Comparison of PGH 2 binding site in prostaglandin synthases

Paragi-Vedanthi, Padmapriya 1 Doble, Mukesh 1

[1 ] Department of Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, 600036, India

Abstract

Background

Prostaglandin H 2 (PGH 2) is a common precursor for the synthesis of five different Prostanoids via specific Prostanoid Synthases. The binding of this substrate with these Synthases is not properly understood. Moreover, currently no crystal structure of complexes bound with PGH 2 has been reported. Hence, understanding the interactions of PGH 2 and characterizing its binding sites in these synthases is crucial for developing novel therapeutics based on these proteins as targets.

Results

Shape and physico-chemical properties of the PGH 2 binding sites of the four prostanoid synthases were analyzed and compared in order to understand the molecular basis of the specificity. This study provides models with predicted pockets for the binding of PGH 2 with PGD, PGE, PGF and PGI Synthases. The results closely match with available experimental data. The comparison showed seven physico-chemical features that are common to the four PGH 2 binding sites. However this common pattern is not statistically unique and is not specific enough to distinguish between proteins that can or cannot bind PGH 2. A large scale search in ASTRAL data bank, a non redundant Protein Data Bank, for a similar pattern showed the uniqueness of each of the PGH 2 binding site in these Synthases.

Conclusion

The binding pockets in PGDS, PGES, PGFS and PGIS are unique and do not share significant commonality which can be characterized as a PGH 2 binding site. Local comparison of these protein structures highlights a case of convergent evolution in analogous functional sites

Background

The Cyclooxygenase (COX) pathway is an important part of the arachidonic acid (AA) metabolism, generating five primary prostanoids. The biosynthesis of these prostanoids involves a sequence of three-steps namely 1) Release of arachidonic acid from phospholipids by secretory, cytoplasmic or from both types of phospholipase A 2 (sPLA2 and cPLA2), 2) Oxygenation of AA by COX enzymes to form prostaglandin endoperoxide H 2 (PGH 2), and 3) the subsequent conversion of PGH 2 to Prostaglandin D 2 (PGD 2), Prostaglandin E 2 (PGE 2), Prostaglandin F (PGF ), prostacyclin (PGI 2), and Thromboxane T 2 (TXA 2) via seven specific synthases [ 1, 2].

PGD Synthase is responsible for the production of PGD2 as an allergy or inflammation mediator in mast and Th2 cells [ 5]. There are 3 isoforms of PGE Synthase (PGES) namely microsomal PGE Synthase -1 (mPGES-1), microsomal PGE Synthase -2 (mPGES-2) and cytoplasmic PGE Synthase (cPGES) responsible for the production of PGE 2, which is an ultimate mediator of pain and inflammation. PGE 2 also plays a critical role in regulating renal function and facilitating reproduction [ 3]. Prostaglandin F produced from PGF Synthase (PGFS) is a hormone-like substance participating in a wide range of body functions including the contraction and relaxation of smooth muscle, the dilation and constriction of blood vessels, control of blood pressure, and modulation of inflammation. PGF is used for the induction of abortion, for evacuation of the uterus after a missed abortion [ 4]. PGI 2 produced by PGIS, and TXA 2 produced by TXAS, are critical for the maintenance of homeostasis in the vascular tissue [ 6, 7]. Since these five synthases, are involved in various important biological processes, they are potential drug targets and drugs are already in the market for the inhibition of PGDS, PGFS, PGIS and TXAS. mPGES-1 is being sought after as a novel target to relieve pain and inflammation after the withdrawal of popular COX-2 inhibitors from the market [ 8].

Understanding the interactions of PGH 2 with these synthases and characterizing their binding sites is crucial for developing novel drugs and also to check for cross reactivity. PGH 2 is an unstable compound and there are no structures of synthases available in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) [ 9] with it. In this paper, the PGH 2 binding sites in these proteins were predicted using the PatchDock algorithm [ 10]. The predicted binding sites were then compared using MultiBind [ 11], a multiple binding site alignment tool to look for common pattern which might help us to characterize a PGH 2 binding site.

