Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Structural Biology and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Research article

Forced unbinding of GPR17 ligands from wild type and R255I mutant receptor models through a computational approach

Chiara Parravicini1, Maria P Abbracchio1*, Piercarlo Fantucci23 and Graziella Ranghino3

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Pharmacological Sciences, University of Milano, via Balzaretti 9, 20133, Milano, Italy

2 Department of Biotechnology and Biosciences, University of Milano-Bicocca, Piazza della Scienza 2, 20126 Milano, Italy

3 Delos S.r.l., via Lurani 12, 20091, Bresso, Italy

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Structural Biology 2010, 10:8  doi:10.1186/1472-6807-10-8

Published: 16 March 2010

Abstract

Background

GPR17 is a hybrid G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) activated by two unrelated ligand families, extracellular nucleotides and cysteinyl-leukotrienes (cysteinyl-LTs), and involved in brain damage and repair. Its exploitment as a target for novel neuro-reparative strategies depends on the elucidation of the molecular determinants driving binding of purinergic and leukotrienic ligands. Here, we applied docking and molecular dynamics simulations (MD) to analyse the binding and the forced unbinding of two GPR17 ligands (the endogenous purinergic agonist UDP and the leukotriene receptor antagonist pranlukast from both the wild-type (WT) receptor and a mutant model, where a basic residue hypothesized to be crucial for nucleotide binding had been mutated (R255I) to Ile.

Results

MD suggested that GPR17 nucleotide binding pocket is enclosed between the helical bundle and extracellular loop (EL) 2. The driving interaction involves R255 and the UDP phosphate moiety. To support this hypothesis, steered MD experiments showed that the energy required to unbind UDP is higher for the WT receptor than for R255I. Three potential binding sites for pranlukast where instead found and analysed. In one of its preferential docking conformations, pranlukast tetrazole group is close to R255 and phenyl rings are placed into a subpocket highly conserved among GPCRs. Pulling forces developed to break polar and aromatic interactions of pranlukast were comparable. No differences between the WT receptor and the R255I receptor were found for the unbinding of pranlukast.

Conclusions

These data thus suggest that, in contrast to which has been hypothesized for nucleotides, the lack of the R255 residue doesn't affect the binding of pranlukast a crucial role for R255 in binding of nucleotides to GPR17. Aromatic interactions are instead likely to play a predominant role in the recognition of pranlukast, suggesting that two different binding subsites are present on GPR17.