Thermostabilisation of an agonist-bound conformation of the human adenosine A(2A) receptor

The adenosine A_2A receptor (A_2AR) is a G-protein-coupled receptor that plays a key role in transmembrane signalling mediated by the agonist adenosine. The structure of A_2AR was determined recently in an antagonist-bound conformation, which was facilitated by the T4 lysozyme fusion in cytoplasmic loop 3 and the considerable stabilisation conferred on the receptor by the bound inverse agonist ZM241385. Unfortunately, the natural agonist adenosine does not sufficiently stabilise the receptor for the formation of diffraction-quality crystals. As a first step towards determining the structure of A_2AR bound to an agonist, the receptor was thermostabilised by systematic mutagenesis in the presence of the bound agonist [³H]5'-N-ethylcarboxamidoadenosine (NECA). Four thermostabilising mutations were identified that when combined to give mutant A_2AR-GL26, conferred a greater than 200-fold decrease in its rate of unfolding compared to the wild-type receptor. Pharmacological analysis suggested that A_2AR-GL26 is stabilised in an agonist-bound conformation because antagonists bind with up to 320-fold decreased affinity. None of the thermostabilising mutations are in the ZM241385 binding pocket, suggesting that the mutations affect ligand binding by altering the conformation of the receptor rather than through direct interactions with ligands. A_2AR-GL26 shows considerable stability in short-chain detergents, which has allowed its purification and crystallisation.     

Investigation of the conformational dynamics of the apo A2A adenosine receptor

The activation/deactivation processes for G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) have been computationally studied for several different classes, including rhodopsin, the β2 adrenergic receptor, and the M2 muscarinic receptor. Despite determined cocrystal structures of the adenosine A_2A receptor (A_2AAR) in complex with antagonists, agonists and an antibody, the deactivation process of this GPCR is not completely understood. In this study, we investigate the convergence of two apo simulations, one starting with an agonist-bound conformation (PDB: 3QAK)¹⁴ and the other starting with an antagonist-bound conformation (PDB: 3EML)¹¹. Despite the two simulations not completely converging, we were able to identify distinct intermediate steps of the deactivation process characterized by the movement of Y288^7.53 in the NPxxY motif. We find that Y288^7.53 contributes to the process by forming hydrogen bonds to residues in transmembrane helices 2 and 7 and losing these interactions upon full deactivation. Y197^5.58 also plays a role in the process by forming a hydrogen bond only once the side chain moves from the lipid interface to the middle of the helical bundle.     

Differences in Allosteric Communication Pipelines in the Inactive and Active States of a GPCR

G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are membrane proteins that allosterically transduce the signal of ligand binding in the extracellular (EC) domain to couple to proteins in the intracellular (IC) domain. However, the complete pathway of allosteric communication from the EC to the IC domain, including the role of individual amino acids in the pathway is not known. Using the correlation in torsion angle movements calculated from microseconds-long molecular-dynamics simulations, we elucidated the allosteric pathways in three different conformational states of β₂-adrenergic receptor (β₂AR): 1), the inverse-agonist-bound inactive state; 2), the agonist-bound intermediate state; and (3), the agonist- and G-protein-bound fully active state. The inactive state is less dynamic compared with the intermediate and active states, showing dense clusters of allosteric pathways (allosteric pipelines) connecting the EC with the IC domain. The allosteric pipelines from the EC domain to the IC domain are weakened in the intermediate state, thus decoupling the EC domain from the IC domain and making the receptor more dynamic compared with the other states. Also, the orthosteric ligand-binding site becomes the initiator region for allosteric communication in the intermediate state. This finding agrees with the paradigm that the nature of the agonist governs the specific signaling state of the receptor. These results provide an understanding of the mechanism of allosteric communication in class A GPCRs. In addition, our analysis shows that mutations that affect the ligand efficacy, but not the binding affinity, are located in the allosteric pipelines. This clarifies the role of such mutations, which has hitherto been unexplained.     

Mapping the intramolecular signal transduction of G‐protein coupled receptors

G‐protein coupled receptors (GPCRs), a major gatekeeper of extracellular signals on plasma membrane, are unarguably one of the most important therapeutic targets. Given the recent discoveries of allosteric modulations, an allosteric wiring diagram of intramolecular signal transductions would be of great use to glean the mechanism of receptor regulation. Here, by evaluating betweenness centrality (C_B) of each residue, we calculate maps of information flow in GPCRs and identify key residues for signal transductions and their pathways. Compared with preexisting approaches, the allosteric hotspots that our C_B‐based analysis detects for A_2A adenosine receptor (A_2AAR) and bovine rhodopsin are better correlated with biochemical data. In particular, our analysis outperforms other methods in locating the rotameric microswitches, which are generally deemed critical for mediating orthosteric signaling in class A GPCRs. For A_2AAR, the inter‐residue cross‐correlation map, calculated using equilibrium structural ensemble from molecular dynamics simulations, reveals that strong signals of long‐range transmembrane communications exist only in the agonist‐bound state. A seemingly subtle variation in structure, found in different GPCR subtypes or imparted by agonist bindings or a point mutation at an allosteric site, can lead to a drastic difference in the map of signaling pathways and protein activity. The signaling map of GPCRs provides valuable insights into allosteric modulations as well as reliable identifications of orthosteric signaling pathways. Proteins 2014; 82:727–743. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Chemotype-selective Modes of Action of κ-Opioid Receptor Agonists

The crystal structures of opioid receptors provide a novel platform for inquiry into opioid receptor function. The molecular determinants for activation of the κ-opioid receptor (KOR) were studied using a combination of agonist docking, functional assays, and site-directed mutagenesis. Eighteen positions in the putative agonist binding site of KOR were selected and evaluated for their effects on receptor binding and activation by ligands representing four distinct chemotypes: the peptide dynorphin A(1–17), the arylacetamide U-69593, and the non-charged ligands salvinorin A and the octahydroisoquinolinone carboxamide 1xx. Minimally biased docking of the tested ligands into the antagonist-bound KOR structure generated distinct binding modes, which were then evaluated biochemically and pharmacologically. Our analysis identified two types of mutations: those that affect receptor function primarily via ligand binding and those that primarily affect function. The shared and differential mechanisms of agonist binding and activation in KOR are further discussed. Usually, mutations affecting function more than binding were located at the periphery of the binding site and did not interact strongly with the various ligands. Analysis of the crystal structure along with the present results provide fundamental insights into the activation mechanism of the KOR and suggest that “functional” residues, along with water molecules detected in the crystal structure, may be directly involved in transduction of the agonist binding event into structural changes at the conserved rotamer switches, thus leading to receptor activation.     

Antagonist binding and induced conformational dynamics of GPCR A2A adenosine receptor

The A_2A adenosine receptor (A_2AAR) is a unique G‐protein coupled receptor (GPCR), because besides agonist, its antagonist could also lead to therapeutic relevance. Based on A_2AAR‐antagonist crystal structure, we have studied the binding mechanism of two distinct antagonists, ZM241385 and KW6002, and dynamic behaviors of A_2AAR induced by antagonist binding. Key residues interacting with both antagonists and residues specifically binding to one of them are identified. ZM241385 specifically bound to S67^2.65, M177^5.38, and N253^6.55, while KW6002 binds to F62^2.60, A81^3.29, and H264^7.29. Moreover, interactions with L167^5.28 are found for both antagonists, which were not reported in agonist binding. The dynamic behaviors of antagonist bound holo‐A_2AARs were found to be different from the apo‐A_2AAR in three typical functional switches, (i) the “ionic lock” was in equilibrium between formation and breakage in apo‐A_2AAR, but stayed broken in holo‐A_2AARs; (ii) the “rotamer toggle switch,” T88^3.36/F242^6.44/W246^6.48, adopted different rotameric conformations in apo‐A_2AAR and holo‐A_2AARs; (iii) apo‐A_2AAR preferred α‐helical intracellular loop (IC)2 and flexible IC3, while holo‐A_2AARs had a flexible IC2 and α‐helical IC3. Our results indicated that antagonist binding induced different conformational rearrangements of these characteristic functional switches in apo‐A_2AAR and holo‐A_2AARs. Proteins 2013; 81:1399–1410. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Correction for Inhibition Leads to an Allosteric Co-Agonist Model for Pentobarbital Modulation and Activation of α1β3γ2L GABAA Receptors

