1N0T

X-ray structure of the GluR2 ligand-binding core (S1S2J) in complex with the antagonist (S)-ATPO at 2.1 A resolution.


Experimental Data Snapshot

  • Method: X-RAY DIFFRACTION
  • Resolution: 2.10 Å
  • R-Value Free: 0.245 
  • R-Value Work: 0.194 

Starting Model: experimental
View more details

wwPDB Validation   3D Report Full Report


This is version 1.5 of the entry. See complete history


Literature

Competitive antagonism of AMPA receptors by ligands of different classes: crystal structure of ATPO bound to the GluR2 ligand-binding core, in comparison with DNQX.

Hogner, A.Greenwood, J.R.Liljefors, T.Lunn, M.L.Egebjerg, J.Larsen, I.K.Gouaux, E.Kastrup, J.S.

(2003) J Med Chem 46: 214-221

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/jm020989v
  • Primary Citation of Related Structures:  
    1N0T

  • PubMed Abstract: 

    Ionotropic glutamate receptors (iGluRs) constitute a family of ligand-gated ion channels that are essential for mediating fast synaptic transmission in the central nervous system. This study presents a high-resolution X-ray structure of the competitive antagonist (S)-2-amino-3-[5-tert-butyl-3-(phosphonomethoxy)-4-isoxazolyl]propionic acid (ATPO) in complex with the ligand-binding core of the receptor. Comparison with the only previous structure of the ligand-binding core in complex with an antagonist, 6,7-dinitro-2,3-quinoxalinedione (DNQX) (Armstrong, N.; Gouaux, E. Neuron 2000, 28, 165-181), reveals that ATPO and DNQX stabilize an open form of the ligand-binding core by different sets of interactions. Computational techniques are used to quantify the differences between these two ligands and to map the binding site. The isoxazole moiety of ATPO acts primarily as a spacer, and other scaffolds could potentially be used. Whereas agonists induce substantial domain closures compared to the apo structure, ATPO only induces minor conformational changes. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that domain closure is related to receptor activation. To facilitate the design of novel AMPA receptor antagonists, we present a modified model of the binding site that includes key residues involved in ligand recognition.


  • Organizational Affiliation

    Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Royal Danish School of Pharmacy, Universitetsparken 2, DK 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.


Macromolecules
Find similar proteins by:  (by identity cutoff)  |  3D Structure
Entity ID: 1
MoleculeChains Sequence LengthOrganismDetailsImage
Glutamate receptor 2
A, B, C, D
263Rattus norvegicusMutation(s): 0 
Gene Names: Rat
UniProt
Find proteins for P19491 (Rattus norvegicus)
Explore P19491 
Go to UniProtKB:  P19491
Entity Groups  
Sequence Clusters30% Identity50% Identity70% Identity90% Identity95% Identity100% Identity
UniProt GroupP19491
Sequence Annotations
Expand
  • Reference Sequence
Small Molecules
Ligands 3 Unique
IDChains Name / Formula / InChI Key2D Diagram3D Interactions
AT1
Query on AT1

Download Ideal Coordinates CCD File 
E [auth A],
G [auth B],
J [auth C],
M [auth D]
(S)-2-AMINO-3-(5-TERT-BUTYL-3-(PHOSPHONOMETHOXY)-4-ISOXAZOLYL)PROPIONIC ACID
C11 H19 N2 O7 P
AGSOOCUNMTYPSE-ZETCQYMHSA-N
SO4
Query on SO4

Download Ideal Coordinates CCD File 
F [auth B],
H [auth C],
I [auth C],
K [auth D]
SULFATE ION
O4 S
QAOWNCQODCNURD-UHFFFAOYSA-L
ACT
Query on ACT

Download Ideal Coordinates CCD File 
L [auth D]ACETATE ION
C2 H3 O2
QTBSBXVTEAMEQO-UHFFFAOYSA-M
Binding Affinity Annotations 
IDSourceBinding Affinity
AT1 PDBBind:  1N0T IC50: 1.22e+4 (nM) from 1 assay(s)
Experimental Data & Validation

Experimental Data

  • Method: X-RAY DIFFRACTION
  • Resolution: 2.10 Å
  • R-Value Free: 0.245 
  • R-Value Work: 0.194 
  • Space Group: P 21 21 21
Unit Cell:
Length ( Å )Angle ( ˚ )
a = 65.97α = 90
b = 89.06β = 90
c = 194.86γ = 90
Software Package:
Software NamePurpose
DENZOdata reduction
SCALEPACKdata scaling
AMoREphasing
CNSrefinement

Structure Validation

View Full Validation Report



Entry History 

Deposition Data

Revision History  (Full details and data files)

  • Version 1.0: 2003-03-04
    Type: Initial release
  • Version 1.1: 2008-04-28
    Changes: Version format compliance
  • Version 1.2: 2011-07-13
    Changes: Version format compliance
  • Version 1.3: 2011-12-21
    Changes: Database references
  • Version 1.4: 2017-08-16
    Changes: Refinement description, Source and taxonomy
  • Version 1.5: 2024-10-30
    Changes: Data collection, Database references, Derived calculations, Refinement description, Structure summary