PSI Structural Biology Knowledgebase

PSI | Structural Biology Knowledgebase
Header Icons
E-Collection

Related Articles
Drug Discovery: Solving the Structure of an Anti-hypertension Drug Target
July 2015
Retrospective: 7,000 Structures Closer to Understanding Biology
July 2015
Families in Gene Neighborhoods
June 2015
Channels and Transporters: BEST in Show
April 2015
Channels and Transporters: Reorienting a Peptide in the Pocket
April 2015
Ryanodine Receptor
April 2015
Protein Folding and Misfolding: It's the Journey, Not the Destination
March 2015
Protein Folding and Misfolding: Refolding in Membrane Mimetic
March 2015
Nuclear Pore Complex: A Flexible Transporter
February 2015
Nuclear Pore Complex: Higher Resolution of Macromolecules
February 2015
Nuclear Pore Complex: Integrative Approach to Probe Nup133
February 2015
Piecing Together the Nuclear Pore Complex
February 2015
Mitochondrion: Flipping for UCP2
December 2014
Transmembrane Spans
December 2014
Glucagon Receptor
April 2014
Membrane Proteome: A Cap on Transport
April 2014
Membrane Proteome: Microcrystals Yield Big Data
April 2014
Membrane Proteome: Pumping Out Heavy Metal
April 2014
Design and Discovery: Virtual Drug Screening
January 2014
G Proteins and Cancer
November 2013
Drug Discovery: Antidepressant Potential of 6-NQ SERT Inhibitors
October 2013
Drug Discovery: Modeling NET Interactions
October 2013
Microbiome: Solid-State NMR, Crystallized
September 2013
CAAX Endoproteases
August 2013
Membrane Proteome: A Funnel-like Viroporin
August 2013
Membrane Proteome: GPCR Substrate Recognition and Functional Selectivity
August 2013
Membrane Proteome: Making DNA Nanotubes for NMR Structure Determination
August 2013
Membrane Proteome: Unveiling the Human α-helical Membrane Proteome
August 2013
Cell-Cell Interaction: Magic Structure from Microcrystals
March 2013
Cell-Cell Interaction: Nanoparticles in Cell Camouflage
March 2013
Membrane Proteome: Capturing Multiple Conformations
December 2012
Membrane Proteome: Soft Sampling
December 2012
Membrane Proteome: Sphingolipid Synthesis Selectivity
December 2012
Membrane Proteome: Tuning Membrane Protein Expression
December 2012
Cytochrome Oxidase
November 2012
Membrane Proteome: Building a Carrier
November 2012
Membrane Proteome: Every Protein Has Its Tag
November 2012
Membrane Proteome: Specific vs. Non-specific weak interactions
November 2012
Membrane Proteome: The ABCs of Transport
November 2012
Bacterial Phosphotransferase System
October 2012
Insert Here
October 2012
Solute Channels
September 2012
To structure, faster
August 2012
Pocket changes
July 2012
Predictive protein origami
July 2012
G Protein-Coupled Receptors
May 2012
Twist to open
March 2012
Anchoring's the way
February 2012
Overexpressed problems
February 2012
Gentle membrane protein extraction
January 2012
Docking and rolling
October 2011
A fragmented approach to membrane protein structures
September 2011
Raising a glass to GLIC
August 2011
Sugar transport
June 2011
A2A Adenosine Receptor
May 2011
TrkH Potassium Ion Transporter
April 2011
Subtly different
March 2011
A new amphiphile for crystallizing membrane proteins
January 2011
CXCR4
January 2011
Guard cells pick up the SLAC
December 2010
ABA receptor diversity
November 2010
COX inhibition: Naproxen by proxy
November 2010
Zinc Transporter ZntB
July 2010
Formate transporter or channel?
March 2010
Tips for crystallizing membrane proteins in lipidic mesophases
February 2010
Urea transporter
February 2010
Five good reasons to use single protein production for membrane proteins
January 2010
Membrane proteins spotted in their native habitat
January 2010
Spot the pore
January 2010
Get3 into the groove
October 2009
GPCR subunits: Separate but not equal
September 2009
GPCR modeling: any good?
August 2009
Surviving in an acid environment
August 2009
Tips for crystallizing membrane proteins
June 2009
You look familiar: the Type VI secretion system
June 2009
Bacterial Leucine Transporter, LeuT
May 2009
Aquaglyceroporin
March 2009
Death clusters
March 2009
Protein nanopores
March 2009
Transporter mechanism in sight
February 2009
A pocket guide to GPCRs
December 2008
Tuning membrane protein overexpression
October 2008
Blocking AmtB
September 2008

Research Themes Membrane proteins

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