Exploring the Structure of Opioid Receptors with Homology Modeling Based on Single and Multiple Templates and Subsequent Docking: a Comparative Study

Overview

Journal J Mol Model

Publisher Springer

Specialty Molecular Biology

Date 2010 Jul 28

PMID 20661609

Citations 9

Authors

Indrani Bera

Aparna Laskar

Nanda Ghoshal

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Opioid receptors are the principal targets for opioids, which have been used as analgesics for centuries. Opioid receptors belong to the rhodopsin family of G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs). In the absence of crystal structures of opioid receptors, 3D homology models have been reported with bovine rhodopsin as a template, though the sequence homology is low. Recently, it has been reported that use of multiple templates results in a better model for a target having low sequence identity with a single template. With the objective of carrying out a comparative study on the structural quality of the 3D models based on single and multiple templates, the homology models for opioid receptors (mu, delta and kappa) were generated using bovine rhodopsin as single template and the recently deposited crystal structures of squid rhodopsin, turkey β-1 and human β-2 adrenoreceptors along with bovine rhodopsin as multiple templates. In this paper we report the results of comparison between the refined 3D models based on multiple sequence alignment (MSA) and models built with bovine rhodopsin as template, using validation programs PROCHECK, PROSA, Verify 3D, Molprobity and docking studies. The results indicate that homology models of mu and kappa with multiple templates are better than those built with only bovine rhodopsin as template, whereas, in many aspects, the homology model of delta opioid receptor with single template is better with respect to the model based on multiple templates. Three nonselective ligands were docked to both the models of mu, delta and kappa opioid receptors using GOLD 3.1. The results of docking complied well with the pharamacophore, reported for nonspecific opioid ligands. The comparison of docking results for models with multiple templates and those with single template have been discussed in detail. Three selective ligands for each receptor were also docked. As the crystallographic structures are not yet known, this comparison will help in choosing better homology models of opioid receptors for studying ligand receptor interactions to design new potent opioid antagonists.

Citing Articles

The Roles of Endogenous D2R Dopamine and μ-opioid Receptors of the Brain in Alcohol use Disorder.

Khikhmetova K, Semenova Y, Bjorklund G Curr Med Chem. 2023; 31(39):6393-6406.

PMID: 37921171 DOI: 10.2174/0109298673248999231013043249.

Molecular dynamics of fentanyl bound to μ-opioid receptor.

Lipinski P, Jaronczyk M, Dobrowolski J, Sadlej J J Mol Model. 2019; 25(5):144.

PMID: 31053968 DOI: 10.1007/s00894-019-3999-2.

GPCRs from fusarium graminearum detection, modeling and virtual screening - the search for new routes to control head blight disease.

Bresso E, Togawa R, Hammond-Kosack K, Urban M, Maigret B, Florencio Martins N BMC Bioinformatics. 2017; 17(Suppl 18):463.

PMID: 28105916 PMC: 5249037. DOI: 10.1186/s12859-016-1342-9.

Free fatty acid receptors: structural models and elucidation of ligand binding interactions.

Tikhonova I, Poerio E BMC Struct Biol. 2015; 15:16.

PMID: 26346819 PMC: 4561419. DOI: 10.1186/s12900-015-0044-2.

Homology Model Versus X-ray Structure in Receptor-based Drug Design: A Retrospective Analysis with the Dopamine D3 Receptor.

Levoin N, Calmels T, Krief S, Danvy D, Berrebi-Bertrand I, Lecomte J ACS Med Chem Lett. 2014; 2(4):293-7.

PMID: 24900310 PMC: 4018084. DOI: 10.1021/ml100288q.

