Improved model building and assessment of the Calcium-sensing receptor transmembrane domain

Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics

Volumn 71, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 215-226

  Bu, Lintao ^a   Michino, Mayako ^a   Wolf, Romain M ^b   Brooks III, Charles L ^a  

^a SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b NOVARTIS PHARMA AG   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Calcium sensing receptor; Contact based sequence alignment; G protein coupled receptor; Homology modeling; Implicit solvation; Ligand docking; Replica exchange molecular dynamics

Indexed keywords

2 CHLORO 6 [3 [1,1 DIMETHYL 2 (2 NAPHTHYL)ETHYLAMINO] 2 HYDROXYPROPOXY]BENZONITRILE; CALCIUM SENSING RECEPTOR; DOCKING PROTEIN; G PROTEIN COUPLED RECEPTOR; LIGAND; MEMBRANE PROTEIN; NAPHTHALENE; NITROGEN; PHENYL GROUP; RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; RHODOPSIN; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ALLOSTERISM; ARTICLE; ATOM; BINDING KINETICS; CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN DOMAIN; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS;

BOVINAE;

EID: 40549132223     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: 10970134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.21685     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. 1 Brown EM, MacLeod RJ. Extracellular calcium sensing and extracellular calcium signaling. Physiol Rev 2001 ; 81: 239–297.
2. 2 Brauner‐Osborne H, Jensen AA, Sheppard PO, O'Hara P, Krogsgaard‐Larsen P. The agonist‐binding domain of the calcium‐sensing receptor is located at the amino‐terminal domain. J Biol Chem 1999 ; 274: 18382–18386.
3. 3 Conigrave AD, Quinn SJ, Brown EM. L ‐amino acid sensing by the extracellular Ca 2+ ‐sensing receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000 ; 97: 4814–4819.
4. 4 Brown EM, Katz C, Butters R, Kifor O. Polyarginine, polylysine, and protamine mimic the effects of high extracellular calcium concentrations on dispersed bovine parathyroid cells. J Bone Miner Res 1991 ; 6: 1217–1225.
5. 5 Quinn SJ, Ye CP, Diaz R, Kifor O, Bai M, Vassilev P, Brown E. The Ca 2+ ‐sensing receptor: a target for polyamines. Am J Physiol 1997 ; 273: C1315–C1323.
6. 6 Nemeth EF, Steffey ME, Hammerland LG, Hung BC, Van Wagenen BC, Van Wagenen BC, DelMar EG, Balandrin MF. Calcimimetics with potent and selective activity on the parathyroid calcium receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998 ; 95: 4040–4045.
7. 7 Cohen A, Silverberg SJ. Calcimimetics: therapeutic potential in hyperparathyroidism. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2002 ; 2: 734–739.
8. 8 Nemeth EF, Delmar EG, Heaton WL, Miller MA, Lambert LD, Conklin RL, Gowen M, Gleason JG, Bhatnagar PK, Fox J. Calcilytic compounds: potent and selective Ca 2+ receptor antagonists that stimulate secretion of parathyroid hormone. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2001 ; 299: 323–331.
9. 9 Bockaert J, Pin JP. Molecular tinkering of G‐protein coupled receptors: an evolutionary success. EMBO J 1999 ; 18: 1723–1729.
10. 10 Lefkowitz RJ. The superfamily of heptahelical receptors. Nat Cell Biol 2000 ; 2: E133–E136.
11. 11 Pierce KL, Premont RT, Lefkowitz RJ. Seven transmembrane spanning receptors. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2002 ; 3: 639–650.
12. 12 O'Hara PJ, Sheppard PO, Thgersen H, Venezia D, Haldeman BA, McGrane V, Houamed KM, Thomsen C, Gilbert TL, Mulvihill ER. The ligand‐binding domain in metabotropic glutamate receptors is related to bacterial periplasmic binding proteins. Neuron 1993 ; 11: 41–52.
13. 13 Ray K, Hauschild BC, Steinbach PJ, Goldsmith PK, Hauache O, Spiegel AM. Identification of the cysteine residues in the amino‐terminal extracellular domain of the human ca receptor critical for dimerization: implications for function of monomeric Ca(2+) receptor. J Biol Chem 1999 ; 274: 27642–27650.
14. 14 Reyes‐Cruz G, Hu J, Goldsmith PK, Steinbach PJ, Spiegel AM. Human Ca 2+ receptor extracellular domain: analysis of function of lobe i loop deletion mutants. J Biol Chem 2001 ; 276: 32145–32151.
15. 15 Bai M, Trivedi S, Brown EM. Dimerization of the extracellular Calcium‐sensing receptor (CaR) on the cell surface of CaR‐transfected HEK293 cells. J Biol Chem 2001 ; 273: 23605–23610.
