Volume 86, Issue 4, Pages (April 2004)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Voltage-Dependent Hydration and Conduction Properties of the Hydrophobic Pore of the Mechanosensitive Channel of Small Conductance  Steven A. Spronk,
Advertisements

High-Resolution Model of the Microtubule
Gennady V. Miloshevsky, Peter C. Jordan  Structure 
Structure and Dynamics of the Membrane-Bound Form of Pf1 Coat Protein: Implications of Structural Rearrangement for Virus Assembly  Sang Ho Park, Francesca.
Olivier Fisette, Stéphane Gagné, Patrick Lagüe  Biophysical Journal 
Sebastian Meyer, Raimund Dutzler  Structure 
Kristopher Josephson, Naomi J. Logsdon, Mark R. Walter  Immunity 
Xuan-Yu Meng, Hong-Xing Zhang, Diomedes E. Logothetis, Meng Cui 
Jing Han, Kristyna Pluhackova, Tsjerk A. Wassenaar, Rainer A. Böckmann 
Volume 124, Issue 1, Pages (January 2006)
Volume 86, Issue 6, Pages (June 2004)
Volume 17, Issue 12, Pages (December 2009)
Chaperone-Assisted Crystallography with DARPins
Volume 90, Issue 1, Pages (January 2006)
Supriyo Bhattacharya, Nagarajan Vaidehi  Biophysical Journal 
Structural and Dynamic Properties of the Human Prion Protein
Po-Chao Wen, Emad Tajkhorshid  Biophysical Journal 
Opioid Receptor Three-Dimensional Structures from Distance Geometry Calculations with Hydrogen Bonding Constraints  Irina D. Pogozheva, Andrei L. Lomize,
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages (January 2007)
Volume 13, Issue 9, Pages (December 2015)
Coupling of Retinal, Protein, and Water Dynamics in Squid Rhodopsin
Mechanism of the αβ Conformational Change in F1-ATPase after ATP Hydrolysis: Free- Energy Simulations  Yuko Ito, Mitsunori Ikeguchi  Biophysical Journal 
Rainer A. Böckmann, Helmut Grubmüller  Biophysical Journal 
Brittny C. Davis, Jodian A. Brown, Ian F. Thorpe  Biophysical Journal 
Solution and Crystal Structures of a Sugar Binding Site Mutant of Cyanovirin-N: No Evidence of Domain Swapping  Elena Matei, William Furey, Angela M.
Structure of CheA, a Signal-Transducing Histidine Kinase
Volume 90, Issue 1, Pages (January 2006)
Volume 16, Issue 10, Pages (October 2008)
Volume 98, Issue 8, Pages (April 2010)
G. Fiorin, A. Pastore, P. Carloni, M. Parrinello  Biophysical Journal 
Structural Insights into the Inhibition of Wnt Signaling by Cancer Antigen 5T4/Wnt- Activated Inhibitory Factor 1  Yuguang Zhao, Tomas Malinauskas, Karl.
The Signaling Pathway of Rhodopsin
“DFG-Flip” in the Insulin Receptor Kinase Is Facilitated by a Helical Intermediate State of the Activation Loop  Harish Vashisth, Luca Maragliano, Cameron F.
Structural Analysis of Ligand Stimulation of the Histidine Kinase NarX
Volume 124, Issue 5, Pages (March 2006)
Volume 106, Issue 6, Pages (March 2014)
A Gating Mechanism of the Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor
Volume 83, Issue 6, Pages (December 2002)
Ligand Binding to the Voltage-Gated Kv1
Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages (April 2008)
Sequential Unfolding of Individual Helices of Bacterioopsin Observed in Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Extraction from the Purple Membrane  Michele.
Marcos Sotomayor, Klaus Schulten  Biophysical Journal 
Volume 101, Issue 4, Pages (May 2000)
Investigating Lipid Composition Effects on the Mechanosensitive Channel of Large Conductance (MscL) Using Molecular Dynamics Simulations  Donald E. Elmore,
Masaru Goto, Rie Omi, Noriko Nakagawa, Ikuko Miyahara, Ken Hirotsu 
Activation of the Edema Factor of Bacillus anthracis by Calmodulin: Evidence of an Interplay between the EF-Calmodulin Interaction and Calcium Binding 
Cholesterol Modulates the Dimer Interface of the β2-Adrenergic Receptor via Cholesterol Occupancy Sites  Xavier Prasanna, Amitabha Chattopadhyay, Durba.
Volume 74, Issue 5, Pages (May 1998)
Velocity-Dependent Mechanical Unfolding of Bacteriorhodopsin Is Governed by a Dynamic Interaction Network  Christian Kappel, Helmut Grubmüller  Biophysical.
Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages (February 2004)
On Hydrophobicity and Conformational Specificity in Proteins
The Structure of the β-Catenin/E-Cadherin Complex and the Molecular Basis of Diverse Ligand Recognition by β-Catenin  Andrew H. Huber, William I. Weis 
Volume 121, Issue 5, Pages (June 2005)
Jeffrey J. Wilson, Rhett A. Kovall  Cell 
Volume 114, Issue 3, Pages (February 2018)
The Talin Dimer Structure Orientation Is Mechanically Regulated
Mechanism of Anionic Conduction across ClC
Volker Knecht, Helmut Grubmüller  Biophysical Journal 
OmpT: Molecular Dynamics Simulations of an Outer Membrane Enzyme
Volume 86, Issue 6, Pages (June 2004)
Gennady V. Miloshevsky, Peter C. Jordan  Structure 
Two Pathways Mediate Interdomain Allosteric Regulation in Pin1
Structure of an IκBα/NF-κB Complex
Kristopher Josephson, Naomi J. Logsdon, Mark R. Walter  Immunity 
Volume 84, Issue 4, Pages (April 2003)
Insights from Free-Energy Calculations: Protein Conformational Equilibrium, Driving Forces, and Ligand-Binding Modes  Yu-ming M. Huang, Wei Chen, Michael J.
Sebastian Fritsch, Ivaylo Ivanov, Hailong Wang, Xiaolin Cheng 
Hydrophobic Core Formation and Dehydration in Protein Folding Studied by Generalized-Ensemble Simulations  Takao Yoda, Yuji Sugita, Yuko Okamoto  Biophysical.
Yinon Shafrir, Stewart R. Durell, H. Robert Guy  Biophysical Journal 
Structure of GABARAP in Two Conformations
Presentation transcript:

Volume 86, Issue 4, Pages 1904-1921 (April 2004) First Principles Predictions of the Structure and Function of G-Protein-Coupled Receptors: Validation for Bovine Rhodopsin  Rene J. Trabanino, Spencer E. Hall, Nagarajan Vaidehi, Wely B. Floriano, Victor W.T. Kam, William A. Goddard  Biophysical Journal  Volume 86, Issue 4, Pages 1904-1921 (April 2004) DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3495(04)74256-3 Copyright © 2004 The Biophysical Society Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Hydrophobicity profile from TM2ndS for bovine rhodopsin at window size of WS=14. The pink line (at 0.07) is the base_mod (described in Step 1, average consensus hydrophobicity and initial TM assignment) used as the baseline in identifying hydrophobic regions. The predicted TM domains are indicated by the orange lines (after capping). The blue lines show the predictions before helix capping. Each tick mark indicates the sequence number for the alignment based on bovine rhodopsin (100 residues per panel). The residues at every fifth position are indicated below each panel. The partition of helix 7 into two parts results from the hydrophilic residues near its center. Biophysical Journal 2004 86, 1904-1921DOI: (10.1016/S0006-3495(04)74256-3) Copyright © 2004 The Biophysical Society Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 The transmembrane helical predictions (labeled as after capping) from TM2ndS compared with helix ranges from the bovine rhodopsin x-ray crystal structure. The predictions before TM2ndS capping are also shown. Those residues in the crystal structure that fall outside the range of α-helicity (using analysis described in Step 1c, Helix Capping in TM2ndS) are indicated in lowercase letters. Biophysical Journal 2004 86, 1904-1921DOI: (10.1016/S0006-3495(04)74256-3) Copyright © 2004 The Biophysical Society Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 The RMS deviation for various window sizes (WS) of the central residues predicted from TM2ndS for bovine rhodopsin compared to the best-fit plane to the crystal structure minimized without ligand, Apo/closed(xtal). This suggests that the best WS is 16–22. Biophysical Journal 2004 86, 1904-1921DOI: (10.1016/S0006-3495(04)74256-3) Copyright © 2004 The Biophysical Society Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Schematic for a possible signaling mechanism in rhodopsin. Note that the movement of helix 3 (caused by interaction with the trans-isomer of retinal) exposes the DRY sequence to G-protein activation and as a result closes the EC-II loop to maintain the ligand inside the bundle sequence. Biophysical Journal 2004 86, 1904-1921DOI: (10.1016/S0006-3495(04)74256-3) Copyright © 2004 The Biophysical Society Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 The 13 regions shown as boxes used in scanning the entire protein for the 11-cis-retinal putative binding site. The two boxes chosen as binding sites by HierDock are shown in red. (A) Front view with N-terminus at the bottom. (B) Top view obtained by rotating by 90° around the horizontal axis in A so that the N-terminus is out of view. These two orientations are used for all structures shown in this article. Biophysical Journal 2004 86, 1904-1921DOI: (10.1016/S0006-3495(04)74256-3) Copyright © 2004 The Biophysical Society Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 (A–D) Validation of HierDock. (A) Front view of the 11-cis-retinal conformation determined by HierDock for Ret(HD)/closed(xray) (colored by element ) compared to the published crystal structure (green). The CRMS difference in the ligand structures is 1.1Å. (B) Top view of A. This shows that predicted position of the retinal aldehyde oxygen is 2.8Å from the N of Lys-296, which is short enough for an H-bond. (C) Top view showing the result of making the Schiff base bond of 11-cis-retinal to Lys-296 in A and minimizing the resulting structure (blue), compared with the crystallographic ligand structure (red). The CRMS difference between these ligand structures is 0.62Å. (D) Top view of C. Biophysical Journal 2004 86, 1904-1921DOI: (10.1016/S0006-3495(04)74256-3) Copyright © 2004 The Biophysical Society Terms and Conditions

Figure 7 (A) Comparison of the predicted structure (orange) Apo/closed(MS) with the experimental structure (blue) Apo/closed(xray). They differ in the TM helical region by CRMS=2.84Å. (B) Comparison of the predicted Apo/closed(MS) structure (orange) with the predicted Apo/open(MS) structure (blue). They differ in the TM helical region by 0.11Å. Biophysical Journal 2004 86, 1904-1921DOI: (10.1016/S0006-3495(04)74256-3) Copyright © 2004 The Biophysical Society Terms and Conditions

Figure 8 MembStruk validation using the closed EC-II loop. (A) The HierDock-predicted conformation of 11-cis-retinal (colored by element) in the MembStruk-predicted Apo/closed(MS) structure, denoted NoSB-Ret(HD)/closed(MS). Note that the aldehyde oxygen is 2.85Å from the N of Lys-296. (B) The retinal structure after forming this Schiff base bond of 11-cis-retinal to Lys-296 and optimizing to form Ret(HD)/closed(MS) (violet). Ret(HD)/closed(xtal) (blue). These ligand structures were found to differ by 2.9Å CRMS. Biophysical Journal 2004 86, 1904-1921DOI: (10.1016/S0006-3495(04)74256-3) Copyright © 2004 The Biophysical Society Terms and Conditions

Figure 9 (A–D) Comparison of predicted binding sites for retinal (those residues within 5Å of retinal that interact strongly with the ligand (contributions to binding >1kcal/mol) before Schiff base bond formation in the three rhodopsin structures. (A) All three structures and ligand conformations are shown. The colors blue, gray, and orange correspond respectively to those structures analyzed in B–D. (B) NoSB-Ret(HD)/closed(xtal) structure. Here we see that seven residues bind more strongly than 1kcal/mol. (C) NoSB-Ret(HD)/closed(MS). Here we see that five of the seven residues in B are predicted (only Phe-208 and Hsp-211, both rather weakly bound). We also find three additional residues (Phe-212, Ile-275, and Ala-117) that do not bind with 1kcal/mol in B. (D) NoSB-Ret(HD)/open(MS). Here we see that six of the seven residues in C bind more strongly than 1kcal/mol. We also find four additional residues that do not bind with 1kcal/mol in B. This difference results from the shift in the retinal binding site upon closure of the EC-II loop. The side chains in common with the NoSB-Ret(HD)/closed(xtal) structure (in B) or with NoSB-Ret(HD)/closed(MS) (in C) within the binding site around the 11-cis-retinal are labeled with larger type. Biophysical Journal 2004 86, 1904-1921DOI: (10.1016/S0006-3495(04)74256-3) Copyright © 2004 The Biophysical Society Terms and Conditions

Figure 10 (A–C) Comparison of predicted binding sites of retinal with Schiff base bond formed. We considered residues within a 5Å shell of the ligand (excluding the Lys-296 to which the retinal is bound) and determined those that contribute at least 1kcal/mol of stabilization energy for the three rhodopsin structures. (A) Ret(xtal)/closed(xtal) structure. Here we see that 15 residues bind more strongly than 1kcal/mol. (B) Ret(HD)/closed(xtal). Here we see that 12 of the 15 residues in A are predicted to bind strongly (Ala-117 and His-211 still contribute positively to bonding but are now rather weakly bound, at <1kcal/mol). We find two additional residues (Cys-187 and Ala-269) that did not bind with 1kcal/mol in A. (C) Ret(HD)/closed(MS). Here we find 8 of the 15 residues in A still bind strongly. We also find two additional residues (Ile-275 and Ala-269) that did not bind with 1kcal/mol in A. A larger type is used to label the side chains in common with the Ret(xtal)/closed(xtal) structure within the binding site around the 11-cis-retinal. Biophysical Journal 2004 86, 1904-1921DOI: (10.1016/S0006-3495(04)74256-3) Copyright © 2004 The Biophysical Society Terms and Conditions

Figure 11 MembStruk validation using the open EC-II loop. (A) The HierDock-predicted conformation (colored by element) of 11-cis-retinal in the MembStruk-predicted structure to form the NoSB-Ret(HD)/open(MS) structure. Note that the aldehyde oxygen is 2.87Å from the N of Lys-296, which is short enough to form a hydrogen bond. (B) The Ret(HD)/open(MS) structure after forming the Schiff base bond (green), compared with the structure (violet) of 11-cis-retinal in Ret(HD)/closed(MS). These ligand structures differ by 1.7Å CRMS. The EC-II loop may function to position the retinal ligand into its final conformation as found in the rhodopsin crystal structure. Biophysical Journal 2004 86, 1904-1921DOI: (10.1016/S0006-3495(04)74256-3) Copyright © 2004 The Biophysical Society Terms and Conditions