BackgroundPentobarbital, like propofol and etomidate, produces important general anesthetic effects through GABA_A receptors. Photolabeling also indicates that pentobarbital binds to some of the same sites where propofol and etomidate act. Quantitative allosteric co-agonist models for propofol and etomidate account for modulatory and agonist effects in GABA_A receptors and have proven valuable in establishing drug site characteristics and for functional analysis of mutants. We therefore sought to establish an allosteric co-agonist model for pentobarbital activation and modulation of α1β3γ2L receptors, using a novel approach to first correct pentobarbital activation data for inhibitory effects in the same concentration range.MethodsUsing oocyte-expressed α1β3γ2L GABA_A receptors and two-microelectrode voltage-clamp, we quantified modulation of GABA responses by a low pentobarbital concentration and direct effects of high pentobarbital concentrations, the latter displaying mixed agonist and inhibitory effects. We then isolated and quantified pentobarbital inhibition in activated receptors using a novel single-sweep “notch” approach, and used these results to correct steady-state direct activation for inhibition.ResultsCombining results for GABA modulation and corrected direct activation, we estimated receptor open probability and optimized parameters for a Monod-Wyman-Changeux allosteric co-agonist model. Inhibition by pentobarbital was consistent with two sites with IC₅₀s near 1 mM, while co-agonist model parameters suggest two allosteric pentobarbital agonist sites characterized by K_PB ≈ 5 mM and high efficacy. The results also indicate that pentobarbital may be a more efficacious agonist than GABA.ConclusionsOur novel approach to quantifying both inhibitory and co-agonist effects of pentobarbital provides a basis for future structure-function analyses of GABA_A receptor mutations in putative pentobarbital binding sites.     

Stargazin promotes closure of the AMPA receptor ligand-binding domain

Transmembrane AMPA receptor (AMPAR) regulatory proteins (TARPs) markedly enhance AMPAR function, altering ligand efficacy and receptor gating kinetics and thereby shaping the postsynaptic response. The structural mechanism underlying TARP effects on gating, however, is unknown. Here we find that the prototypical member of the TARP family, stargazin or γ-2, rescues gating deficits in AMPARs carrying mutations that destabilize the closed-cleft states of the ligand-binding domain (LBD), suggesting that stargazin reverses the effects of these mutations and likely stabilizes closed LBD states. Furthermore, stargazin promotes a more closed conformation of the LBD, as indicated by reduced accessibility to the large antagonist NBQX. Consistent with the functional studies, luminescence resonance energy transfer experiments directly demonstrate that the AMPAR LBD is on average more closed in the presence of stargazin, in both the apo and agonist-bound states. The additional cleft closure and/or stabilization of the more closed-cleft states of the LBD is expected to translate to higher agonist efficacy and could contribute to the structural mechanism for stargazin modulation of AMPAR function.     

Investigation of the conformational dynamics of the A2A adenosine receptor by molecular dynamics simulation

The structural behavior of the ligand-free form of adenosine receptor A_2A in an explicit membrane-mimicking environment was investigated by molecular dynamics (MD) simulation. Principal components analysis was applied to the series of MD snapshots and to a collection of X-ray structures of the A_2A receptor. The resulting charts revealed a correlation in the dynamic behavior of the receptor observed in the MD trajectories and in the experimental dataset. The most pronounced structural dynamics in the A_2A receptor were observed in the intracellular part: TM 5 and 6 with the connecting loop, just as generally recognized in crystallographic studies and attributed to receptor activation. There are grounds for supposing that this pattern of intramolecular motions ensues directly from the spatial architecture (fold) of the A_2A receptor.     

Differences in Allosteric Communication Pipelines in the Inactive and Active States of a GPCR

G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are membrane proteins that allosterically transduce the signal of ligand binding in the extracellular (EC) domain to couple to proteins in the intracellular (IC) domain. However, the complete pathway of allosteric communication from the EC to the IC domain, including the role of individual amino acids in the pathway is not known. Using the correlation in torsion angle movements calculated from microseconds-long molecular-dynamics simulations, we elucidated the allosteric pathways in three different conformational states of β₂-adrenergic receptor (β₂AR): 1), the inverse-agonist-bound inactive state; 2), the agonist-bound intermediate state; and (3), the agonist- and G-protein-bound fully active state. The inactive state is less dynamic compared with the intermediate and active states, showing dense clusters of allosteric pathways (allosteric pipelines) connecting the EC with the IC domain. The allosteric pipelines from the EC domain to the IC domain are weakened in the intermediate state, thus decoupling the EC domain from the IC domain and making the receptor more dynamic compared with the other states. Also, the orthosteric ligand-binding site becomes the initiator region for allosteric communication in the intermediate state. This finding agrees with the paradigm that the nature of the agonist governs the specific signaling state of the receptor. These results provide an understanding of the mechanism of allosteric communication in class A GPCRs. In addition, our analysis shows that mutations that affect the ligand efficacy, but not the binding affinity, are located in the allosteric pipelines. This clarifies the role of such mutations, which has hitherto been unexplained.     

