Dataset Information

Benchmarking GPCR homology model template selection in combination with de novo loop generation.

ABSTRACT: G protein-coupled receptors (GPCR) comprise the largest family of membrane proteins and are of considerable interest as targets for drug development. However, many GPCR structures remain unsolved. To address the structural ambiguity of these receptors, computational tools such as homology modeling and loop modeling are often employed to generate predictive receptor structures. Here we combined both methods to benchmark a protocol incorporating homology modeling based on a locally selected template and extracellular loop modeling that additionally evaluates the presence of template ligands during these modeling steps. Ligands were also docked using three docking methods and two pose selection methods to elucidate an optimal ligand pose selection method. Results suggest that local template-based homology models followed by loop modeling produce more accurate and predictive receptor models than models produced without loop modeling, with decreases in average receptor and ligand RMSD of 0.54 Å and 2.91 Å, respectively. Ligand docking results showcased the ability of MOE induced fit docking to produce ligand poses with atom root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) values at least 0.20 Å lower (on average) than the other two methods benchmarked in this study. In addition, pose selection methods (software-based scoring, ligand complementation) selected lower RMSD poses with MOE induced fit docking than either of the other methods (averaging at least 1.57 Å lower), indicating that MOE induced fit docking is most suited for docking into GPCR homology models in our hands. In addition, target receptor models produced with a template ligand present throughout the modeling process most often produced target ligand poses with RMSD values ≤ 4.5 Å and Tanimoto coefficients > 0.6 after selection based on ligand complementation than target receptor models produced in the absence of template ligands. Overall, the findings produced by this study support the use of local template homology modeling in combination with de novo ECL2 modeling in the presence of a ligand from the template crystal structure to generate GPCR models intended to study ligand binding interactions.

SUBMITTER: Szwabowski GL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7484324 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:G protein-coupled receptors (GPCR) are integral membrane proteins of considerable interest as targets for drug development. GPCR ligand interaction studies often have a starting point with either crystal structures or comparative models. The majority of GPCR do not have experimentally-characterized 3-dimensional structures, so comparative modeling, also called homology modeling, is a good structure-based starting point. Comparative modeling is a widely used method for generating models of proteins with unknown structures by analogy to crystallized proteins that are expected to exhibit structural conservation. Traditionally, comparative modeling template selection is based on global sequence identity and shared function. However high sequence identity localized to the ligand binding pocket may produce better models to examine protein-ligand interactions. This in silico benchmark study examined the performance of a global versus local similarity measure applied to comparative modeling template selection for 6 previously crystallized, class A GCPR (CXCR4, FFAR1, NOP, P2Y12, OPRK, and M1) with the long-term goal of optimizing GPCR ligand identification efforts. Comparative models were generated from templates selected using both global and local similarity measures. Similarity to reference crystal structures was reflected in RMSD values between atom positions throughout the structure or localized to the ligand binding pocket. Overall, models deviated from the reference crystal structure to a similar degree regardless of whether the template was selected using a global or local similarity measure. Ligand docking simulations were performed to assess relative performance in predicting protein-ligand complex structures and interaction networks. Calculated RMSD values between ligand poses from docking simulations and crystal structures indicate that models based on locally selected templates give docked poses that better mimic crystallographic ligand positions than those based on globally-selected templates in five of the six benchmark cases. However, protein model refinement strategies in advance of ligand docking applications are clearly essential as the average RMSD between crystallographic poses and poses docked into local template models was 9.7 Å and typically less than half of the ligand interaction sites are shared between the docked and crystallographic poses. These data support the utilization of local similarity measures to guide template selection in protocols using comparative models to investigate ligand-receptor interactions.

Project description:MotivationOver the last decades, vast numbers of sequences were deposited in public databases. Bioinformatics tools allow homology and consequently functional inference for these sequences. New profile-based homology search tools have been introduced, allowing reliable detection of remote homologs, but have not been systematically benchmarked. To provide such a comparison, which can guide bioinformatics workflows, we extend and apply our previously developed benchmark approach to evaluate the 'next generation' of profile-based approaches, including CS-BLAST, HHSEARCH and PHMMER, in comparison with the non-profile based search tools NCBI-BLAST, USEARCH, UBLAST and FASTA.MethodWe generated challenging benchmark datasets based on protein domain architectures within either the PFAM + Clan, SCOP/Superfamily or CATH/Gene3D domain definition schemes. From each dataset, homologous and non-homologous protein pairs were aligned using each tool, and standard performance metrics calculated. We further measured congruence of domain architecture assignments in the three domain databases.ResultsCSBLAST and PHMMER had overall highest accuracy. FASTA, UBLAST and USEARCH showed large trade-offs of accuracy for speed optimization.ConclusionProfile methods are superior at inferring remote homologs but the difference in accuracy between methods is relatively small. PHMMER and CSBLAST stand out with the highest accuracy, yet still at a reasonable computational cost. Additionally, we show that less than 0.1% of Swiss-Prot protein pairs considered homologous by one database are considered non-homologous by another, implying that these classifications represent equivalent underlying biological phenomena, differing mostly in coverage and granularity.Availability and implementationBenchmark datasets and all scripts are placed at (http://sonnhammer.org/download/Homology_benchmark).Contactforslund@embl.deSupplementary informationSupplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Project description:BACKGROUND: G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) transduce a wide variety of extracellular signals to within the cell and therefore have a key role in regulating cell activity and physiological function. GPCR malfunction is responsible for a wide range of diseases including cancer, diabetes and hyperthyroidism and a large proportion of drugs on the market target these receptors. The three dimensional structure of GPCRs is important for elucidating the molecular mechanisms underlying these diseases and for performing structure-based drug design. Although structural data are restricted to only a handful of GPCRs, homology models can be used as a proxy for those receptors not having crystal structures. However, many researchers working on GPCRs are not experienced homology modellers and are therefore unable to benefit from the information that can be gleaned from such three-dimensional models. Here, we present a comprehensive database called the GPCR-SSFE, which provides initial homology models of the transmembrane helices for a large variety of family A GPCRs. DESCRIPTION: Extending on our previous theoretical work, we have developed an automated pipeline for GPCR homology modelling and applied it to a large set of family A GPCR sequences. Our pipeline is a fragment-based approach that exploits available family A crystal structures. The GPCR-SSFE database stores the template predictions, sequence alignments, identified sequence and structure motifs and homology models for 5025 family A GPCRs. Users are able to browse the GPCR dataset according to their pharmacological classification or search for results using a UniProt entry name. It is also possible for a user to submit a GPCR sequence that is not contained in the database for analysis and homology model building. The models can be viewed using a Jmol applet and are also available for download along with the alignments. CONCLUSIONS: The data provided by GPCR-SSFE are useful for investigating general and detailed sequence-structure-function relationships of GPCRs, performing structure-based drug design and for better understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying disease-associated mutations in GPCRs. The effectiveness of our multiple template and fragment approach is demonstrated by the accuracy of our predicted homology models compared to recently published crystal structures.

Dataset Information

Benchmarking GPCR homology model template selection in combination with de novo loop generation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets