability of GPCRs upon purification in detergents, however, makes the application of NMR to study ligand binding challenging. Here, stabilized α_1A-AR and α_1B-AR variants were engineered using Cellular High-throughput Encapsulation, Solubilization, and Screening (CHESS), allowing the analysis of ligand binding with Saturation Transfer Difference NMR (STD NMR). STD NMR was used to map the binding epitopes of epinephrine and A-61603 to both receptors, revealing the molecular determinants for the selectivity of A-61603 for α_1A-AR over α_1B-AR. The use of stabilized GPCRs for ligand-observed NMR experiments will lead to a deeper understanding of binding processes and assist structure-based drug design.

Template selection and refinement considerations for modelling aminergic GPCR-ligand complexes

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are important targets for development of drugs for the treatment of many diseases. However, crystal structures are available for only a small fraction of these membrane bound proteins. Accurate homology models will provide opportunities for effective drug design targeting GPCRs. Recently, several serotonin receptor crystal structures were solved and needed to be evaluated as potential templates. In the first part of this work different measures of similarity in template selection were explored and methods for homology modelling, docking and refinement of aminergic GPCR-ligand complexes were developed and evaluated by comparing models of the D₃-R/eticlopride complex with the crystal structure. Homology models of the three α₁ adrenergic receptor subtypes and of a serotonin receptor subtype were then constructed using these methods These models were evaluated by docking a range of antagonists into them.

Conserved Mechanism of Conformational Stability and Dynamics in G-Protein-Coupled Receptors

G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are transmembrane receptors involved in diverse biological functions. Despite the diversity in their amino acid sequences, class A GPCRs exhibit a conserved structural topology and possibly a common mechanism of receptor activation. To understand how this high sequence diversity translates to a conserved functional mechanism, we have compared the dynamic behavior of eight class A GPCRs comprised of six biogenic amine receptors, adenosine A_2A, and the peptide receptor protease-activated receptor 1. Starting from the crystal structures of the inactive state of these receptors bound to inverse agonists or antagonists, we have performed multiple all-atom MD simulations adding up to several microseconds of simulation. We elucidated the similarities and differences in the dynamic behavior and the conformational ensembles sampled by these eight class A GPCRs. Among the six biogenic amine receptors studied here, β₂-adrenergic receptor shows the highest level of fluctuation in the sixth and seventh transmembrane helices, possibly explaining its high basal activity. In contrast, the muscarinic acetylcholine receptors show the lowest fluctuations as well as tight packing and low hydration of the transmembrane domain. All eight GPCRs show several conserved allosteric communication pipelines from the residues in the agonist binding site with the G-protein interface. Positions of the residues along these pipelines that serve as major hubs of allosteric communication are conserved in their respective structures. These findings have important implications in understanding the dynamics and allosteric mechanism of communication in class A GPCRs and hence are useful for designing conformation-specific drugs.

Differences in allosteric communication pipelines in the inactive and active states of a GPCR

G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are membrane proteins that allosterically transduce the signal of ligand binding in the extracellular (EC) domain to couple to proteins in the intracellular (IC) domain. However, the complete pathway of allosteric communication from the EC to the IC domain, including the role of individual amino acids in the pathway is not known. Using the correlation in torsion angle movements calculated from microseconds-long molecular-dynamics simulations, we elucidated the allosteric pathways in three different conformational states of β2-adrenergic receptor (β2AR): 1), the inverse-agonist-bound inactive state; 2), the agonist-bound intermediate state; and (3), the agonist- and G-protein-bound fully active state. The inactive state is less dynamic compared with the intermediate and active states, showing dense clusters of allosteric pathways (allosteric pipelines) connecting the EC with the IC domain. The allosteric pipelines from the EC domain to the IC domain are weakened in the intermediate state, thus decoupling the EC domain from the IC domain and making the receptor more dynamic compared with the other states. Also, the orthosteric ligand-binding site becomes the initiator region for allosteric communication in the intermediate state. This finding agrees with the paradigm that the nature of the agonist governs the specific signaling state of the receptor. These results provide an understanding of the mechanism of allosteric communication in class A GPCRs. In addition, our analysis shows that mutations that affect the ligand efficacy, but not the binding affinity, are located in the allosteric pipelines. This clarifies the role of such mutations, which has hitherto been unexplained.

Dopamine D1 receptor-agonist interactions: A mutagenesis and homology modeling study

The dopamine D1 receptor is a G protein-coupled receptor that regulates intracellular signaling via agonist activation. Although the number of solved GPCR X-ray structures has been steadily increasing, still no structure of the D1 receptor exists. We have used site-directed mutagenesis of 12 orthosteric vicinity residues of possible importance to G protein-coupled activation to examine the function of prototypical orthosteric D1 agonists and partial agonists. We find that residues from four different regions of the D1 receptor make significant contributions to agonist function. All compounds studied, which are catechol-amines, are found to interact with the previously identified residues: the conserved D103(3.32), as well as the trans-membrane V serine residues. Additional key interactions are found for trans-membrane VI residues F288(6.51), F289(6.52) and N292(6.55), as well as the extra-cellular loop residue L190(ECL2). Molecular dynamics simulations of a D1 homology model have been used to help put the ligand-residue interactions into context. Finally, we considered the rescaling of fold-shift data as a method to account for the change in the size of the mutated side-chain and found that this rescaling helps to relate the calculated ligand-residue energies with observed experimental fold-shifts.