Structural features of the inactive and active states of the melanin-concentrating hormone receptors: insights from molecular simulations

Comparative molecular dynamics simulations of both subtypes 1 and 2 of the melanin-concentrating hormone receptor (MCHR1 and MCHR2, respectively) in their free and hormone-bound forms have been carried out. The hormone has been used in its full-length and truncated forms, as well as in 16 mutated forms. Moreover, MCHR1 has been simulated in complex with T-226296, a novel orally active and selective antagonist. The comparative analysis of an extended number of receptor configurations suggests that the differences between inactive (i.e., free and antagonist-bound) and active (i.e., agonist-bound) states of MCHRs involve the receptor portions close to the E/DRY and NPxxY motifs, with prominence to the cytosolic extensions of helices 2, 3, 6, and 7. In fact, the active forms of these receptors share the release of selected intramolecular interactions found in the inactive forms, such as that between R3.50 of the E/DRY motif and D2.40, and that between Y7.53 of the NPxxY motif and F7.60. Another feature of the active forms of both MCHRs is the approach of "helix 8" to the cytosolic extension of helix 3. These features of the active forms are concurrent with the opening of a cleft at the cytosolic end of the helix bundle. For both MCHRs, the agonist-induced chemical information transfer from the extracellular to the cytosolic domains is mediated by a cluster of aromatic amino acids in helix 6, following the ligand interaction with selected amino acids in the extracellular half of the receptor.     

Dissecting intrinsic and ligand-induced structural communication in the β3 headpiece of integrins

BackgroundGraph theory is widely used to dissect structural communication in biomolecular systems. Here, graph theory-based approaches were applied to the headpiece of integrins, adhesion cell-surface receptors that transmit signals across the plasma membranes.MethodsProtein Structure Network (PSN) analysis incorporating dynamic information either from molecular dynamics simulations or from Elastic Network Models was applied to the β3 domains from integrins α_Vβ₃ and α_IIbβ₃ in their apo and ligand-bound states.ResultsClosed and open states of the β headpiece are characterized by distinct allosteric communication pathways involving highly conserved amino acids at the two different α/β interfaces in the βI domain, the closed state being prompted to the closed-to-open transition. In the closed state, pure antagonism is associated with the establishment of communication pathways that start from the ligand, pass through the β1/α3,α4 interface, and end up in the hybrid domain by involving the Y110-Q82 link, which is weakened in the agonist-bound states.ConclusionsAllosteric communication in integrins relies on highly conserved and functionally relevant amino acid residues. The αβα-sandwich architecture of integrin βI domain dictates the structural communication between ligand binding site and hybrid domain. Differently from agonists, pure antagonists are directly involved in allosteric communication pathways and exert long-distance strengthening of the βI/hybrid interface. Release of the structure network in the ligand binding site is associated with the close-to-open transition accompanying the activation process.General significanceThe study strengthens the power of graph-based analyses to decipher allosteric communication intrinsic to protein folds and modified by functionally different ligands.     

Molecular Determinants of Allosteric Modulation at the M1 Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptor

Benzylquinolone carboxylic acid (BQCA) is an unprecedented example of a selective positive allosteric modulator of acetylcholine at the M₁ muscarinic acetylcholine receptor (mAChR). To probe the structural basis underlying its selectivity, we utilized site-directed mutagenesis, analytical modeling, and molecular dynamics to delineate regions of the M₁ mAChR that govern modulator binding and transmission of cooperativity. We identified Tyr-85^2.64 in transmembrane domain 2 (TMII), Tyr-179 and Phe-182 in the second extracellular loop (ECL2), and Glu-397^7.32 and Trp-400^7.35 in TMVII as residues that contribute to the BQCA binding pocket at the M₁ mAChR, as well as to the transmission of cooperativity with the orthosteric agonist carbachol. As such, the BQCA binding pocket partially overlaps with the previously described “common” allosteric site in the extracellular vestibule of the M₁ mAChR, suggesting that its high subtype selectivity derives from either additional contacts outside this region or through a subtype-specific cooperativity mechanism. Mutation of amino acid residues that form the orthosteric binding pocket caused a loss of carbachol response that could be rescued by BQCA. Two of these residues (Leu-102^3.29 and Asp-105^3.32) were also identified as indirect contributors to the binding affinity of the modulator. This new insight into the structural basis of binding and function of BQCA can guide the design of new allosteric ligands with tailored pharmacological properties.     

Protein‐based virtual screening of chemical databases. II. Are homology models of g‐protein coupled receptors suitable targets?

The aim of the current study is to investigate whether homology models of G-Protein-Coupled Receptors (GPCRs) that are based on bovine rhodopsin are reliable enough to be used for virtual screening of chemical databases. Starting from the recently described 2.8 A-resolution X-ray structure of bovine rhodopsin, homology models of an "antagonist-bound" form of three human GPCRs (dopamine D3 receptor, muscarinic M1 receptor, vasopressin V1a receptor) were constructed. The homology models were used to screen three-dimensional databases using three different docking programs (Dock, FlexX, Gold) in combination with seven scoring functions (ChemScore, Dock, FlexX, Fresno, Gold, Pmf, Score). Rhodopsin-based homology models turned out to be suitable, indeed, for virtual screening since known antagonists seeded in the test databases could be distinguished from randomly chosen molecules. However, such models are not accurate enough for retrieving known agonists. To generate receptor models better suited for agonist screening, we developed a new knowledge- and pharmacophore-based modeling procedure that might partly simulate the conformational changes occurring in the active site during receptor activation. Receptor coordinates generated by this new procedure are now suitable for agonist screening. We thus propose two alternative strategies for the virtual screening of GPCR ligands, relying on a different set of receptor coordinates (antagonist-bound and agonist-bound states).     

Quantifying effects of ligands on androgen receptor nuclear translocation, intranuclear dynamics, and solubility

Using manual and automated high throughput microscopy (HTM), ligand-dependent trafficking of green fluorescent protein-androgen receptor (GFP-AR) was analyzed in fixed and living cells to determine its spatial distribution, solubility, mobility, and co-activator interactions. Within minutes, addition of the agonist R1881 resulted translocation of GFP-AR from the cytoplasm to the nucleus, where it displayed a hyperspeckled pattern and extraction resistance in low expressing cells. AR antagonists (Casodex, hydroxyflutamide) also caused nuclear translocation, however, the antagonist-bound GFP-AR had a more diffuse nuclear distribution, distinct from the agonist-bound GFP-AR, and was completely soluble; overexpressed GFP-AR in treated cells was extraction resistant, independent of ligand type. To more dramatically show the different effects of ligand on AR distribution, we utilized an AR with a mutation in the DNA binding domain (ARC619Y) that forms distinct foci upon exposure to agonists but retains a diffuse nuclear distribution in the presence of antagonists. Live-cell imaging of this mutant demonstrated that cytoplasmic foci formation occurs immediately upon agonist but not antagonist addition. Fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) revealed that agonist-bound GFP-AR exhibited reduced mobility relative to unliganded or antagonist-bound GFP-AR. Importantly, agonist-bound GFP-AR mobility was strongly affected by protein expression levels in transiently transfected cells, and displayed reduced mobility even in slightly overexpressing cells. Cyan fluorescent protein-AR (CFP-AR) and yellow fluorescent protein-CREB binding protein (YFP-CBP) in the presence of agonists and antagonists were used to demonstrate that CFP-AR specifically co-localizes with YFP-CBP in an agonist dependent manner. Dual FRAP experiments demonstrated that CBP mobility mirrored AR mobility only in the presence of agonist. HTM enabled simultaneous studies of the sub-cellular distribution of GFP-AR and ARC619Y in response to a range of concentrations of agonists and antagonists (ranging from 10(-12) to 10(-5)) in thousands of cells. These results further support the notion that ligand specific interactions rapidly affect receptor and co-factor organization, solubility, and molecular dynamics, and each can be aberrantly affected by mutation and overexpression.     

LRRK2 dynamics analysis identifies allosteric control of the crosstalk between its catalytic domains

The 2 major molecular switches in biology, kinases and GTPases, are both contained in the Parkinson disease–related leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2). Using hydrogen–deuterium exchange mass spectrometry (HDX-MS) and molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, we generated a comprehensive dynamic allosteric portrait of the C-terminal domains of LRRK2 (LRRK2_RCKW). We identified 2 helices that shield the kinase domain and regulate LRRK2 conformation and function. One helix in COR-B (COR-B Helix) tethers the COR-B domain to the αC helix of the kinase domain and faces its activation loop, while the C-terminal helix (Ct-Helix) extends from the WD40 domain and interacts with both kinase lobes. The Ct-Helix and the N-terminus of the COR-B Helix create a “cap” that regulates the N-lobe of the kinase domain. Our analyses reveal allosteric sites for pharmacological intervention and confirm the kinase domain as the central hub for conformational control.

