Structural genomics and the metabolome: Combining computational and NMR methods to identify target ligands

Current Opinion in Drug Discovery and Development

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 62-68

  Parsons, Lisa ^a   Orban, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Informatics; Ligand screening; Molecular docking; NMR; Structural genomics

Indexed keywords

LIGAND; DRUG; PROTEIN;

BINDING SITE; BIOCHEMISTRY; COMPUTER MODEL; GENOMICS; INFORMATION SCIENCE; METABOLOMICS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN FUNCTION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; REVIEW; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; CHEMISTRY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG DESIGN; GENETICS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

BINDING SITES; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG DESIGN; GENOMICS; LIGANDS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEINS; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 2942534123     PISSN: 13676733     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Fleischmann RD, Adams MD, White O, Clayton RA, Kirkness EF, Kerlavage AR, Bult CJ, Tomb J-F, Dougherty BA, Merrick JM, McKenney K et al. Whole-genome random sequencing and assembly of Haemophilus influenzae Rd. Science (1995) 269(5223):496-512.
2. Chothia C: Proteins. One thousand families for the molecular biologist. Nature (1992) 357(6379):543-544.
3. Protein Structure Initiative: National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA. http://www.nigms.nih.gov/psi
4. Structural GenomiX, San Diego, CA, USA. http://www.stromix.com
5. Syrrx, San Diego, CA, USA. http://www.syrrx.com
6. Peat T, de La Fortelle E, Culpepper J, Newman J: From Information management to protein annotation: Preparing protein structures for drug discovery. Acta Crystallogr Sect D: Biol Crystallogr (2002) 58(Pt 11):1968-1970. Structural genomics applied in the context of drug discovery.
7. Kennedy MA, Montelione GT, Arrowsmith CH, Markley JL: Role for NMR in structural genomics. J Struct Funct Genomics (2002) 2(3):155-169. An overview of NMR contributions to structural genomics efforts.
8. Hermann T, Guntert P, Wuthrich K: Protein NMR structure determination with automated NOE assignment using the new software CANDID and the torsion angle dynamics algorithm DYANA. J Mol Biol (2002) 319(1):209-227.
9. Goulding CW, Perry LJ, Anderson D, Sawaya MR, Cascio D, Apostol MI, Chan S, Parseghian A, Wang SS, Wu Y, Cassano V et al. Structural genomics of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: A preliminary report of progress at UCLA. Biophys Chem (2003) 105(2-3):361-370. Progress report from the UCLA component of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis Structural Genomics Consortium.
10. Yee A, Pardee K, Christendat D, Savchenko A, Edwards AM, Arrowsmith CH: Structural proteomics: Toward high-throughput structural biology as a tool in functional genomics. Acc Chem Res (2003) 36(3):183-189. Summary of the Canadian structural genomics project on Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum.
11. Adams MW, Dailey HA, DeLucas LJ, Luo M, Prestegard JH, Rose JP, Wang BC: The Southeast Collaboratory for Structural Genomics: A high-throughput gene to structure factory. Acc Chem Res (2003) 36(3):191-198. Progress report from the Southeast Collaboratory on the structural genomics of Pyrococcus furiosus and Caenorhabditis elegans.
12. Staunton D, Owen J, Campbell ID: NMR and structural genomics. Acc Chem Res (2003) 36(3):207-214. Review of the role of NMR In structural genomics, focusing on applications to modular proteins.
13. Kyogoku Y, Fujiyoshi Y, Shimada I, Nakamura H, Tsukihara T, Akutsu H, Odahara T, Okada T, Nomura N: Structural genomics of membrane proteins. Acc Chem Res (2003) 36(3):199-206. An overview of methods for determining membrane protein structures.
14. Band U Rosato A: Structural genomics of proteins involved in copper homeostasis. Acc Chem Res (2003) 36(3):215-221. A targeted approach focusing on proteins involved In metal homeostasis.
