Daiyasu Hiromi, Nemoto Wataru, Toh Hiroyuki
Department of Bioinformatic Engineering, Graduate School of Information Science and Technology, Osaka University Osaka, Japan.
Front Microbiol. 2012 Jul 26;3:264. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2012.00264. eCollection 2012.
Chemokine receptors (CKRs) function in the inflammatory response and in vertebrate homeostasis. Decoy and viral receptors are two types of CKR homologs with modified functions from those of the typical CKRs. The decoy receptors are able to bind ligands without signaling. On the other hand, the viral receptors show constitutive signaling without ligands. We examined the sites related to the functional difference. At first, the decoy and viral receptors were each classified into five groups, based on the molecular phylogenetic analysis. A multiple amino acid sequence alignment between each group and the CKRs was then constructed. The difference in the amino acid composition between the group and the CKRs was evaluated as the Kullback-Leibler (KL) information value at each alignment site. The KL information value is considered to reflect the difference in the functional constraints at the site. The sites with the top 5% of KL information values were selected and mapped on the structure of a CKR. The comparisons with decoy receptor groups revealed that the detected sites were biased on the intracellular side. In contrast, the sites detected from the comparisons with viral receptor groups were found on both the extracellular and intracellular sides. More sites were found in the ligand binding pocket in the analyses of the viral receptor groups, as compared to the decoy receptor groups. Some of the detected sites were located in the GPCR motifs. For example, the DRY motif of the decoy receptors was often degraded, although the motif of the viral receptors was basically conserved. The observations for the viral receptor groups suggested that the constraints in the pocket region are loose and that the sites on the intracellular side are different from those for the decoy receptors, which may be related to the constitutive signaling activity of the viral receptors.
趋化因子受体(CKRs)在炎症反应和脊椎动物体内平衡中发挥作用。诱饵受体和病毒受体是两类CKR同系物,其功能与典型CKRs有所不同。诱饵受体能够结合配体但不产生信号。另一方面,病毒受体在没有配体的情况下表现出组成型信号传导。我们研究了与功能差异相关的位点。首先,基于分子系统发育分析,将诱饵受体和病毒受体分别分为五组。然后构建每组与CKRs之间的多氨基酸序列比对。将每组与CKRs之间氨基酸组成的差异评估为每个比对位点的库尔贝克-莱布勒(KL)信息值。KL信息值被认为反映了该位点功能限制的差异。选择KL信息值排名前5%的位点,并映射到CKR的结构上。与诱饵受体组的比较显示,检测到的位点偏向于细胞内侧。相比之下,与病毒受体组比较检测到的位点在细胞外侧和内侧均有发现。与诱饵受体组相比,在病毒受体组的分析中,在配体结合口袋中发现了更多位点。一些检测到的位点位于GPCR基序中。例如,诱饵受体的DRY基序经常降解,而病毒受体的该基序基本保守。对病毒受体组的观察表明,口袋区域的限制较为宽松,细胞内侧的位点与诱饵受体不同,这可能与病毒受体的组成型信号传导活性有关。