Hidden GPCR structural transitions addressed by multiple walker supervised molecular dynamics (mwSuMD)

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors investigate ligand and protein-binding processes in GPCRs (including dimerization) by the multiple walker supervised molecular dynamics method. The paper is interesting and it is very well written.

Strengths:

The authors' method is a powerful tool to gain insight into the structural basis for the pharmacology of G protein-coupled receptors.

Weaknesses:

Cholesterol may play a fundamental role in GPCR dimerization (as cited by the authors, Prasanna et al, "Cholesterol-Dependent Conformational Plasticity in GPCR Dimers"). Yet they do not use cholesterol in their simulations of the dimerization.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The study by Deganutti and co-workers is a methodological report on an adaptive sampling approach, multiple walker supervised molecular dynamics (mwSuMD), which represents an improved version of the previous SuMD.

Case-studies concern complex conformational transitions in a number of G protein Coupled Receptors (GPCRs) involving long time-scale motions such as binding-unbinding and collective motions of domains or portions. GPCRs are specialized GEFs (guanine nucleotide exchange factors) of heterotrimeric Gα proteins of the Ras GTPase superfamily. They constitute the largest superfamily of membrane proteins and are of central biomedical relevance as privileged targets of currently marketed drugs.

MwSuMD was exploited to address:
(1) Binding and unbinding of the arginine-vasopressin (AVP) cyclic peptide agonist to the V2 vasopressin receptor (V2R);
(2) Molecular recognition of the β2-adrenergic receptor (β2-AR) and heterotrimeric GDP-bound Gs protein;
(3) Molecular recognition of the A1-adenosine receptor (A1R) and palmitoylated and geranylgeranylated membrane-anchored heterotrimeric GDP-bound Gi protein;
(4) The whole process of GDP release from membrane-anchored heterotrimeric Gs following interaction with the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor (GLP1R), converted to the active state following interaction with the orthosteric non-peptide agonist danuglipron;
(5) The heterodimerization of D2 dopamine and A2A adenosine receptors (D2R and A2AR, respectively) and binding to a bi-valent ligand.

The mwSuMD method is solid and valuable, has wide applicability, and is compatible with the most world-widely used MD engines. It may be of interest to the computational structural biology community.

The huge amount of high-resolution data on GPCRs makes those systems suitable, although challenging, for method validation and development.

While the approach is less energy-biased than other enhanced sampling methods, knowledge, at the atomic detail, of binding sites/interfaces and conformational states is needed to define the supervised metrics, the higher the resolution of such metrics is the more accurate the outcome is expected to be. The definition of the metrics is a user- and system-dependent process.

The too many and ambitious case-studies undermine the accuracy of the output and reduce the important details needed for a methodological report. In some cases, the available CryoEM structures could have been exploited better.

The most consistent example concerns AVP binding/unbinding to V2R. The consistency with CryoEM data decreases with an increase in the complexity of the simulated process and involved molecular systems (e.g. receptor recognition by membrane-anchored G protein and the process of nucleotide exchange starting from agonist recognition by an inactive-state receptor). The last example, GPCR hetero-dimerization, and binding to a bi-valent ligand, is the most speculative one as it does not rely on high-resolution structural data for metrics supervision.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In the present work, Deganutti et al. report a structural study on GPCR functional dynamics using a computational approach called supervised molecular dynamics.

Strengths:

The study has the potential to provide novel insight into GPCR functionality. An example is the interaction between loops of GPCR and G proteins, which are not resolved experimentally, or the interaction between D344 and R385 identified during the Gs coupling by GLP-1R. However, validation of the findings, even computationally through for instance in silico mutagenesis study, is advisable.

Weaknesses:

In its current form, the manuscript seems immature and in particular, the described results grasp only the surface of the complex molecular mechanisms underlying GPCR activation. No significant advance of the existing structural data on GPCR and GPCR/G protein coupling is provided. Most of the results are a reproduction of the previously reported structures.