The Mechanism of Ligand‐Induced Activation or Inhibition of μ‐ and κ‐Opioid Receptors

G‐protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) are important targets for treating severe diseases. However why certain molecules act as activators whereas others, with similar structures, block GPCR activation, is poorly understood since the same molecule can activate one receptor subtype while blocking another closely related receptor. To shed light on these central questions, we used all‐atom, long‐time‐scale molecular dynamics simulations on the κ‐opioid and μ‐opioid receptors (κOR and μOR). We found that water molecules penetrating into the receptor interior mediate the activating versus blocking effects of a particular ligand–receptor interaction. Both the size and the flexibility of the bound ligand regulated water influx into the receptor. The solvent‐accessible inner surface area was found to be a parameter that can help predict the function of the bound ligand.     

Nanobody‐Enabled Reverse Pharmacology on G‐Protein‐Coupled Receptors

The conformational complexity of transmembrane signaling of G‐protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) is a central hurdle for the design of screens for receptor agonists. In their basal states, GPCRs have lower affinities for agonists compared to their G‐protein‐bound active state conformations. Moreover, different agonists can stabilize distinct active receptor conformations and do not uniformly activate all cellular signaling pathways linked to a given receptor (agonist bias). Comparative fragment screens were performed on a β₂‐adrenoreceptor–nanobody fusion locked in its active‐state conformation by a G‐protein‐mimicking nanobody, and the same receptor in its basal‐state conformation. This simple biophysical assay allowed the identification and ranking of multiple novel agonists and permitted classification of the efficacy of each hit in agonist, antagonist, or inverse agonist categories, thereby opening doors to nanobody‐enabled reverse pharmacology.     

Functional Dynamics of Deuterated β2‐Adrenergic Receptor in Lipid Bilayers Revealed by NMR Spectroscopy

G‐protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) exist in conformational equilibrium between active and inactive states, and the former population determines the efficacy of signaling. However, the conformational equilibrium of GPCRs in lipid bilayers is unknown owing to the low sensitivities of their NMR signals. To increase the signal intensities, a deuteration method was developed for GPCRs expressed in an insect cell/baculovirus expression system. The NMR sensitivities of the methionine methyl resonances from the β₂‐adrenergic receptor (β₂AR) in lipid bilayers of reconstituted high‐density lipoprotein (rHDL) increased by approximately 5‐fold upon deuteration. NMR analyses revealed that the exchange rates for the conformational equilibrium of β₂AR in rHDLs were remarkably different from those measured in detergents. The timescales of GPCR signaling, calculated from the exchange rates, are faster than those of receptor tyrosine kinases and thus enable rapid neurotransmission and sensory perception.     

Unwinding of the C‐Terminal Residues of Neuropeptide Y is critical for Y2 Receptor Binding and Activation

Despite recent breakthroughs in the structural characterization of G‐protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs), there is only sparse data on how GPCRs recognize larger peptide ligands. NMR spectroscopy, molecular modeling, and double‐cycle mutagenesis studies were integrated to obtain a structural model of the peptide hormone neuropeptide Y (NPY) bound to its human G‐protein‐coupled Y₂ receptor (Y₂R). Solid‐state NMR measurements of specific isotope‐labeled NPY in complex with in vitro folded Y₂R reconstituted into phospholipid bicelles provided the bioactive structure of the peptide. Guided by solution NMR experiments, it could be shown that the ligand is tethered to the second extracellular loop by hydrophobic contacts. The C‐terminal α‐helix of NPY, which is formed in a membrane environment in the absence of the receptor, is unwound starting at T³² to provide optimal contacts in a deep binding pocket within the transmembrane bundle of the Y₂R.     

A Photochromic Agonist for μ‐Opioid Receptors

Opioid receptors (ORs) are widely distributed in the brain, the spinal cord, and the digestive tract and play an important role in nociception. All known ORs are G‐protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) of family A. Another well‐known member of this family, rhodopsin, is activated by light through the cis/trans isomerization of a covalently bound chromophore, retinal. We now show how an OR can be combined with a synthetic azobenzene photoswitch to gain light sensitivity. Our work extends the reach of photopharmacology and outlines a general strategy for converting Family A GPCRs, which account for the majority of drug targets, into photoreceptors.     

Mechanistic Studies on the Stereoselectivity of the Serotonin 5‐HT1A Receptor

G‐protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) are involved in a wide range of physiological processes, and they have attracted considerable attention as important targets for developing new medicines. A central and largely unresolved question in drug discovery, which is especially relevant to GPCRs, concerns ligand selectivity: Why do certain molecules act as activators (agonists) whereas others, with nearly identical structures, act as blockers (antagonists) of GPCRs? To address this question, we employed all‐atom, long‐timescale molecular dynamics simulations to investigate how two diastereomers (epimers) of dihydrofuroaporphine bind to the serotonin 5‐HT_1A receptor and exert opposite effects. By using molecular interaction fingerprints, we discovered that the agonist could mobilize nearby amino acid residues to act as molecular switches for the formation of a continuous water channel. In contrast, the antagonist epimer remained firmly stabilized in the binding pocket.     

Structural Insights into Ligand—Receptor Interactions Involved in Biased Agonism of G-Protein Coupled Receptors

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are versatile signaling proteins that mediate complex cellular responses to hormones and neurotransmitters. Ligand directed signaling is observed when agonists, upon binding to the same receptor, trigger significantly different configuration of intracellular events. The current work reviews the structurally defined ligand – receptor interactions that can be related to specific molecular mechanisms of ligand directed signaling across different receptors belonging to class A of GPCRs. Recent advances in GPCR structural biology allow for mapping receptors’ binding sites with residues particularly important in recognition of ligands’ structural features that are responsible for biased signaling. Various studies show particular role of specific residues lining the extended ligand binding domains, biased agonists may alternatively affect their interhelical interactions and flexibility what can be translated into intracellular loop rearrangements. Studies on opioid and angiotensin receptors indicate importance of residues located deeper within the binding cavity and direct interactions with receptor residues linking the ortosteric ligand binding site with the intracellular transducer binding domain. Collection of results across different receptors may suggest elements of common molecular mechanisms which are responsible for passing alternative signals from biased agonists.     

A Usual G‐Protein‐Coupled Receptor in Unusual Membranes

G‐protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) are the largest family of membrane‐bound receptors and constitute about 50 % of all known drug targets. They offer great potential for membrane protein nanotechnologies. We report here a charge‐interaction‐directed reconstitution mechanism that induces spontaneous insertion of bovine rhodopsin, the eukaryotic GPCR, into both lipid‐ and polymer‐based artificial membranes. We reveal a new allosteric mode of rhodopsin activation incurred by the non‐biological membranes: the cationic membrane drives a transition from the inactive MI to the activated MII state in the absence of high [H⁺] or negative spontaneous curvature. We attribute this activation to the attractive charge interaction between the membrane surface and the deprotonated Glu134 residue of the rhodopsin‐conserved ERY sequence motif that helps break the cytoplasmic “ionic lock”. This study unveils a novel design concept of non‐biological membranes to reconstitute and harness GPCR functions in synthetic systems.     

Differences between G‐Protein‐Stabilized Agonist–GPCR Complexes and their Nanobody‐Stabilized Equivalents

Protein nanobodies have been used successfully as surrogates for unstable G‐proteins in order to crystallize G‐protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) in their active states. We used molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, including metadynamics enhanced sampling, to investigate the similarities and differences between GPCR–agonist ternary complexes with the α‐subunits of the appropriate G‐proteins and those with the protein nanobodies (intracellular binding partners, IBPs) used for crystallization. In two of the three receptors considered, the agonist‐binding mode differs significantly between the two alternative ternary complexes. The ternary‐complex model of GPCR activation entails enhancement of ligand binding by bound IBPs: Our results show that IBP‐specific changes can alter the agonist binding modes and thus also the criteria for designing GPCR agonists.     

Peptide Modifications Differentially Alter G Protein‐Coupled Receptor Internalization and Signaling Bias

Although G protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) are targeted by more clinically used drugs than any other type of protein, their ligand development is particularly challenging. Humans have four neuropeptide Y receptors: hY₁R and hY₅R are orexigenic, while hY₂R and hY₄R are anorexigenic, and represent important anti‐obesity drug targets. We show for the first time that PEGylation and lipidation, chemical modifications that prolong the plasma half‐lives of peptides, confer additional benefits. Both modifications enhance pancreatic polypeptide preference for hY₂R/hY₄R over hY₁R/hY₅R. Lipidation biases the ligand towards arrestin recruitment and internalization, whereas PEGylation confers the opposite bias. These effects were independent of the cell system and modified residue. We thus provide novel insights into the mode of action of peptide modifications and open innovative venues for generating peptide agonists with extended therapeutic potential.     

