Graded activation and free energy landscapes of a muscarinic G-protein–coupled receptor

Significance G-protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs) represent primary targets of about one-third of currently marketed drugs. The structure, dynamics, and function of GPCRs result from complex free energy landscapes. In this work, we have applied Gaussian accelerated molecular dynamics (GaMD) to study the ligand-dependent behavior of the M2 muscarinic GPCR. Extensive GaMD simulations have revealed distinct structural flexibility and free energy profiles that depict graded activation of the M2 receptor. We have captured both dissociation and binding of an orthosteric ligand in a single all-atom GPCR simulation. GaMD is well poised to study large biomolecules and ligand recognition for drug discovery. G-protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs) recognize ligands of widely different efficacies, from inverse to partial and full agonists, which transduce cellular signals at differentiated levels. However, the mechanism of such graded activation remains unclear. Using the Gaussian accelerated molecular dynamics (GaMD) method that enables both unconstrained enhanced sampling and free energy calculation, we have performed extensive GaMD simulations (∼19 μs in total) to investigate structural dynamics of the M2 muscarinic GPCR that is bound by the full agonist iperoxo (IXO), the partial agonist arecoline (ARC), and the inverse agonist 3-quinuclidinyl-benzilate (QNB), in the presence or absence of the G-protein mimetic nanobody. In the receptor–nanobody complex, IXO binding leads to higher fluctuations in the protein-coupling interface than ARC, especially in the receptor transmembrane helix 5 (TM5), TM6, and TM7 intracellular domains that are essential elements for GPCR activation, but less flexibility in the receptor extracellular region due to stronger binding compared with ARC. Two different binding poses are revealed for ARC in the orthosteric pocket. Removal of the nanobody leads to GPCR deactivation that is characterized by inward movement of the TM6 intracellular end. Distinct low-energy intermediate conformational states are identified for the IXO- and ARC-bound M2 receptor. Both dissociation and binding of an orthosteric ligand are observed in a single all-atom GPCR simulation in the case of partial agonist ARC binding to the M2 receptor. This study demonstrates the applicability of GaMD for exploring free energy landscapes of large biomolecules and the simulations provide important insights into the GPCR functional mechanism.

[1]  J. Ballesteros,et al.  [19] Integrated methods for the construction of three-dimensional models and computational probing of structure-function relations in G protein-coupled receptors , 1995 .

[2]  J. Andrew McCammon,et al.  Gaussian Accelerated Molecular Dynamics: Unconstrained Enhanced Sampling and Free Energy Calculation , 2015, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[3]  Matthew P. Repasky,et al.  Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[4]  J. Mccammon,et al.  G-protein coupled receptors: advances in simulation and drug discovery. , 2016, Current opinion in structural biology.

[5]  Christopher G. Tate,et al.  The structural basis for agonist and partial agonist action on a β1-adrenergic receptor , 2010, Nature.

[6]  Albert C. Pan,et al.  Pathway and mechanism of drug binding to G-protein-coupled receptors , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Albert C. Pan,et al.  Structural basis for modulation of a G-protein-coupled receptor by allosteric drugs , 2013, Nature.

[8]  J. Mccammon,et al.  Accelerated molecular dynamics simulations of ligand binding to a muscarinic G-protein-coupled receptor , 2015, Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics.

[9]  A. Kruse,et al.  Structure of the human M2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor bound to an antagonist , 2011, Nature.

[10]  F. Ehlert The relationship between muscarinic receptor occupancy and adenylate cyclase inhibition in the rabbit myocardium. , 1985, Molecular pharmacology.

[11]  V. Gibson,et al.  Interactions of agonists with M2 and M4 muscarinic receptor subtypes mediating cyclic AMP inhibition. , 1991, Molecular pharmacology.

[12]  William Sinko,et al.  Improved Reweighting of Accelerated Molecular Dynamics Simulations for Free Energy Calculation , 2014, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[13]  Y. Duan,et al.  Ligand entry and exit pathways in the beta2-adrenergic receptor. , 2009, Journal of molecular biology.

[14]  J Andrew McCammon,et al.  Activation and dynamic network of the M2 muscarinic receptor , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  Albert C. Pan,et al.  Structure and Dynamics of the M3 Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptor , 2012, Nature.

[16]  M. J. Chalmers,et al.  Ligand and receptor dynamics contribute to the mechanism of graded PPARγ agonism. , 2012, Structure.

[17]  George Khelashvili,et al.  Ligand-Dependent Conformations and Dynamics of the Serotonin 5-HT2A Receptor Determine Its Activation and Membrane-Driven Oligomerization Properties , 2012, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[18]  J. W. Wells,et al.  Coupling of G Proteins to Reconstituted Monomers and Tetramers of the M2 Muscarinic Receptor* , 2014, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[19]  Davide Provasi,et al.  Ligand-Induced Modulation of the Free-Energy Landscape of G Protein-Coupled Receptors Explored by Adaptive Biasing Techniques , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[20]  Albert C. Pan,et al.  Activation mechanism of the β2-adrenergic receptor , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  K Schulten,et al.  VMD: visual molecular dynamics. , 1996, Journal of molecular graphics.

[22]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  CHARMM additive and polarizable force fields for biophysics and computer-aided drug design. , 2015, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[23]  Laxmikant V. Kalé,et al.  Scalable molecular dynamics with NAMD , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[24]  J. W. Wells,et al.  Efficacy as an intrinsic property of the M(2) muscarinic receptor in its tetrameric state. , 2013, Biochemistry.

[25]  Daniel R Roe,et al.  PTRAJ and CPPTRAJ: Software for Processing and Analysis of Molecular Dynamics Trajectory Data. , 2013, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[26]  S. Rasmussen,et al.  Allosteric coupling from G protein to the agonist binding pocket in GPCRs , 2016, Nature.

[27]  Leonardo Pardo,et al.  Molecular Basis of Ligand Dissociation in β-Adrenergic Receptors , 2011, PloS one.

[28]  B. Kobilka,et al.  Energy landscapes as a tool to integrate GPCR structure, dynamics, and function. , 2010, Physiology.

[29]  J. Wess,et al.  Activation and allosteric modulation of a muscarinic acetylcholine receptor , 2013, Nature.

[30]  Hans-Peter Kriegel,et al.  A Density-Based Algorithm for Discovering Clusters in Large Spatial Databases with Noise , 1996, KDD.

[31]  Benoît Roux,et al.  AUTOMATED FORCE FIELD PARAMETERIZATION FOR NON-POLARIZABLE AND POLARIZABLE ATOMIC MODELS BASED ON AB INITIO TARGET DATA. , 2013, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[32]  Nagarajan Vaidehi,et al.  The role of conformational ensembles in ligand recognition in G-protein coupled receptors. , 2011, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[33]  Amanda L. Jonsson,et al.  Ligand-dependent activation and deactivation of the human adenosine A(2A) receptor. , 2013, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[34]  B. Kobilka,et al.  The structural basis of G-protein-coupled receptor signaling (Nobel Lecture). , 2013, Angewandte Chemie.

[35]  R. Stevens,et al.  Structure of an Agonist-Bound Human A2A Adenosine Receptor , 2011, Science.

[36]  U. Holzgrabe,et al.  Dynamic ligand binding dictates partial agonism at a G protein-coupled receptor. , 2014, Nature chemical biology.

[37]  M. Babu,et al.  Molecular signatures of G-protein-coupled receptors , 2013, Nature.