A promising anticancer therapeutic strategy is the stabilization of telomeric G-quadruplexes using G-quadruplex-binding small molecules. Although many G-quadruplex-specific ligands have been developed, their low potency and selectivity to G-quadruplexes over duplex remains unsolved. Recently, a crystal structure of a telomeric 3′ quadruplex–duplex hybrid was reported and the quadruplex–duplex interface was suggested to a good target to address the issues. However, there are no high-resolution complex structures reported for G-quadruplex ligands except for a docked BSU6037. In this study, molecular dynamic (MD) binding simulations with a free ligand were used to study binding poses and dynamics of four representative ligands: telomestatin, TMPyP4, BSU6037, and BRACO19. The MD data showed that BSU6037 was able to fully intercalate into the interface whereas TMPyP4 and BRACO19 could only maintain partial intercalation into the interface and telomestatin only binds at the quadruplex and duplex ends. Both linear ligands, BSU6037 and BRACO19, were able to interact with the interface, yet they were not selective over duplex DNA. The DNA geometry, binding modes, and binding pathways were systematically characterized, and the binding energy was calculated and compared for each system. The interaction of the ligands to the interface was by the means of an induced-fit binding mechanism rather than a lock–key mechanism, consisting of the DNA unfolding at the interface to allow entrance of the drug and then the refolding and repacking of the DNA and the ligand to further stabilize the G-quadruplex. On the basis of the findings in this study, modifications were suggested to optimize the interface binding for TMPyp4 and telomestatin.

Ergotamine (ERG) and dihydroergotamine (DHE), common migraine drugs, have small structural differences but lead to clinically important distinctions in their pharmacological profiles. For example, DHE is less potent than ERG by about 10-fold at the 5-hydroxytrptamine receptor 1B (5-HT 1B ). Although the high-resolution crystal structures of the 5-HT 1B receptor with both ligands have been solved, the high similarity between these two complex structures does not sufficiently explain their activity differences and the activation mechanism of the receptor. Hence, an examination of the dynamic motion of both drugs with the receptor is required. In this study, we ran a total of 6.0 μs molecular dynamics simulations on each system. Our simulation data show the subtle variations between the two systems in terms of the ligand−receptor interactions and receptor secondary structures. More importantly, the ligand and protein root-mean-square fluctuations (RMSFs) for the two systems were distinct, with ERG having a trend of lower RMSF values, indicating it to be bound tighter to 5-HT 1B with less fluctuations. The molecular mechanism−general born surface area (MM−GBSA) binding energies illustrate this further, proving ERG has an overall stronger MM−GBSA binding energy. Analysis of several different microswitches has shown that the 5-HT 1B −ERG complex is in a more active conformation state than 5-HT 1B −DHE, which is further supported by the dynamic network model, with reference to mutagenesis data with the critical nodes and the first three low-energy modes from the normal mode analysis. We also identify Trp327 6.48 and Phe331 6.52 as key residues involved in the active state 5-HT 1B for both ligands. Using the detailed dynamic information from our analysis, we made predictions for possible modifications to DHE and ERG that yielded five derivatives that might have more favorable binding energies and reduced structural fluctuations.

DNA G-quadruplex (G4) stabilizer, CX-5461, is in phase I/II clinical trials for advanced cancers with BRCA1/2 deficiencies. A FRET-melting temperature increase assay measured the stabilizing effects of CX-5461 to a DNA duplex (∼10 K), and three G4 forming sequences negatively implicated in the cancers upon its binding: human telomeric (∼30 K), c-KIT1 (∼27 K), and c-Myc (∼25 K). Without experimentally solved structures of these CX-5461–G4 complexes, CX-5461’s interactions remain elusive. In this study, we performed a total of 73.5 μs free ligand molecular dynamics binding simulations of CX-5461 to the DNA duplex and three G4s. Three binding modes (top, bottom, and side) were identified for each system and their thermodynamic, kinetic, and structural nature were deciphered. The molecular mechanics/Poisson Boltzmann surface area binding energies of CX-5461 were calculated for the human telomeric (−28.6 kcal/mol), c-KIT1 (−23.9 kcal/mol), c-Myc (−22.0 kcal/mol) G4s, and DNA duplex (−15.0 kcal/mol) systems. These energetic differences coupled with structural differences at the 3′ site explained the different melting temperatures between the G4s, while CX-5461’s lack of intercalation to the duplex explained the difference between the G4s and duplex. Based on the interaction insight, CX-5461 derivatives were designed and docked, showing higher selectivity to the G4s over the duplex.

No abstract

No abstract