Do All X-ray Structures of Protein-Ligand Complexes Represent Functional States? EPOR, a Case Study

• Published in: Biophysical journal Vol. 112; no. 4; pp. 595 - 604
• Main Authors: Corbett, Michael S.P., Mark, Alan E., Poger, David
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 28.02.2017; Biophysical Society; The Biophysical Society
• Subjects: Amino Acid Sequence; Apoproteins - chemistry; Apoproteins - metabolism; Biophysics; Computer simulation; Crystallography, X-Ray; Hormones; Ligands; Membranes; Models, Molecular; Protein Binding; Protein Multimerization; Protein Structure, Quaternary; Proteins; Receptors, Erythropoietin - chemistry; Receptors, Erythropoietin - metabolism
• ISSN: 0006-3495; 1542-0086
• DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2016.12.042

Based on differences between the x-ray crystal structures of ligand-bound and unbound forms, the activation of the erythropoietin receptor (EPOR) was initially proposed to involve a cross-action scissorlike motion. However, the validity of the motions involved in the scissorlike model has been recently challenged. Here, atomistic molecular dynamics simulations are used to examine the structure of the extracellular domain of the EPOR dimer in the presence and absence of erythropoietin and a series of agonistic or antagonistic mimetic peptides free in solution. The simulations suggest that in the absence of crystal packing effects, the EPOR chains in the different dimers adopt very similar conformations with no clear distinction between the agonist and antagonist-bound complexes. This questions whether the available x-ray crystal structures of EPOR truly represent active or inactive conformations. The study demonstrates the difficulty in using such structures to infer a mechanism of action, especially in the case of membrane receptors where just part of the structure has been considered in addition to potential confounding effects that arise from the comparison of structures in a crystal as opposed to a membrane environment. The work highlights the danger of assigning functional significance to small differences between structures of proteins bound to different ligands in a crystal environment without consideration of the effects of the crystal lattice and thermal motion.