References

Ananthan S, Kezar 3rd H, Carter R, Saini S, Rice K, WELLS J . Synthesis, opioid receptor binding, and biological activities of naltrexone-derived pyrido- and pyrimidomorphinans. J Med Chem. 1999; 42(18):3527-38. DOI: 10.1021/jm990039i. View

Spetea M, Schullner F, Moisa R, Berzetei-Gurske I, Schraml B, Dorfler C . Synthesis and biological evaluation of 14-alkoxymorphinans. 21. Novel 4-alkoxy and 14-phenylpropoxy derivatives of the mu opioid receptor antagonist cyprodime. J Med Chem. 2004; 47(12):3242-7. DOI: 10.1021/jm031126k. View

Murakami M, Kouyama T . Crystal structure of squid rhodopsin. Nature. 2008; 453(7193):363-7. DOI: 10.1038/nature06925. View

Su T . Further demonstration of kappa opioid binding sites in the brain: evidence for heterogeneity. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1985; 232(1):144-8. View

Goldstein A, Naidu A . Multiple opioid receptors: ligand selectivity profiles and binding site signatures. Mol Pharmacol. 1989; 36(2):265-72. View

Zhang Y, Sham Y, Rajamani R, Gao J, Portoghese P . Homology modeling and molecular dynamics simulations of the mu opioid receptor in a membrane-aqueous system. Chembiochem. 2005; 6(5):853-9. DOI: 10.1002/cbic.200400207. View

Befort K, Tabbara L, Kling D, Maigret B, Kieffer B . Role of aromatic transmembrane residues of the delta-opioid receptor in ligand recognition. J Biol Chem. 1996; 271(17):10161-8. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.271.17.10161. View

Strahs D, Weinstein H . Comparative modeling and molecular dynamics studies of the delta, kappa and mu opioid receptors. Protein Eng. 1998; 10(9):1019-38. DOI: 10.1093/protein/10.9.1019. View

Wiederstein M, Sippl M . ProSA-web: interactive web service for the recognition of errors in three-dimensional structures of proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007; 35(Web Server issue):W407-10. PMC: 1933241. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkm290. View

10.

Arnold K, Bordoli L, Kopp J, Schwede T . The SWISS-MODEL workspace: a web-based environment for protein structure homology modelling. Bioinformatics. 2005; 22(2):195-201. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti770. View

11.

Filizola M, Villar H, Loew G . Molecular determinants of non-specific recognition of delta, mu, and kappa opioid receptors. Bioorg Med Chem. 2001; 9(1):69-76. DOI: 10.1016/s0968-0896(00)00223-6. View

12.

Whisstock J, Lesk A . Prediction of protein function from protein sequence and structure. Q Rev Biophys. 2004; 36(3):307-40. DOI: 10.1017/s0033583503003901. View

13.

Simonds W . The molecular basis of opioid receptor function. Endocr Rev. 1988; 9(2):200-12. DOI: 10.1210/edrv-9-2-200. View

14.

Aburi M, Smith P . Modeling and simulation of the human delta opioid receptor. Protein Sci. 2004; 13(8):1997-2008. PMC: 2279837. DOI: 10.1110/ps.04720304. View

15.

Befort K, Tabbara L, Bausch S, Chavkin C, Evans C, Kieffer B . The conserved aspartate residue in the third putative transmembrane domain of the delta-opioid receptor is not the anionic counterpart for cationic opiate binding but is a constituent of the receptor binding site. Mol Pharmacol. 1996; 49(2):216-23. View

16.

Mobarec J, Sanchez R, Filizola M . Modern homology modeling of G-protein coupled receptors: which structural template to use?. J Med Chem. 2009; 52(16):5207-16. PMC: 2891345. DOI: 10.1021/jm9005252. View

17.

Chen V, Arendall 3rd W, Headd J, Keedy D, Immormino R, Kapral G . MolProbity: all-atom structure validation for macromolecular crystallography. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2010; 66(Pt 1):12-21. PMC: 2803126. DOI: 10.1107/S0907444909042073. View

18.

Jones G, Willett P, Glen R, Leach A, Taylor R . Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J Mol Biol. 1997; 267(3):727-48. DOI: 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0897. View

19.

Rasmussen S, Choi H, Rosenbaum D, Kobilka T, Thian F, Edwards P . Crystal structure of the human beta2 adrenergic G-protein-coupled receptor. Nature. 2007; 450(7168):383-7. DOI: 10.1038/nature06325. View

20.

Black S, Chauvignac C, Grundt P, Miller C, Wood S, Traynor J . Guanidino N-substituted and N,N-disubstituted derivatives of the kappa-opioid antagonist GNTI. J Med Chem. 2003; 46(25):5505-11. DOI: 10.1021/jm0309203. View