15. Zhang C, Kim SH: Overview of structural genomics: From structure to function. Curr Opin Chem Biol (2003) 7(1):28-32. Review of structural genomics efforts from a research team at the University of California at Berkeley.
16. Burley SK, Bonanno JB: Structural genomics of proteins from conserved biochemical pathways and processes. Curr Opin Struct Biol (2002) 12(3):383-391. A summary of Insights into the isoprenoid and ribulose monophosphate pathways from the New York Structural Genomics Consortium.
17. Gilliland GL, Teplyakov A, Obmolova G, Tordova M. Thanki N. Ladner J, Herzberg O, Lim K, Zhang H, Huang K, LI Z et al. Assisting functional assignment for hypothetical Haemophilus influenxao gene products through structural genomics. Curr Drug Targets Infect Disord (2002) 2(4):339-353. A progress report from the CARB research team on functional annotation from structures.
18. Kumaran D, Eswaramoorthy S, Gerchman SE, Kytia H, Studier FW, Swaminathan S: Crystal structure of a putative CN hydrolase from yeast Proteins (2003) 52(2):283-291.
19. Oganesyan V, Busso D, Brandsen J, Chen S, Jancarik J, Kim R, Kim SH: Structure of the hypothetical protein A CM 354 from Aquifex aeolicus. Acta Crystallogr Sect D: Biol Crystallogr (2003) 59(Pt 7):1219-1223.
20. Obmolova G, Teplyakov A, Khil PP, Howard AJ, Camerini-Otero RD, and Gilliland GL: Crystal structure of the Escherichia coli Tas protein, an NADP(H)-dependent aldo-keto reductase. Proteins (2003) 53(2):323-325.
21. Lehmann C, Lim K, Chalamasetly VR, Krajewski W, Melamud E, Calkin A, Howard A, Kelman Z, Reddy PT, Murzin AG, Herzberg O: The H10073/H10074 protein pair from Haemophilus influenzae is a member of a new nucleotidyltransferase family: Structure, sequence analyses, and solution studies. Proteins (2003) 50(2):249-260.
22. Holm L, Sander C: Protein structure comparison by alignment of distance matrices. J Mol Biol (1993) 233(1):123-138.
23. Made] T, Gibrat JF, Bryant SH: Threading a database of protein cores. Proteins (1995) 23(3): 356-369.
24. Shindyatov IN, Bourne PB Protein structure alignment by incremental combinatorial extension (CE) of the optimal path. Protein Eng (1998) 11(9):739-747.
25. Harrison A, Peart F, Mott R, Thomton J, Orengo C: Quantifying the similarities within fold space. J Mol Biol (2002) 323(5):909-926.
26. Glaser F, Pupko T, Paz I, Bell RE, Becnor-Shental D, Mart E, Ben-Tal N: ConSurf: Identification of functional regions in proteins by surface-mapping of phylogenetic information. Bioinformatios (2003) 19(1):163-164.
27. Yao H, Kristensen DM, Mihalek I, Sowa ME, Shaw C, Kimmel M, Kavraki L, Lichtarge O: An accurate, sensitive, and scalable method to identify functional sites in protein structures. J Mol Biol (2003) 326(1):255-261.
28. Joachimiak MP, Cohen FE: JEvTrace: Refinement and variations of the evolutionary trace in JAVA. Genome Biol (2002) 3(12):research0077.1- research0077.12.
29. Barker JA, Thomton JM: An algorithm for constraint-based structural template matching: Application to 3D templates with statistical analysis. Bioinformatics (2003) 19(13):1644-1649.
30. Madsen D, Kleywegt GJ: Interactive motif and fold recognition in protein structures. J Appl Crystallogr (2002) 35:137-139.
31. Kleywegt GJ: Recognition of spatial motifs in protein structures. J Mol Biol (1999) 285(4):1887-1897.
32. Stark A, Sunyaev S, Russell RB: A model for statistical significance of local similarities in structure. J Mol Biol (2003) 326(5):1307-316.
33. Schmitt S, Kuhn D, Klebe G: A new method to detect related function among proteins independent of sequence and fold homology. J Mol Biol (2002) 323(2):387-406.
34. Kinoshita K, Furul J, Nakamura H: Identification of protein functions from a molecular surface database, eF-site. J Struct Funct Genomics (2002) 2(1):9-22.
35. Taytor RD, Jewsbury PJ, Essex JW: A review of protein-small molecule docking methods. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2002) 16(3):151-166.
36. Zavodszky MI, Sanschagrin PC, Korde RS, Kuhn LA: Distilling the essential features of a protein surface for improving protein-ligand docking, scoring, and virtual screening. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2002) 16(12):883-902.
37. Jain AN: Surflex: Fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. J Med Chem (2003) 46(4):499-511.
