Click here to close
Hello! We notice that you are using Internet Explorer, which is not supported by Xenbase and may cause the site to display incorrectly.
We suggest using a current version of Chrome,
FireFox, or Safari.
PLoS One
2014 Jan 01;93:e92064. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092064.
Show Gene links
Show Anatomy links
Discovery of novel ligands for mouse olfactory receptor MOR42-3 using an in silico screening approach and in vitro validation.
Bavan S
,
Sherman B
,
Luetje CW
,
Abaffy T
.
???displayArticle.abstract???
The ligands for many olfactory receptors remain largely unknown despite successful heterologous expression of these receptors. Understanding the molecular receptive range of olfactory receptors and deciphering the olfactory recognition code are hampered by the huge number of odorants and large number of olfactory receptors, as well as the complexity of their combinatorial coding. Here, we present an in silico screening approach to find additional ligands for a mouse olfactory receptor that allows improved definition of its molecular receptive range. A virtual library of 574 odorants was screened against a mouse olfactory receptor MOR42-3. We selected the top 20 candidate ligands using two different scoring functions. These 40 odorant candidate ligands were then tested in vitro using the Xenopus oocyte heterologous expression system and two-electrode voltage clamp electrophysiology. We experimentally confirmed 22 of these ligands. The candidate ligands were screened for both agonist and antagonist activity. In summary, we validated 19 agonists and 3 antagonists. Two of the newly identified antagonists were of low potency. Several previously known ligands (mono- and dicarboxylic acids) are also confirmed in this study. However, some of the newly identified ligands were structurally dissimilar compounds with various functional groups belonging to aldehydes, phenyls, alkenes, esters and ethers. The high positive predictive value of our in silico approach is promising. We believe that this approach can be used for initial deorphanization of olfactory receptors as well as for future comprehensive studies of molecular receptive range of olfactory receptors.
???displayArticle.pubmedLink???
24637889
???displayArticle.pmcLink???PMC3956865 ???displayArticle.link???PLoS One ???displayArticle.grants???[+]
Figure 2. In vitro validation of in silico results.A. Representative traces of agonists, their structures and corresponding screen numbers tested at 100 μM for 15sec. Responses to 100 μM nononedioic acid (NDA) before and after application of each odorant was used for normalization. B. Histogram showing relative activity of the top 20 candidate ligands listed according to their score, tested at 100 μM and normalized to nonanedioic acid (mean±SEM, n = 5–10). Compound 18 full name is * 3-(4-(2-carboxyethyl)-phenyl)-propanoic acid. C. Histogram showing responses of ligands tested as antagonists at 1mM concentration and in the presence of 10 μM NDA. Responses are expressed as % of the responses to 100 μM nonanedioic acid, mean±SEM, n = 5–10. Compound 13 (dodecanoic acid) is an antagonist, *p<0.05. This compound (underlined) was previously identified as an antagonist for MOR42-3 [18].
Figure 3. In vitro validation of in silico results.A. Histogram showing relative activity of the top 20 candidate ligands listed according to their mfscore, tested at 100 μM and normalized to the nonanedioic acid, mean±SEM, n = 5–10. Full name of the compounds: Compound 1 = 3,7,11,15-tetramethyl-hexadec-1-en-3-ol (1); Compound 2 = 1-methyl-ethyl-2-phenylethanoate (2); Compound 6 = ethyl-3-methyl-3-phenyl-oxirane-2-carboylate (6); compound 7 = 5-methyl-2-phenyl-hex-2-enal (7) and compound 13 = 4-(4-hydroxy-4-methylpentyl)-cyclohexene-1-carbaldehyde (13). B. Histogram showing response of ligands tested as antagonists at 1mM concentration, in the presence of 10 μM NDA. Compounds 3 and 6 were identified as low potency antagonists, *p<0.0025. Previously identified ligands for MOR42-3 confirmed in our in silico screen are underlined.
Figure 4. Clustering of the ligands based on their molecular properties.A. VLS dot plot of score values vs molecular volume. Compounds acting as ligands from the Table 1 are labeled. Color scheme represents scoring as indicated. B. VLS dot plot of score values vs log P for compounds from Table 1 are labeled. C. VLS dot plot of mfscore values vs molecular volume. Compounds acting as ligands from the Table 2 are labeled. D. VLS dot plot of score values vs log P for compounds from Table 2 are labeled.
Figure 5. Ligands for MOR42-3 identified by VLS screening and their structural similarity to nonanedioic acid expressed as a fingerprint distance from nonanedioic acid.(Antagonists are labeled in grey).
Figure 6. Agonist binding pocket and additional ligands for MOR42-3.A. α-hexyl cinnamaldehyde docked in MOR42-3. Ligand binding pocket is colored by binding property with green representing hydrophobic areas, red hydrogen bond acceptors and blue hydrogen bond donors. Hydrogen bond between carbonyl oxygen from α-hexyl cinnamaldehyde (ranked 17, Table 1) and guanidinuim group of arginine 179 (R179) is presented with an interatomic distance of 1.57Å. B. Residues within 5Å distance from the best docking conformation of α-hexyl cinnamaldehyde. C. Structural relatives of α-hexyl cinnamaldehyde and their responses. Oocytes expressing MOR42-3, Gαolf and CFTR were screened with 15 sec application of 100 μM indicated odorants. Responses were normalized to the average 100 μM NDA-evoked responses and results are presented as a mean±SEM, n = 5–10.
Figure 1. The experimental study design.List of procedures used in this study for in silico and in vitro approach of deorphanizing olfactory receptors.
Abaffy,
Functional analysis of a mammalian odorant receptor subfamily.
2006, Pubmed,
Xenbase
Abaffy,
Functional analysis of a mammalian odorant receptor subfamily.
2006,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Abaffy,
The molecular basis for ligand specificity in a mouse olfactory receptor: a network of functionally important residues.
2007,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Baud,
The mouse eugenol odorant receptor: structural and functional plasticity of a broadly tuned odorant binding pocket.
2011,
Pubmed
Bissantz,
Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations.
2000,
Pubmed
Boschat,
Pheromone detection mediated by a V1r vomeronasal receptor.
2002,
Pubmed
Buck,
A novel multigene family may encode odorant receptors: a molecular basis for odor recognition.
1991,
Pubmed
Bush,
Specificity of olfactory receptor interactions with other G protein-coupled receptors.
2007,
Pubmed
Cavasotto,
In silico identification of novel EGFR inhibitors with antiproliferative activity against cancer cells.
2006,
Pubmed
Charlier,
How broadly tuned olfactory receptors equally recognize their agonists. Human OR1G1 as a test case.
2012,
Pubmed
Haddad,
A metric for odorant comparison.
2008,
Pubmed
Katritch,
Structure-based discovery of novel chemotypes for adenosine A(2A) receptor antagonists.
2010,
Pubmed
Krautwurst,
Identification of ligands for olfactory receptors by functional expression of a receptor library.
1998,
Pubmed
Launay,
Automatic modeling of mammalian olfactory receptors and docking of odorants.
2012,
Pubmed
Li,
A broadly tuned mouse odorant receptor that detects nitrotoluenes.
2012,
Pubmed
Malnic,
Combinatorial receptor codes for odors.
1999,
Pubmed
Mombaerts,
Genes and ligands for odorant, vomeronasal and taste receptors.
2004,
Pubmed
Muegge,
A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach.
1999,
Pubmed
Neuhaus,
A specific heat shock protein enhances the expression of mammalian olfactory receptor proteins.
2006,
Pubmed
Neves,
Docking and scoring with ICM: the benchmarking results and strategies for improvement.
2012,
Pubmed
Oka,
Odorant receptor map in the mouse olfactory bulb: in vivo sensitivity and specificity of receptor-defined glomeruli.
2006,
Pubmed
Rasmussen,
Structure of a nanobody-stabilized active state of the β(2) adrenoceptor.
2011,
Pubmed
Rasmussen,
Crystal structure of the β2 adrenergic receptor-Gs protein complex.
2011,
Pubmed
Reed,
After the holy grail: establishing a molecular basis for Mammalian olfaction.
2004,
Pubmed
Saito,
RTP family members induce functional expression of mammalian odorant receptors.
2004,
Pubmed
Saito,
Odor coding by a Mammalian receptor repertoire.
2009,
Pubmed
Schapira,
Rational discovery of novel nuclear hormone receptor antagonists.
2000,
Pubmed
Schapira,
Discovery of diverse thyroid hormone receptor antagonists by high-throughput docking.
2003,
Pubmed
Schwartz,
Molecular mechanism of 7TM receptor activation--a global toggle switch model.
2006,
Pubmed
Shirokova,
The human vomeronasal type-1 receptor family--detection of volatiles and cAMP signaling in HeLa/Olf cells.
2008,
Pubmed
Shirokova,
Identification of specific ligands for orphan olfactory receptors. G protein-dependent agonism and antagonism of odorants.
2005,
Pubmed
Trott,
AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading.
2010,
Pubmed
Xu,
Structure of an agonist-bound human A2A adenosine receptor.
2011,
Pubmed
Yoshikawa,
Myr-Ric-8A enhances G(alpha15)-mediated Ca2+ response of vertebrate olfactory receptors.
2009,
Pubmed
Young,
Different evolutionary processes shaped the mouse and human olfactory receptor gene families.
2002,
Pubmed
Zhang,
The olfactory receptor gene superfamily of the mouse.
2002,
Pubmed