Could the presence of sodium ion influence the accuracy and precision of the ligand-posing in the human A2A adenosine receptor orthosteric binding site using a molecular docking approach? Insights from Dockbench

The allosteric modulation of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) by sodium ions has received considerable attention as crystal structures of several receptors, in their inactive conformation, show a Na+ ion bound to specific residues which, in the human A2A adenosine receptor (hA2A AR), are Ser913.39, Trp2466.48, Asn2807.45, and Asn2847.49. A cluster of water molecules completes the coordination of the sodium ion in the putative allosteric site. It is absolutely consolidated that the progress made in the field of GPCRs structural determination has increased the adoption of docking-driven approaches for the identification or the optimization of novel potent and selective ligands. Despite the extensive use of docking protocols in virtual screening approaches, to date, almost any of these studies have been carried out without taking into account the presence of the sodium cation and its first solvation shell in the putative allosteric binding site. In this study, we have focused our attention on determining how the presence of sodium ion binding and additionally its first hydration sphere, in hA2AAR could influence the ligand positioning accuracy during molecular docking simulations for most of the available resting and activated hA2A AR crystal structures, using DockBench as a comparative benchmarking tool and implementing a new correlation coefficient (EM). This work provides indications on the evidence that the posing performance (accuracy and/or precision) of the docking protocols in reproducing the crystallographic poses of different hA2A AR antagonists is generally increased in the presence of the sodium cation and its first solvation shell, in agreement with experimental observations. Consequently, the inclusion of sodium ion and its first solvation shell should be considered in order to facilitate the selection of new potential ligands in all molecular docking-based virtual screening protocols that aim to find novel GPCRs antagonists and inverse agonists.

[1]  Stefano Moro,et al.  DockBench as docking selector tool: the lesson learned from D3R Grand Challenge 2015 , 2016, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[2]  Zhihai Liu,et al.  Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on a Diverse Test Set , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[3]  Paul Labute,et al.  The generalized Born/volume integral implicit solvent model: Estimation of the free energy of hydration using London dispersion instead of atomic surface area , 2008, J. Comput. Chem..

[4]  Christofer S Tautermann,et al.  GPCR structures in drug design, emerging opportunities with new structures. , 2014, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[5]  S. Iwata,et al.  G protein-coupled receptor inactivation by an allosteric inverse-agonist antibody , 2011, Nature.

[6]  David Rodríguez,et al.  The role of a sodium ion binding site in the allosteric modulation of the A(2A) adenosine G protein-coupled receptor. , 2013, Structure.

[7]  Hugo Gutiérrez-de-Terán,et al.  Sodium Ion Binding Pocket Mutations and Adenosine A2A Receptor Function , 2015, Molecular Pharmacology.

[8]  Miles Congreve,et al.  The impact of GPCR structures on pharmacology and structure‐based drug design , 2010, British journal of pharmacology.

[9]  Conrad C. Huang,et al.  UCSF Chimera—A visualization system for exploratory research and analysis , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[10]  P. Labute.  proteins STRUCTURE O FUNCTION O BIOINFORMATICS Protonate3D: Assignment of ionization , 2013 .

[11]  S. Moro,et al.  Advances in Computational Techniques to Study GPCR-Ligand Recognition. , 2015, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[12]  A. IJzerman,et al.  Controlling the Dissociation of Ligands from the Adenosine A2A Receptor through Modulation of Salt Bridge Strength. , 2016, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[13]  M. Congreve,et al.  Structure of the adenosine A(2A) receptor in complex with ZM241385 and the xanthines XAC and caffeine. , 2011, Structure.

[14]  Thomas Stützle,et al.  Empirical Scoring Functions for Advanced Protein-Ligand Docking with PLANTS , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[15]  J. Gasteiger,et al.  ITERATIVE PARTIAL EQUALIZATION OF ORBITAL ELECTRONEGATIVITY – A RAPID ACCESS TO ATOMIC CHARGES , 1980 .

[16]  Berend J. H. Huisman,et al.  5'-Substituted Amiloride Derivatives as Allosteric Modulators Binding in the Sodium Ion Pocket of the Adenosine A2A Receptor. , 2016, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[17]  Diwakar Shukla,et al.  Universality of the Sodium Ion Binding Mechanism in Class A G-Protein-Coupled Receptors. , 2018, Angewandte Chemie.