16. 16 Pace AJ, Gama L, Breitwieser GE. Dimerization of the human calcium sensing receptor occurs within the extracellular domain and is eliminated by Cys to Ser mutations at Cys101 and Cys236. J Biol Chem 1999 ; 274: 11629–11634.
17. 17 Zhang Z, Sun S, Quinn SJ, Brown EM, Bai M. The extracellular calcium‐sensing receptor dimerizes through multiple types of intermolecular interactions. J Biol Chem 2001 ; 276: 5316–5322.
18. 18 Palczewski K, Kumasaka T, Hori T, Behnke CA, Motoshima H, Fox BA, Le Trong I, Teller DC, Okada T, Stenkamp RE, Yamamoto M, Miyano M. Crystal structure of rhodopsin: a G protein‐coupled receptor. Science 2000 ; 289: 739–745.
19. 19 Petrel C, Kessler A, Maslah F, Dauban P, Dodd RH, Rognan D, Ruat M. Modeling and mutagenesis of the binding site of Calhex 231, a novel negative allosteric modulator of the extracellular Ca(2+)‐sensing receptor. J Biol Chem 2003 ; 278: 4948–4994.
20. 20 Petrel C, Kessler A, Dauban P, Dodd RH, Rognan D, Ruat M. Positive and negative allosteric modulators of the Ca(2+)‐sensing receptor interact within overlapping but not identical binding sites in the transmembrane domain. J Biol Chem 2004 ; 279: 18990–18997.
21. 21 Miedlich SU, Gama L, Seuwen K, Wolf RM, Breitwieser GE. Homology modeling of the transmembrane domain of the human Calcium sensing receptor and localization of an allosteric binding site. J Biol Chem 2004 ; 279: 7254–7263.
22. 22 Montero C, Campillo NE, Goya P, Paez JA. Homology models of the cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 receptors: a docking analysis study. Eur J Med Chem 2005 ; 40: 75–83.
23. 23 Zhang Y, Sham YY, Rajamani R, Gao J, Portoghese PS. Homology modeling and molecular dynamics simulations of the mu opioid receptor in a membrane‐aqueous system. Chembiochem 2005 ; 6: 853–859.
24. 24 Evers A, Klebe G. Successful Virtual screening for a submicromolar antagonist of the neurokinin‐1 receptor based on a ligand‐supported homology model. J Med Chem 2004 ; 47: 5381–5392.
25. 25 Evers A, Klabunde T. Structure‐based drug discovery using GPCR homology modeling: successful virtual screening for antagonists of the α1a adrenergic receptor. J Med Chem 2005 ; 48: 1088–1097.
26. 26 Boeckler F, Lanig H, Gmeiner P. Modeling the similarity and divergence of Dopamine D2 like receptors and identification of validated ligand receptor complexes. J Med Chem 2005 ; 48: 694–709.
27. 27 Archer‐Lahlou E, Tikhonova I, Escrieut C, Dufresne M, Seva C, Pradayrol L, Moroder L, Maigret B, Fourmy D. Modelled structure of a G‐protein‐coupled receptor: the cholecystokinin‐1 receptor. J Med Chem 2005 ; 48: 180–191.
28. 28 Rivara S, Lorenzi S, Mor M, Plazzi PV, Spadoni G, Bedini A, Tarzia G. Analysis of structure–activity relationships for MT2 selective antagonists by melatonin MT1 and MT2 receptor models. J Med Chem 2005 ; 48: 4049–4060.
29. 29 Soderhall JA, Polymeropoulos EE, Paulini K, Gunther E, Kuhne R. Antagonist and agonist binding models of the human gonadotropin‐releasing hormone receptor. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2005 ; 333: 568–582.
30. 30 Fowler CB, Pogozheva ID, Lomize AL, Levine 3rd H, Mosberg HI. Complex of an active mu‐opioid receptor with a cyclic peptide agonist modeled from experimental constraints. Biochemistry 2004 ; 43: 15796–15810.
31. 31 Xhaard H, Nyronen T, Rantanen VV, Ruuskanen JO, Laurila J, Salminen T, Scheinin M, Johnson MS. Model structures of use α‐2 adrenoceptors in complex with automatically docked antagonist ligands raise the possibility of interactions dissimilar from agonist ligands. J Struct Biol 2005 ; 150: 126–143.
32. 32 Jongejan A, Bruysters M, Ballesteros JA, Haaksma E, Bakker RA, Pardo L, Leurs R. Linking agonist binding to histamine H1 receptor activation. Nat Chem Biol 2005 ; 1: 98–103.
33. 33 Chai BX, Pogozheva ID, Lai YM, Li JY, Neubig RR, Mosberg HI, Gantz I. Receptor–antagonist interactions in the complexes of agouti and agouti‐related protein with human melanocortin 1 and 4 receptors. Biochemistry 2005 ; 44: 3418–3431.
34. 34 Giragossian C, Schaschke N, Moroder L, Mierke DF. Conformational and molecular modeling studies of β‐cyclodextrin‐heptagastrin and the third extracellular loop of the cholecystokinin 2 receptor. Biochemistry 2004 ; 43: 2724–2731.
35. 35 Bhogal N, Blaney FE, Ingley PM, Rees J, Findlay JBC. Evidence for the proximity of the extreme N‐terminus of the neurokinin‐2 (NK2) tachykinin receptor to Cys(167) in the putative fourth transmembrane helix. Biochemistry 2004 ; 43: 3027–3038.
