THE MU-OPIOID AND DELTA-OPIOID PHARMACOPHORE CONFORMATIONS OF CYCLIC BETA-CASOMORPHIN ANALOGS INDICATE DOCKING OF THE PHE(3) RESIDUE TO DIFFERENT DOMAINS OF THE OPIOID RECEPTORS
W. Brandt et al., THE MU-OPIOID AND DELTA-OPIOID PHARMACOPHORE CONFORMATIONS OF CYCLIC BETA-CASOMORPHIN ANALOGS INDICATE DOCKING OF THE PHE(3) RESIDUE TO DIFFERENT DOMAINS OF THE OPIOID RECEPTORS, Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 10(3), 1996, pp. 201-212
Cyclic beta-casomorphin analogues with a D-configured amino acid resid
ue in position 2, such as Tyr-o[-Xaa-Phe-Pro-Gly-] and Tyr-c[-Xaa-Phe-
D-Pro-Gly-] (Xaa = D-A(2)bu, D-Orn, D-Lys) were found to bind to the m
u-opioid receptor as well as to the delta-opioid receptor, whereas the
corresponding L-Xaa(2) derivatives are nearly inactive at both. Low-e
nergy conformers of both active and nearly inactive derivatives have b
een determined in a systematic conformational search or by molecular d
ynamics simulations using the TRIPOS force field. The obtained conform
ations were compared with regard to a model for mu-selective opiates d
eveloped by Brandt et al. [Drug Des. Discov., 10 (1993) 257]. Superpos
itions as well as electrostatic, lipophilic and hydrogen bonding simil
arities with the delta-opioid receptor pharmacophore conformation of t
-Hpp-JOM-13 proposed by Mosberg et al. [J. Med. Chem., 37 (1994) 4371,
4384] were used to establish the probable delta-pharmacophoric cyclic
beta-casomorphin conformations. These conformations were also compare
d with a delta-opioid agonist (SNC 80) and the highly potent antagonis
t naltrindole. These investigations led to a prediction of the mu- and
beta-pharmacophore structures for the cyclic beta-casomorphins. Inter
estingly, for the inactive compounds such conformations could not be d
etected. The comparison between the mu- and delta-pharmacophore confor
mations of the cyclic beta-casomorphins demonstrates not only differen
ces in spatial orientation of both aromatic groups, but also in the ba
ckbone conformations of the ring part. In particular, the differences
in Phi(2) and Psi(2) (mu approximate to 70 degrees,-80 degrees; delta
approximate to 165 degrees,55 degrees) cause a completely different sp
atial arrangement of the cyclized peptide rings when all compounds are
matched with regard to maximal spatial overlap of the tyrosine residu
e. Assuming that both the mu- and delta-pharmacophore conformations bi
nd with the tyrosine residue in a similar orientation at the same tran
smembrane domain X of their receptors, the side chain of Phe(3) as a s
econd binding site has to dock with different domains.