Reduced Curvature of Ligand-Binding Domain Free-Energy Surface Underlies Partial Agonism at NMDA Receptors  Jian Dai, Huan-Xiang Zhou  Structure  Volume.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Structure of the Rho Family GTP-Binding Protein Cdc42 in Complex with the Multifunctional Regulator RhoGDI  Gregory R. Hoffman, Nicolas Nassar, Richard.
Advertisements

Volume 18, Issue 2, Pages (February 2010)
Networks of Dynamic Allostery Regulate Enzyme Function
David Craig, Mu Gao, Klaus Schulten, Viola Vogel  Structure 
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages (January 2010)
Atsushi Matsumoto, Hisashi Ishida  Structure 
Volume 22, Issue 7, Pages (July 2014)
Volume 14, Issue 9, Pages (September 2006)
Volume 15, Issue 8, Pages (August 2007)
Structural Analysis of Engineered Bb Fragment of Complement Factor B
AnchorDock: Blind and Flexible Anchor-Driven Peptide Docking
Chaperone-Assisted Crystallography with DARPins
The Closing Mechanism of DNA Polymerase I at Atomic Resolution
Near-Atomic Resolution for One State of F-Actin
Allosteric Effects of the Oncogenic RasQ61L Mutant on Raf-RBD
Volume 18, Issue 2, Pages (February 2010)
Volume 20, Issue 5, Pages (May 2012)
How Does a Voltage Sensor Interact with a Lipid Bilayer
Volume 108, Issue 1, Pages (January 2015)
Rong Shi, Laura McDonald, Miroslaw Cygler, Irena Ekiel  Structure 
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages (January 2015)
Mechanism of the αβ Conformational Change in F1-ATPase after ATP Hydrolysis: Free- Energy Simulations  Yuko Ito, Mitsunori Ikeguchi  Biophysical Journal 
Structures of Minimal Catalytic Fragments of Topoisomerase V Reveals Conformational Changes Relevant for DNA Binding  Rakhi Rajan, Bhupesh Taneja, Alfonso.
Crystal Structure of the MHC Class I Homolog MIC-A, a γδ T Cell Ligand
Volume 16, Issue 10, Pages (October 2008)
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages (March 2009)
Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages (May 2008)
Volume 17, Issue 12, Pages (December 2009)
Volume 14, Issue 9, Pages (September 2006)
A Conformational Switch in the CRIB-PDZ Module of Par-6
Regulation of the Protein-Conducting Channel by a Bound Ribosome
Daniel Hoersch, Tanja Kortemme  Structure 
The Crystal Structure of the Costimulatory OX40-OX40L Complex
Volume 14, Issue 5, Pages (May 2006)
Volume 15, Issue 2, Pages (February 2007)
Volume 95, Issue 7, Pages (December 1998)
Functional Plasticity in the Substrate Binding Site of β-Secretase
Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages (March 2010)
Crystal Structure of the p53 Core Domain Bound to a Full Consensus Site as a Self- Assembled Tetramer  Yongheng Chen, Raja Dey, Lin Chen  Structure  Volume.
Partial Agonists Activate PPARγ Using a Helix 12 Independent Mechanism
Absence of Ion-Binding Affinity in the Putatively Inactivated Low-[K+] Structure of the KcsA Potassium Channel  Céline Boiteux, Simon Bernèche  Structure 
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages (January 2014)
Gating of HCN Channels by Cyclic Nucleotides: Residue Contacts that Underlie Ligand Binding, Selectivity, and Efficacy  Lei Zhou, Steven A. Siegelbaum 
Activation of the Edema Factor of Bacillus anthracis by Calmodulin: Evidence of an Interplay between the EF-Calmodulin Interaction and Calcium Binding 
Structural Insights into the pH-Dependent Conformational Change and Collagen Recognition of the Human Mannose Receptor  Zhenzheng Hu, Xiangyi Shi, Bowen.
Volume 15, Issue 6, Pages (December 2001)
Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages (June 2015)
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages (June 2008)
Mechanism of NH4+ Recruitment and NH3 Transport in Rh Proteins
Automated Prediction of Protein Association Rate Constants
Volume 18, Issue 9, Pages (September 2010)
Structure of the Rho Family GTP-Binding Protein Cdc42 in Complex with the Multifunctional Regulator RhoGDI  Gregory R. Hoffman, Nicolas Nassar, Richard.
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages (February 2003)
Volume 85, Issue 5, Pages (May 1996)
Neali Armstrong, Eric Gouaux  Neuron 
David Craig, Mu Gao, Klaus Schulten, Viola Vogel  Structure 
Crystal Structures of Human GlyRα3 Bound to Ivermectin
Mechanism of Anionic Conduction across ClC
Volume 24, Issue 12, Pages (December 2016)
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages (April 2015)
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages (May 2005)
Two Pathways Mediate Interdomain Allosteric Regulation in Pin1
Pingwei Li, Gerry McDermott, Roland K. Strong  Immunity 
Volume 27, Issue 7, Pages e5 (July 2019)
Structural Basis for Kinase-Mediated Macrolide Antibiotic Resistance
Matthieu Chavent, Elena Seiradake, E. Yvonne Jones, Mark S.P. Sansom 
Brett K. Kaiser, Matthew C. Clifton, Betty W. Shen, Barry L. Stoddard 
Y. Zenmei Ohkubo, Emad Tajkhorshid  Structure 
Volume 20, Issue 5, Pages (May 2012)
Unfolding Barriers in Bacteriorhodopsin Probed from the Cytoplasmic and the Extracellular Side by AFM  Max Kessler, Hermann E. Gaub  Structure  Volume.