An aspartate in the second extracellular loop of the α(1B) adrenoceptor regulates agonist binding

The extracellular loops of the adrenoceptors present a potential therapeutic target in the design of highly selective adrenergic drugs. These regions are less conserved than the orthosteric binding site but have to date not been implicated in activation of adrenoceptors. A previously generated homology model identified an extracellular residue, D191, as a potential regulator of agonist binding. We have generated mutants of the α1B adrenoceptor replacing the charged aspartate, D191, as well as a potential interaction partner, K331, with uncharged alanines to observe effects on ligand binding and receptor activation. Significant 4-6 fold reductions in affinity for the endogenous agonists, epinephrine and norepinephrine were observed for receptors with the D191A mutation in the second extracellular loop. While changes in EC50 were observed, operational analysis yielded no apparent change in receptor activation. Based on these findings, we suggest that D191, in the second extracellular loop of the α1B adrenoceptor, acts as a 'point of first contact' for the receptor's endogenous agonists. Implication of the non-conserved extracellular regions of the receptor in agonist binding makes it a potential target for the design of highly selective drugs.

Orthosteric binding of ρ-Da1a, a natural peptide of snake venom interacting selectively with the α1A-adrenoceptor

ρ-Da1a is a three-finger fold toxin from green mamba venom that is highly selective for the α_1A-adrenoceptor. This toxin has atypical pharmacological properties, including incomplete inhibition of ³H-prazosin or ¹²⁵I-HEAT binding and insurmountable antagonist action. We aimed to clarify its mode of action at the α_1A-adrenoceptor. The affinity (pKi 9.26) and selectivity of ρ-Da1a for the α_1A-adrenoceptor were confirmed by comparing binding to human adrenoceptors expressed in eukaryotic cells. Equilibrium and kinetic binding experiments were used to demonstrate that ρ-Da1a, prazosin and HEAT compete at the α_1A-adrenoceptor. ρ-Da1a did not affect the dissociation kinetics of ³H-prazosin or ¹²⁵I-HEAT, and the IC₅₀ of ρ-Da1a, determined by competition experiments, increased linearly with the concentration of radioligands used, while the residual binding by ρ-Da1a remained stable. The effect of ρ-Da1a on agonist-stimulated Ca²⁺ release was insurmountable in the presence of phenethylamine- or imidazoline-type agonists. Ten mutations in the orthosteric binding pocket of the α_1A-adrenoceptor were evaluated for alterations in ρ-Da1a affinity. The D106^3.32A and the S188^5.42A/S192^5.46A receptor mutations reduced toxin affinity moderately (6 and 7.6 times, respectively), while the F86^2.64A, F288^6.51A and F312^7.39A mutations diminished it dramatically by 18- to 93-fold. In addition, residue F86^2.64 was identified as a key interaction point for ¹²⁵I-HEAT, as the variant F86^2.64A induced a 23-fold reduction in HEAT affinity. Unlike the M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor toxin MT7, ρ-Da1a interacts with the human α_1A-adrenoceptor orthosteric pocket and shares receptor interaction points with antagonist (F86^2.64, F288^6.51 and F312^7.39) and agonist (F288^6.51 and F312^7.39) ligands. Its selectivity for the α_1A-adrenoceptor may result, at least partly, from its interaction with the residue F86^2.64, which appears to be important also for HEAT binding.

5-HT1A receptor pharmacophores to screen for off-target activity of α1-adrenoceptor antagonists

The α1-adrenoceptors (α1-ARs), in particular the α1A-AR subtype, are current therapeutic targets of choice for the treatment of urogenital conditions, such as benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Due to the similarity between the transmembrane domains of the α1-AR subtypes, and the serotonin receptor subtype 1A (5-HT1A-R), currently used α1-AR subtype-selective drugs to treat BPH display considerable off-target affinity for the 5-HT1A-R, leading to side effects. We describe the construction and validation of pharmacophores for 5-HT1A-R agonists and antagonists. Through the structural diversity of the training sets used in their development, these pharmacophores define the properties of a compound needed to bind to 5-HT1A receptors. Using these and previously published pharmacophores in virtual screening and profiling, we have identified unique chemical compounds (hits) that fit the requirements to bind to our target, the α1A-AR, selectively over the off-target, the 5-HT1A-R. Selected hits have been obtained and their affinities for α1A-AR, α1B-AR and 5-HT1A-R determined in radioligand binding assays, using membrane preparations which contain human receptors expressed individually. Three of the tested hits demonstrate statistically significant selectivity for α1A-AR over 5-HT1A-R. All seven tested hits bind to α1A-AR, with two compounds displaying K i values below 1 μM, and a further two K i values of around 10 μM. The insights and knowledge gained through the development of the new 5-HT1A-R pharmacophores will greatly aid in the design and synthesis of derivatives of our lead compound, and allow the generation of more efficacious and selective ligands.

Homology models of melatonin receptors: challenges and recent advances

Melatonin exerts many of its actions through the activation of two G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), named MT1 and MT2. So far, a number of different MT1 and MT2 receptor homology models, built either from the prototypic structure of rhodopsin or from recently solved X-ray structures of druggable GPCRs, have been proposed. These receptor models differ in the binding modes hypothesized for melatonin and melatonergic ligands, with distinct patterns of ligand-receptor interactions and putative bioactive conformations of ligands. The receptor models will be described, and they will be discussed in light of the available information from mutagenesis experiments and ligand-based pharmacophore models. The ability of these ligand-receptor complexes to rationalize structure-activity relationships of known series of melatonergic compounds will be commented upon.

Investigation of D₁ receptor-agonist interactions and D₁/D₂ agonist selectivity using a combination of pharmacophore and receptor homology modeling

The aim of this study was to use a combined structure and pharmacophore modeling approach to extract information regarding dopamine D₁ receptor agonism and D₁/D₂ agonist selectivity. A 3D structure model of the D₁ receptor in its agonist-bound state was constructed with a full D₁ agonist present in the binding site. Two different binding modes were identified using (+)-doxanthrine or SKF89626 in the modeling procedure. The 3D model was further compared with a selective D₁ agonist pharmacophore model. The pharmacophore feature arrangement was found to be in good agreement with the binding site composition of the receptor model, but the excluded volumes did not fully reflect the shape of the agonist binding pocket. A new receptor-based pharmacophore model was developed with forbidden volumes centered on atom positions of amino acids in the binding site. The new pharmacophore model showed a similar ability to discriminate as the previous model. A comparison of the 3D structures and pharmacophore models of D₁ and D₂ receptors revealed differences in shape and ligand-interacting features that determine selectivity of D₁ and D₂ receptor agonists. A hydrogen bond pharmacophoric feature (Ser-TM5) was shown to contribute most to the selectivity. Non-conserved residues in the binding pocket that strongly contribute to D₁/D₂ receptor agonist selectivity were also identified; those were Ser/Cys³·³⁶, Tyr/Phe⁵·³⁸, Ser/Tyr⁵·⁴¹, and Asn/His⁶·⁵⁵ in the transmembrane (TM) helix region, together with Ser/Ile and Leu/Asn in the second extracellular loop (EC2). This work provides useful information for the design of new selective D₁ and D₂ agonists. The combined receptor structure and pharmacophore modeling approach is considered to be general, and could therefore be applied to other ligand-protein interactions for which experimental information is limited.

Constitutive activity and inverse agonism at the α(₁a) and α(₁b) adrenergic receptor subtypes

The α(1b)-adrenergic receptor (AR) was, after rhodopsin, the first G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) in which point mutations were shown to trigger constitutive (agonist-independent) activity. Constitutively activating mutations have been found in other AR subtypes as well as in several GPCRs. This chapter briefly summarizes the main findings on constitutively active mutants of the α(1a)- and α(1b)-AR subtypes and the methods used to predict activating mutations, to measure constitutive activity of Gq-coupled receptors and to investigate inverse agonism. In addition, it highlights the implications of studies on constitutively active AR mutants on elucidating the molecular mechanisms of receptor activation and drug action.

Cell surface delivery and structural re-organization by pharmacological chaperones of an oligomerization-defective alpha(1b)-adrenoceptor mutant demonstrates membrane targeting of GPCR oligomers

Many G-protein-coupled receptors, including the α_1b-adrenoceptor, form homo-dimers or oligomers. Mutation of hydrophobic residues in transmembrane domains I and IV alters the organization of the α_1b-adrenoceptor oligomer, with transmembrane domain IV playing a critical role. These mutations also result in endoplasmic reticulum trapping of the receptor. Following stable expression of this α_1b-adrenoceptor mutant, cell surface delivery, receptor function and structural organization were recovered by treatment with a range of α_1b-adrenoceptor antagonists that acted at the level of the endoplasmic reticulum. This was accompanied by maturation of the mutant receptor to a terminally N-glycosylated form, and only this mature form was trafficked to the cell surface. Co-expression of the mutant receptor with an otherwise wild-type form of the α_1b-adrenoceptor that is unable to bind ligands resulted in this wild-type variant also being retained in the endoplasmic reticulum. Ligand-induced cell surface delivery of the mutant α_1b-adrenoceptor now allowed co-recovery to the plasma membrane of the ligand-binding-deficient mutant. These results demonstrate that interactions between α_1b-adrenoceptor monomers occur at an early stage in protein synthesis, that ligands of the α_1b-adrenoceptor can act as pharmacological chaperones to allow a structurally compromised form of the receptor to pass cellular quality control, that the mutated receptor is not inherently deficient in function and that an oligomeric assembly of ligand-binding-competent and -incompetent forms of the α_1b-adrenoceptor can be trafficked to the cell surface by binding of a ligand to only one component of the receptor oligomer.

Asp125 and Thr130 in transmembrane domain 3 are major sites of alpha1b-adrenergic receptor antagonist binding

Site-directed mutagenesis was used to investigate the molecular interactions involved in prazosin binding to the human alpha(1b)-adrenergic receptor (alpha(1b)-AR) receptor. Based on molecular modeling studies, Thr130 and Asp125 in transmembrane region III of the alpha(1b)-AR receptor were found to interact with prazosin. Thr130 and Asp125 were mutated to alanine (Ala) and expressed in HEK293 cells. The radioligand [(3)H]prazosin did not show any binding to Asp125Ala mutant of alpha(1b)-AR. Therefore, it was not possible to find any prazosin affinity to the mutant using the radioligand [(3)H]prazosin. The mutation also abolished phenylephrine-stimulated inositol phosphate (IP) formation of [(3)H]myo-inositol. On the other hand, the Thr130Ala mutant showed reduced binding affinity for [(3)H]prazosin (dissociation constant, K(d) 674.27 pM versus 90.27 pM for the wild-type receptor) and had reduced affinity for both tamsulosin and prazosin (11-fold and 9-fold, respectively). However, the Thr130Ala mutant receptor retained the ability to stimulate the formation of [(3)H]myo-inositol. The results provide direct evidence that Asp125 and Thr130 are responsible for the interactions between alpha(1b)-AR receptor and radioligand [(3)H]prazosin as well as tamsulosin.