Methods

Protein structure

The crystal structure of four of the proteins namely PGDS, PGES, PGFS and PGIS are available in the PBD, while such a structure is not available for mPGES-1, cPGES and TXAS. For the purpose of docking studies the following structures were used: (i) PGDS - The structure of human hematopoietic prostaglandin D synthase complexed with HQL-79 (PDB: 2cvd, [ 12]). (ii) PGES - The structure of Microsomal prostaglandin E synthase type-2 (PDB: 1z9h, [ 13]). (iii)PGFS - The structure of prostaglandin F synathase containing bimatoprost (PDB: 2f38, [ 14]) and (iv) PGIS - The structure of human prostacyclin synthase in complex with inhibitor minoxidil (PDB: 3b6h, [ 15]).

Docking

The dockings of PGH 2 with these synthases were performed to predict the putative binding site in the proteins. Docking models are obtained using the PatchDock algorithm [ 10]. This software takes two molecules as input and computes the three-dimensional transformation of one of them with respect to the other with the goal of maximizing the surface shape complementarities and at the same time minimizing the number of steric clashes. Given two molecules, PatchDock first divides their surfaces into patches according to their surface shape, such as concave, convex, or flat. Then, it applies the Geometric Hashing algorithm to match the concave patches of one with the convex patches of the other protein and flat patches with flat patches and generates a set of candidate transformations. A set of scoring functions based on the shape complementarities and the atomic desolvation energy of the transformed complex is evaluated. Finally, redundant solutions are discarded by the application of a RMSD (root-mean-square deviation) clustering. This program is tested and shown to successfully predict protein interactions for many examples [ 16- 19].

Binding site alignment

The alignment of these predicted binding sites for PGH 2 in the four synthases was performed using the MultiBind algorithm developed by Shulmana et. al [ 11].

This algorithm performs multiple alignments of the binding sites and recognizes the structurally conserved physicochemical and geometrical patterns that may be responsible for the binding. The physicochemical properties considered by the software are hydrophobic, aliphatic (ALI) and aromatic interactions (PII), hydrogen bond donors (DON), hydrogen bond acceptors (ACC), and mixed donor/acceptors (DAC). The algorithm finds a set of transformations which will superimpose the binding sites in a manner that will maximize the physicochemical score of the matched properties. This alignment between protein binding sites is performed even in the absence of overall sequence, fold, or binding partner similarity, and also it does not consider the location of the binding partners. The scoring function and the algorithm of MultiBind are described in detail elsewhere [ 11].

Evaluation of common binding patterns

The frequency of random occurrence of structural patterns as recognized by MultiBind is searched with proteins in the ASTRAL dataset (V 1.73) [ 20, 21]. This dataset consists of all known protein structures that have less than 40% sequence identity and hence it represents a non-redundant group. This dataset contains only the structures of PGDS and mPGES-2 that are known to bind to PGH 2. The other two structures namely PGFS and PGIS were added to make the dataset of 7649 structures in which four of them were known to bind PGH 2. The structural pattern was chosen from the pseudocenters of the first molecule in the input order. Each pattern that was recognized on the surface of some other protein was scored using the physicochemical scoring function of MultiBind as explained before. The frequency of occurrence of a pattern was calculated as the ratio between the numbers of times it was observed with a score higher than a reference score, relative to the total number of searched proteins. The reference score is defined to be the score of the outlier, i.e., lowest score of the most different binding site that participated in the pattern construction with MultiBind.(Example: If A, B, C and D are the protein compared, and the binding sites of A and D differ the most with the least MultiBind Score then that is taken as the reference score for comparisons of ABCD, ABD, ACD and AD with the ASTRAL dataset). The obtained ratio represents the estimation of the chances for a random occurrence of the recognized pattern. Using the score of the outlier as a reference score provides the highest possible ratio and the worst case estimation of the most frequent pattern [ 16]. The ratio of the number of similar patterns observed relative to the size of the searched dataset provides an estimation of the probability of observing such a pattern by chance, on a randomly selected protein. The lower the frequency of occurrence, rare is the pattern.

