Towards predictive docking at aminergic G-protein coupled receptors

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.

[1]  T. A. Jones,et al.  The Uppsala Electron-Density Server. , 2004, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[2]  Ian T. Crosby,et al.  Homology Modeling and Docking Evaluation of Aminergic G Protein-Coupled Receptors , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[3]  J. Trujillo-Ferrara,et al.  Molecular dynamics simulations to explore the active/inactive conformers of guinea pig β2 adrenoceptor for the selective design of agonists or antagonists , 2014 .

[4]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Status of GPCR modeling and docking as reflected by community-wide GPCR Dock 2010 assessment. , 2011, Structure.

[5]  Laura López,et al.  Progress in the structural prediction of G protein‐coupled receptors: D3 receptor in complex with eticlopride , 2011, Proteins.

[6]  Gebhard F. X. Schertler,et al.  Structure of a β1-adrenergic G-protein-coupled receptor , 2008, Nature.

[7]  Federico D. Sacerdoti,et al.  Scalable Algorithms for Molecular Dynamics Simulations on Commodity Clusters , 2006, ACM/IEEE SC 2006 Conference (SC'06).

[8]  J. Venter,et al.  Site-directed mutagenesis of m1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptors: conserved aspartic acids play important roles in receptor function. , 1989, Molecular pharmacology.

[9]  R. Stevens,et al.  High-Resolution Crystal Structure of an Engineered Human β2-Adrenergic G Protein–Coupled Receptor , 2007, Science.

[10]  Charles L. Brooks,et al.  Community-wide assessment of GPCR structure modelling and ligand docking: GPCR Dock 2008 , 2009, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[11]  Stefano Moro,et al.  Bridging Molecular Docking to Membrane Molecular Dynamics To Investigate GPCR-Ligand Recognition: The Human A2A Adenosine Receptor as a Key Study , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[12]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Structure of the human histamine H1 receptor complex with doxepin , 2011, Nature.

[13]  Vadim Cherezov,et al.  A specific cholesterol binding site is established by the 2.8 A structure of the human beta2-adrenergic receptor. , 2008, Structure.

[14]  R. Horuk,et al.  I want a new drug: G-protein-coupled receptors in drug development. , 2006, Drug discovery today.

[15]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  Announcing the worldwide Protein Data Bank , 2003, Nature Structural Biology.

[16]  Gert Vriend,et al.  Increasing the precision of comparative models with YASARA NOVA—a self‐parameterizing force field , 2002, Proteins.

[17]  Ádám A. Kelemen,et al.  A desirability function-based scoring scheme for selecting fragment-like class A aminergic GPCR ligands , 2014, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[18]  R. Stevens,et al.  High-resolution crystal structure of an engineered human beta2-adrenergic G protein-coupled receptor. , 2007, Science.

[19]  D. Rognan,et al.  Selective structure-based virtual screening for full and partial agonists of the beta2 adrenergic receptor. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[20]  C. E. Peishoff,et al.  A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[21]  L. Bačáková,et al.  Subtype selectivity of the positive allosteric action of alcuronium at cloned M1-M5 muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. , 1995, The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics.

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

[23]  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.

[24]  James M. Anderson,et al.  Experimental versus predicted affinities for ligand binding to estrogen receptor: iterative selection and rescoring of docked poses systematically improves the correlation , 2013, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[25]  Martin Caffrey,et al.  Membrane protein crystallization. , 2003, Journal of structural biology.

[26]  J. Gready,et al.  Combining docking and molecular dynamic simulations in drug design , 2006, Medicinal research reviews.

[27]  K. Palczewski,et al.  Crystal Structure of Rhodopsin: A G‐Protein‐Coupled Receptor , 2000, Science.

[28]  Gebhard F. X. Schertler,et al.  Two distinct conformations of helix 6 observed in antagonist-bound structures of a β1-adrenergic receptor , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  Woody Sherman,et al.  Current Assessment of Docking into GPCR Crystal Structures and Homology Models: Successes, Challenges, and Guidelines , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[30]  R. Lefkowitz Historical review: a brief history and personal retrospective of seven-transmembrane receptors. , 2004, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[31]  Anthony Nicholls,et al.  Essential considerations for using protein-ligand structures in drug discovery. , 2012, Drug discovery today.

[32]  M. Brann,et al.  Use of chimeric muscarinic receptors to investigate epitopes involved in allosteric interactions. , 1993, Molecular pharmacology.

[33]  M. Koliński,et al.  Molecular interactions between fenoterol stereoisomers and derivatives and the β2-adrenergic receptor binding site studied by docking and molecular dynamics simulations , 2013, Journal of Molecular Modeling.

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

[35]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Advances in GPCR modeling evaluated by the GPCR Dock 2013 assessment: meeting new challenges. , 2014, Structure.

[36]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Conserved binding mode of human beta2 adrenergic receptor inverse agonists and antagonist revealed by X-ray crystallography. , 2010, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[37]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[38]  Santiago Vilar,et al.  In Silico screening for agonists and blockers of the β2 adrenergic receptor: Implications of inactive and activated state structures , 2012, J. Comput. Chem..

[39]  D. Frank Hsu,et al.  Consensus Scoring Criteria for Improving Enrichment in Virtual Screening , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[41]  Lingle Wang,et al.  On achieving high accuracy and reliability in the calculation of relative protein–ligand binding affinities , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[42]  M. Murcko,et al.  Consensus scoring: A method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[43]  Kai Wang,et al.  Identifying ligand binding sites and poses using GPU-accelerated Hamiltonian replica exchange molecular dynamics , 2013, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[44]  David E. Gloriam,et al.  G Protein- and Agonist-Bound Serotonin 5-HT2A Receptor Model Activated by Steered Molecular Dynamics Simulations , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[45]  David K. Chalmers,et al.  Homology Modeling of Human Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptors , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[46]  S J Wodak,et al.  SFCHECK: a unified set of procedures for evaluating the quality of macromolecular structure-factor data and their agreement with the atomic model. , 1999, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[47]  Woody Sherman,et al.  Protein and ligand preparation: parameters, protocols, and influence on virtual screening enrichments , 2013, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[48]  Jonathan A. Javitch,et al.  Structure of the Human Dopamine D3 Receptor in Complex with a D2/D3 Selective Antagonist , 2010, Science.

[49]  R. Friesner,et al.  Novel procedure for modeling ligand/receptor induced fit effects. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[50]  Jessica Holien,et al.  Improvements, trends, and new ideas in molecular docking: 2012–2013 in review , 2015, Journal of molecular recognition : JMR.