38. Kairys V, Gilson MK: Enhanced docking with the mining minima optimizer: Acceleration and side-chain flexibility. J Comput Chem (2002) 23(16):1656-1670.
39. Kortvelyesi T, Silberstein M, Dennis S, Vajda S: Improved mapping of protein binding sites. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2003) 17(2-4):173-186.
40. Click M, Grant GH, Richards WG: Docking of flexible molecules using multiscale ligand representations. J Med Chem (2002) 45(21):4639-4646.
41. Villanueva J, Fernandez-Ballester G, Querol B, Aviles FX, Serrano L: Ligand screening by exoproteolysis and mass spectrometry in combination with computer modelling. J Mol Biol (2003) 330(5):1039-1048.
42. Eggeling C, Brand L, Ullmann D, Jager S: Highly sensitive fluorescence detection technology currently available for HTS. Drug Disc Today (2003) 8(14):632-641.
43. Wallace BA, Janes RW: Circular dichroism and synchrotron radiation circular dichroism spectroscopy: Tools for drug discovery. Biochem Soc Trans (2003) 31 (Pt 3):631-633.
44. Stockman BJ, Dalvit C: NMR screening techniques in drug discovery and drug design. Prog NMR Spectros (2002) 41:187-231.
45. Hajduk PJ, Meadows RP, Fesik SW: NMR-based screening In drug discovery. Q RevBiophys (1999) 32(3):511-240.
46. Liu G, Xin Z, Pel Z, Hajduk PJ, Abad-Zapatero C, Hutchins CW, Zhao H, Lubben TH, Ballaron SJ, Haasch DL, Kaszubska W et al: Fragment screening and assembly: A highly efficient approach to a selective and cell active protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B inhibitor. J Med Chem (2003) 46(20):4232-4235.
47. Shuker SB, Hajduk PJ, Meadows RP, Fesik SW: Discovering high-affinity ligands for proteins: SAR by NMR. Science (1996) 274(5292):1531-1534.
48. Zartier ER, Hanson J, Jones BE, Kline AD, Martin G, Mo H, Shapiro MJ, Wang R, Wu H, Van J: RAMPED-UP NMR: Multiplexed NMR-based screening for drug discovery. J Am Chem Soc (2003) 125(36):10941-10946.
49. Mayer M, Meyer B: Group epitope mapping by saturation transfer difference NMR to identify segments of a ligand in direct contact with a protein receptor. J Am Chem Soc (2001) 123(25):6108-6117.
50. Dalvit C, Fogliatto G, Stewart A, Veronesi M, Stockman B: WaterLOGSY as a method for primary NMR screening: Practical aspects and range of applicability. J Biomol NMR (2001) 21(4):349-359.
51. Dalvit C, Fagemess PE, Hadden DT, Sarver RW, Stockman BJ: Fluorine-NMR experiments for high-throughput screening: Theoretical aspects, practical considerations, and range of applicability. J Am Chem Soc (2003) 125(25):7696-7703.
52. Parsons L, Bonander N, Eisenstein E, Giteon M, Kairys V, Orban J: Solution structure and functional ligand screening of H10719, a highly conserved protein from bacteria to humans in the YjgF/YER057c/UK114 family. Biochemistry (2003) 42(1):80-89. A combination of informatics, docking and NMR screening is used to reduce the number of possible target ligands for a protein with poorly understood function. The specific step implicated in the Ile pathway is biochemically similar to the step catalyzed by a low-identity sequence homolog.
53. Sanishviii R, Yakunin AF, Laskowski RA, Skarina T, Evdokimova E, Doherty-Kirby A, Lajoie GA, Thornton JM, Arrowsmith CH, Savchenko A, Joachimiak A et al: Integrating structure, bioinformatics, and enzymology to discover function: BioH, a new carboxylesterase from Escherichia coli. J Biol Chem (2003) 27B(28):26039-26045. Informatics analysis of the fold using a database of known enzyme active site templates reveals that BioH has a catalytic triad consistent with lipase, protease or esterase activity. Enzymatic testing narrowed the function to a novel carboxylesterase activity.
54. Johnston JM, Arcus VL, Morton CJ, Parker MW, Baker EN: Crystal structure of a putative methyltransferase from Mycobacterium tuberculosis: Misannotation of a genome clarified by protein structural analysis. J Bacteriol (2003) 185(14):4057-4065. The structure of this protein corrected a misannotation and revealed a cleft for binding of small molecules. Molecular docking suggested a strong preference at this site for five/six-membered bicyclic aromatic rings, such as purines and indoles.