Water-hydrophobic compound interactions with the microbial cell

The structural interactions of biological macromolecules, their biochemical activities and, ultimately, the metabolic function of cellular systems are dependent upon weak inter- and intra-molecular forces such as hydrogen bonds, Van der Waals forces, and the hydrophobic effect. Water molecules, and those of hydrophobic substances such as hydrocarbons, can take part in and/or modify these interactions and thereby determine the operational and structural stability of the microbial cell and its macromolecular systems. We explain how the cytosol, plasma membrane and the extracellular solution form a material and energetic continuum; and discuss the behavior of hydrophobic substances of extracellular origin as they migrate into the plasma membrane and into the cell's interior. The adverse effects of substances with a log P octanol-water =2, that partition into the hydrophobic domains of biological macromolecules, are discussed in relation to microbial cell function; and we speculate whether the cellular stress that they induce is symmetrical or asymmetrical in nature. In the context of the microbial environment, we take a situational-functional approach to consider how hydrophobic stressors interact with the microbial cell, and what types of evasion tactics microbes can employ to minimize their inhibitory activities. Finally, we discuss the ecological implications of hydrocarbon-induced cellular stress for microbial systems.

Free fatty acid receptors:structural models and elucidation of ligand binding interactions

BACKGROUND: The 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.

RESULTS: We 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.

CONCLUSIONS: The 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.