Cargando…

Sampling and energy evaluation challenges in ligand binding protein design

The steroid hormone 17α‐hydroxylprogesterone (17‐OHP) is a biomarker for congenital adrenal hyperplasia and hence there is considerable interest in development of sensors for this compound. We used computational protein design to generate protein models with binding sites for 17‐OHP containing an ex...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dou, Jiayi, Doyle, Lindsey, Jr. Greisen, Per, Schena, Alberto, Park, Hahnbeom, Johnsson, Kai, Stoddard, Barry L., Baker, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5699494/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28980354
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pro.3317
_version_ 1783280952270651392
author Dou, Jiayi
Doyle, Lindsey
Jr. Greisen, Per
Schena, Alberto
Park, Hahnbeom
Johnsson, Kai
Stoddard, Barry L.
Baker, David
author_facet Dou, Jiayi
Doyle, Lindsey
Jr. Greisen, Per
Schena, Alberto
Park, Hahnbeom
Johnsson, Kai
Stoddard, Barry L.
Baker, David
author_sort Dou, Jiayi
collection PubMed
description The steroid hormone 17α‐hydroxylprogesterone (17‐OHP) is a biomarker for congenital adrenal hyperplasia and hence there is considerable interest in development of sensors for this compound. We used computational protein design to generate protein models with binding sites for 17‐OHP containing an extended, nonpolar, shape‐complementary binding pocket for the four‐ring core of the compound, and hydrogen bonding residues at the base of the pocket to interact with carbonyl and hydroxyl groups at the more polar end of the ligand. Eight of 16 designed proteins experimentally tested bind 17‐OHP with micromolar affinity. A co‐crystal structure of one of the designs revealed that 17‐OHP is rotated 180° around a pseudo‐two‐fold axis in the compound and displays multiple binding modes within the pocket, while still interacting with all of the designed residues in the engineered site. Subsequent rounds of mutagenesis and binding selection improved the ligand affinity to nanomolar range, while appearing to constrain the ligand to a single bound conformation that maintains the same “flipped” orientation relative to the original design. We trace the discrepancy in the design calculations to two sources: first, a failure to model subtle backbone changes which alter the distribution of sidechain rotameric states and second, an underestimation of the energetic cost of desolvating the carbonyl and hydroxyl groups of the ligand. The difference between design model and crystal structure thus arises from both sampling limitations and energy function inaccuracies that are exacerbated by the near two‐fold symmetry of the molecule.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5699494
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56994942017-11-30 Sampling and energy evaluation challenges in ligand binding protein design Dou, Jiayi Doyle, Lindsey Jr. Greisen, Per Schena, Alberto Park, Hahnbeom Johnsson, Kai Stoddard, Barry L. Baker, David Protein Sci Articles The steroid hormone 17α‐hydroxylprogesterone (17‐OHP) is a biomarker for congenital adrenal hyperplasia and hence there is considerable interest in development of sensors for this compound. We used computational protein design to generate protein models with binding sites for 17‐OHP containing an extended, nonpolar, shape‐complementary binding pocket for the four‐ring core of the compound, and hydrogen bonding residues at the base of the pocket to interact with carbonyl and hydroxyl groups at the more polar end of the ligand. Eight of 16 designed proteins experimentally tested bind 17‐OHP with micromolar affinity. A co‐crystal structure of one of the designs revealed that 17‐OHP is rotated 180° around a pseudo‐two‐fold axis in the compound and displays multiple binding modes within the pocket, while still interacting with all of the designed residues in the engineered site. Subsequent rounds of mutagenesis and binding selection improved the ligand affinity to nanomolar range, while appearing to constrain the ligand to a single bound conformation that maintains the same “flipped” orientation relative to the original design. We trace the discrepancy in the design calculations to two sources: first, a failure to model subtle backbone changes which alter the distribution of sidechain rotameric states and second, an underestimation of the energetic cost of desolvating the carbonyl and hydroxyl groups of the ligand. The difference between design model and crystal structure thus arises from both sampling limitations and energy function inaccuracies that are exacerbated by the near two‐fold symmetry of the molecule. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-10-30 2017-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5699494/ /pubmed/28980354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pro.3317 Text en © 2017 The Authors Protein Science published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The Protein Society This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Articles
Dou, Jiayi
Doyle, Lindsey
Jr. Greisen, Per
Schena, Alberto
Park, Hahnbeom
Johnsson, Kai
Stoddard, Barry L.
Baker, David
Sampling and energy evaluation challenges in ligand binding protein design
title Sampling and energy evaluation challenges in ligand binding protein design
title_full Sampling and energy evaluation challenges in ligand binding protein design
title_fullStr Sampling and energy evaluation challenges in ligand binding protein design
title_full_unstemmed Sampling and energy evaluation challenges in ligand binding protein design
title_short Sampling and energy evaluation challenges in ligand binding protein design
title_sort sampling and energy evaluation challenges in ligand binding protein design
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5699494/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28980354
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pro.3317
work_keys_str_mv AT doujiayi samplingandenergyevaluationchallengesinligandbindingproteindesign
AT doylelindsey samplingandenergyevaluationchallengesinligandbindingproteindesign
AT jrgreisenper samplingandenergyevaluationchallengesinligandbindingproteindesign
AT schenaalberto samplingandenergyevaluationchallengesinligandbindingproteindesign
AT parkhahnbeom samplingandenergyevaluationchallengesinligandbindingproteindesign
AT johnssonkai samplingandenergyevaluationchallengesinligandbindingproteindesign
AT stoddardbarryl samplingandenergyevaluationchallengesinligandbindingproteindesign
AT bakerdavid samplingandenergyevaluationchallengesinligandbindingproteindesign