Systematic analysis of the entire second extracellular loop of the V(1a) vasopressin receptor: key residues, conserved throughout a G-protein-coupled receptor family, identified

The roles of extracellular residues of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are not well defined compared with residues in transmembrane helices. Nevertheless, it has been established that extracellular domains of both peptide-GPCRs and amine-GPCRs incorporate functionally important residues. Extracellular loop 2 (ECL2) has attracted particular interest, because the x-ray structure of bovine rhodopsin revealed that ECL2 projects into the binding crevice within the transmembrane bundle. Our study provides the first comprehensive investigation into the role of the individual residues comprising the entire ECL2 domain of a small peptide-GPCR. Using the V(1a) vasopressin receptor, systematic substitution of all of the ECL2 residues by Ala generated 30 mutant receptors that were characterized pharmacologically. The majority of these mutant receptor constructs (24 in total) had essentially wild-type ligand binding and intracellular signaling characteristics, indicating that these residues are not critical for normal receptor function. However, four aromatic residues Phe(189), Trp(206), Phe(209), and Tyr(218) are important for agonist binding and receptor activation and are highly conserved throughout the neurohypophysial hormone subfamily of peptide-GPCRs. Located in the middle of ECL2, juxtaposed to the highly conserved disulfide bond, Trp(206) and Phe(209) project into the binding crevice. Indeed, Phe(209) is part of the Cys-X-X-X-Ar (where Ar is an aromatic residue) motif, which is well conserved in both peptide-GPCRs and amine-GPCRs. In contrast, Phe(189) and Tyr(218), located at the extreme ends of ECL2, may be important for determining the position of the ECL2 cap over the binding crevice. This study provides mechanistic insight into the roles of highly conserved ECL2 residues.

Constitutive activity and inverse agonism at the α1adrenoceptors

Mutations of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCR) can increase their constitutive (agonist-independent) activity. Some of these mutations have been artificially introduced by site-directed mutagenesis, others occur spontaneously in human diseases. The alpha(1B)adrenoceptor was the first GPCR in which point mutations were shown to trigger receptor activation. This article briefly summarizes some of the findings reported in the last several years on constitutive activity of the alpha(1)adrenoceptor subtypes, the location where mutations have been found in the receptors, the spontaneous activity of native receptors in recombinant as well as physiological systems. In addition, it will highlight how the analysis of the pharmacological and molecular properties of the constitutively active adrenoceptor mutants provided an important contribution to our understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying the mechanism of receptor activation and inverse agonism.

The Angiotensin II AT1 Receptor Structure-Activity Correlations in the Light of Rhodopsin Structure

The most prevalent physiological effects of ANG II, the main product of the renin-angiotensin system, are mediated by the AT1 receptor, a rhodopsin-like AGPCR. Numerous studies of the cardiovascular effects of synthetic peptide analogs allowed a detailed mapping of ANG II's structural requirements for receptor binding and activation, which were complemented by site-directed mutagenesis studies on the AT1 receptor to investigate the role of its structure in ligand binding, signal transduction, phosphorylation, binding to arrestins, internalization, desensitization, tachyphylaxis, and other properties. The knowledge of the high-resolution structure of rhodopsin allowed homology modeling of the AT1 receptor. The models thus built and mutagenesis data indicate that physiological (agonist binding) or constitutive (mutated receptor) activation may involve different degrees of expansion of the receptor's central cavity. Residues in ANG II structure seem to control these conformational changes and to dictate the type of cytosolic event elicited during the activation. 1) Agonist aromatic residues (Phe8 and Tyr4) favor the coupling to G protein, and 2) absence of these residues can favor a mechanism leading directly to receptor internalization via phosphorylation by specific kinases of the receptor's COOH-terminal Ser and Thr residues, arrestin binding, and clathrin-dependent coated-pit vesicles. On the other hand, the NH2-terminal residues of the agonists ANG II and [Sar1]-ANG II were found to bind by two distinct modes to the AT1 receptor extracellular site flanked by the COOH-terminal segments of the EC-3 loop and the NH2-terminal domain. Since the [Sar1]-ligand is the most potent molecule to trigger tachyphylaxis in AT1 receptors, it was suggested that its corresponding binding mode might be associated with this special condition of receptors.

MCH-R1 antagonists based on an arginine scaffold: SAR studies on the amino-terminus

We have identified a novel series of potent MCH-R1 antagonists based on l-arginine. As predicted by computational methods, there was an activity dependence on the pi-electronic character of the aromatic systems corresponding to the amino-terminus of these molecules. These results have enhanced our understanding of the MCH-R1 receptor and the potential for a predictive homology model.

A Genetic-Function-Approximation-Based QSAR Model for the Affinity of Arylpiperazines toward α1 Adrenoceptors

The genetic function approximation (GFA) algorithm has been used to derive a three-term QSAR equation able to correlate the structural properties of arylpiperazine derivatives with their affinity toward the alpha1 adrenoceptor (alpha1-AR). The number of rotatable bonds, the hydrogen-bond properties, and a variable belonging to a topological family of descriptors (chi) showed significant roles in the binding process toward alpha1-AR. The new model was also compared to a previous pharmacophore for alpha1-AR antagonists and a QSAR model for alpha2-AR antagonists with the aim of finding common or different key determinants influencing both affinity and selectivity toward alpha1- and alpha2-AR.

Computational Study of Antagonist/α1A Adrenoceptor ComplexesObservations of Conformational Variations on the Formation of Ligand/Receptor Complexes

As selective antagonist inhibition may relieve the symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia, we have examined the interactions of antagonists including quinazoline and imidazolidinium/guanidinium compounds complexed with a homology model of the alpha(1A) adrenoceptor. Our approach involves docking of ligands of various structural classes followed by molecular dynamics simulations of antagonist/receptor complexes, which demonstrates that different structural classes of antagonist induce different receptor conformations upon binding with particular variations noted in the conformation of TM-V. Subsequently, we examined the interactions and the conformational flexibility of alpha(1) and alpha(1A) adrenoceptor antagonists, with the ligand-induced receptor conformers. This study indicated that a receptor conformation induced by one structural class of antagonist is not suitable for direct screening of another class. Our analysis indicates that computational high-throughput screening is likely to give inaccurate data on binding and selectivity and such studies need to consider conformational changes in the receptor.

Structural Determinants of Pharmacological Specificity Between D1and D2Dopamine Receptors

To test the hypothesis that pharmacological differentiation between D(1) and D(2) dopamine receptors results from interactions of selective ligands with nonconserved residues lining the binding pocket, we mutated amino acid residues in the D(2) receptor to the corresponding aligned residues in the D(1) receptor and vice versa and expressed the receptors in human embryonic kidney 293 cells. Determinations of the affinity of the 14 mutant D(2) receptors and 11 mutant D(1) receptors for D(1)- and D(2)-selective antagonists, and rhodopsin-based homology models of the two receptors, identified two residues whose direct interactions with certain ligands probably contribute to ligand selectivity. The D(1) receptor mutant W99(3.28)F showed dramatically increased affinity for several D(2)-selective antagonists, particularly spiperone (225-fold), whereas the D(2) receptor mutant Y417(7.43)W had greatly decreased affinity for benzamide ligands such as raclopride (200-fold) and sulpiride (125-fold). The binding of the D(1)-selective ligand R-(+)-7-chloro-8-hydroxy-3-methyl-1-phenyl-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-1H-3-benzazepine (SCH23390) was unaffected, indicating that SCH23390 makes little contact with these ancillary pocket residues. Mutation of A/V(5.39) caused modest but consistent and reciprocal changes in affinity of the receptors for D(1) and D(2)-selective ligands, perhaps reflecting altered packing of the interface of helices 5 and 6. We also obtained some evidence that residues in the second extracellular loop contribute to ligand binding. We conclude that additional determinants of D(1)/D(2) receptor-selective binding are located either in that loop or in the transmembrane helices but, like residue 5.39, indirectly influence the interactions of selective ligands with conserved residues by altering the shape of the primary and ancillary binding pockets.

Comparative molecular dynamics simulations of uncomplexed, 'agonist-bound' and 'antagonist-bound' alpha1A adrenoceptor models

Molecular dynamics simulations (2 ns) were conducted on a homology model of the alpha1A adrenoceptor complexed with agonists and antagonists to examine the various receptor conformations induced. These simulations yield insights into the binding site interactions of the active and inactive states of the receptor. Furthermore, our analysis allowed for the selection of candidate sites for future mutagenesis experiments such as of Glu-180, which may be important for antagonist binding. The interactions of conserved residues of the DRY motif in TM-III and the NPxxY motif in TM-VII in the alpha1A adrenoceptor complexes were also examined. The major differences lie in the role of residue Arg-124, which for the agonist complexes formed additional interactions with residues of intracellular loops I and II. Alternatively, for the antagonist complexes, additional interactions were observed for Asn-322 with residues of TM-II and TM-VII.

Modelling the Interaction of Catecholamines with the α1A Adrenoceptor Towards a Ligand-induced Receptor Structure

Adrenoceptors are members of the important G protein coupled receptor family for which the detailed mechanism of activation remains unclear. In this study, we have combined docking and molecular dynamics simulations to model the ligand induced effect on an homology derived human alpha1A adrenoceptor. Analysis of agonist/alpha1A adrenoceptor complex interactions focused on the role of the charged amine group, the aromatic ring, the N-methyl group of adrenaline, the beta hydroxyl group and the catechol meta and para hydroxyl groups of the catecholamines. The most critical interactions for the binding of the agonists are consistent with many earlier reports and our study suggests new residues possibly involved in the agonist-binding site, namely Thr-174 and Cys-176. We further observe a number of structural changes that occur upon agonist binding including a movement of TM-V away from TM-III and a change in the interactions of Asp-123 of the conserved DRY motif. This may cause Arg-124 to move out of the TM helical bundle and change the orientation of residues in IC-II and IC-III, allowing for increased affinity of coupling to the G-protein.

Structural features of the inactive and active states of the melanin-concentrating hormone receptors: Insights from molecular simulations

Comparative molecular dynamics simulations of both subtypes 1 and 2 of the melanin-concentrating hormone receptor (MCHR1 and MCHR2, respectively) in their free and hormone-bound forms have been carried out. The hormone has been used in its full-length and truncated forms, as well as in 16 mutated forms. Moreover, MCHR1 has been simulated in complex with T-226296, a novel orally active and selective antagonist. The comparative analysis of an extended number of receptor configurations suggests that the differences between inactive (i.e., free and antagonist-bound) and active (i.e., agonist-bound) states of MCHRs involve the receptor portions close to the E/DRY and NPxxY motifs, with prominence to the cytosolic extensions of helices 2, 3, 6, and 7. In fact, the active forms of these receptors share the release of selected intramolecular interactions found in the inactive forms, such as that between R3.50 of the E/DRY motif and D2.40, and that between Y7.53 of the NPxxY motif and F7.60. Another feature of the active forms of both MCHRs is the approach of "helix 8" to the cytosolic extension of helix 3. These features of the active forms are concurrent with the opening of a cleft at the cytosolic end of the helix bundle. For both MCHRs, the agonist-induced chemical information transfer from the extracellular to the cytosolic domains is mediated by a cluster of aromatic amino acids in helix 6, following the ligand interaction with selected amino acids in the extracellular half of the receptor.

Structure–activity relationship of coordinated catecholamine in the [RuIII(NH3)4(catecholamine)]+ complex

The redox chemistry and pharmacological studies of the novel blue ruthenium(III)-catecholamine complexes were investigated in aqueous medium and compared to the free catecholamines. The [Ru(III)(NH3)4(catecholamine)]+ can be oxidized or reduced reversibly in one electron redox couples in aqueous solution. This is in contrast to the free catecholamines, which has a complicated electrochemical behavior due to coupled protonation process. The introduction of the ruthenium group reduces the intrinsic efficacy of the studied catecholamines. The [Ru(III)(NH3)4(catecholamine)]+ complex aqueous medium is more stable than the free catecholamines ligand in the same conditions.

Molecular Dynamics Simulations of the Ligand-Induced Chemical Information Transfer in the 5-HT1A Receptor

Comparative molecular dynamics simulations of the 5-HT(1A) receptor in its empty as well as agonist- (i.e. active) and antagonist-bound (i.e. nonactive) forms have been carried out. The agonists 5-HT and (R)-8-OH-DPAT as well as the antagonist WAY100635 have been employed. The results of this study strengthen the hypothesis that the receptor portions close to the E/DRY/W motif, with prominence to the cytosolic extensions of helices 3 and 6, are particularly susceptible to undergo structural modification in response to agonist binding. Despite the differences in the structural/dynamics behavior of the two agonists when docked into the 5-HT(1A) receptor, they both exert a destabilization of the intrahelical and interhelical interactions found in the empty and antagonist-bound receptor forms between the arginine of the E/DRY sequence and both D133(3.49) and E340(6.30). For both agonists, the chemical information transfer from the extracellular to the cytosolic domains is mediated by a cluster of aromatic amino acids in helix 6, following the ligand interaction with selected amino acids in the extracellular half of the receptor, such as D116(3.32), S199(5.42), Y195(5.38), and F361(6.51). A significant reduction in the bend at P360(6.50), as compared to the empty and the antagonist-bound receptor forms, is one of the features of the agonist-bound forms that is related to the breakage of the interhelical salt bridge between the E/DRY arginine and E340(6.30). Another structural feature, shared by the agonist-bound receptor forms and not by the empty and antagonist-bound forms, is the detachment of helices 2 and 4, as marked by the movement of W161(4.50) away from helix 2, toward the membrane space.

Site-directed mutagenesis studies on the Drosophila octopamine/tyramine receptor

The cloned Drosophila octopamine/tyramine receptor can be coupled to second messenger pathways in an agonist-specific fashion by the endogenously occurring biogenic amines, octopamine and tyramine, when expressed in Chinese hamster ovary cells. We have mutated to alanine a range of receptor amino acids that could potentially form hydrogen bonds with the beta-hydroxyl group of octopamine based on homologies with alpha- and beta-adrenergic receptor subtypes. After stable expression of the mutant receptors in CHO cells we have compared the ability of octopamine and tyramine to displace [(3)H]yohimbine binding to membrane fractions from the mutant cell lines with their ability to modulate adenylyl cyclase activity in intact cells. The results suggest that none of the mutated amino acids residues, at least in isolation, are likely to be involved in interactions with the beta-hydroxyl group of the octopamine side chain. It is possible that amino acids not mutated in the present study are somehow involved in this interaction. Alternatively, it is also possible that the beta-hydroxyl group of the octopamine side chain is capable of interacting with more than one of the amino acids mutated in the present study.

Mechanisms of ligand binding and efficacy at the human D2(short) dopamine receptor

Mechanisms of ligand binding and receptor activation for the human D2(short) dopamine receptor have been probed using two homologous series of monohydroxylated and dihydroxylated agonists (phenylethylamines and 2-dipropylaminotetralins). In ligand binding studies, the majority of compounds exhibited competition curves versus [3H]spiperone that were best fitted using a two site binding model. The compounds had different abilities (potencies and maximal effects) to stimulate [35S]GTPgammaS binding and to inhibit forskolin-stimulated cAMP accumulation. From the data it can be concluded that: (i) the ability of an agonist to stabilize receptor/G protein coupling can be used to predict agonist efficacy for some groups of compounds (2-dipropylaminotetralins) but not for others (phenylethylamines); (ii) the receptor may be activated by unhydroxylated compounds; (iii) single hydroxyl groups or pairs of hydroxyl groups on the agonist may contribute to binding affinity, potency and efficacy; and (iv) for the 2-dipropylaminotetralin series two modes of agonist/receptor interaction have been identified associated with different relative efficacy.

Design, synthesis and pharmacological evaluation of 5-hydroxytryptamine(1a) receptor ligands to explore the three-dimensional structure of the receptor

In this work, we evaluate the structural differences of transmembrane helix 3 in rhodopsin and the 5-hydroxytryptamine 1A (5-HT1A) receptor caused by their different amino acid sequence. Molecular dynamics simulations of helix 3 in the 5-HT1A receptor tends to bend toward helix 5, in sharp contrast to helix 3 in rhodopsin, which is properly located within the position observed in the crystal structure. The relocation of the central helix 3 in the helical bundle facilitates the experimentally derived interactions between the neurotransmitters and the Asp residue in helix 3 and the Ser/Thr residues in helix 5. The different amino acid sequence that forms helix 3 in rhodopsin (basically the conserved Gly(3.36)Glu(3.37) motif in the opsin family) and the 5-HT1A receptor (the conserved Cys(3.36)Thr(3.37) motif in the neurotransmitter family) produces these structural divergences. These structural differences were experimentally checked by designing and testing ligands that contain comparable functional groups but at different interatomic distance. We have estimated the position of helix 3 relative to the other helices by systematically changing the distance between the functional groups of the ligands (1 and 2) that interact with the residues in the receptor. Thus, ligand 1 optimally interacts with a model of the 5-HT1A receptor that matches rhodopsin template, whereas ligand 2 optimally interacts with a model that possesses the proposed conformation of helix 3. The lack of affinity of 1 (K(i) > 10,000 nM) and the high affinity of 2 (K(i) = 24 nM) for the 5-HT1A receptor binding sites, provide experimental support to the proposed structural divergences of helix 3 between the 5-HT1A receptor and rhodopsin.

Structure-activity relationships in 1,4-benzodioxan-related compounds. 7. Selectivity of 4-phenylchroman analogues for alpha(1)-adrenoreceptor subtypes

WB4101 (1)-related compounds 5-10 were synthesized, and their biological profile at alpha(1)-adrenoreceptor (AR) subtypes and 5-HT(1A) serotoninergic receptors was assessed by binding assays in Chinese hamster ovary and HeLa cell membranes expressing the human cloned receptors. Moreover, their receptor selectivity was further determined in functional experiments in isolated rat prostate (alpha(1A)), vas deferens (alpha(1A)), aorta (alpha(1D)), and spleen (alpha(1B)). In functional assays, compound 5 was the most potent at alpha(1D)-ARs with a reversed selectivity profile (alpha(1D) > alpha(1A) > alpha(1B)) relative to both prototype 1 and phendioxan (2) (alpha(1A) > alpha(1D) > alpha(1B)), whereas compound 8, bearing a carbonyl moiety at position 1, was the most potent at alpha(1A)-ARs with a selectivity profile similar to that of prototypes. The least potent of the series was the trans isomer 6, suggesting that optimum alpha(1)-AR blocking activity in this series is associated with a cis relationship between the 2-side chain and the 4-phenyl ring rather than a trans relationship as previously observed for the 2-side chain and the 3-phenyl ring in 2 and related compounds. Binding affinity results were not in complete agreement with the selectivity profiles deriving from functional experiments. Although a firm explanation was not available, neutral and negative antagonism and receptor dimerization were considered as two possibilities to account for the difference between binding and functional affinities. Finally, compound 5 was selected for a modeling study in comparison with 1, mephendioxan (3), and open phendioxan (4) to achieve information on the physicochemical interactions that account for its high affinity toward alpha(1d/D)-ARs.

The binding site of aminergic G protein-coupled receptors: the transmembrane segments and second extracellular loop

In the current chapter, we review approaches to the identification of the residues forming the binding sites for agonists, antagonists, and allosteric modulators in the family of aminergic G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). We then review the structural bases for ligand binding and pharmacological specificity based on the application of these methods to muscarinic cholinergic, adrenergic, dopaminergic, serotonergic, and histaminergic receptors, using the high resolution rhodopsin structure as a template. Furthermore, we propose a critical role of the second extracellular loop in forming the binding site for small molecular weight aminergic ligands, much as this loop dives down into the binding-site crevice and contacts retinal in rhodopsin.

The alpha1b-adrenergic receptor subtype: molecular properties and physiological implications

The aim of this review is to summarize some of the main findings from our laboratory as well as from others concerning the biochemical, molecular, and functional properties of the alpha1b-adrenergic receptor. Experimental and computational mutagenesis of the alpha1b-adrenergic receptor have been instrumental in elucidating some of the molecular mechanisms underlying receptor activation and receptor coupling to Gq. The knockout mouse model lacking the alpha1b-adrenergic receptor has highlighted the potential implication of this receptor subtype in variety of functions including the regulation of blood pressure, glucose homeostasis, and the rewarding response to drugs of abuse.

Phenylpiperazinylalkylamino substituted pyridazinones as potent alpha(1) adrenoceptor antagonists

QSAR models have been used for designing a series of compounds characterized by a N-phenylpiperazinylalkylamino moiety linked to substituted pyridazinones, which have been synthesized. Measurements of the binding affinities of the new compounds toward the alpha(1a)-, alpha(1b)-, and alpha(1d)-AR cloned subtypes as well as the 5-HT(1A) receptor have been done validating, at least in part, the estimations of the theoretical models. This study provides insight into the structure activity relationships of the alpha(1)-ARs ligands and their alpha(1)-AR/5-HT(1A) selectivity.

Synthesis and structure-activity relationships of a new model of arylpiperazines. Study of the 5-HT(1a)/alpha(1)-adrenergic receptor affinity by classical hansch analysis, artificial neural networks, and computational simulation of ligand recognition