[18]  Xavier Barril,et al.  rDock: A Fast, Versatile and Open Source Program for Docking Ligands to Proteins and Nucleic Acids , 2014, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[19]  Anton Barty,et al.  Native phasing of x-ray free-electron laser data for a G protein–coupled receptor , 2016, Science Advances.

[20]  Arthur J. Olson,et al.  AutoDock Vina: Improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[21]  Vadim Cherezov,et al.  Allosteric sodium in class A GPCR signaling. , 2014, Trends in biochemical sciences.

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

[23]  J. Stewart.  Optimization of parameters for semiempirical methods I. Method , 1989 .

[24]  M. Liang,et al.  Serial millisecond crystallography for routine room-temperature structure determination at synchrotrons , 2017, Nature Communications.

[25]  Hege S. Beard,et al.  Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[26]  Jonathan S. Mason,et al.  Discovery of 1,2,4-Triazine Derivatives as Adenosine A2A Antagonists using Structure Based Drug Design , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[27]  K. Merz,et al.  Systematic Parameterization of Monovalent Ions Employing the Nonbonded Model. , 2015, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[28]  Arthur Christopoulos,et al.  Structure of the Adenosine A1 Receptor Reveals the Basis for Subtype Selectivity , 2017, Cell.

[29]  Chris Morley,et al.  Open Babel: An open chemical toolbox , 2011, J. Cheminformatics.

[30]  Zhihai Liu,et al.  Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on an Updated Benchmark: 2. Evaluation Methods and General Results , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[31]  Marcel L Verdonk,et al.  General and targeted statistical potentials for protein–ligand interactions , 2005, Proteins.

[32]  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 .

[33]  Stefano Moro,et al.  Alternative Quality Assessment Strategy to Compare Performances of GPCR-Ligand Docking Protocols: The Human Adenosine A2A Receptor as a Case Study , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[34]  V. Cherezov,et al.  High-throughput in situ X-ray screening of and data collection from protein crystals at room temperature and under cryogenic conditions , 2018, Nature Protocols.

[35]  E. Segala,et al.  Structures of Human A1 and A2A Adenosine Receptors with Xanthines Reveal Determinants of Selectivity. , 2017, Structure.

[36]  V. Cherezov,et al.  Fast iodide-SAD phasing for high-throughput membrane protein structure determination , 2017, Science Advances.

[37]  Stefano Moro,et al.  DockBench: An Integrated Informatic Platform Bridging the Gap between the Robust Validation of Docking Protocols and Virtual Screening Simulations , 2015, Molecules.

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

[39]  R. Stevens,et al.  The 2.6 Angstrom Crystal Structure of a Human A2A Adenosine Receptor Bound to an Antagonist , 2008, Science.

[40]  J. Tuszynski,et al.  Software for molecular docking: a review , 2017, Biophysical Reviews.

[41]  K. Jacobson.  Introduction to adenosine receptors as therapeutic targets. , 2009, Handbook of experimental pharmacology.

[42]  Andrea Bortolato,et al.  New insights from structural biology into the druggability of G protein-coupled receptors. , 2012, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

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

[44]  Chris de Graaf,et al.  Insights into the structure of class B GPCRs. , 2014, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[45]  Woody Sherman,et al.  Selecting an Optimal Number of Binding Site Waters To Improve Virtual Screening Enrichments Against the Adenosine A2A Receptor , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[46]  Zhihai Liu,et al.  Evaluation of the performance of four molecular docking programs on a diverse set of protein‐ligand complexes , 2010, J. Comput. Chem..

[47]  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.

[48]  Andrew S Doré,et al.  Towards high throughput GPCR crystallography: In Meso soaking of Adenosine A2A Receptor crystals , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[49]  R. Sunahara,et al.  Mechanistic insights into allosteric regulation of the A2A adenosine G protein-coupled receptor by physiological cations , 2018, Nature Communications.

[50]  R. Stevens,et al.  Structural Basis for Allosteric Regulation of GPCRs by Sodium Ions , 2012, Science.