Abstract
G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are hard to crystallize. However, attempts to predict their structure have boomed as a result of advancements in crystallographic techniques. This trend has allowed computer-aided molecular modeling of GPCRs. We analyzed the performance of four molecular modeling programs in pose evaluation of re-docked antagonists / inverse agonists to 11 original crystal structures of aminergic GPCRs using an induced fit-docking procedure. AutoDock and Glide were used for docking. AutoDock binding energy function, GlideXP, Prime MM-GB/SA, and YASARA binding function were used for pose scoring. Root mean square deviation (RMSD) of the best pose ranged from 0.09 to 1.58 Å, and median RMSD of the top 60 poses ranged from 1.47 to 3.83 Å. However, RMSD of the top pose ranged from 0.13 to 7.33 Å and ranking of the best pose ranged from the 1st to 60th out of 60 poses. Moreover, analysis of ligand–receptor interactions of top poses revealed substantial differences from interactions found in crystallographic structures. Bad ranking of top poses and discrepancies between top docked poses and crystal structures render current simple docking methods unsuitable for predictive modeling of receptor–ligand interactions. Prime MM-GB/SA optimized for 3NY9 by multiple linear regression did not work well at 3NY8 and 3NYA, structures of the same receptor with different ligands. However, 9 of 11 trajectories of molecular dynamics simulations by Desmond of top poses converged with trajectories of crystal structures. Key interactions were properly detected for all structures. This procedure also worked well for cross-docking of tested β2-adrenergic antagonists. Thus, this procedure represents a possible way to predict interactions of antagonists with aminergic GPCRs.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Lefkowitz RJ (2004) Historical review: a brief history and personal retrospective of seven-transmembrane receptors. Trends Pharmacol Sci 25:413–422
Schlyer S, Horuk R (2006) I want a new drug: G-protein-coupled receptors in drug development. Drug Discov Today 11:481–493
Ellis J, Seidenberg M, Brann MR (1993) Use of chimeric muscarinic receptors to investigate epitopes involved in allosteric interactions. Mol Pharmacol 44:583–588
Fraser CM, Wang CD, Robinson DA, Gocayne JD, Venter JC (1989) Site-directed mutagenesis of m1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptors: conserved aspartic acids play important roles in receptor function. Mol Pharmacol 36:840–847
Caffrey M (2003) Membrane protein crystallization. J Struct Biol 142:108–132
Palczewski K, Kumasaka T, Hori T, Behnke CA, Motoshima H et al (2000) Crystal structure of rhodopsin: a G protein-coupled receptor. Science 289:739–745
Cherezov V, Rosenbaum DM, Hanson MA, Rasmussen SGF, Thian FS et al (2007) High-resolution crystal structure of an engineered human beta2-adrenergic G protein-coupled receptor. Science 318:1258–1265
Yang J, Zhang Y (2015) GPCRS-EXP: a database for experimentally solved GPCR structures. http://zhanglab.ccmb.med.umich.edu/GPCR-EXP/
Berman H, Henrick K, Nakamura H (2003) Announcing the worldwide Protein Data Bank. Nat Struct Biol 10:980
Michino M, Abola E, Brooks CL III, Dixon JS et al (2009) Community-wide assessment of GPCR structure modelling and ligand docking: GPCR Dock 2008. Nat Rev Drug Discov 8:455–463
Kufareva I, Rueda M, Katritch V, Stevens RC, Abagyan R (2011) Status of GPCR modeling and docking as reflected by community-wide GPCR Dock 2010 assessment. Structure 19:1108–1126
Kufareva I, Katritch V, Stevens RC, Abagyan R (2014) Advances in GPCR modeling evaluated by the GPCR Dock 2013 assessment: meeting new challenges. Structure 22:1120–1139
de Graaf C, Rognan D (2008) Selective structure-based virtual screening for full and partial agonists of the beta2 adrenergic receptor. J Med Chem 51:4978–4985
Isberg V, Balle T, Sander T, Jørgensen FS, Gloriam DE (2011) G protein- and agonist-bound serotonin 5-HT2A receptor model activated by steered molecular dynamics simulations. J Chem Inf Model 51:315–325
Costanzi S, Vilar S (2012) In silico screening for agonists and blockers of the β(2) adrenergic receptor: implications of inactive and activated state structures. J Comput Chem 33:561–572
Thomas T, McLean KC, McRobb FM, Manallack DT, Chalmers DK et al (2014) Homology modeling of human muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. J Chem Inf Model 54:243–253
Warne T, Serrano-Vega MJ, Baker JG, Moukhametzianov R, Edwards PC et al (2008) Structure of a beta1-adrenergic G-protein-coupled receptor. Nature 454:486–491
Moukhametzianov R, Warne T, Edwards PC, Serrano-Vega MJ, Leslie AGW et al (2011) Two distinct conformations of helix 6 observed in antagonist-bound structures of a beta1-adrenergic receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:8228–8232
Hanson MA, Cherezov V, Griffith MT, Roth CB, Jaakola V et al (2008) A specific cholesterol binding site is established by the 2.8 A structure of the human beta2-adrenergic receptor. Structure 16:897–905
Wacker D, Fenalti G, Brown MA, Katritch V, Abagyan R et al (2010) Conserved binding mode of human beta2 adrenergic receptor inverse agonists and antagonist revealed by X-ray crystallography. J Am Chem Soc 132:11443–11445
Chien EYT, Liu W, Zhao Q, Katritch V, Han GW et al (2010) Structure of the human dopamine D3 receptor in complex with a D2/D3 selective antagonist. Science 330:1091–1095
Shimamura T, Shiroishi M, Weyand S, Tsujimoto H, Winter G et al (2011) Structure of the human histamine H1 receptor complex with doxepin. Nature 475:65–70
Haga K, Kruse AC, Asada H, Yurugi-Kobayashi T, Shiroishi M et al (2012) Structure of the human M2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor bound to an antagonist. Nature 482:547–551
Kruse AC, Hu J, Pan AC, Arlow DH, Rosenbaum DM et al (2012) Structure and dynamics of the M3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. Nature 482:552–556
Friesner RA, Banks JL, Murphy RB, Halgren TA, Klicic JJ et al (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J Med Chem 47:1739–1749
Sherman W, Day T, Jacobson MP, Friesner RA, Farid R (2006) Novel procedure for modeling ligand/receptor induced fit effects. J Med Chem 49:534–553
Morris GM, Huey R, Lindstrom W, Sanner MF, Belew RK et al (2009) AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J Comput Chem 30:2785–2791
Prime (2013) Schrödinger, LLC, New York. http://www.schrodinger.com
Krieger E, Koraimann G, Vriend G (2002) Increasing the precision of comparative models with YASARA NOVA—a self-parameterizing force field. Proteins 47:393–402
Alonso H, Bliznyuk AA, Gready JE (2006) Combining docking and molecular dynamic simulations in drug design. Med Res Rev 26:531–568
Yuriev E, Holien J, Ramsland PA (2015) Improvements, trends, and new ideas in molecular docking: 2012–2013 in review. J Mol Recognit 28:581–604. doi:10.1002/jmr.2471
Obiol-Pardo C, López L, Pastor M, Selent J (2011) Progress in the structural prediction of G protein-coupled receptors: D3 receptor in complex with eticlopride. Proteins 79:1695–1703
Plazinska A, Kolinski M, Wainer IW, Jozwiak K (2013) Molecular interactions between fenoterol stereoisomers and derivatives and the β2-adrenergic receptor binding site studied by docking and molecular dynamics simulations. J Mol Model 19:4919–4930
Sabbadin D, Ciancetta A, Moro S (2014) Bridging molecular docking to membrane molecular dynamics to investigate GPCR-ligand recognition: the human A2 A adenosine receptor as a key study. J Chem Inf Model 54:169–183
Kleywegt GJ, Harris MR, Zou JY, Taylor TC, Wählby A et al (2004) The Uppsala electron-density server. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 60:2240–2249
Vaguine AA, Richelle J, Wodak SJ (1999) SFCHECK: a unified set of procedures for evaluating the quality of macromolecular structure-factor data and their agreement with the atomic model. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 55:191–205
Warren GL, Do TD, Kelley BP, Nicholls A, Warren SD (2012) Essential considerations for using protein-ligand structures in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 17:1270–1281
Maestro (2013) Schrödinger, LLC, New York. http://www.schrodinger.com
Sastry GM, Adzhigirey M, Day T, Annabhimoju R, Sherman W (2013) Protein and ligand preparation: parameters, protocols, and influence on virtual screening enrichments. J Comput Aided Mol Des 27:221–234
LigPrep (2013) Schrödinger, LLC, New York. http://www.schrodinger.com.
R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (2014) R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.
Bowers KJ, Chow E, Xu H, Dror RO, Eastwood MP et al (2006) Scalable algorithms for molecular dynamics simulations on commodity clusters. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing (SC06). ACM, New York
Grace Development Team Grace: A plotting tool (2014) Grace Development Team, http://hplasma-gate.weizmann.ac.il/Grace/
Segura-Cabrera A, García-Pérez C, Ciprés-Flores F, Cuevas-Hernández R, Trujillo-Ferrara J, Correa-Basurto J, Soriano-Ursúa M (2014) Molecular dynamics simulations to explore the active/inactive conformers of guinea pig β2 adrenoceptor for the selective design of agonists or antagonists. Mol Simul 40:1244–1254
Niesen MJM, Bhattacharya S, Vaidehi N (2011) The role of conformational ensembles in ligand recognition in G-protein coupled receptors. J Am Chem Soc 133:13197–13204
Beuming T, Sherman W (2012) Current assessment of docking into GPCR crystal structures and homology models: successes, challenges, and guidelines. J Chem Inf Model 52:3263–3277
Warren GL, Andrews CW, Capelli A, Clarke B, LaLonde J et al (2006) A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J Med Chem 49:5912–5931
McRobb FM, Capuano B, Crosby IT, Chalmers DK, Yuriev E (2010) Homology modeling and docking evaluation of aminergic G protein-coupled receptors. J Chem Inf Model 50:626–637
Charifson PS, Corkery JJ, Murcko MA, Walters WP (1999) Consensus scoring: a method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. J Med Chem 42:5100–5109
Yang J, Chen Y, Shen T, Kristal BS, Hsu DF (2005) Consensus scoring criteria for improving enrichment in virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 45:1134–1146
Wright JS, Anderson JM, Shadnia H, Durst T, Katzenellenbogen JA (2013) Experimental versus predicted affinities for ligand binding to estrogen receptor: iterative selection and rescoring of docked poses systematically improves the correlation. J Comput Aided Mol Des 27:707–721
Kelemen ÁA, Ferenczy GG, Keserű GM (2015) A desirability function-based scoring scheme for selecting fragment-like class A aminergic GPCR ligands. J Comput Aided Mol Des 29:59–66
Wang K, Chodera JD, Yang Y, Shirts MR (2013) Identifying ligand binding sites and poses using GPU-accelerated Hamiltonian replica exchange molecular dynamics. J Comput Aided Mol Des 27:989–1007
Wang L, Berne BJ, Friesner RA (2012) On achieving high accuracy and reliability in the calculation of relative protein-ligand binding affinities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:1937–1942
The binding database: a public database of measured binding affinities (2014) Skaggs School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, La Jolla. http://www.bindingdb.org
Jakubik J, Bacakova L, el-Fakahany EE, Tucek S (1995) Subtype selectivity of the positive allosteric action of alcuronium at cloned M1-M5 muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 274:1077–1083
Ballesteros J, Weinstein H (1995) In: Sealfon S, Conn P (Eds) Methods in neurosciences. Academic, San Diego
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic project [AV0Z 50110509] and support [RVO:67985823], the Czech Science Foundation grants [305/09/0681], [P304/12/G069] and [14-05696S]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jakubík, J., El-Fakahany, E.E. & Doležal, V. Towards predictive docking at aminergic G-protein coupled receptors. J Mol Model 21, 284 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00894-015-2824-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00894-015-2824-9