Presentation transcript:

Reduced Curvature of Ligand-Binding Domain Free-Energy Surface Underlies Partial Agonism at NMDA Receptors  Jian Dai, Huan-Xiang Zhou  Structure  Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 228-236 (January 2015) DOI: 10.1016/j.str.2014.11.012 Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Structure 2015 23, 228-236DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2014.11.012) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Anticorrelation between Ligand Size and Efficacy (A) Chemical structures of seven GluN1 ligands. Full agonists, Gly and DSN; partial agonists, DCS, ACPC, and ACBC; antagonists, CLE and DCKA. (B) A plot of the relative efficacies of the ligands (Traynelis et al., 2010) against their volumes. Linear regression (red line) on the data for six ligands (other than DCKA) has R2 = 0.72. DSN is less compact than DCS but its hydroxyl can hydrogen bond with the LBD, thereby stabilizing the cleft-closed structure. Structure 2015 23, 228-236DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2014.11.012) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Reaction Coordinates and the Free-Energy Surface of the Gly-Bound GluN1 LBD (A) Two interlobe distances, ξ1 and ξ2, were defined to describe the relative motion between the lobes. The view is directly into the domain cleft, with D1 in green and D2 in cyan. (B) Free-energy surface of the Gly-bound GluN1 LBD, presented as contours. The free-energy minimum is highlighted by a white dot. Also shown are ξ1c and ξ2c values calculated on the crystal structures of the LBD bound with three ligands as follows: Gly, white star (PDB 1PB7); CLE, gray star (PDB 1Y1M); and DCKA, black star (PDB 1PBQ). The ξ1′ coordinate with ξ2′ fixed at (ξ1 m – ξ2 m)/2 is shown by a white line. See also Table S1. Structure 2015 23, 228-236DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2014.11.012) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Comparison between Free-Energy Surfaces of the LBD Bound with Gly and Non-Gly Ligands (A) Overlay of free-energy contours for the Gly-bound case (black) and the indicated non-Gly counterpart (red). (B) Slices of the free-energy surfaces along ξ1′ for the full and partial agonists (solid curves). The results for the two antagonists are shown as dashed curves for reference. See also Figure S1. Structure 2015 23, 228-236DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2014.11.012) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Influence of Ligand Size on the Propensity of LBD to Stay Open (A) Distributions of ξ1 and ξ2 for the LBD bound with Gly (gray curves) and ACBC (red curves) in umbrella-sampling simulations with both ξ1 and ξ2 restrained at 10.5 Å. The corresponding results for DCKA are shown as dashed curves for reference. The restraint values are shown as vertical lines. (B) Comparison of the LBD bound with ACBC (red) and Gly (gray) in the last snapshots of the umbrella-sampling simulations. Superposition is made on the Cα atoms of the six D1 residues used for defining ξ1 and ξ2 (i.e., Leu517-Ile519 and His404-Glu406). (C) Corresponding results for the DCKA-bound case are shown (orange) as reference. Structure 2015 23, 228-236DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2014.11.012) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Asp732 as a Potential Key Residue for Regulating D1-D2 Interactions (A) The protein-ACPC complex in a snapshot from an umbrella-sampling simulation, highlighting the ligand and the surrounding residues (boxed). Helix-I, on which Ala734 occupies an N-terminal position, is shown as ribbon in magenta; β strand 10, which contains the hinge region, is shown in cyan. In the simulation, both ξ1 and ξ2 were restrained at 10.0 Å. (B) Two snapshots from this simulation. (Top) Asp732 has χ1 at −80° and hydrogen bonds with the ligand, while Gln536 (with χ2 + χ3 = 153°) and Ala734 also form a hydrogen bond. (Bottom) Asp732 has χ1 at −160° and hydrogen bonds with Gln536 (with χ2 + χ3 = −35°) and potentially with Ala734 also. (C) Percentages of time when four ligand-protein and intraprotein hydrogen bonds were formed in two umbrella-sampling simulations, in which both ξ1 and ξ2 were restrained at 10.0 or 10.5 Å. (D) Distributions of Asp732 χ1 for the seven protein-ligand systems in these simulations. See also Figure S2. Structure 2015 23, 228-236DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2014.11.012) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 Mechanical Model of NMDA Receptors For clarity, only two of the four subunits are shown. In each subunit, the LBD is modeled as an extended spring, which generates a pulling force on the LBD-TMD linker. The TMD is also modeled as a spring (Fowler and Sansom, 2013). The spring constant of the LBD is given by the curvature of free-energy surface, and can be reduced when the ligand size is increased (from left to right), leading to a smaller pulling force on the linker. Structure 2015 23, 228-236DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2014.11.012) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions