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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |