PSI Structural Biology Knowledgebase

PSI | Structural Biology Knowledgebase
Header Icons
E-Collection

Related Articles
Design and Evolution: Molecular Sleuthing Reveals Drug Selectivity
June 2015
Families in Gene Neighborhoods
June 2015
Ryanodine Receptor
April 2015
CCR5 and HIV Infection
January 2015
Drug Targets: Bile Acids in Motion
September 2014
Drug Targets: S1R's Ligands and Partners
September 2014
P2Y Receptors and Blood Clotting
September 2014
Bacterial CDI Toxins
June 2014
Glucagon Receptor
April 2014
Viroporins
March 2014
Microbial Pathogenesis: Targeting Drug Resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis
February 2014
Design and Discovery: Virtual Drug Screening
January 2014
Cancer Networks: IFI16-mediated p53 Activation
November 2013
G Proteins and Cancer
November 2013
Drug Discovery: Antidepressant Potential of 6-NQ SERT Inhibitors
October 2013
Drug Discovery: Finding Druggable Targets
October 2013
Drug Discovery: Identifying Dynamic Networks by CONTACT
October 2013
Drug Discovery: Modeling NET Interactions
October 2013
Membrane Proteome: GPCR Substrate Recognition and Functional Selectivity
August 2013
Infectious Diseases: Determining the Essential Structome
May 2013
NDM-1 and Antibiotics
May 2013
Microbial Pathogenesis: Computational Epitope Prediction
January 2013
Microbial Pathogenesis: Influenza Inhibitor Screen
January 2013
Microbial Pathogenesis: Measles Virus Attachment
January 2013
Cytochrome Oxidase
November 2012
Membrane Proteome: The ABCs of Transport
November 2012
Bacterial Phosphotransferase System
October 2012
Regulatory insights
September 2012
Solute Channels
September 2012
Pocket changes
July 2012
Receptor bias
July 2012
Anthrax Stealth Siderophores
June 2012
G Protein-Coupled Receptors
May 2012
Substrate specificity sleuths
April 2012
Reading out regioselectivity
December 2011
Superbugs and Antibiotic Resistance
December 2011
Terminal activation
December 2011
A change to resistance
November 2011
Docking and rolling
October 2011
Breaking down the defenses
September 2011
A2A Adenosine Receptor
May 2011
Cell wall recycler
May 2011
Subtly different
March 2011
CXCR4
January 2011
Subtle shifts
January 2011
ABA receptor diversity
November 2010
COX inhibition: Naproxen by proxy
November 2010
Zinc Transporter ZntB
July 2010
Peptidoglycan binding: Calcium-free killing
June 2010
Treating sleeping sickness
May 2010
Bacterial spore kinase
April 2010
Antibiotics and Ribosome Function
March 2010
Safer Alzheimer's drugs?
March 2010
Anthrax evasion tactics
September 2009
GPCR subunits: Separate but not equal
September 2009
Antibiotic target
August 2009
Salicylic Acid Binding Protein 2
August 2009
Lysostaphin
July 2009
Tackling influenza
June 2009
Bacterial Leucine Transporter, LeuT
May 2009
Anthrax stealth molecule
March 2009
Drug targets to aim for
February 2009
High-energy storage system
February 2009
Transporter mechanism in sight
February 2009
Scavenger Decapping Enzyme DcpS
November 2008
Blocking AmtB
September 2008

Research Themes Drug discovery

Docking and rolling

SBKB [doi:10.1038/sbkb.2011.42]
Featured Article - October 2011
Short description: GPCR Dock 2010 reveals just how far homology modeling has come and how far it still has to go.

CXCR4 with bound IT1t, PDB code 3OE9. Image provided by S. Jähnichen on Wikimedia Commons.

One of the most rapidly growing areas of structural biology is the determination of G protein–coupled receptor (GPCR) structures, and with good cause. GPCRs mediate a wide variety of biological responses, making understanding their activity essential for a range of diseases and conditions. However, only a small representation of the larger GPCR family has been subjected to three-dimensional structure determination. This makes homology modeling an essential technique for unraveling the complex biological activities of other family members. Despite their relative similarity, the mechanism of ligand binding by GPCRs can vary greatly from one receptor to the next, even for closely related structures. Using molecular modeling approaches to gain a clear picture of how ligands interact with their receptors is therefore of utmost importance.

The goal of the GPCR Dock Assessment of 2010, hosted by the Scripps Institute and UCSD and now reported by Stevens, Abagyan and colleagues, was to assess the ability of the modeling community to determine the structure and ligand-binding mechanisms of two GPCRs. Thirty-five groups from around the world submitted a total of 275 structures to model (i) the dopamine D3 receptor with bound eticlopride, (ii) CXCR4 with bound IT1t, or (iii) CXCR4 with a bound CVX15 peptide. Models were assessed against the crystal structures of those complexes, which had been solved at the time of the assessment, but were not yet published.

Results of the assessment clearly demonstrated that closely related structures (approximately 35–40% sequence identity) are a modeler's best friend, as participants had the most success modeling the D3 receptor with eticlopride. Some of the best models even produced results that reached the level of accuracy expected from experimental approaches. However, flexible and variable loops still proved difficult to predict accurately. In the case of the CXCR4 models, working from a more distantly related homology template was not as successful, as submitted models varied much more from the structures, particularly with regard to ligand interactions. Part of the challenge was unique to CXCR4 itself, which, as part of a different GPCR subfamily, contains a larger pocket that made it difficult to model the protein–ligand interactions correctly. This was especially the situation with modeling the complex of CXCR4 with CVX15, which proved challenging for all the participants. Additionally, it was evident that although computational modeling approaches are useful, the most productive approach is not purely computational, but rather an efficient symbiosis of modeling, biochemistry, and human expertise.

In the end, GPCR Dock 2010 revealed that, for some receptors, molecular modeling may be ready to serve as a viable alternative to experimental approaches. This is tempered, though, by the finding that further work is needed to develop improved methods to handle more difficult situations. It will be interesting to see how researchers respond to the results of the challenge as they tackle future rounds of GPCR Dock assessment.

Related articles

GPCR modeling: any good?

Steve Mason

References

  1. I. Kufareva et al. Status of GPCR Modeling and Docking as Reflected by Community-wide GPCR Dock 2010 Assessment.
    Structure 19, 1108-1126 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.str.2011.05.012

Structural Biology Knowledgebase ISSN: 1758-1338
Funded by a grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health