Molecular dynamics simulation of the human estrogen receptor alpha: contribution to the pharmacophore of the agonists

Human estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) is one of the most studied targets for in silico screening of bioactive compounds. The estrogenic activity of a vast number of chemicals has been studied for their potentially adverse effects on the hormone regulation of the endocrine system. The commonly accepted presentation of the ERα agonist pharmacophore includes terminal phenolic groups and a hydrophobic rigid backbone. In this study we report on molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of ERα to get a deeper structural insight into the agonist–receptor interactions and the pharmacophore pattern of compounds with agonistic activity. We rely on a crystallographic structure of a complex of ERα (PDB ID 2P15) with an agonist of picomolar affinity. As the X-ray structure has a mutation next to a key structural element for ERα agonistic activity (helix H12, Y537S), a series of MD simulations have been performed on the mutated and on the wild type receptor to prove the stability of the agonist–receptor interactions. No significant difference in the ligand–protein interactions has been detected between the studied proteins implying that the Y537S mutant structure can be used for refinement of the pharmacophore model of the ERα agonists. The results suggest that the pharmacophore of compounds with ERα agonistic activity can be extended by a feature that occupies a free hydrophobic region of the binding pocket. The extended pharmacophore model has been evaluated by a pharmacophore-based virtual screening of databases of ERα binders and decoys. The results also imply that MD simulations are a powerful in silico tool for both protein dynamics and structure investigation, especially when mutations are available that can potentially disturb the protein structure and functions.

[1]  P. Kollman,et al.  Automatic atom type and bond type perception in molecular mechanical calculations. , 2006, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[2]  K. Korach,et al.  Estrogen receptor null mice: what have we learned and where will they lead us? , 1999, Endocrine reviews.

[3]  D. Clegg Minireview: The Year in Review of Estrogen Regulation of Metabolism , 2012, Molecular endocrinology.

[4]  I. Pajeva,et al.  Recent advances in the molecular modeling of estrogen receptor-mediated toxicity. , 2011, Advances in protein chemistry and structural biology.

[5]  C. Wermuth,et al.  Glossary of terms used in medicinal chemistry (IUPAC Recommendations 1998) , 1998 .

[6]  B. Katzenellenbogen,et al.  NFkappaB selectivity of estrogen receptor ligands revealed by comparative crystallographic analyses. , 2008, Nature chemical biology.

[7]  Andrzej Joachimiak,et al.  Structural plasticity in the oestrogen receptor ligand‐binding domain , 2007, EMBO reports.

[8]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[9]  G. Ciccotti,et al.  Numerical Integration of the Cartesian Equations of Motion of a System with Constraints: Molecular Dynamics of n-Alkanes , 1977 .

[10]  P B Sigler,et al.  Crystallographic comparison of the estrogen and progesterone receptor's ligand binding domains. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  Daniela Schuster,et al.  In silico methods in the discovery of endocrine disrupting chemicals , 2013, The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

[12]  F. Fratev Activation helix orientation of the estrogen receptor is mediated by receptor dimerization: evidence from molecular dynamics simulations. , 2015, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[13]  Darrell R. Abernethy,et al.  International Union of Pharmacology: Approaches to the Nomenclature of Voltage-Gated Ion Channels , 2003, Pharmacological Reviews.

[14]  Q Xie,et al.  Structure-activity relationships for a large diverse set of natural, synthetic, and environmental estrogens. , 2001, Chemical research in toxicology.

[15]  Junmei Wang,et al.  Development and testing of a general amber force field , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[16]  Ilza Pajeva,et al.  Combination of Genetic Screening and Molecular Dynamics as a Useful Tool for Identification of Disease-Related Mutations: ZASP PDZ Domain G54S Mutation Case , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[17]  A. Pike Lessons learnt from structural studies of the oestrogen receptor. , 2006, Best practice & research. Clinical endocrinology & metabolism.

[18]  Kendall W Nettles,et al.  Ligand control of coregulator recruitment to nuclear receptors. , 2005, Annual review of physiology.

[19]  Bruce Blumberg,et al.  Endocrine disrupting chemicals and disease susceptibility , 2011, The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

[20]  David A. Agard,et al.  The Structural Basis of Estrogen Receptor/Coactivator Recognition and the Antagonism of This Interaction by Tamoxifen , 1998, Cell.

[21]  J. Mosquera,et al.  Oestrogen receptors alpha and beta differ in normal human breast and breast carcinomas , 2002, The Journal of pathology.

[22]  Michael M. Mysinger,et al.  Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced (DUD-E): Better Ligands and Decoys for Better Benchmarking , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[23]  D. Kojetin,et al.  Small Molecule Modulation of Nuclear Receptor Conformational Dynamics: Implications for Function and Drug Discovery , 2013, Molecular Pharmacology.

[24]  D. Moras,et al.  Crystal Structure of a Mutant hERα Ligand-binding Domain Reveals Key Structural Features for the Mechanism of Partial Agonism* , 2001, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[25]  H. G. Petersen Accuracy and efficiency of the particle mesh Ewald method , 1995 .

[26]  V. Craig Jordan,et al.  International Union of Pharmacology. LXIV. Estrogen Receptors , 2006, Pharmacological Reviews.