Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26280453›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Structural Determinants for the Binding of Morphinan Agonists to the μ-Opioid Receptor.

Xiaojing Cong, Pablo Campomanes, Achim Kless, Inga Schapitz, Markus Wagener, Thomas Koch, Paolo Carloni

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Opioid Receptors and Protonation-Coupled Binding of Opioid Drugs.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  4. Review
  5. How μ-opioid receptor recognizes fentanyl.Nature communications · 2021
    Article
  6. HowbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Xiaojing CongLaboratory of Computational Biophysics, German Research School for Simulation Sciences GmbH, Joint venture of RWTH Aachen University and Forschungszentrum Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany; Computational Biomedicine section (IAS-5), Institute of Advanced Simulation (IAS), Forschungszentrum Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany; Computational Biomedicine section (INM-9), Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM), Forschungszentrum Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany.
Pablo CampomanesLaboratory of Computational Biophysics, German Research School for Simulation Sciences GmbH, Joint venture of RWTH Aachen University and Forschungszentrum Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany; Computational Biomedicine section (IAS-5), Institute of Advanced Simulation (IAS), Forschungszentrum Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany; Computational Biomedicine section (INM-9), Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM), Forschungszentrum Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany.
Achim KlessGrünenthal Innovation, Grünenthal GmbH, 52078 Aachen, Germany.
Inga SchapitzGrünenthal Innovation, Grünenthal GmbH, 52078 Aachen, Germany.
Markus WagenerGrünenthal Innovation, Grünenthal GmbH, 52078 Aachen, Germany.
Thomas KochGrünenthal Innovation, Grünenthal GmbH, 52078 Aachen, Germany.
Paolo CarloniLaboratory of Computational Biophysics, German Research School for Simulation Sciences GmbH, Joint venture of RWTH Aachen University and Forschungszentrum Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany; Computational Biomedicine section (IAS-5), Institute of Advanced Simulation (IAS), Forschungszentrum Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany; Computational Biomedicine section (INM-9), Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM), Forschungszentrum Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany.
Grünenthal Group (Germany) · DEGerman Research School for Simulation Sciences · DEForschungszentrum Jülich · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Atomistic descriptions of the μ-opioid receptor (μOR) noncovalently binding with two of its prototypical morphinan agonists, morphine (MOP) and hydromorphone (HMP), are investigated using molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. Subtle differences between the binding modes and hydration properties of MOP and HMP emerge from the calculations. Alchemical free energy perturbation calculations show qualitative agreement with in vitro experiments performed in this work: indeed, the binding free energy difference between MOP and HMP computed by forward and backward alchemical transformation is 1.2±1.1 and 0.8±0.8 kcal/mol, respectively, to be compared with 0.4±0.3 kcal/mol from experiment. Comparison with an MD simulation of μOR covalently bound with the antagonist β-funaltrexamine hints to agonist-induced conformational changes associated with an early event of the receptor's activation: a shift of the transmembrane helix 6 relative to the transmembrane helix 3 and a consequent loss of the key R165-T279 interhelical hydrogen bond. This finding is consistent with a previous proposal suggesting that the R165-T279 hydrogen bond between these two helices indicates an inactive receptor conformation.

Indexed as

ArrestinsCyclic AMPHydromorphoneModels, TheoreticalMolecular Dynamics SimulationMorphineProtein BindingReceptors, Opioid, muThermodynamicsArrestinsCyclic AMPHydromorphoneMorphineReceptors, Opioid, mu

Identifiers

PMID26280453
PMCPMC4539194
OpenAlexW2101870582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.