36. 36 Bissantz C, Bernard P, Hibert M, Rognan D. Protein‐based virtual screening of chemical databases. II. Are homology models of G‐protein coupled receptors suitable targets? Proteins 2003 ; 50: 5–25.
37. 37 Vitale RM, Pedone C, De Benedetti PG, Fanelli F. Structural features of the inactive and active states of the melanin‐concentrating hormone receptors: insights from molecular simulations. Proteins 2004 ; 56: 430–448.
38. 38 Xie XQ, Chen JZ, Billings EM. 3D structural model of the G‐protein‐coupled cannabinoid CB2 receptor. Proteins 2003 ; 53: 307–319.
39. 39 Zhang L, DeHaven RN, Goodman M. NMR and modeling studies of a synthetic extracellular loop II of the κ opioid receptor in a DPC micelle. Biochemistry 2002 ; 41: 61–68.
40. 40 Chambers J, Nichols DE. A homology‐based model of the human 5‐HT2A receptor derived from an in silico activated G‐protein coupled receptor. J Comput‐Aided Mol Des 2002 ; 16: 511–520.
41. 41 Baldwin JM. The probable arrangement of the helices in G‐protein‐coupled receptors. EMBO J 1993 ; 12: 1693–1703.
42. 42 Baldwin JM, Schertler GF, Unger VM. An α‐carbon template for the transmembrane helices in the rhodopsin family of G‐protein‐coupled receptors. J Mol Biol 1997 ; 272: 144–164.
43. 43 Mirzadegan T, Benko G, Filipek S, Palczewski K. Sequence analyses of G‐protein‐coupled receptors: similarities to rhodopsin. Biochemistry 2003 ; 42: 2759–2767.
44. 44 Kleinjung J, Romein J, Lin K, Heringa J. Contact‐based sequence alignment. Nucleic Acids Res 2004 ; 32: 2464–2473.
45. 45 Im W, Feig M, Brooks CL, III. An implicit membrane generalized Born theory for the study of structure, stability, and interactions of membrane proteins. Biophys J 2003 ; 85: 2900–2918.
46. 46 Brooks BR, Bruccoleri R, Olafson B, States D, Swaminathan S, Karplus M. CHARMM: a program for macromolecular energy, minimization and dynamics calculations. J Comput Chem 1983 ; 4: 187–217.
47. 47 MacKerell AD, Jr, Bashford D, Bellott M, Dunbrack RL, Jr, Evanseck JD, Field MJ, Fischer S, Gao J, Guo H, Ha S, Joseph‐McCarthy D, Kuchnir L, Kuczera K, Lau FTK, Mattos C, Michnick S, Ngo T, Nguyen DT, Prodhom B, Reiher WE, III, Roux B, Schlenkrich M, Smith JC, Stote T, Straub JE, Watanabe M, Wiorkiewicz‐Kuczera J, Yin D, Karplus M. All‐atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and dynamics studies of proteins. J Phys Chem B 1998 ; 102: 3586–3616.
48. 48 Mackerell AD, Jr, Feig M, Brooks CL, III. Extending the treatment of backbone energetics in protein force fields: limitations of gas‐phase quantum mechanics in reproducing protein conformational distributions in molecular dynamics simulations. J Comput Chem 2004 ; 25: 1400–1415.
49. 49 Mackerell AD, Jr, Feig M, Brooks CL, III. Improved treatment of the protein backbone in empirical force fields. J Am Chem Soc 2004 ; 126: 698–699.
50. 50 Feig M, MacKerell AD, Jr, Brooks CL, III. Force field influence on the observation of [pi]‐helical protein structures in molecular dynamics simulations. J Phys Chem B 2003 ; 107: 2831–2836.
51. 51 Buck M, Bouguet‐Bonnet S, Pastor RW, MacKerell AD, Jr. Importance of the CMAP correction to the CHARMM22 protein force field: dynamics of hen lysozyme. Biophys J 2006 ; 90: L36–L38.
52. 52 de Planque MR, Greathouse DV, Koeppe RE II, Schafer H, Marsh D, Killian JA. Influence of lipid/peptide hydrophobic mismatch on the thickness of diacylphosphatidylcholine bilayers. A 2H NMR and ESR study using designed transmembrane α‐helical peptides and gramicidin A. Biochemistry 1998 ; 37: 9333–9345.
53. 53 Feig M, Karanicolas J, Brooks CL, III. MMTSB tool set: enhanced sampling and multiscale modeling methods for applications in structural biology. J Mol Graph Model 2004 ; 22: 377–395. http://mmtsb.scripps.edu.
54. 54 Canutescu AA, Shelenkov AA, Dunbrack RL, Jr. A graph theory algorithm for protein side‐chain prediction. Protein Sci 2003 ; 12: 2001–2014.
55. 55 Morris GM, Goodsell DS, Halliday RS, Huey R, Hart WE, Belew RK, Olson AJ. Automated docking using a lamarckian genetic algorithm and and empirical binding free energy function. J Comput Chem 1998 ; 19: 1639–1662.
56. 56 Goodsell DS, Olson AJ. Automated docking of substrates to proteins by simulated annealing. Proteins: Struct Funct Genet 1990 ; 8: 195–202.