A classical quantitative structure-activity relationship (Hansch) study and artificial neural networks (ANNs) have been applied to a training set of 32 substituted phenylpiperazines with affinity for 5-HT(1A) and alpha(1)-adrenergic receptors, to evaluate the structural requirements that are responsible for 5-HT(1A)/alpha(1) selectivity. The resulting models provide a significant correlation of electronic, steric, and hydrophobic parameters with the biological affinities. Although the derived linear Hansch correlations give good statistics and acceptable predictions, the introduction of nonlinear relationships in the analysis gives more solid models and more accurate predictions. In the ANN models on the basis of the obtained 3D plots, the 5-HT(1A) affinity has a nonlinear dependence on F, V(o), V(m), and pi(o), although the nonlinear relationship is not far from a planar one. The alpha(1)-adrenergic receptor affinity has a clear nonlinear dependence on F, V(o), V(m), pi(o), and pi(m). A comparison of both analyses gives an additional understanding for 5-HT(1A)/alpha(1) selectivity: (a) high F values increase the binding affinity for 5-HT(1A) receptors and decrease the affinity for alpha(1) sites; (b) the hydrophobicity at the meta-position has only influence for the alpha(1)-adrenergic receptor; (c) the meta-position seems to be implicated in the 5-HT(1A)/alpha(1) selectivity. While the 5-HT(1A) receptor is able to accommodate bulky substituents in the region of its active site, the steric requirements of the alpha(1)-adrenergic receptor at this position are more restricted. This information was used for the design of the new ligand EF-7412 (33) (5-HT(1A): K(i exptl) = 27 nM, alpha(1): K(i exptl) > 1000 nM; 5-HT(1A): K(i pred) (ANN) = 36 nM, alpha(1): K(i pred ANN) = 2745 nM) which was characterized as an antagonist in vivo in pre- and postsynaptic 5-HT(1A)R sites. Computational simulations of the complex between EF-7412 (33) and a 3D model of the transmembrane domain of the 5-HT(1A) receptor allowed us to define the molecular details of the ligand-receptor interaction that includes: (i) the ionic interaction between the protonated amine of the ligand and Asp 3.32; (ii) the hydrogen bonds between the m-NHSO(2)Et group of the ligand and Asn 7.39; and the hydrogen bonds between the hydantoin moiety of the ligand and (iii) Thr 3.37, (iv) Ser 5.42, and (v) Thr 5.43. These QSAR and ANN results in combination with computational simulations of ligand recognition will be useful for the design of potent selective 5-HT(1A) ligands.

The forgotten serine. A critical role for Ser-2035.42 in ligand binding to and activation of the beta 2-adrenergic receptor

Previous work in the beta(2)-adrenergic receptor demonstrated critical interactions between Ser-204 and Ser-207 in the fifth membrane-spanning segment and the meta-OH and para-OH, respectively, of catecholamine agonists (Strader, C. D., Candelore, M. R., Hill, W. S., Sigal, I. S., and Dixon, R. A. (1989) J. Biol. Chem. 264, 13572-13578). Using the substituted cysteine accessibility method in the beta(2)-adrenergic receptor, we have found that in addition to Ser-204 and Ser-207, Ser-203 is also accessible on the surface of the binding-site crevice and is occluded by bound agonist. Mutation of Ser-203 to Ala, Val, or Cys reduced the binding affinity and adenylyl cyclase-activating potency of agonists containing a meta-OH, whereas their affinities and potencies were largely preserved by mutation of Ser-203 to Thr, which maintained an OH at this position. Thus both Ser-203 and Ser-204 appear to interact with the meta-OH of catecholamines, perhaps through a bifurcated H bond. Furthermore, the removal of the OH at position 203 led to a significant loss of affinity of antagonists with nitrogen in their heterocyclic ring structure. The greatest effect was seen with pindolol, a partial agonist, suggesting that a H bond between the heterocyclic ring and Ser-203 may play a role in partial agonism. In contrast, the affinities of antagonists such as propranolol or alprenolol, which have cyclic structures without H-bonding capability, were unaltered after mutation of Ser-203.

Receptors coupling to G proteins: is there a signal behind the sequence?

Upon the binding of their ligands, G protein-coupled receptors couple to the heterotrimeric G proteins to transduce a signal. One receptor family may couple to a single G protein subtype and another family to several ones. Is there a signal in the receptor sequence that can give an indication of the G protein subtype selectivity? We used a sequence analysis method on biogenic amine and adenosine receptors and concluded that a weak signal can be detected in receptor families where specialization for coupling to a given G protein occurred during a recent divergent evolutionary process. Proteins 2000;41:448-459.

Exploration of the ligand binding site of the human 5-HT(4) receptor by site-directed mutagenesis and molecular modeling

Among the five human 5-HT(4) (h5-HT(4)) receptor isoforms, the h5-HT(4(a)) receptor was studied with a particular emphasis on the molecular interactions involved in ligand binding. For this purpose, we used site-directed mutagenesis of the transmembrane domain. Twelve mutants were constructed with a special focus on the residue P4.53 of helix IV which substitutes in h5-HT(4) receptors the highly conserved S residue among the rhodopsin family receptors. The mutated receptors were transiently expressed in COS-7 cells. Ligand binding or competition studies with two h5-HT(4) receptor agonists, serotonin and ML10302 and two h5-HT(4) receptor antagonists, [(3)H]-GR113808 and ML10375 were performed on wild type and mutant receptors. Functional activity of the receptors was evaluated by measuring the ability of serotonin to stimulate adenylyl cyclase. Ligand binding experiments revealed that [(3)H]-GR113808 did not bind to mutants P4.53A, S5.43A, F6.51A, Y7.43A and to double mutant F6.52V/N6.55L. On the other hand mutations D3.32N, S5.43A and Y7.43A appeared to promote a dramatic decrease of h5-HT(4(a)) receptor functional activity. From these studies, S5.43 and Y7.43 clearly emerged as common anchoring sites to antagonist [(3)H]-GR113808 and to serotonin. According to these results, we propose ligand-receptor complex models with serotonin and [(3)H]-GR113808. For serotonin, three interaction points were selected including ionic interaction with D3.32, a stabilizing interaction of this ion pair by Y7.43 and a hydrogen bond with S5.43. [(3)H]-GR113808 was also docked, based on the same type of interactions with S5.43 and D3.32: the proposed model suggested a possible role of P4.53 in helix IV structure allowing the involvement of a close hydrophobic residue, W4.50, in a hydrophobic pocket for hydrophobic interactions with the indole ring of [(3)H]-GR113808.