Extensive features of tight oligosaccharide binding revealed in high-resolution structures of the maltodextrin transport/chemosensory receptor

AbstractBackground: Active-transport processes perform a vital function in the life of a cell, maintaining cell homeostasis and allowing access of nutrients. Maltodextrin/maltose-binding protein (MBP; Mr = 40K) is a receptor protein which serves as an initial high-affinity binding component of the active-transport system of maltooligosaccharides in bacteria. MBP also participates in chemotaxis towards maltooligosaccharides. The interaction between MBP and specific cytoplasmic membrane proteins initiates either active transport or chemotaxis. In order to gain new understanding of the function of MBP, especially its versatility in binding different linear and cyclic oligosaccharides with similar affinities, we have undertaken high-resolution X-ray analysis of three oligosaccharide-bound structures.Results: The structures of MBP complexed with maltose, maltotriose and maltotetraose have been refined to high resolutions (1.67 to 1.8 Å). These structures provide details at the atomic level of many features of oligosaccharide binding. The structures reveal differences between buried and surface binding sites and show the importance of hydrogen bonds and van der Waals interactions, especially those resulting from aromatic residue stacking. Insights are provided into the structural plasticity of the protein, the binding affinity and the binding specificity with respect to α/β anomeric preference and oligosaccharide length. In addition, the structures demonstrate the different conformations that can be adopted by the oligosaccharide within the complex.Conclusions: MBP has a two-domain structure joined by a hinge-bending region which contains the substrate-binding groove. The bound maltooligosaccharides have a ribbon-like structure: the edges of the ribbon are occupied by polar hydroxyl groups and the flat surfaces are composed of nonpolar patches of the sugar ring faces. The polar groups and nonpolar patches are heavily involved in forming hydrogen bonds and van der Waals contacts, respectively, with complimentary residues in the groove. Hinge-bending between the two domains enables the participation of both domains in the binding and sequestering of the oligosaccharides. Changes in the subtle contours of the binding site allow binding of maltodextrins of varying length with similarly high affinities. The fact that the three bound structures are essentially identical ensures productive interaction with the oligomeric membrane proteins, which are distinct for transport and chemotaxis

Outcome of the First wwPDB/CCDC/D3R Ligand Validation Workshop.

Crystallographic studies of ligands bound to biological macromolecules (proteins and nucleic acids) represent an important source of information concerning drug-target interactions, providing atomic level insights into the physical chemistry of complex formation between macromolecules and ligands. Of the more than 115,000 entries extant in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) archive, ∼75% include at least one non-polymeric ligand. Ligand geometrical and stereochemical quality, the suitability of ligand models for in silico drug discovery and design, and the goodness-of-fit of ligand models to electron-density maps vary widely across the archive. We describe the proceedings and conclusions from the first Worldwide PDB/Cambridge Crystallographic Data Center/Drug Design Data Resource (wwPDB/CCDC/D3R) Ligand Validation Workshop held at the Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics at Rutgers University on July 30-31, 2015. Experts in protein crystallography from academe and industry came together with non-profit and for-profit software providers for crystallography and with experts in computational chemistry and data archiving to discuss and make recommendations on best practices, as framed by a series of questions central to structural studies of macromolecule-ligand complexes. What data concerning bound ligands should be archived in the PDB? How should the ligands be best represented? How should structural models of macromolecule-ligand complexes be validated? What supplementary information should accompany publications of structural studies of biological macromolecules? Consensus recommendations on best practices developed in response to each of these questions are provided, together with some details regarding implementation. Important issues addressed but not resolved at the workshop are also enumerated.The workshop was supported by funding to RCSB PDB by the National Science Foundation (DBI 1338415); PDBe by the Wellcome Trust (104948); PDBj by JST-NBDC; BMRB by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM109046); D3R by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM111528); registration fees from industrial participants; and tax-deductible donations to the wwPDB Foundation by the Genentech Foundation and the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Cell Press via https://doi.org//10.1016/j.str.2016.02.01

Outcome of the First wwPDB/CCDC/D3R Ligand Validation Workshop

Crystallographic studies of ligands bound to biological macromolecules (proteins and nucleic acids) represent an important source of information concerning drug-target interactions, providing atomic level insights into the physical chemistry of complex formation between macromolecules and ligands. Of the more than 115,000 entries extant in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) archive, ∼75% include at least one non-polymeric ligand. Ligand geometrical and stereochemical quality, the suitability of ligand models for in silico drug discovery and design, and the goodness-of-fit of ligand models to electron-density maps vary widely across the archive. We describe the proceedings and conclusions from the first Worldwide PDB/Cambridge Crystallographic Data Center/Drug Design Data Resource (wwPDB/CCDC/D3R) Ligand Validation Workshop held at the Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics at Rutgers University on July 30–31, 2015. Experts in protein crystallography from academe and industry came together with non-profit and for-profit software providers for crystallography and with experts in computational chemistry and data archiving to discuss and make recommendations on best practices, as framed by a series of questions central to structural studies of macromolecule-ligand complexes. What data concerning bound ligands should be archived in the PDB? How should the ligands be best represented? How should structural models of macromolecule-ligand complexes be validated? What supplementary information should accompany publications of structural studies of biological macromolecules? Consensus recommendations on best practices developed in response to each of these questions are provided, together with some details regarding implementation. Important issues addressed but not resolved at the workshop are also enumerated.This is the publisher’s final pdf. The published article is copyrighted by Elsevier (Cell Press) and can be found at: http://www.cell.com/structure/hom

AdamsOutcomeFirstwwPDBCCDCD3RSupplementalReferences.pdf

Crystallographic studies of ligands bound to biological macromolecules (proteins and nucleic acids) represent an important source of information concerning drug-target interactions, providing atomic level insights into the physical chemistry of complex formation between macromolecules and ligands. Of the more than 115,000 entries extant in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) archive, ∼75% include at least one non-polymeric ligand. Ligand geometrical and stereochemical quality, the suitability of ligand models for in silico drug discovery and design, and the goodness-of-fit of ligand models to electron-density maps vary widely across the archive. We describe the proceedings and conclusions from the first Worldwide PDB/Cambridge Crystallographic Data Center/Drug Design Data Resource (wwPDB/CCDC/D3R) Ligand Validation Workshop held at the Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics at Rutgers University on July 30–31, 2015. Experts in protein crystallography from academe and industry came together with non-profit and for-profit software providers for crystallography and with experts in computational chemistry and data archiving to discuss and make recommendations on best practices, as framed by a series of questions central to structural studies of macromolecule-ligand complexes. What data concerning bound ligands should be archived in the PDB? How should the ligands be best represented? How should structural models of macromolecule-ligand complexes be validated? What supplementary information should accompany publications of structural studies of biological macromolecules? Consensus recommendations on best practices developed in response to each of these questions are provided, together with some details regarding implementation. Important issues addressed but not resolved at the workshop are also enumerated

AdamsOutcomeFirstwwPDBCCDCD3R.pdf

Crystallographic studies of ligands bound to biological macromolecules (proteins and nucleic acids) represent an important source of information concerning drug-target interactions, providing atomic level insights into the physical chemistry of complex formation between macromolecules and ligands. Of the more than 115,000 entries extant in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) archive, ∼75% include at least one non-polymeric ligand. Ligand geometrical and stereochemical quality, the suitability of ligand models for in silico drug discovery and design, and the goodness-of-fit of ligand models to electron-density maps vary widely across the archive. We describe the proceedings and conclusions from the first Worldwide PDB/Cambridge Crystallographic Data Center/Drug Design Data Resource (wwPDB/CCDC/D3R) Ligand Validation Workshop held at the Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics at Rutgers University on July 30–31, 2015. Experts in protein crystallography from academe and industry came together with non-profit and for-profit software providers for crystallography and with experts in computational chemistry and data archiving to discuss and make recommendations on best practices, as framed by a series of questions central to structural studies of macromolecule-ligand complexes. What data concerning bound ligands should be archived in the PDB? How should the ligands be best represented? How should structural models of macromolecule-ligand complexes be validated? What supplementary information should accompany publications of structural studies of biological macromolecules? Consensus recommendations on best practices developed in response to each of these questions are provided, together with some details regarding implementation. Important issues addressed but not resolved at the workshop are also enumerated