Structure-based characterization of novel TRPV5 inhibitors

  1. Taylor ET Hughes
  2. John Smith Del Rosario
  3. Abhijeet Kapoor
  4. Aysenur Yazici
  5. Yevgen Yudin
  6. Edwin C Fluck
  7. Marta Filizola  Is a corresponding author
  8. Tibor Rohacs  Is a corresponding author
  9. Vera Y Moiseenkova-Bell  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Pennsylvania, United States
  2. New Jersey Medical School, Rutgers University, United States
  3. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States

Abstract

Transient receptor potential vanilloid 5 (TRPV5) is a highly calcium selective ion channel that acts as the rate-limiting step of calcium reabsorption in the kidney. The lack of potent, specific modulators of TRPV5 has limited the ability to probe the contribution of TRPV5 in disease phenotypes such as hypercalcemia and nephrolithiasis. Here, we performed structure-based virtual screening (SBVS) at a previously identified TRPV5 inhibitor binding site coupled with electrophysiology screening and identified three novel inhibitors of TRPV5, one of which exhibits high affinity, and specificity for TRPV5 over other TRP channels, including its close homologue TRPV6. Cryo-electron microscopy of TRPV5 in the presence of the specific inhibitor and its parent compound revealed novel binding sites for this channel. Structural and functional analysis have allowed us to suggest a mechanism of action for the selective inhibition of TRPV5 and lay the groundwork for rational design of new classes of TRPV5 modulators.

Data availability

The cryo-EM density maps and atomic coordinates of all structures presented in the text will be deposited into the Electron Microscopy Data Bank and Protein Data Bank under the following access codes: ZINC9155420-bound TRPV5 (PDB: 6PBF, EMB-20292); ZINC17988990-bound TRPV5 (PDB: 6PBE, EMB-20291).

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Taylor ET Hughes

    Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. John Smith Del Rosario

    Department of Pharmacology, Physiology and Neuroscience, New Jersey Medical School, Rutgers University, Newark, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4947-5835
  3. Abhijeet Kapoor

    Department of Pharmacological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Aysenur Yazici

    Department of Pharmacology, Physiology and Neuroscience, New Jersey Medical School, Rutgers University, Newark, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1715-0107
  5. Yevgen Yudin

    Department of Pharmacology, Physiology and Neuroscience, New Jersey Medical School, Rutgers University, Newark, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Edwin C Fluck

    Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7663-569X
  7. Marta Filizola

    Department of Pharmacological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    marta.filizola@mssm.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Tibor Rohacs

    Department of Pharmacology, Physiology and Neuroscience, New Jersey Medical School, Rutgers University, Newark, United States
    For correspondence
    rohacsti@njms.rutgers.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3580-2575
  9. Vera Y Moiseenkova-Bell

    Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    For correspondence
    vmb@pennmedicine.upenn.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0589-4053

Funding

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM103899)

  • Vera Y Moiseenkova-Bell

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM129357)

  • Vera Y Moiseenkova-Bell

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM093290)

  • Tibor Rohacs

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM131048)

  • Tibor Rohacs

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NSNS055159)

  • Tibor Rohacs

National Science Foundation (ACI-1053575)

  • Marta Filizola

National Science Foundation (MCB080077)

  • Marta Filizola

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2019, Hughes et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,656
    views
  • 608
    downloads
  • 55
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Taylor ET Hughes
  2. John Smith Del Rosario
  3. Abhijeet Kapoor
  4. Aysenur Yazici
  5. Yevgen Yudin
  6. Edwin C Fluck
  7. Marta Filizola
  8. Tibor Rohacs
  9. Vera Y Moiseenkova-Bell
(2019)
Structure-based characterization of novel TRPV5 inhibitors
eLife 8:e49572.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49572

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49572

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yamato Niitani, Kohei Matsuzaki ... Michio Tomishige
    Research Article

    The two identical motor domains (heads) of dimeric kinesin-1 move in a hand-over-hand process along a microtubule, coordinating their ATPase cycles such that each ATP hydrolysis is tightly coupled to a step and enabling the motor to take many steps without dissociating. The neck linker, a structural element that connects the two heads, has been shown to be essential for head–head coordination; however, which kinetic step(s) in the chemomechanical cycle is ‘gated’ by the neck linker remains unresolved. Here, we employed pre-steady-state kinetics and single-molecule assays to investigate how the neck-linker conformation affects kinesin’s motility cycle. We show that the backward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the front kinesin head confers higher affinity for microtubule, but does not change ATP binding and dissociation rates. In contrast, the forward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the rear kinesin head decreases the ATP dissociation rate but has little effect on microtubule dissociation. In combination, these conformation-specific effects of the neck linker favor ATP hydrolysis and dissociation of the rear head prior to microtubule detachment of the front head, thereby providing a kinetic explanation for the coordinated walking mechanism of dimeric kinesin.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christopher T Schafer, Raymond F Pauszek III ... David P Millar
    Research Article

    The canonical chemokine receptor CXCR4 and atypical receptor ACKR3 both respond to CXCL12 but induce different effector responses to regulate cell migration. While CXCR4 couples to G proteins and directly promotes cell migration, ACKR3 is G-protein-independent and scavenges CXCL12 to regulate extracellular chemokine levels and maintain CXCR4 responsiveness, thereby indirectly influencing migration. The receptors also have distinct activation requirements. CXCR4 only responds to wild-type CXCL12 and is sensitive to mutation of the chemokine. By contrast, ACKR3 recruits GPCR kinases (GRKs) and β-arrestins and promiscuously responds to CXCL12, CXCL12 variants, other peptides and proteins, and is relatively insensitive to mutation. To investigate the role of conformational dynamics in the distinct pharmacological behaviors of CXCR4 and ACKR3, we employed single-molecule FRET to track discrete conformational states of the receptors in real-time. The data revealed that apo-CXCR4 preferentially populates a high-FRET inactive state, while apo-ACKR3 shows little conformational preference and high transition probabilities among multiple inactive, intermediate and active conformations, consistent with its propensity for activation. Multiple active-like ACKR3 conformations are populated in response to agonists, compared to the single CXCR4 active-state. This and the markedly different conformational landscapes of the receptors suggest that activation of ACKR3 may be achieved by a broader distribution of conformational states than CXCR4. Much of the conformational heterogeneity of ACKR3 is linked to a single residue that differs between ACKR3 and CXCR4. The dynamic properties of ACKR3 may underly its inability to form productive interactions with G proteins that would drive canonical GPCR signaling.