The prolactin hormone is involved in several biological functions, although its main role resides on reproduction. As it interferes on fertility changes, studies focused on human health have established a linkage of this hormone to fertility losses. Regarding animal research, there is still a lack of information about the structure of prolactin. In case of horse breeding, prolactin has a particular influence; once there is an individualization of these animals and equines are known for presenting several reproductive disorders. As there is no molecular structure available for the prolactin hormone and receptor, we performed several bioinformatics analyses through prediction and refinement softwares, as well as manual modifications. Aiming to elucidate the first computational structure of both molecules and analyse structural and functional aspects related to these proteins, here we provide the first known equine model for prolactin and prolactin receptor, which obtained high global quality scores in diverse software’s for quality assessment. QMEAN overall score obtained for ePrl was (− 4.09) and QMEANbrane for ePrlr was (− 8.45), which proves the structures’ reliability. This study will implement another tool in equine genomics in order to give light to interactions of these molecules, structural and functional alterations and therefore help diagnosing fertility problems, contributing in the selection of a high genetic herd.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Bole-Feysot C, Goffin V, Edery M et al (1998) Prolactin (PRL) and its receptor: actions, signal transduction pathways and phenotypes observed in PRL receptor knockout mice. Endocr Rev 19:225–268. https://doi.org/10.1210/edrv.19.3.0334
Goffin V, Kinet S, Ferrag F et al (1996) Antagonistic properties of human prolactin analogs that show paradoxical agonistic activity in the Nb2 bioassay. J Biol Chem 271:16573–16579
Freeman ME, Kanyicska B, Lerant A, Nagy G (2000) Prolactin: structure, function, and regulation of secretion. Physiol Rev 80:1523–1631
Ormandy CJ, Camus A, Barra J et al (1997) Null mutation of the prolactin receptor gene produces multiple reproductive defects in the mouse. Genes Dev 11:167–178
Newey PJ, Phil D, Gorvin CM et al (2013) Mutant prolactin receptor and familial hyperprolactinemia. N Engl J Med 369:2012–2020. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1307557
Sonigo C, Bouilly J, Carré N et al (2012) Hyperprolactinemia-induced ovarian acyclicity is reversed by kisspeptin administration. J Clin Invest 122:3791–3795. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI63937
Giesecke K, Hamann H, Sieme H, Distl O (2010) Evaluation of prolactin receptor (prlr) as candidate gene for male fertility in hanoverian warmblood horses. Reprod Domest Anim 45:124–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2009.01533.x
Thompson DL, Oberhaus EL (2015) Prolactin in the horse: historical perspective, actions and reactions, and its role in reproduction. J Equine Vet Sci 35:343–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2015.03.199
Bugge K, Papaleo E, Haxholm GW et al (2016) A combined computational and structural model of the full-length human prolactin receptor. Nat Commun 7:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11578
Broutin I, Jomain JB, Tallet E et al (2010) Crystal structure of an affinity-matured prolactin complexed to its dimerized receptor reveals the topology of hormone binding site 2. J Biol Chem 285:8422–8433. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M109.089128
van Agthoven J, Zhang C, Tallet E et al (2010) Structural characterization of the stem-stem dimerization interface between prolactin receptor chains complexed with the natural hormone. J Mol Biol 404:112–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2010.09.036
Teilum K, Hoch JC, Goffin V et al (2005) Solution structure of human prolactin. J Mol Biol 351:810–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2005.06.042
Apweiler R, Bairoch A, Wu CH et al (2004) UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res 32:D115–D119. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh131
Roy A, Kucukural A, Zhang Y (2010) I-TASSER: a unified platform for automated protein structure and function prediction. Nat Protoc 5:725–738. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2010.5
Xu D, Jaroszewski L, Li Z, Godzik A (2014) AIDA: ab initio domain assembly server. Nucleic Acids Res 42:W308–W313. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku369
Xu D, Zhang J, Roy A, Zhang Y (2011) Automated protein structure modeling in CASP9 by I-TASSER pipeline combined with QUARK-based ab initio folding and FG-MD-based structure refinement. Proteins. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.23111
Fiser A, Sali A (2003) ModLoop: automated modeling of loops in protein structures. Bioinform Appl NOTE 19:2500–2501. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg362
Maghrabi AHA, McGuffin LJ (2017) ModFOLD6: an accurate web server for the global and local quality estimation of 3D protein models. Nucleic Acids Res 45:W416–W421. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx332