In‐Membrane Chemical Modification (IMCM) for Site‐Specific Chromophore Labeling of GPCRs

We present in‐membrane chemical modification (IMCM) for obtaining selective chromophore labeling of intracellular surface cysteines in G‐protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) with minimal mutagenesis. This method takes advantage of the natural protection of most cysteines by the membrane environment. Practical use of IMCM is illustrated with the site‐specific introduction of chromophores for NMR and fluorescence spectroscopy in the human κ‐opioid receptor (KOR) and the human A_2A adenosine receptor (A_2AAR). IMCM is applicable to a wide range of in vitro studies of GPCRs, including single‐molecule spectroscopy, and is a promising platform for in‐cell spectroscopy experiments.     

Molecular Alliance—From Orthosteric and Allosteric Ligands to Dualsteric/Bitopic Agonists at G Protein Coupled Receptors

Cell‐membrane‐spanning G protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) belong to the most important therapeutic target structures. Endogenous transmitters bind from the outer side of the membrane to the “orthosteric” binding site either deep in the binding pocket or at the extracellular N‐terminal end of the receptor protein. Exogenous modulators that utilize a different, “allosteric”, binding site unveil a pathway to receptor subtype‐selectivity. However, receptor activation through the orthosteric area is often more powerful. Recently there has been evidence that orthosteric/allosteric, in other words “dualsteric”, hybrid compounds unite subtype selectivity and receptor activation. These “bitopic” modulators channelreceptor activation and subsequent intracellular signaling into a subset of possible routes. This concept offers access to GPCR modulators with an unprecedented receptor‐subtype and signaling selectivity profile and, as a consequence, to drugs with fewer side effects.     

New Open‐Chain and Cyclic Tetrapeptides,Consisting of α‐, β2‐, and β3‐Amino‐Acid Residues,as Somatostatin Mimics – A Survey

Cyclo‐β‐tetrapeptides are known to adopt a conformation with an intramolecular transannular hydrogen bond in solution. Analysis of this structure reveals that incorporation of a β²‐amino‐acid residue should lead to mimics of ‘α‐peptidic β‐turns’ (cf. A, B, C ). It is also known that short‐chain mixed β/α‐peptides with appropriate side chains can be used to mimic interactions between α‐peptidic hairpin turns and G protein‐coupled receptors. Based on these facts, we have now prepared a number of cyclic and open‐chain tetrapeptides, 7 – 20 , consisting of α‐, β²‐, and β³‐amino‐acid residues, which bear the side chains of Trp and Lys, and possess backbone configurations such that they should be capable of mimicking somatostatin in its affinity for the human SRIF receptors (hsst_1–5). All peptides were prepared by solid‐phase coupling by the Fmoc strategy. For the cyclic peptides, the three‐dimensional orthogonal methodology (Scheme 3) was employed with best success. The new compounds were characterized by high‐resolution mass spectrometry, NMR and CD spectroscopy, and, in five cases, by a full NMR‐solution‐structure determination (in MeOH or H₂O; Fig. 4). The affinities of the new compounds for the receptors hsst_1–5 were determined by competition with [¹²⁵I]LTT‐SRIF₂₈ or [¹²⁵I] [Tyr¹⁰]‐CST₁₄. In Table 1, the data are listed, together with corresponding values of all β‐ and γ‐peptidic somatostatin/Sandostatin^® mimics measured previously by our groups. Submicromolar affinities have been achieved for most of the human SRIF receptors hsst_1–5. Especially high, specific binding affinities for receptor hsst₄ (which is highly expressed in lung and brain tissue, although still of unknown function!) was observed with some of the β‐peptidic mimics. In view of the fact that numerous peptide‐activated G protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) recognize ligands with turn structure (Table 2), the results reported herein are relevant far beyond the realm of somatostatin: many other peptide GPCRs should be ‘reached’ with β‐ and γ‐peptidic mimics as well, and these compounds are proteolytically and metabolically stable, and do not need to be cell‐penetrating for this purpose (Fig. 5).     

The Aminotriazole Antagonist Cmpd‐1 Stabilises a Distinct Inactive State of the Adenosine 2A Receptor

The widely expressed G‐protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) are versatile signal transducer proteins that are attractive drug targets but structurally challenging to study. GPCRs undergo a number of conformational rearrangements when transitioning from the inactive to the active state but have so far been believed to adopt a fairly conserved inactive conformation. Using ¹⁹F NMR spectroscopy and advanced molecular dynamics simulations we describe a novel inactive state of the adenosine 2A receptor which is stabilised by the aminotriazole antagonist Cmpd‐1. We demonstrate that the ligand stabilises a unique conformation of helix V and present data on the putative binding mode of the compound involving contacts to the transmembrane bundle as well as the extracellular loop 2.     

Ligand and structure‐based models for the prediction of ligand‐receptor affinities and virtual screenings: Development and application to the β2‐adrenergic receptor

In this study, we evaluated the applicability of ligand‐based and structure‐based models to quantitative affinity predictions and virtual screenings for ligands of the β₂‐adrenergic receptor, a G protein‐coupled receptor (GPCR). We also devised and evaluated a number of consensus models obtained through partial least square regressions, to combine the strengths of the individual components. In all cases, the bioactive conformation of each ligand was derived from molecular docking at the crystal structure of the receptor. We identified the most effective models applicable to the different scenarios, in the presence or in the absence of a training set. For ranking the affinity of closely related analogs when a training set is available, a ligand‐based consensus model (LI‐CM) seems to be the best choice, while the structure‐based MM‐GBSA score seems the best alternative in the absence of a training set. For virtual screening purposes, the structure‐based MM‐GBSA score was found to be the method of choice. Consensus models consistently had performances superior or close to those of the best individual components, and were endowed with a significantly increased robustness. Given multiple models with no a priori knowledge of their predictive capabilities, constructing a consensus model ensures results very close to those that the best model alone would have yielded. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem 2010     

Solid-state NMR evidence for a protonation switch in the binding pocket of the H1 receptor upon binding of the agonist histamine

G protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) represent a major superfamily of transmembrane receptor proteins that are crucial in cellular signaling and are major pharmacological targets. While the activity of GPCRs can be modulated by agonist binding, the mechanisms that link agonist binding to G protein coupling are poorly understood. Here we present a method to accurately examine the activity of ligands in their bound state, even at low affinity, by solid-state NMR dipolar correlation spectroscopy and confront this method with the human H1 receptor. The analysis reveals two different charge states of the bound agonist, dicationic with a charged imidazole ring and monocationic with a neutral imidazole ring, with the same overall conformation. The combination of charge difference and pronounced heterogeneity agrees with converging evidence that the active and inactive states of the GPCR represent a dynamic equilibrium of substates and that proton transfer between agonist and protein side chains can shift this equilibrium by stabilizing the active receptor population relative to the inactive one. In fact, the data suggest a global functional analogy between H1 receptor activation and the meta I/meta II charge/discharge equilibrium in rhodopsin (GPCR). This corroborates current ideas on unifying principles in GPCR structure and function.     

Odorant Receptor 7D4 Activation Dynamics

Deciphering how an odorant activates an odorant receptor (OR) and how changes in specific OR residues affect its responsiveness are central to understanding our sense of smell. A joint approach combining site‐directed mutagenesis and functional assays with computational modeling has been used to explore the signaling mechanics of OR7D4. In this OR, a genetic polymorphism affects our perception of androstenone. Molecular simulations totaling 0.12 ms predicted that, similarly to observations for other G‐protein‐coupled receptors with known experimental structures, an activation pathway connects the ligand and the G‐protein binding site. The 3D model activation mechanism correlates with in vitro data and notably predicts that the OR7D4 WM variant is not activated. Upon activation, an OR‐specific sequence motif is the convergence point of the mechanism. Our study suggests that robust homology modeling can serve as a powerful tool to capture OR dynamics related to smell perception.     

Poly(glycidyl methacrylate)‐grafted hydrophobic charge‐induction agarose resins with 5‐aminobenzimidazole as a functional ligand

Hydrophobic charge‐induction chromatography is a new technology for antibody purification. To improve antibody adsorption capacity of hydrophobic charge‐induction resins, new poly(glycidyl methacrylate)‐grafted hydrophobic charge‐induction resins with 5‐aminobenzimidazole as a functional ligand were prepared. Adsorption isotherms, kinetics, and dynamic binding behaviors of the poly(glycidyl methacrylate)‐grafted resins prepared were investigated using human immunoglobulin G as a model protein, and the effects of ligand density were discussed. At the moderate ligand density of 330 μmol/g, the saturated adsorption capacity and equilibrium constant reached the maximum of 140 mg/g and 25 mL/mg, respectively, which were both much higher than that of non‐grafted resin with same ligand. In addition, effective pore diffusivity and dynamic binding capacity of human immunoglobulin G onto the poly(glycidyl methacrylate)‐grafted resins also reached the maximum at the moderate ligand density of 330 μmol/g. Dynamic binding capacity at 10% breakthrough was as high as 76.3 mg/g when the linear velocity was 300 cm/h. The results indicated that the suitable polymer grafting combined with the control of ligand density would be a powerful tool to improve protein adsorption of resins, and new poly(glycidyl methacrylate)‐grafted hydrophobic charge‐induction resins have a promising potential for antibody purification applications.     

Comparative Analysis of GPCR Crystal Structures†

The phototransduction cascade is perhaps the best understood model system for G protein‐coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling. Phototransduction links the absorption of a single photon of light to a decrease in cytosolic cGMP. Depletion of the cGMP pool induces closure of cGMP‐gated cation channels resulting in the hyperpolarization of photoreceptor cells and consequently a neuronal response. Many biochemical and both low‐ and high‐resolution structural approaches have been utilized to increase our understanding of rhodopsin, the key molecule of this signaling cascade. Rhodopsin, a member of the GPCR or seven‐transmembrane spanning receptor superfamily, is composed of a chromophore, 11‐cis‐retinal that is covalently bound by a protonated Schiff base linkage to the apo‐protein opsin at Lys²⁹⁶ (in bovine opsin). Upon absorption of a photon, isomerization of the chromophore to an all‐trans‐retinylidene conformation induces changes in the rhodopsin structure, ultimately converting it from an inactive to an activated state. This state allows it to activate the heterotrimeric G protein, transducin, by triggering nucleotide exchange. To fully understand the structural and functional aspects of rhodopsin it is necessary to critically examine crystal structures of its different photointermediates. In this review we summarize recent progress on the structure and activation of rhodopsin in the context of other GPCR structures.     

DIRECT‐ID: An automated method to identify and quantify conformational variations—application to β2‐adrenergic GPCR

The conformational dynamics of a macromolecule can be modulated by a number of factors, including changes in environment, ligand binding, and interactions with other macromolecules, among others. We present a method that quantifies the differences in macromolecular conformational dynamics and automatically extracts the structural features responsible for these changes. Given a set of molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of a macromolecule, the norms of the differences in covariance matrices are calculated for each pair of trajectories. A matrix of these norms thus quantifies the differences in conformational dynamics across the set of simulations. For each pair of trajectories, covariance difference matrices are parsed to extract structural elements that undergo changes in conformational properties. As a demonstration of its applicability to biomacromolecular systems, the method, referred to as DIRECT‐ID, was used to identify relevant ligand‐modulated structural variations in the β₂‐adrenergic (β₂AR) G‐protein coupled receptor. Micro‐second MD simulations of the β₂AR in an explicit lipid bilayer were run in the apo state and complexed with the ligands: BI‐167107 (agonist), epinephrine (agonist), salbutamol (long‐acting partial agonist), or carazolol (inverse agonist). Each ligand modulated the conformational dynamics of β₂AR differently and DIRECT‐ID analysis of the inverse‐agonist vs. agonist‐modulated β₂AR identified residues known through previous studies to selectively propagate deactivation/activation information, along with some previously unidentified ligand‐specific microswitches across the GPCR. This study demonstrates the utility of DIRECT‐ID to rapidly extract functionally relevant conformational dynamics information from extended MD simulations of large and complex macromolecular systems. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.