ArticleBMC structural biology2015
Free fatty acid receptors: structural models and elucidation of ligand binding interactions.
Article in BMC structural biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of microbiota-host communication mediated by butyrate in Atlantic salmon.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023Article
- How Arrestins and GRKs Regulate the Function of Long Chain Fatty Acid Receptors.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Short-Chain Fatty Acid Receptors and Cardiovascular Function.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Olive Oil Lipophenols Induce Insulin Secretion in 832/13 β-Cell Models.Pharmaceutics · 2021Article
- Insights into the molecular mechanism of positive cooperativity between partial agonist MK-8666 and full allosteric agonist AP8 of hGPR40 by Gaussian accelerated molecular dynamics (GaMD) simulations.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021Article
- Addressing free fatty acid receptor 1 (FFAR1) activation using supervised molecular dynamics.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2020Article
- FFA2-, but not FFA3-agonists inhibit GSIS of human pseudoislets: a comparative study with mouse islets and rat INS-1E cells.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Free Fatty Acid Receptors 2 and 3 as Microbial Metabolite Sensors to Shape Host Health: Pharmacophysiological View.Biomedicines · 2020Review
- Omega-3 Fatty Acids as Druggable Therapeutics for Neurodegenerative Disorders.CNS & neurological disorders drug targets · 2019Review
- A single extracellular amino acid in Free Fatty Acid Receptor 2 defines antagonist species selectivity and G protein selection bias.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Structural basis for the cooperative allosteric activation of the free fatty acid receptor GPR40.Nature structural & molecular biology · 2017Article
- Medium-chain fatty acids modulate myocardial function via a cardiac odorant receptor.Basic research in cardiology · 2017Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe free fatty acid receptors (FFAs), including FFA1 (orphan name: GPR40), FFA2 (GPR43) and FFA3 (GPR41) are G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) involved in energy and metabolic homeostasis. Understanding the structural basis of ligand binding at FFAs is an essential step toward designing potent and selective small molecule modulators.
resultsWe analyse earlier homology models of FFAs in light of the newly published FFA1 crystal structure co-crystallized with TAK-875, an ago-allosteric ligand, focusing on the architecture of the extracellular binding cavity and agonist-receptor interactions. The previous low-resolution homology models of FFAs were helpful in highlighting the location of the ligand binding site and the key residues for ligand anchoring. However, homology models were not accurate in establishing the nature of all ligand-receptor contacts and the precise ligand-binding mode. From analysis of structural models and mutagenesis, it appears that the position of helices 3, 4 and 5 is crucial in ligand docking. The FFA1-based homology models of FFA2 and FFA3 were constructed and used to compare the FFA subtypes. From docking studies we propose an alternative binding mode for orthosteric agonists at FFA1 and FFA2, involving the interhelical space between helices 4 and 5. This binding mode can explain mutagenesis results for residues at positions 4.56 and 5.42. The novel FFAs structural models highlight higher aromaticity of the FFA2 binding cavity and higher hydrophilicity of the FFA3 binding cavity. The role of the residues at the second extracellular loop used in mutagenesis is reanalysed. The third positively-charged residue in the binding cavity of FFAs, located in helix 2, is identified and predicted to coordinate allosteric modulators.
conclusionsThe novel structural models of FFAs provide information on specific modes of ligand binding at FFA subtypes and new suggestions for mutagenesis and ligand modification, guiding the development of novel orthosteric and allosteric chemical probes to validate the importance of FFAs in metabolic and inflammatory conditions. Using our FFA homology modelling experience, a strategy to model a GPCR, which is phylogenetically distant from GPCRs with the available crystal structures, is discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.