Benkert P, Biasini M, Schwede T (2011) Toward the estimation of the absolute quality of individual protein structure models. Bioinformatics 27:343–350. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq662
Studer G, Biasini M, Schwede T (2014) Assessing the local structural quality of transmembrane protein models using statistical potentials (QMEANBrane). Bioinformatics 30:i505–i511. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu457
Batut P, Gingeras TR (2013) RAMPAGE: promoter activity profiling by paired-end sequencing of 5’-complete cDNAs. Curr Protoc Mol Biol 104:Unit 25B.11. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471142727.mb25b11s104
Zhou H, Zhou Y (2002) Distance-scaled, finite ideal-gas reference state improves structure-derived potentials of mean force for structure selection and stability prediction. Protein Sci 11:2714–2726. https://doi.org/10.1110/ps.0217002
Yang Y, Zhou Y (2008) Specific interactions for ab initio folding of protein terminal regions with secondary structures. Proteins 72:793–803. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.21968
Holm L, Sander C (1992) Evaluation of protein models by atomic solvation preference. J Mol Biol 225:93–105
Ray A, Lindahl E, Orn Wallner B (2012) Improved model quality assessment using ProQ2. BMC Bioinform 13:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-13-224
McGuffin LJ, Bryson K, Jones DT (2000) The PSIPRED protein structure prediction server. Bioinformatics 16:404–405
Jiménez-García B, Pons C, Fernández-Recio J (2013) pyDockWEB: a web server for rigid-body protein–protein docking using electrostatics and desolvation scoring. Bioinformatics 29:1698–1699. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btt262
Chenna R, Sugawara H, Koike T et al (2003) Multiple sequence alignment with the clustal series of programs. Nucleic Acids Res 31:3497–3500
Zhang Y (2009) Protein structure prediction: when is it useful? Curr Opin Struct Biol 19:145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2009.02.005
Read RJ, Chavali G (2007) Assessment of CASP7 predictions in the high accuracy template-based modeling category. Proteins 69(Suppl 8):27–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.21662
Du H, Brender JR, Zhang J, Zhang Y (2015) Protein structure prediction provides comparable performance to crystallographic structures in docking-based virtual screening. Methods 71:77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2014.08.017
Yang J, Zhang W, He B et al (2016) Template-based protein structure prediction in CASP11 and retrospect of I-TASSER in the last decade. Proteins 84(Suppl 1):233–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.24918
Zhang J, Liang Y, Zhang Y (2011) Atomic-level protein structure refinement using fragment-guided molecular dynamics conformation sampling. Structure 19:1784–1795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2011.09.022
Kryshtafovych A, Monastyrskyy B, Fidelis K et al (2018) Assessment of model accuracy estimations in CASP12. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinform 86:345–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.25371
Uziela K, Wallner B (2016) ProQ2: estimation of model accuracy implemented in Rosetta. Bioinformatics 32:1411–1413. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv767
Koehler Leman J, Ulmschneider MB, Gray JJ (2015) Computational modeling of membrane proteins. Proteins 83:1–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.24703
Almeida JG, Preto AJ, Koukos PI et al (2017) Membrane proteins structures: a review on computational modeling tools. Biochim Biophys Acta Biomembr 1859:2021–2039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2017.07.008
Kashani-Amin E, Tabatabaei-Malazy O, Sakhteman A et al (2018) A systematic review on popularity, application and characteristics of protein secondary structure prediction tools. Curr Drug Discov Technol 10:15. https://doi.org/10.2174/1570163815666180227162157
The authors declare there was no conflict of interest. This project was developed by a Biotechnology undergraduate student through supporting scholarship from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). FSK is student of the Graduate Program in Biotechnology at Universidade Federal de Pelotas also supported by CNPQ.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Online Resource 7 Secondary structure comparison in PyMol Molecular Graphics with PDB-available models for (A,B) Prl: Equine Prl (red); 1RW5: human prolactin (blue); 3NPZ: rat prolactin (green). (C) Extracellular and transmembrane domains of different Prlr. Equine Prlr (red); 3NPZ: human prolactin receptor (green); 1BP3: human prolactin receptor (magenta); 3MGZ: human prolactin receptor (dark gray); 2NTI: human transmembrane domain (yellow); 3EW3: rat prolactin receptor (blue) (PDB 379 kb)
About this article
Cite this article
Neis, A., Kremer, F.S., Pinto, L.S. et al. In silico prediction of prolactin molecules as a tool for equine genomics reproduction. Mol Divers 23, 1019–1028 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11030-018-09914-3