1upe | pdb_00001upe

Theoretical Model: The protein structure described on this page was determined theoretically, and hence should be interpreted with caution.

MODELING THE ADENOSINE RECEPTORS: COMPARISON OF THE BINDING DOMAINS OF A2A AGONISTS AND ANTAGONISTS

spinqualitylabelsall models 1upe Show:Asymmetric Unit Biological Assembly Drag the structure with the mouse to rotate   Export Animated Image   Print3D Structural highlights For a guided tour on the structure components use FirstGlance. Resources: FirstGlance, PDBsum, ProSAT Publication Abstract from PubMed A three-dimensional model of the human A(2A) adenosine receptor (AR) and its docked ligands was built by homology to rhodopsin and validated with site-directed mutagenesis and the synthesis of chemically complementary agonists. Different binding modes of A(2A)AR antagonists and agonists were compared by using the FlexiDock automated docking procedure, with manual adjustment. Putative binding regions for the 9H-purine ring in agonist NECA 3 and the 1H-[1,2,4]triazolo[1,5-c]quinazoline ring in antagonist CGS15943 1 overlapped, and the exocyclic amino groups of each were H-bonded to the side chain of N(6.55). For bound agonist, H-bonds formed between the ribose 3'- and 5'-substituents and the hydrophilic amino acids T(3.36), S(7.42), and H(7.43), and the terminal methyl group of the 5'-uronamide interacted with the hydrophobic side chain of F(6.44). Formation of the agonist complex destabilized the ground-state structure of the A(2A)AR, which was stabilized through a network of H-bonding and hydrophobic interactions in the transmembrane helical domain (TM) regions, facilitating a conformational change upon activation. Both flexibility of the ribose moiety, required for the movement of TM6, and its H-bonding to the receptor were important for agonism. Two sets of interhelical H-bonds involved residues conserved among ARs but not in rhodopsin: (1) E13(1.39) and H278(7.43) and (2) D52(2.50), with the highly conserved amino acids N280(7.45) and S281(7.46), and N284(7.49) with S91(3.39). Most of the amino acid residues lining the putative binding site(s) were conserved among the four AR subtypes. The A(2A)AR/3 complex showed a preference for an intermediate conformation about the glycosidic bond, unlike in the A(3)AR/3 complex, which featured an anti-conformation. Hydrophilic amino acids of TMs 3 and 7 (ribose-binding region) were replaced with anionic residues for enhanced binding to amine-derivatized agonists. We identified new neoceptor (T88D)-neoligand pairs that were consistent with the model. Modeling the adenosine receptors: comparison of the binding domains of A2A agonists and antagonists.,Kim SK, Gao ZG, Van Rompaey P, Gross AS, Chen A, Van Calenbergh S, Jacobson KA J Med Chem. 2003 Nov 6;46(23):4847-59. PMID:14584936 From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Proteopedia Page Contributors and Editors (what is this?)

OCA