supplementary materials for - sciencescience.sciencemag.org/highwire/filestream/628274/field... ·...
Post on 29-Oct-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6226/1113/suppl/DC1
Supplementary Materials for
Structural basis for chemokine recognition and activation of a viral
G protein–coupled receptor
John S. Burg, Jessica R. Ingram, A. J. Venkatakrishnan, Kevin M. Jude, Abhiram
Dukkipati, Evan N. Feinberg, Alessandro Angelini, Deepa Waghray, Ron O. Dror, Hidde
L. Ploegh, K. Christopher Garcia*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: kcgarcia@stanford.edu
Published 6 March 2015, Science 347, 1113 (2015)
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5026
This PDF file includes:
Materials and Methods
Figs. S1 to S10
Tables S1 and S2
Full Reference List
!
Materials and methods:
Protein engineering
CX3CL1 (amino acid residues 1 – 77) was expressed with its natural signal peptide under
control of the CMV promoter in the vector pVLAD6 (31). The C-terminal mucin-like
stalk was replaced with a flexible linker (SGSGSAAA) followed by a 3C protease site
(LEVLFQGP) and human Fc. US28 was expressed from pVLAD6 as a wild-type protein
with no mutations or truncations, except addition of an N-terminal Flag tag to facilitate
purification (Fig. S5A). For co-crystallization with the nanobody Nb7, US28 was
truncated by 10 amino acids at the N-terminus and 44 amino acids at the C-terminus
(US28∆N∆C) (Fig. S5B); N-terminal truncation by 10 amino acids does not diminish
chemokine binding or signaling (32). For crystallization with US28∆N∆C and Nb7, the
CX3CL1 Asn-linked glycosylation site at position 9 was changed to alanine
(CX3CL1N9A). Nanobody 7 (Nb7) was expressed as a fusion protein with an amino-
terminal maltose-binding protein (MBP) and a carboxy-terminal hexahistidine tag in the
pMal vector (New England Biolabs). A 3C protease site was inserted between MBP and
Nb7.
Protein purification
Nb7 was expressed in the periplasm of E. coli. Transformed cells were grown in Terrific
Broth supplemented with 100 µg/ml carbenicillin and 0.1% (w/v) glucose to a density of
OD600 = 0.8. Expression was induced overnight at 25˚C by addition of 1 mM IPTG. Cells
were harvested by centrifugation then resuspended in a solution of 0.2 M Tris-Cl pH 8.0,
0.5 mM EDTA and 0.5 M sucrose. After stirring for 1 h the cell suspension was diluted
4-fold with water and stirred for an additional 2 h, followed by centrifugation at 7000 x g
for 1 h. The supernatant was adjusted to 20 mM imidazole and passed through a nickel-
NTA column. The nickel column was washed with a solution of 10 mM HEPES pH 7.4
and 150 mM NaCl (HBS) supplemented with 20 mM imidazole. Bound MBP-3C-Nb7-
6xHis was eluted with 200 mM imidazole in HBS. After incubating overnight with 3C
protease, the protein solution was precipitated with 33% (w/v) ammonium sulfate,
isolated by centrifugation and resuspended in HBS. The re-dissolved protein was passed
!
through a 0.2 µm filter, desalted on a sepharose G25 column and passed over amylose
resin (New England Biolabs) to remove residual MBP. Analytical gel filtration confirmed
size monodispersity.
CX3CL1-3C-Fc was expressed in HEK293s GnTI- cells with BacMam baculovirus
transduction (31). Baculovirus was added to cells at a density of 4 x 106 cells per ml and
culture bottles were shaken for 72 h at 37 ˚C with 5% CO2. Cells were removed by
centrifugation and the culture supernatant was filtered and then stirred at 4 ˚C overnight
with 10 ml protein A agarose (Sigma). The protein A agarose was then collected by
filtration and washed HBS.
US28 was expressed in HEK293s GnTI- cells using BacMam baculovirus transduction
(31). Baculovirus was added to cells at a density of 4 x 106 cells per ml and culture
bottles were shaken for 48 h at 37 ˚C with 5% CO2. After harvesting, cells were washed
with a solution of 10 mM HEPES pH 7.4, 150 mM NaCl and 5 mM EDTA and stored at -
20˚C. Cell pellets were thawed and lysed with a Dounce homogenizer in a solution
comprised of 20 mM Tris-Cl pH 8.0, 5 mM EDTA and 2 mg ml-1 iodoacetamide. The
lysate was centrifuged at 40,000 x g for 1 h, and the membrane pellet was resuspended
and stirred for 2 h at 4 ˚C in a solubilization buffer consisting of 1% (w/v)
dodecylmaltoside (DDM), 0.2% (w/v) cholesteryl hemisuccinate (CHS), 10 mM HEPES
pH 7.4, 150 mM NaCl, 20% (v/v) glycerol and 2 mg ml-1 iodoacetamide. After
centrifugation, protein A-immobilized CX3CL1-Fc was added to the solubilized lysate
and mixed by rotating overnight at 4 ˚C. The protein A resin was collected by filtration,
washed with HBS and incubated at room temperature with 3C protease for 1 h to release
the US28-CX3CL1 complex. We used anti-Flag M1 affinity resin to further purify the
complex and remove excess CX3CL1. The complex was eluted from the anti-Flag M1
affinity resin with 0.2 mg ml-1 Flag peptide and 5 mM EDTA. In the case of the wild-type
US28/CX3CL1 complex, size exclusion chromatography was conducted at this point
using a buffer containing HBS, 0.02% (w/v) DDM and 0.004% (w/v) CHS. The wild-
type US28/CX3CL1 complex was concentrated to 20 mg ml-1 for crystal trials.
!
To form the US28∆N∆C/CX3CL1N9A/Nb7 ternary complex, Flag-purified
US28∆N∆C/CX3CL1N9A was mixed with Nb7 at a molar ratio of 1:1.9. The protein
surface was then modified by reductive methylation with formaldehyde and
dimethylaminoborane (33). US28∆N∆C/CX3CL1N9A/Nb7 was isolated and desalted by
size exclusion chromatography, and then concentrated to 34 mg ml-1 for crystal trials. An
overview of the US28∆N∆C/CX3CL1N9A/Nb7 purification is shown in Figure S10A.
Alpaca immunization
A three-year-old female alpaca (Lama pacos) was maintained in pasture, and immunized
following a protocol authorized by the Camelid Immunogenics (Belchertown, MA) and
MIT IACUC committees. The alpaca was immunized by subcutaneous injection of a 1:1
mixture of Imject alum (Thermo Scientific) and 200 mg of recombinant US28/CX3CL1
reconstituted in phospholipid vesicles. After a total of five injections (200 mg each)
spaced two weeks apart, 50 mL of blood was harvested by venipuncture and collected
into heparinized tubes.
Alpaca nanobody yeast display library construction
Peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBLs) were isolated from total blood by Ficoll-Paque
gradients (Ficoll-Paque Plus, GE Healthcare). Total RNA was isolated from ~107 fresh
PBLs using the RNeasy Plus Mini Kit (Qiagen), following the manufacturer’s guidelines.
First strand cDNA synthesis was performed using SuperScript III reverse transcriptase
(Life Technologies) and a combination of oligo dT, random hexamer or the
immunoglobulin-specific primers AlCH2 and AlCH2.2 (34). Nanobody sequences were
then amplified by PCR in two steps for the generation of a yeast display library, using the
following primer sets: For round 1: JRI_162(5’-
GTCGGCTAGCGCTCAGKTGCAGCTCGTGGAGWCNGG-3’ and JRI_163(5’-
TTTTGTTCGGATCCCCGGGAGGAGACGGTGACCTG-3’); for round 2: JRI_164
(5’-GGAGGCGGTAGCGGAGGCGGAGGGTCGGCTAGC-3’ and JRI_165 (5’-
GTCCTCTTCAGAAATAAGCTTTTGTTCGGAT-3’). PCR products were ethanol
precipitated, and 4 mg of resulting PCR product and 1 mg linearized pCTCON vector
(35) were co-transformed into electrocompetent EBY100 yeast (Invitrogen). Following
!
transformation, cells were recovered in 1 L synthetic defined medium (SDCAA) at 30 ˚C.
Ten-fold serial dilutions were plated onto SDCAA, grown for 3 days at 30 ˚C, and
colonies were counted to determine library size. The resulting library was determined to
contain 1 x 109 transformants, although the actual diversity was limited by the initial
number of lymphocytes to approximately 1 x 107.
Nanobody selection by yeast surface display
Yeast surface display nanobody selections were conducted as previously described (35-
37). For the first round of selection, 1 x 108 yeast displaying the nanobody library were
washed with PBE buffer (phosphate buffered saline with 0.5#mM EDTA and 0.5% BSA)
supplemented with 0.02% (w/v) dodecylmaltoside detergent (PBED buffer) and stained
with 1 µM purified Flag-US28/CX3CL1 for 1#h at 4#˚C. The yeast were then washed with
PBED buffer and stained with Alexa-647 conjugated anti-DYKDDDDK antibody (Cell
Signaling) for 15#min at 4 ˚C. Yeast were washed again with PBED buffer and
magnetically labeled with 250#µl anti-Alexa-647 microbeads (Miltenyi) in PBED buffer
for 15#min at 4 ˚C. Yeast were washed a final time and labeled yeast were isolated by
magnetic selection with an LS column (Miltenyi) pre-equilibrated with PBED buffer.
Magnetically sorted yeast were resuspended in SDCAA medium and cultured at 30 ˚C.
For the second round of selection, two-color FACS was performed. 1 x 107 induced yeast
were washed with PBED and stained with 200 nM Flag-US28/CX3CL1 for 1#h at 4#˚C.
The yeast were then washed with PBED buffer and stained with Alexa-647 conjugated
anti-DYKDDDDK and Alex-488 conjugated anti-Myc antibodies (Cell Signaling) for
15#min at 4#˚C. Yeast were washed again with PBED buffer. The Alexa-647 positive
yeast with the highest Alexa-647 / Alexa-488 ratios were purified using a FACS Jazz cell
sorter (BD Biosciences). Post-sorted yeast were resuspended in SDCAA medium and
cultured at 30 ˚C. Nanobody cDNA was prepared from the Round 2 library, transformed
into E. coli and sequenced.
!
Crystallization and data collection
Crystallization was performed by the in meso method (38). The wild-type US28/CX3CL1
complex was reconstituted in 10:1 monovaccenin:cholesterol (Nu-Chek Prep and Sigma,
respectively) in a ratio of 1:1 (w/w) protein solution:lipid. The ternary complex of
US28∆N∆C, CX3CL1N9A and Nb7 was reconstituted in 10:1 monoolein:cholesterol
(Sigma) in a ratio of 1:1.5 (w/w) protein solution:lipid. In both cases, it was necessary to
add 10 – 20% (v/v) 5 M NaCl to the protein/lipid mixture to achieve a clear cubic phase
(39). The lipidic cubic phase was dispensed onto glass sandwich plates in 30 nl drops,
overlaid with 700 nl precipitant solution using a Gryphon LCP robot (Art Robbins
Instruments) and incubated at 20 ˚C. Crystals of the wild-type US28/CX3CL1 complex
grew in a precipitant solution containing 35 – 45% (v/v) PEG 300, 100 mM HEPES pH
7.4, and 100 mM ammonium phosphate. Crystals of the US28∆N∆C/CX3CL1N9A/Nb7
complex grew in 32% (v/v) PEG 300, 100 mM sodium 2-(N-morpholino)ethanesulfonate
pH 6.3, 100 mM sodium succinate pH 7.0, and 1% (v/v) polypropylene glycol P 400.
Crystals were observed after 24 h and grew to full size in 3 – 5 d. Crystals were then
harvested with mesh grid loops (MiTeGen) and stored under liquid nitrogen. Typical
crystals are shown in Figure S10B.
Diffraction data were collected at the Advanced Photon Source GM/CA beamlines 23-
ID-B and 23-ID-D using a beam size of 10 µm. The wild-type US28/CX3CL1 crystals
were sensitive to radiation damage, causing decay of diffraction quality during exposure.
Wedges of 5 – 20 degrees were collected and merged from 26 crystals using XDS (40),
with the maximum resolution of each wedge ranging from 3.6 – 9 Å. Crystals of the
US28∆N∆C/CX3CL1N9A/Nb7 ternary complex diffracted to 2.9 Å, and it was possible
to collect complete datasets from single crystals. Data from two
US28∆N∆C/CX3CL1N9A/Nb7 crystals were processed and merged with HKL2000 (41).
The structure of the wild-type US28/CX3CL1 complex was solved by molecular
replacement using CCR5 (PDB ID: 4MBS) (2) and CX3CL1 (PDB IDs: 1F2L and
3ONA) (42, 43) as search models. We improved the model by manual building in Coot
(44) and reciprocal space refinement in Phenix (45), but it was not initially possible to
!
improve the model to an Rfree better than 37% due to the low resolution and the distantly
related molecular replacement model. We subsequently solved the 2.9 Å structure of
US28∆N∆C/CX3CL1N9A/Nb7 by molecular replacement using our partially refined 3.8
Å model and a nanobody (PDB ID: 4B41) as search models. Refinement was conducted
by manual building in Coot and reciprocal space refinement in Phenix and BUSTER (46)
with translation-liberation-screw motion (TLS) groups (47). Fourteen TLS groups were
chosen based on the inflection point of the plot of crystallographic residual versus
number of TLS groups as calculated using the TLSMD web server (48). The refined 2.9
Å structure of US28∆N∆C/CX3CL1N9A/Nb7 was used to re-solve the 3.8 Å wild-type
US28/CX3CL1 dataset. Simulated annealing composite omit maps were used to ensure
that the 3.8 Å structure was not unduly biased by the 2.9 Å molecular replacement model.
The overall quality of the models was assessed with MolProbity (49). Contacts were
analyzed using CONTACT (50) and PISA (51) with manual inspection. Figures were
prepared in PyMOL (52). Software used in this project was installed and configured by
SBGrid (53). Representative electron density maps are shown in Figure S7. A list of
contacts between CX3CL1 and US28 in the 2.9 Å structure is presented in Table S1. The
statistics for data collection and refinement are presented in Table S2.
System setup for molecular dynamics simulations
Simulations of the human cytomegalovirus-encoded chemokine receptor US28 (US28
receptor) were based on the 2.9 Å crystal structure described here. Coordinates were
prepared by first removing the nanobody, as well as non-protein molecules, from the
structure. Prime (Schrödinger) was used within Maestro (Schrödinger) to model atoms
missing from the crystal structure, including portions of certain side chains (specifically
Arg62ICL1, Arg63ICL1, Gln65ICL1, Gln912.62, Arg137ICL2, and Lys297Helix8) and of the
extracellular loop between TM2 and TM3. Histidine residues were simulated as the
neutral Nε tautomer. Other titratable residues were simulated in their dominant
protonation state at pH 7, except for Asp792.50 and Asp1283.49, which were neutral in
some simulations and charged in others, as described below.
!
The resulting prepared US28 receptor structure was then aligned to the Orientations of
Proteins in Membranes (OPM) (54) entry for the CXCR4 chemokine receptor using
PyMOL (52). The US28 receptor was modified with disulfide bridges and inserted into a
hydrated, equilibrated palmitoyloleoylphosphatidylcholine bilayer using the CHARMM-
GUI interface (55-58). Sodium and chloride ions were added to neutralize the system,
and extra NaCl was added to reach a final concentration of approximately 150 mM. In
each simulation without CX3CL1, the simulation box initially measured approximately
82#×#82#×#99#Å3, and contained one US28 receptor, approximately 160
palmitoyloleoylphosphatidylcholine molecules, approximately 34 sodium ions,
approximately 38 chloride ions, and approximately 11,500 water molecules, for a total of
approximately 61,000 atoms. In each simulation with CX3CL1, the simulation box
measured approximately 82#×#82#×#106#Å3, and contained one US28 receptor,
approximately 160 palmitoyloleoylphosphatidylcholine molecules, approximately 36
sodium ions, approximately 45 chloride ions, and approximately 13,000 water molecules,
for a total of approximately 66,000 atoms.
Molecular dynamics simulation protocol
Each simulation was performed on two GPUs using the CUDA version of PMEMD
(Particle Mesh Ewald Molecular Dynamics) Amber14 (59-61) with 2.5 fs time steps.
Simulations were heated from 0 K to 100 K in the NVT ensemble and then from 100 K to
310 K in the NPT ensemble, both with 10.0 kcal#mol−1#Å−2 harmonic restraints applied to
the protein and to the lipids. Initial velocities were assigned randomly at the first heating
step with Langevin dynamics. Subsequently, simulations were equilibrated in the NPT
ensemble at 310 K (controlled with a Langevin thermostat) with pressure of 1 bar
(controlled with anisotropic Berendsen weak-coupling barostat), with harmonic restraints
on all protein atoms tapered off 1.0 kcal#mol−1#Å−2 in a stepwise fashion every 2.0 ns
starting at 5.0 kcal#mol−1#Å−2 to 0.0 kcal#mol−1#Å−2, for a total of 12.0 ns of equilibration.
Bond lengths to hydrogen atoms were constrained using SHAKE. Production simulations
used a Langevin thermostat for temperature coupling and a Monte Carlo barostat for
pressure coupling, and were initiated from the final snapshot of the corresponding
equilibration simulation. Nonbonded interactions were cutoff at 9.0 Å, and long-range
!
electrostatic interactions were computed using the particle mesh Ewald (PME) method,
with an Ewald coefficient � of approximately 0.31 Å−1 and B-spline interpolation of
order 4. The FFT grid size was 84#×#84#×#100 for simulations without CX3CL1 and 84 ×
84 × 108 for simulations with CX3CL1. We performed a total of eight simulations. In
two of these, of lengths 0.78! μs! and! 0.92! μs, CX3CL1 was present and bound to the
receptor in its crystallographic pose. In these two simulations, Asp792.50! was! neutral!and!Asp1283.49!was!charged.!In!the!other!six!simulations,!CX3CL1 was removed. Two
of these simulations, of lengths 2.01!μs!and!1.68!μs, had both Asp792.50!and!Asp1283.49!charged.! Two! others,! of! lengths! 1.68! μs! and! 1.78! μs,! had! both Asp792.50! and!Asp1283.49! neutral.! The! final! two,! of! lengths! 1.93! μs! and! 1.63! μs,! had! Asp792.50!neutral!and!Asp1283.49!charged.!
Force field parameters
We used the CHARMM36 parameter set for protein molecules, lipid molecules, and salt
ions, and the CHARMM TIP3P model for water; protein parameters incorporated CMAP
terms (62-64). These parameters were assigned using the ParmEd implementation of
Chamber, provided with AmberTools14.
Parameters for the pyroglutamate (PCA) residue at the N-terminus of CX3CL1
were based on results from the ParamChem web server, version 0.9.7.1 (65). A
PCA–His dipeptide was submitted to ParamChem, and the results were used to
determine parameters for PCA and to modify charges near the PCA–His peptide
bond.
Sequence analysis
Analysis of amino acid conservation was performed using GPCR Motif Searcher
(GMoS). GMoS searches for conserved sequence motifs in a sequence alignment of Class
A GPCRs obtained from GPCRDB (66).
!
Table S1. US28-CX3CL1 contacts. Interface contacts are listed by residue number, atom name and interaction type (VDW: van der Waals, H-bond: hydrogen bond). Interactions are further specified by indicating whether they are between main chain (mc) or side chain (sc) atoms by listing the US28 residue contact followed by the CX3CL1 residue.
"SITE 1" (US28 + CX3CL1 residues 8-62)
US28 CX3CL1 distance (Å) type interaction ASP15 CG SER17 CB 3.55 VDW sc-sc ASP15 OD1 SER17 CB 3.68 VDW sc-sc ASP15 OD2 LYS18 N 3.10 H-bond sc-mc ASP15 OD1 LYS18 N 3.11 H-bond sc-mc ASP15 OD1 LYS18 CA 3.40 VDW sc-mc ASP15 CG LYS18 N 3.48 VDW sc-mc ASP15 OD2 LYS18 CB 3.52 VDW sc-sc ASP15 OD2 LYS18 CG 3.55 VDW sc-sc ASP15 CG LYS18 CB 3.70 VDW sc-sc GLU18 OE2 MET15 O 2.98 H-bond sc-mc GLU18 O PHE49 CE1 3.76 VDW mc-sc ALA20 CB LYS14 O 3.52 VDW sc-mc ALA20 CB LYS14 C 3.67 VDW sc-mc ALA20 O PHE49 CD1 3.74 VDW mc-sc ALA20 O PHE49 CA 3.79 VDW mc-mc ALA20 O CYS50 N 3.21 H-bond mc-mc THR21 CG2 LEU48 O 3.71 VDW sc-mc PRO22 CB ILE10 CG2 3.72 VDW sc-sc PRO22 CA THR11 O 3.69 VDW mc-mc PRO22 CD LEU48 O 3.40 VDW sc-mc PRO22 CD LEU48 C 3.72 VDW sc-mc PRO22 CG LEU48 CB 3.72 VDW sc-sc CYS23 O ALA9 O 3.59 VDW mc-mc CYS23 N THR11 O 3.15 H-bond mc-mc CYS23 O THR11 N 3.37 H-bond mc-mc CYS23 O THR11 OG1 3.38 H-bond mc-sc CYS23 CB THR11 OG1 3.67 VDW sc-sc VAL24 C ALA9 O 3.42 VDW mc-mc VAL24 CG1 ILE10 CD1 3.68 VDW sc-sc PHE25 N ALA9 O 2.72 H-bond mc-mc PHE25 CD2 ALA9 O 3.52 VDW sc-mc PHE25 CA ALA9 O 3.71 VDW mc-mc PHE25 N ALA9 C 3.74 VDW mc-mc PHE25 CB ALA9 O 3.79 VDW sc-mc
!
PHE25 CE2 THR11 CG2 3.6 VDW sc-sc THR26 N ALA9 CB 3.76 VDW mc-sc LEU29 CD2 CYS8 O 3.71 VDW sc-mc LYS169 O ALA32 CB 3.45 VDW mc-sc GLN172 NE2 GLN31 OE1 3.47 H-bond sc-sc GLN172 OE1 ALA32 N 3.37 H-bond sc-mc GLN172 OE1 ALA32 CB 3.46 VDW sc-sc GLN172 OE1 ALA32 CA 3.73 VDW sc-mc GLN172 OE1 SER33 N 3.14 H-bond sc-mc GLN172 OE1 SER33 CB 3.78 VDW sc-sc MET174 CG ALA32 O 3.65 VDW sc-mc MET174 CB SER33 CA 3.80 VDW sc-mc MET174 CE GLY35 CA 3.71 VDW sc-mc TYR177 CD2 CYS34 O 3.69 VDW sc-mc TYR177 N GLY35 O 3.18 H-bond mc-mc ASP178 OD2 GLY35 O 3.74 VDW sc-mc ASP178 N GLY35 O 3.76 VDW mc-mc ASP178 OD2 LYS36 CA 3.41 VDW sc-mc ASP178 OD2 LYS36 C 3.58 VDW sc-mc ASP178 OD2 ARG37 N 2.81 H-bond sc-mc ASP178 OD2 ARG37 CB 3.66 VDW sc-sc GLU266 OE1 THR11 OG1 3.72 VDW sc-sc LYS270 NZ CYS8 O 3.90 VDW sc-mc
"SITE 2" (US28 + CX3CL1 residues 1-7)
US28 CX3CL1 distance (Å) type interaction TYR40 OH HIS2 NE2 2.89 H-bond sc-sc TRP89 NE1 HIS2 CE1 3.61 VDW sc-sc TRP89 CE2 HIS2 CE1 3.64 VDW sc-sc TRP89 CE3 VAL5 CG1 3.53 VDW sc-sc TRP89 CE3 VAL5 CG2 3.68 VDW sc-sc TRP89 CZ3 VAL5 CG2 3.77 VDW sc-sc TYR92 O LYS7 NZ 3.43 H-bond mc-sc TYR92 O LYS7 CE 3.74 VDW mc-sc LEU93 CD2 VAL5 CG1 3.68 VDW sc-sc LEU93 CG VAL5 CG1 3.72 VDW sc-sc ASP95 C LYS7 NZ 3.72 VDW mc-sc PHE111 CE2 HIS2 ND1 3.44 VDW sc-sc PHE111 CE1 HIS2 ND1 3.52 VDW sc-sc PHE111 CE1 HIS2 CE1 3.56 VDW sc-sc PHE111 CZ HIS2 CG 3.57 VDW sc-sc
!
PHE111 CZ HIS2 CE1 3.77 VDW sc-sc TYR112 OH PCA1 O 3.13 H-bond sc-mc TYR112 OH PCA1 C 3.57 VDW sc-mc VAL166 CG2 PCA1 N 3.44 VDW sc-mc VAL166 CG2 PCA1 OE 3.76 VDW sc-sc GLN172 NE2 LYS7 CD 3.67 VDW sc-sc CYS173 O PCA1 OE 3.69 VDW mc-sc THR175 OG1 PCA1 OE 3.45 H-bond sc-sc LEU273 CD1 HIS3 CD2 3.50 VDW sc-sc LEU273 CD1 HIS3 NE2 3.62 VDW sc-sc ILE274 CG1 HIS3 O 3.43 VDW sc-mc ILE274 CD1 HIS3 O 3.78 VDW sc-mc GLU277 OE1 HIS2 CB 3.43 VDW sc-sc GLU277 OE1 HIS2 CG 3.56 VDW sc-sc GLU277 CD HIS2 CB 3.59 VDW sc-sc GLU277 OE2 HIS3 N 3.06 H-bond sc-mc GLU277 OE2 HIS3 ND1 3.17 H-bond sc-sc GLU277 OE1 HIS3 N 3.35 H-bond sc-mc GLU277 CD HIS3 N 3.59 VDW sc-mc GLU277 OE2 HIS3 CB 3.69 VDW sc-sc GLU277 OE1 HIS3 C 3.73 VDW sc-mc GLU277 OE1 GLY4 N 2.84 H-bond sc-mc GLU277 OE1 GLY4 CA 3.54 VDW sc-mc
!
Table S2. Data collection and refinement statistics.
Statistics for the highest-resolution shell are shown in parentheses.
US28∆N∆C-CX3CL1N9A-Nb7 US28-CX3CL1 Data Collection Number of crystals 2 26 Wavelength (Å) 1.033 0.9795 Resolution range 35.8 - 2.886 (2.989 - 2.886) 47.2 - 3.801 (3.937 - 3.801) Space group I 4 C 2 2 21 Unit cell (Å) a = b = 81.024, c = 231.303 a = 59.9, b = 192.7, c = 94.4 Total reflections 141,947 26,869 Unique reflections 16,646 (1421) 4834 (577) Multiplicity 8.5 (7.5) 5.6 (2.9) Completeness (%) 98.5 (85.0) 85.0 (55.5) Mean I/sigma(I) 10.7 (1.6) 4.1 (1.6) Resolution at I/sigma(I)=2.0 (Å) 3.0 4.1 Wilson B-factor 58.12 94.10 R-merge 0.189 (1.206) 0.275 (0.555) R-pim 0.085 (0.478) 0.096 (0.330) CC1/2 0.99 (0.43) 0.97 (0.77) Refinement Reflections used in refinement 16,646 (1596) 4343 (1079) Reflections used for R-free 1659 (154) 484 (120) R-work 0.1991 (0.2706) 0.2814 (0.2989) R-free 0.2492 (0.3315) 0.3223 (0.3665) Number of non-hydrogen atoms 3978 2774 macromolecules 3700 2718 Protein residues 475 357 RMS(bonds) 0.002 0.003 RMS(angles) 0.60 0.88 Ramachandran favored (%) 96 95 Ramachandran allowed (%) 3.4 4.0 Ramachandran outliers (%) 0.21 0.57 Rotamer outliers (%) 0.77 0.36 Clashscore 4.01 6.25 Average B-factor 67.01 93.81 macromolecules 66.35 93.10 solvent 40.45 n/a Number of TLS groups 14 n/a
!
Supplementary Figure Legends
Figure S1. Production of alpaca nanobodies specific for the US28/CX3CL1 complex.
A) A nanobody yeast display library was constructed from immunized alpaca peripheral
blood lymphocyte mRNA, and the US28/CX3CL1 complex was used to select the
highest affinity binders. B) Enrichment of the nanobody library after two rounds of
selection with US28/CX3CL1 was measured by flow cytometry. C) Competitive binding
titrations of two nanobodies. Yeast displaying Nb7 were stained with Flag-
US28/CX3CL1 and a fluorescent anti-Flag antibody. Soluble Nb7 or Nb11 were added as
competitors at varying concentrations. D) Size exclusion chromatography purification of
Nb7 bound to the US28/CX3CL1 complex.
Figure S2. Binding interface between Nb7 and US28. Nb7 (green) occupies the
intracellular cavity of US28 (orange), forming contacts with all three intracellular loops
and Helix 8.
Figure S3. Crystal packing constraints on the position of US28 Helix 8 in the C2221
lattice. Helix 8 is prevented from assuming the outward-facing conformation observed in
the I4 crystal form (drawn in orange) by a steric clash with a symmetry-related US28
molecule.
Figure S4. Comparison of crystal packing between I4 and C2221 crystals. A)
Flexibility in the position of the CX3CL1 body in the two different crystal forms. The
position of the chemokine domain of CX3CL1 differs by approximately 2.5Å between
the two different crystal forms. B) Crystal packing of the nanobody-bound I4 crystal form
(left) and nanobody-free C2221 crystal form (right).
Figure S5. Snake diagrams of US28. A) Amino acid snake representation of the
crystallization construct for wild-type US28. CX3CL1-interacting residues are indicated
in blue. B) Amino acid snake representation of the US28∆N∆C crystallization construct.
!
Figure S6. Electrostatic surfaces of chemokines. CX3CL1, CCL5 (RANTES),
CXCL12 (SDF1) and CCL2 (MCP1) are shown with electrostatic surfaces colored as
blue (basic), red (acidic) and white (neutral). The N-terminus of US28 is shown as an
orange tube with CX3CL1. PDB IDs: 3ONA, 1EQT, 2J7Z, 1DOL. Electrostatic surfaces
were calculated using PyMOL (Schrödinger, LLC).
Figure S7. Representative electron density maps. A) Cα trace of TM helices in 2.9 Å
structure. 2mFobs-DFcalc map contoured at 2.0 σ. B) Interaction between N-loop of
CX3CL1 (blue) and us28 site 1 (orange) at 2.9 Å resolution. 2mFobs-DFcalc map
contoured at 1.0 σ. C) Extracellular view of the CX3CL1N-terminal “hook” viewed
within the ligand binding pocket of US28 at 2.9 Å resolution. Simulated annealing omit
mFobs – DFcalc electron density map (green) is contoured at 3σ. 2mFobs – DFcalc electron
density map (gray) is contoured at 1.8 σ. D) Detail of monoolein lipids, cholesterol
(CLR), and succinate (SIN) interacting with us28 (orange) bound to CX3CL1 (blue) at
2.9 Å resolution. mFobs-DFcalc composite omit map contoured at 1.0 σ around ligands. E)
Detail of (NAG)3 glycosylation of CX3CL1 Asn9 at 3.8 Å resolution. mFobs-DFcalc
composite omit map contoured at 2.0 σ around glycan. CX3CL1 is colored light green;
wild-type US28 is colored magenta. F) Carbon-α trace of TM helices of US28 in the 3.8
Å structure. 2mFobs-DFcalc map contoured at 2.0 σ.
Figure S8. Mass spectrometry analysis of CX3CL1. A) Chemical diagram of CX3CL1
residues 1-4 depicting a 17 dalton mass decrease upon pyroglutamate formation from the
N-terminal glutamine. B) MALDI-TOF analysis of CX3CL1 N9A indicates a molecular
weight of 9954.5 daltons. The predicted molecular weight is 9971.5, giving a -17 dalton
difference consistent with pyroglutamate formation. Mass spectrometry was performed
by the Protein and Nucleic Acid Facility at the Stanford University School of Medicine.
Figure S9. Crystal lattice contacts involving US28 Arg139ICL2. A) Overview of crystal
packing in the US28∆N∆C/CX3CL1N9A/Nb7 complex. CX3CL1 is shown in blue,
US28 in orange and Nb7 in green. Symmetry-related molecules are shown in gray.
Packing between ICL2 and Helix8 of an adjacent symmetry mates is marked with a black
!
box. B) Detail of boxed area in (A). Arg139ICL2 makes multiple polar contacts with Helix
8 of an adjacent symmetry mate involving the carboxylic acid of Arg310 and the
carbonyl of Glu308. In MD simulations, Arg139ICL2 reorients and assumes its most
favored rotamer, forming polar interactions with Glu1243.45.
Figure S10. US28/CX3CL1 purification and crystallization. A) Diagram of the
purification scheme for US28, CX3CL1 and Nb7. B) Representative crystal images of
US28∆N∆C/CX3CL1N9A/Nb7 (left) and wild-type US28/CX3CL1 (right). Scale bar
indicates 50 µm.
References and Notes
1. V. Katritch, V. Cherezov, R. C. Stevens, Structure-function of the G protein-coupled receptor
superfamily. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 53, 531–556 (2013). Medline
doi:10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-032112-135923
2. Q. Tan, Y. Zhu, J. Li, Z. Chen, G. W. Han, I. Kufareva, T. Li, L. Ma, G. Fenalti, J. Li, W.
Zhang, X. Xie, H. Yang, H. Jiang, V. Cherezov, H. Liu, R. C. Stevens, Q. Zhao, B. Wu,
Structure of the CCR5 chemokine receptor-HIV entry inhibitor maraviroc complex.
Science 341, 1387–1390 (2013). Medline doi:10.1126/science.1241475
3. B. Wu, E. Y. Chien, C. D. Mol, G. Fenalti, W. Liu, V. Katritch, R. Abagyan, A. Brooun, P.
Wells, F. C. Bi, D. J. Hamel, P. Kuhn, T. M. Handel, V. Cherezov, R. C. Stevens,
Structures of the CXCR4 chemokine GPCR with small-molecule and cyclic peptide
antagonists. Science 330, 1066–1071 (2010). Medline doi:10.1126/science.1194396
4. D. M. Rosenbaum, S. G. Rasmussen, B. K. Kobilka, The structure and function of G-protein-
coupled receptors. Nature 459, 356–363 (2009). Medline doi:10.1038/nature08144
5. I. F. Charo, R. M. Ransohoff, The many roles of chemokines and chemokine receptors in
inflammation. N. Engl. J. Med. 354, 610–621 (2006). Medline
doi:10.1056/NEJMra052723
6. A. E. Proudfoot, Chemokine receptors: Multifaceted therapeutic targets. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2,
106–115 (2002). Medline doi:10.1038/nri722
7. A. Sodhi, S. Montaner, J. S. Gutkind, Viral hijacking of G-protein-coupled-receptor signalling
networks. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 5, 998–1012 (2004). Medline doi:10.1038/nrm1529
8. M. S. Chee, S. C. Satchwell, E. Preddie, K. M. Weston, B. G. Barrell, Human
cytomegalovirus encodes three G protein-coupled receptor homologues. Nature 344,
774–777 (1990). Medline doi:10.1038/344774a0
9. J. F. Bazan, K. B. Bacon, G. Hardiman, W. Wang, K. Soo, D. Rossi, D. R. Greaves, A.
Zlotnik, T. J. Schall, A new class of membrane-bound chemokine with a CX3C motif.
Nature 385, 640–644 (1997). Medline doi:10.1038/385640a0
10. S. Thiele, M. M. Rosenkilde, Interaction of chemokines with their receptors—from initial
chemokine binding to receptor activating steps. Curr. Med. Chem. 21, 3594–3614 (2014).
Medline doi:10.2174/0929867321666140716093155
11. M. Szpakowska, V. Fievez, K. Arumugan, N. van Nuland, J. C. Schmit, A. Chevigné,
Function, diversity and therapeutic potential of the N-terminal domain of human
chemokine receptors. Biochem. Pharmacol. 84, 1366–1380 (2012). Medline
doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2012.08.008
12. C. J. Millard, J. P. Ludeman, M. Canals, J. L. Bridgford, M. G. Hinds, D. J. Clayton, A.
Christopoulos, R. J. Payne, M. J. Stone, Structural basis of receptor sulfotyrosine
recognition by a CC chemokine: The N-terminal region of CCR3 bound to
CCL11/eotaxin-1. Structure 22, 1571–1581 (2014). Medline
doi:10.1016/j.str.2014.08.023
13. C. T. Veldkamp, C. Seibert, F. C. Peterson, N. B. De la Cruz, J. C. Haugner III, H. Basnet, T.
P. Sakmar, B. F. Volkman, Structural basis of CXCR4 sulfotyrosine recognition by the
chemokine SDF-1/CXCL12. Sci. Signal. 1, ra4 (2008). Medline
doi:10.1126/scisignal.1160755
14. L. S. Mizoue, J. F. Bazan, E. C. Johnson, T. M. Handel, Solution structure and dynamics of
the CX3C chemokine domain of fractalkine and its interaction with an N-terminal
fragment of CX3CR1. Biochemistry 38, 1402–1414 (1999). Medline
doi:10.1021/bi9820614
15. J. A. Ballesteros, H. Weinstein, Integrated methods for the construction of three-dimensional
models and computational probing of structure-function relations in G protein-coupled
receptors. Methods Neurosci. 25, 366–428 (1995). doi:10.1016/S1043-9471(05)80049-7
16. A. Brelot, N. Heveker, M. Montes, M. Alizon, Identification of residues of CXCR4 critical
for human immunodeficiency virus coreceptor and chemokine receptor activities. J. Biol.
Chem. 275, 23736–23744 (2000). Medline doi:10.1074/jbc.M000776200
17. P. Casarosa, W. M. Menge, R. Minisini, C. Otto, J. van Heteren, A. Jongejan, H.
Timmerman, B. Moepps, F. Kirchhoff, T. Mertens, M. J. Smit, R. Leurs, Identification of
the first nonpeptidergic inverse agonist for a constitutively active viral-encoded G
protein-coupled receptor. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 5172–5178 (2003). Medline
doi:10.1074/jbc.M210033200
18. H. F. Vischer, M. Siderius, R. Leurs, M. J. Smit, Herpesvirus-encoded GPCRs: Neglected
players in inflammatory and proliferative diseases? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 13, 123–139
(2014). Medline doi:10.1038/nrd4189
19. H. F. Vischer, R. Leurs, M. J. Smit, HCMV-encoded G-protein-coupled receptors as
constitutively active modulators of cellular signaling networks. Trends Pharmacol. Sci.
27, 56–63 (2006). Medline doi:10.1016/j.tips.2005.11.006
20. A. J. Venkatakrishnan, X. Deupi, G. Lebon, C. G. Tate, G. F. Schertler, M. M. Babu,
Molecular signatures of G-protein-coupled receptors. Nature 494, 185–194 (2013).
Medline doi:10.1038/nature11896
21. S. G. Rasmussen, B. T. DeVree, Y. Zou, A. C. Kruse, K. Y. Chung, T. S. Kobilka, F. S.
Thian, P. S. Chae, E. Pardon, D. Calinski, J. M. Mathiesen, S. T. Shah, J. A. Lyons, M.
Caffrey, S. H. Gellman, J. Steyaert, G. Skiniotis, W. I. Weis, R. K. Sunahara, B. K.
Kobilka, Crystal structure of the β2 adrenergic receptor-Gs protein complex. Nature 477,
549–555 (2011). Medline doi:10.1038/nature10361
22. K. Palczewski, T. Kumasaka, T. Hori, C. A. Behnke, H. Motoshima, B. A. Fox, I. Le Trong,
D. C. Teller, T. Okada, R. E. Stenkamp, M. Yamamoto, M. Miyano, Crystal structure of
rhodopsin: A G protein–coupled receptor. Science 289, 739–745 (2000). Medline
doi:10.1126/science.289.5480.739
23. M. Waldhoer, P. Casarosa, M. M. Rosenkilde, M. J. Smit, R. Leurs, J. L. Whistler, T. W.
Schwartz, The carboxyl terminus of human cytomegalovirus-encoded 7 transmembrane
receptor US28 camouflages agonism by mediating constitutive endocytosis. J. Biol.
Chem. 278, 19473–19482 (2003). Medline doi:10.1074/jbc.M213179200
24. C. T. Gilliland, C. L. Salanga, T. Kawamura, J. Trejo, T. M. Handel, The chemokine receptor
CCR1 is constitutively active, which leads to G protein-independent, β-arrestin-mediated
internalization. J. Biol. Chem. 288, 32194–32210 (2013). Medline
doi:10.1074/jbc.M113.503797
25. X. Han, Constitutively active chemokine CXC receptors. Adv. Pharmacol. 70, 265–301
(2014). Medline doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-417197-8.00009-2
26. X. Deupi, P. Edwards, A. Singhal, B. Nickle, D. Oprian, G. Schertler, J. Standfuss, Stabilized
G protein binding site in the structure of constitutively active metarhodopsin-II. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 119–124 (2012). Medline doi:10.1073/pnas.1114089108
27. J. Standfuss, P. C. Edwards, A. D’Antona, M. Fransen, G. Xie, D. D. Oprian, G. F. Schertler,
The structural basis of agonist-induced activation in constitutively active rhodopsin.
Nature 471, 656–660 (2011). Medline doi:10.1038/nature09795
28. R. O. Dror, D. H. Arlow, P. Maragakis, T. J. Mildorf, A. C. Pan, H. Xu, D. W. Borhani, D. E.
Shaw, Activation mechanism of the β2-adrenergic receptor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
108, 18684–18689 (2011). Medline doi:10.1073/pnas.1110499108
29. R. O. Dror, H. F. Green, C. Valant, D. W. Borhani, J. R. Valcourt, A. C. Pan, D. H. Arlow,
M. Canals, J. R. Lane, R. Rahmani, J. B. Baell, P. M. Sexton, A. Christopoulos, D. E.
Shaw, Structural basis for modulation of a G-protein-coupled receptor by allosteric drugs.
Nature 503, 295–299 (2013). Medline
30. E. S. Burstein, T. A. Spalding, M. R. Brann, The second intracellular loop of the m5
muscarinic receptor is the switch which enables G-protein coupling. J. Biol. Chem. 273,
24322–24327 (1998). Medline doi:10.1074/jbc.273.38.24322
31. A. Dukkipati, H. H. Park, D. Waghray, S. Fischer, K. C. Garcia, BacMam system for high-
level expression of recombinant soluble and membrane glycoproteins for structural
studies. Protein Expr. Purif. 62, 160–170 (2008). Medline doi:10.1016/j.pep.2008.08.004
32. P. Casarosa, M. Waldhoer, P. J. LiWang, H. F. Vischer, T. Kledal, H. Timmerman, T. W.
Schwartz, M. J. Smit, R. Leurs, CC and CX3C chemokines differentially interact with the
N terminus of the human cytomegalovirus-encoded US28 receptor. J. Biol. Chem. 280,
3275–3285 (2005). Medline doi:10.1074/jbc.M407536200
33. Y. Kim, P. Quartey, H. Li, L. Volkart, C. Hatzos, C. Chang, B. Nocek, M. Cuff, J. Osipiuk,
K. Tan, Y. Fan, L. Bigelow, N. Maltseva, R. Wu, M. Borovilos, E. Duggan, M. Zhou, T.
A. Binkowski, R. G. Zhang, A. Joachimiak, Large-scale evaluation of protein reductive
methylation for improving protein crystallization. Nat. Methods 5, 853–854 (2008).
Medline doi:10.1038/nmeth1008-853
34. D. R. Maass, J. Sepulveda, A. Pernthaner, C. B. Shoemaker, Alpaca (Lama pacos) as a
convenient source of recombinant camelid heavy chain antibodies (VHHs). J. Immunol.
Methods 324, 13–25 (2007). Medline doi:10.1016/j.jim.2007.04.008
35. D. W. Colby, B. A. Kellogg, C. P. Graff, Y. A. Yeung, J. S. Swers, K. D. Wittrup,
Engineering antibody affinity by yeast surface display. Methods Enzymol. 388, 348–358
(2004). Medline doi:10.1016/S0076-6879(04)88027-3
36. G. Chao, W. L. Lau, B. J. Hackel, S. L. Sazinsky, S. M. Lippow, K. D. Wittrup, Isolating and
engineering human antibodies using yeast surface display. Nat. Protoc. 1, 755–768
(2006). Medline doi:10.1038/nprot.2006.94
37. A. M. Ring, A. Manglik, A. C. Kruse, M. D. Enos, W. I. Weis, K. C. Garcia, B. K. Kobilka,
Adrenaline-activated structure of β2-adrenoceptor stabilized by an engineered nanobody.
Nature 502, 575–579 (2013). Medline doi:10.1038/nature12572
38. M. Caffrey, V. Cherezov, Crystallizing membrane proteins using lipidic mesophases. Nat.
Protoc. 4, 706–731 (2009). Medline doi:10.1038/nprot.2009.31
39. Y. Misquitta, M. Caffrey, Detergents destabilize the cubic phase of monoolein: Implications
for membrane protein crystallization. Biophys. J. 85, 3084–3096 (2003). Medline
doi:10.1016/S0006-3495(03)74727-4
40. W. Kabsch, XDS. Acta Crystallogr. D 66, 125–132 (2010). Medline
doi:10.1107/S0907444909047337
41. Z. Otwinowski, W. Minor, Processing of x-ray diffraction data collected in oscillation mode.
Methods Enzymol. 276, 307–326 (1997). doi:10.1016/S0076-6879(97)76066-X
42. X. Xue, Q. Lu, H. Wei, D. Wang, D. Chen, G. He, L. Huang, H. Wang, X. Wang, Structural
basis of chemokine sequestration by CrmD, a poxvirus-encoded tumor necrosis factor
receptor. PLOS Pathog. 7, e1002162 (2011). Medline doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1002162
43. D. M. Hoover, L. S. Mizoue, T. M. Handel, J. Lubkowski, The crystal structure of the
chemokine domain of fractalkine shows a novel quaternary arrangement. J. Biol. Chem.
275, 23187–23193 (2000). Medline doi:10.1074/jbc.M002584200
44. P. Emsley, B. Lohkamp, W. G. Scott, K. Cowtan, Features and development of Coot. Acta
Crystallogr. D 66, 486–501 (2010). Medline
45. P. V. Afonine, R. W. Grosse-Kunstleve, N. Echols, J. J. Headd, N. W. Moriarty, M.
Mustyakimov, T. C. Terwilliger, A. Urzhumtsev, P. H. Zwart, P. D. Adams, Towards
automated crystallographic structure refinement with phenix.refine. Acta Crystallogr. D
68, 352–367 (2012). Medline doi:10.1107/S0907444912001308
46. G. Bricogne, E. Blanc, M. Brandl, C. Flensburg, P. Keller, W. Paciorek, P. Roversi, A.
Sharff, O. Smart, C. Vonrhein, T. Womack, BUSTER, version 2.10.2, Global Phasing
Limited, Cambridge, UK.
47. J. Painter, E. A. Merritt, Optimal description of a protein structure in terms of multiple
groups undergoing TLS motion. Acta Crystallogr. D 62, 439–450 (2006). Medline
doi:10.1107/S0907444906005270
48. J. Painter, E. A. Merritt, TLSMD web server for the generation of multi-group TLS models.
J. Appl. Cryst. 39, 109–111 (2006). doi:10.1107/S0021889805038987
49. V. B. Chen, W. B. Arendall III, J. J. Headd, D. A. Keedy, R. M. Immormino, G. J. Kapral, L.
W. Murray, J. S. Richardson, D. C. Richardson, MolProbity: All-atom structure
validation for macromolecular crystallography. Acta Crystallogr. D 66, 12–21 (2010).
Medline doi:10.1107/S0907444909042073
50. Collaborative Computational Project, Number 4, The CCP4 suite: Programs for protein
crystallography. Acta Crystallogr. D 50, 760–763 (1994). Medline
doi:10.1107/S0907444994003112
51. E. Krissinel, K. Henrick, Inference of macromolecular assemblies from crystalline state. J.
Mol. Biol. 372, 774–797 (2007). Medline doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2007.05.022
52. The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, version 1.7.4.0, Schrödinger, LLC.
53. A. Morin, B. Eisenbraun, J. Key, P. C. Sanschagrin, M. A. Timony, M. Ottaviano, P. Sliz,
Collaboration gets the most out of software. eLife 2, e01456 (2013). Medline
doi:10.7554/eLife.01456
54. M. A. Lomize, A. L. Lomize, I. D. Pogozheva, H. I. Mosberg, OPM: Orientations of proteins
in membranes database. Bioinformatics 22, 623–625 (2006). Medline
doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btk023
55. S. Jo, T. Kim, V. G. Iyer, W. Im, CHARMM-GUI: A web-based graphical user interface for
CHARMM. J. Comput. Chem. 29, 1859–1865 (2008). Medline doi:10.1002/jcc.20945
56. B. R. Brooks, C. L. Brooks III, A. D. Mackerell Jr., L. Nilsson, R. J. Petrella, B. Roux, Y.
Won, G. Archontis, C. Bartels, S. Boresch, A. Caflisch, L. Caves, Q. Cui, A. R. Dinner,
M. Feig, S. Fischer, J. Gao, M. Hodoscek, W. Im, K. Kuczera, T. Lazaridis, J. Ma, V.
Ovchinnikov, E. Paci, R. W. Pastor, C. B. Post, J. Z. Pu, M. Schaefer, B. Tidor, R. M.
Venable, H. L. Woodcock, X. Wu, W. Yang, D. M. York, M. Karplus, CHARMM: The
biomolecular simulation program. J. Comput. Chem. 30, 1545–1614 (2009). Medline
doi:10.1002/jcc.21287
57. E. L. Wu, X. Cheng, S. Jo, H. Rui, K. C. Song, E. M. Dávila-Contreras, Y. Qi, J. Lee, V.
Monje-Galvan, R. M. Venable, J. B. Klauda, W. Im, CHARMM-GUI Membrane Builder
toward realistic biological membrane simulations. J. Comput. Chem. 35, 1997–2004
(2014). Medline doi:10.1002/jcc.23702
58. S. Jo, T. Kim, W. Im, Automated builder and database of protein/membrane complexes for
molecular dynamics simulations. PLOS ONE 2, e880 (2007). Medline
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000880
59. D. A. Case et al., Amber 14, University of California, San Francisco, California.
60. R. Salomon-Ferrer, A. W. Götz, D. Poole, S. Le Grand, R. C. Walker, Routine microsecond
molecular dynamics simulations with AMBER on GPUs. 2. Explicit solvent particle
mesh Ewald. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 9, 3878–3888 (2013). doi:10.1021/ct400314y
61. S. Le Grand, A. W. Götz, R. C. Walker, SPFP: Speed without compromise—A mixed
precision model for GPU accelerated molecular dynamics simulations. Comput. Phys.
Commun. 184, 374–380 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.022
62. A. D. MacKerell, D. Bashford, M. Bellott, R. L. Dunbrack, J. D. Evanseck, M. J. Field, S.
Fischer, J. Gao, H. Guo, S. Ha, D. Joseph-McCarthy, L. Kuchnir, K. Kuczera, F. T. Lau,
C. Mattos, S. Michnick, T. Ngo, D. T. Nguyen, B. Prodhom, W. E. Reiher, B. Roux, M.
Schlenkrich, J. C. Smith, R. Stote, J. Straub, M. Watanabe, J. Wiórkiewicz-Kuczera, D.
Yin, M. Karplus, All-atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and dynamics
studies of proteins. J. Phys. Chem. B 102, 3586–3616 (1998). Medline
doi:10.1021/jp973084f
63. A. D. Mackerell Jr., M. Feig, C. L. Brooks III, Extending the treatment of backbone
energetics in protein force fields: Limitations of gas-phase quantum mechanics in
reproducing protein conformational distributions in molecular dynamics simulations. J.
Comput. Chem. 25, 1400–1415 (2004). Medline doi:10.1002/jcc.20065
64. R. B. Best, X. Zhu, J. Shim, P. E. Lopes, J. Mittal, M. Feig, A. D. Mackerell Jr.,
Optimization of the additive CHARMM all-atom protein force field targeting improved
sampling of the backbone ϕ, ψ and side-chain χ1 and χ2 dihedral angles. J. Chem. Theory
Comput. 8, 3257–3273 (2012). Medline doi:10.1021/ct300400x
65. K. Vanommeslaeghe, E. Hatcher, C. Acharya, S. Kundu, S. Zhong, J. Shim, E. Darian, O.
Guvench, P. Lopes, I. Vorobyov, A. D. Mackerell Jr., CHARMM general force field: A
force field for drug-like molecules compatible with the CHARMM all-atom additive
biological force fields. J. Comput. Chem. 31, 671–690 (2010). Medline
66. V. Isberg, B. Vroling, R. van der Kant, K. Li, G. Vriend, D. Gloriam, GPCRDB: An
information system for G protein-coupled receptors. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D422–D425
(2014). Medline doi:10.1093/nar/gkt1255
top related