Predicting the effects of amino acid replacements in peptide hormones on their binding affinities for class B GPCRs and application to the design of secretin receptor antagonists

Computational prediction of the effects of residue changes on peptide-protein binding affinities, followed by experimental testing of the top predicted binders, is an efficient strategy for the rational structure-based design of peptide inhibitors. In this study we apply this approach to the discovery of competitive antagonists for the secretin receptor, the prototypical member of class B G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Proteins in this family are involved in peptide hormone-stimulated signaling and are implicated in several human diseases, making them potential therapeutic targets. We first validated our computational method by predicting changes in the binding affinities of several peptides to their cognate class B GPCRs due to alanine replacement and compared the results with previously published experimental values. Overall, the results showed a significant correlation between the predicted and experimental ΔΔG values. Next, we identified candidate inhibitors by applying this method to a homology model of the secretin receptor bound to an N-terminal truncated secretin peptide. Predictions were made for single residue replacements to each of the other nineteen naturally occurring amino acids at peptide residues within the segment binding the receptor N-terminal domain. Amino acid replacements predicted to most enhance receptor binding were then experimentally tested by competition-binding assays. We found two residue changes that improved binding affinities by almost one log unit. Furthermore, a peptide combining both of these favorable modifications resulted in an almost two log unit improvement in binding affinity, demonstrating the approximately additive effect of these changes on binding. In order to further investigate possible physical effects of these residue changes on receptor binding affinity, molecular dynamics simulations were performed on representatives of the successful peptide analogues (namely A17I, G25R, and A17I/G25R) in bound and unbound forms. These simulations suggested that a combination of the α-helical propensity of the unbound peptide and specific interactions between the peptide and the receptor extracellular domain contribute to their higher binding affinities.

[1]  L. Miller,et al.  Lactam constraints provide insights into the receptor-bound conformation of secretin and stabilize a receptor antagonist. , 2011, Biochemistry.

[2]  L. B. Knudsen,et al.  Structure-activity studies of glucagon-like peptide-1. , 1994, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[3]  J. T. Turner,et al.  A fragment of vasoactive intestinal peptide, VIP(10–28), is an antagonist of VIP in the colon carcinoma cell line, HT29 , 1986, Peptides.

[4]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Biased probability Monte Carlo conformational searches and electrostatic calculations for peptides and proteins. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[5]  P. Robberecht,et al.  Interaction of porcine vasoactive intestinal peptide with dispersed pancreatic acinar cells from the guinea pig. Structural requirements for effects of vasoactive intestinal peptide and secretin on cellular adenosine 3':5'-monophosphate. , 1976, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[6]  H. Xu,et al.  Molecular Recognition of Corticotropin-releasing Factor by Its G-protein-coupled Receptor CRFR1* , 2008, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[7]  T. Gardella,et al.  Role of Amino Acid Side Chains in Region 17–31 of Parathyroid Hormone (PTH) in Binding to the PTH Receptor* , 2006, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[8]  B. Wulff,et al.  Different domains of the glucagon and glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptors provide the critical determinants of ligand selectivity , 2003, British journal of pharmacology.

[9]  Lotte Bjerre Knudsen,et al.  Crystal Structure of Glucagon-like Peptide-1 in Complex with the Extracellular Domain of the Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor* , 2009, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[10]  H. Scheraga,et al.  Energy parameters in polypeptides. 9. Updating of geometrical parameters, nonbonded interactions, and hydrogen bond interactions for the naturally occurring amino acids , 1983 .

[11]  David E. Kim,et al.  Computational Alanine Scanning of Protein-Protein Interfaces , 2004, Science's STKE.

[12]  R. Jensen,et al.  Elucidation of the Vasoactive Intestinal Peptide Pharmacophore for VPAC2 Receptors in Human and Rat and Comparison to the Pharmacophore for VPAC1 Receptors , 2002, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.

[13]  P. Sexton,et al.  Structure/function relationships of calcitonin analogues as agonists, antagonists, or inverse agonists in a constitutively activated receptor cell system. , 1997, Molecular pharmacology.

[14]  T. Darden,et al.  A smooth particle mesh Ewald method , 1995 .

[15]  H. Scheraga,et al.  Energy parameters in polypeptides. VII. Geometric parameters, partial atomic charges, nonbonded interactions, hydrogen bond interactions, and intrinsic torsional potentials for the naturally occurring amino acids , 1975 .

[16]  Shuangye Yin,et al.  Eris: an automated estimator of protein stability , 2007, Nature Methods.

[17]  R. Rudolph,et al.  Crystal structure of the incretin-bound extracellular domain of a G protein-coupled receptor , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  M. Parrinello,et al.  Polymorphic transitions in single crystals: A new molecular dynamics method , 1981 .

[19]  S. Hoare,et al.  Mechanisms of peptide and nonpeptide ligand binding to Class B G-protein-coupled receptors. , 2005, Drug discovery today.

[20]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Protein structure prediction by global energy optimization , 1997 .

[21]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Large‐scale prediction of protein geometry and stability changes for arbitrary single point mutations , 2004, Proteins.

[22]  D Rodbard,et al.  Ligand: a versatile computerized approach for characterization of ligand-binding systems. , 1980, Analytical biochemistry.

[23]  R. Dror,et al.  Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field , 2010, Proteins.

[24]  H. Scheraga,et al.  Energy parameters in polypeptides. 10. Improved geometrical parameters and nonbonded interactions for use in the ECEPP/3 algorithm, with application to proline-containing peptides , 1994 .

[25]  Berk Hess,et al.  LINCS: A linear constraint solver for molecular simulations , 1997, J. Comput. Chem..

[26]  A. Hopkins,et al.  The druggable genome , 2002, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[27]  Kjeld Madsen,et al.  Crystal Structure of the Ligand-bound Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Extracellular Domain* , 2008, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[28]  R. Rudolph,et al.  Passing the baton in class B GPCRs: peptide hormone activation via helix induction? , 2009, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[29]  Gideon Schreiber,et al.  Similar chemistry, but different bond preferences in inter versus intra‐protein interactions , 2008, Proteins.

[30]  Annick Thomas,et al.  Identification of Key Residues for Interaction of Vasoactive Intestinal Peptide with Human VPAC1 and VPAC2Receptors and Development of a Highly Selective VPAC1Receptor Agonist , 2000, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[31]  D. Baker,et al.  Role of conformational sampling in computing mutation‐induced changes in protein structure and stability , 2011, Proteins.

[32]  B. L. de Groot,et al.  Predicting free energy changes using structural ensembles. , 2009, Nature methods.

[33]  H. Xu,et al.  Molecular recognition of parathyroid hormone by its G protein-coupled receptor , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[34]  Gerrit Groenhof,et al.  GROMACS: Fast, flexible, and free , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[35]  W. Kabsch,et al.  Dictionary of protein secondary structure: Pattern recognition of hydrogen‐bonded and geometrical features , 1983, Biopolymers.

[36]  L. Pradayrol,et al.  Secretin Receptors in Human Pancreatic Membranes , 1988, Pancreas.

[37]  H. Berendsen,et al.  Molecular dynamics with coupling to an external bath , 1984 .

[38]  L. Miller,et al.  Intrinsic photoaffinity labeling of native and recombinant rat pancreatic secretin receptors. , 1993, Gastroenterology.

[39]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  The RCSB Protein Data Bank: redesigned web site and web services , 2010, Nucleic Acids Res..

[40]  Wilfred F. van Gunsteren,et al.  Computer Simulation of Biomolecular Systems: Theoretical and Experimental Applications , 1989 .

[41]  D. Baker,et al.  A simple physical model for binding energy hot spots in protein–protein complexes , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[42]  G. Schreiber,et al.  Assessing computational methods for predicting protein stability upon mutation: good on average but not in the details. , 2009, Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS.

[43]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  ICM—A new method for protein modeling and design: Applications to docking and structure prediction from the distorted native conformation , 1994, J. Comput. Chem..

[44]  W. L. Jorgensen,et al.  Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water , 1983 .

[45]  L. Miller,et al.  Importance of each residue within secretin for receptor binding and biological activity. , 2011, Biochemistry.

[46]  J. Gardner,et al.  Interaction of secretin5-27 and its analogues with hormone receptors on pancreatic acini. , 1979, Biochimica et biophysica acta.