The Parkinson’s disease-related protein LRRK2 contains the two major molecular switches in biology; a kinase and a GTPase. This study uses hydrogen-deuterium exchange mass-spectrometry and molecular dynamics simulations to explore the conformational space of the four C-terminal domains of LRRK2, highlighting two essential regulatory helices that control LRRK2 dynamics.     

Thermostabilization of the Neurotensin Receptor NTS1

Structural studies on G-protein-coupled receptors have been hampered for many years by their instability in detergent solution and by the number of potential conformations that receptors can adopt. Recently, the structures of the β₁ and β₂ adrenergic receptors and the adenosine A_2a receptor were determined in the antagonist-bound state, a receptor conformation that is thought to be more stable than the agonist-bound state. In contrast to these receptors, the neurotensin (NT) receptor NTS1 is much less stable in detergent solution. We have therefore used a systematic mutational approach coupled with activity assays to identify receptor mutants suitable for crystallization, both alone and in complex with the peptide agonist NT. The best receptor mutant NTS1-7m contained four point mutations. It showed increased stability compared to the wild-type receptor, in the absence of ligand, after solubilization with a variety of detergents. In addition, NTS1-7m bound to NT was more stable than unliganded NTS1-7m. Of the four thermostabilizing mutations, only one residue (A86L) is predicted to be in the lipid environment. In contrast, I260A appears to be buried within the transmembrane helix bundle, F342A may form a distant part of the putative ligand-binding site, whereas F358A is likely to be in a region that is important for receptor activation. NTS1-7m binds NT with a similar affinity for the wild-type receptor. However, agonist dissociation was slower, and NTS1-7m activated G-proteins poorly. The affinity of NTS1-7m for the antagonist SR48692 was also lower than that of the wild-type receptor. Thus, we have successfully stabilized NTS1 in an agonist-binding conformation that does not efficiently couple to G-proteins.     

3- and 6-Substituted 2-amino-4,5,6,7-tetrahydrothieno[2,3-c]pyridines as A1 adenosine receptor allosteric modulators and antagonists

A series of 2-amino-4,5,6,7-tetrahydrothieno[2,3-c]pyridines were prepared and evaluated as potential allosteric modulators at the A₁ adenosine receptor. The structure–activity relationships of the 3- and 6-positions of a series of 2-amino-4,5,6,7-tetrahydrothieno[2,3-c]pyridines were explored. Despite finding that 3- and 6-substituted 2-amino-4,5,6,7-tetrahydrothieno[2,3-c]pyridines possess the ability to recognize an allosteric site on the agonist-occupied A₁AR at relatively high concentrations, the structural modifications we have performed on this scaffold favor the expression of orthosteric antagonist properties over allosteric properties. This research has identified 2-amino-4,5,6,7-tetrahydrothieno[2,3-c]pyridines as novel class of orthosteric antagonist of the A₁AR and highlighted the close relationship between structural elements governing allosteric modulation and orthosteric antagonism of agonist function at the A₁AR.     

A generalized allosteric mechanism for cis-regulated cyclic nucleotide binding domains

Cyclic nucleotides (cAMP and cGMP) regulate multiple intracellular processes and are thus of a great general interest for molecular and structural biologists. To study the allosteric mechanism of different cyclic nucleotide binding (CNB) domains, we compared cAMP-bound and cAMP-free structures (PKA, Epac, and two ionic channels) using a new bioinformatics method: local spatial pattern alignment. Our analysis highlights four major conserved structural motifs: 1) the phosphate binding cassette (PBC), which binds the cAMP ribose-phosphate, 2) the “hinge,” a flexible helix, which contacts the PBC, 3) the β_2,3 loop, which provides precise positioning of an invariant arginine from the PBC, and 4) a conserved structural element consisting of an N-terminal helix, an eight residue loop and the A-helix (N3A-motif). The PBC and the hinge were included in the previously reported allosteric model, whereas the definition of the β_2,3 loop and the N3A-motif as conserved elements is novel. The N3A-motif is found in all cis-regulated CNB domains, and we present a model for an allosteric mechanism in these domains. Catabolite gene activator protein (CAP) represents a trans-regulated CNB domain family: it does not contain the N3A-motif, and its long range allosteric interactions are substantially different from the cis-regulated CNB domains.