Results

Docking models of PGH 2 with four synthases

PatchDock successfully detected the surface pockets of PGDS, PGES, PGFS and PGIS and they are in agreement with previously published data [ 22- 30]on the putative binding site of PGH 2. In all these analysis no apriori information was used as an input for the docking algorithms, i.e., the surface pockets on the receptor molecules were detected automatically.

For all the four synthases, out of the 20 docking solutions examined the putative binding site was predominantly located as the possible preferred binding pocket (in 16, 15, 15, 13 cases out of 20 solutions for PGFS, PGES, PGDS and PGIS respectively). A comparison between the predicted PGH 2 binding site and the ligand binding site in crystal structures of these four structures suggested that in all the four cases the ligand bound in the crystal structure actually fits in the PGH 2 binding pocket predicted in the current study. Based on residues extracted within 6Ǻ distance from the bound PGH2 and Ligand, it was found that common amino acid residues participated in the binding of PGH 2 to the synthases in the docked model and the ligand in the crystal structure obtained from PDB Among the common residues, the cofactors GSH, NADP and HEME involved in the catalytic mechanism of the synthases PGDS (GSH) [ 12], PGFS (NADP) [ 14] and PGIS (HEME) [ 15] respectively are also shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Overlap of predicted PGH 2 binding site with the ligand binding site in the four synthases . The surface of the synthases are represented in cartoon and colored grey except the common active site residues represented in space-fill and are colored green. PGH 2 is colored red, and the other ligands in the crystal structure (IMN, HQL-79, 15 M and MDX) are colored blue. The figure is prepared using PyMol [ 36]

Overlap of predicted PGH2 binding site with the ligand binding site in the four synthases. The surface of the synthases are represented in cartoon and colored grey except the common active site residues represented in space-fill and are colored green. PGH2 is colored red, and the other ligands in the crystal structure (IMN, HQL-79, 15 M and MDX) are colored blue. The figure is prepared using PyMol [36]

Binding site alignment and analysis

After obtaining the docking models and information about the PGH 2 binding pocket, the goal was to compare these four predicted binding pockets and to determine the common features which facilitate the binding of the same substrate, PGH 2.

The four binding sites compared here have different overall sequences and conserved residue patterns and are also structurally not related. Due to the above-mentioned differences, the proteins in this study cannot be aligned by standard alignment methods, that assume similarity of either sequence or backbone patterns. Thus, to compare between the predicted binding sites of the modelled complexes, we used MultiBind which performs a multiple structure alignment between protein binding sites, in the absence of overall sequence, fold, or binding partner similarity and recognizes the common spatial arrangements of physicochemical properties shared between the compared binding sites. The ligand from the crystal structures were used to extract the binding site pocket with the MULTIBIND algorithm rather with the PGH 2 docked models as the algorithm do not accept docked models as input.

Multiple alignment of all the four binding sites

Alignment of all the four binding sites of PGH 2 indicated a common pattern of seven physicochemical properties, namely one hydrogen bond acceptor/donor (DAC), three PII interactions, and three aliphatic interactions (ALI). Table 1 lists the residue numbers, residue types and the common physiochemical parameters identified for each of the four binding sites. Although the substrate PGH 2, the ligand and its interactions with the protein were not taken into account during any of the computational steps performed by MultiBind, it never-the-less detected the key residues thought to be involved in the catalytic mechanism and superimposed the ligand molecules to similar locations in space, supporting the correctness of the alignment.(Figure 2). However this common pattern when searched for was found in 11% of the proteins in the ASTRAL dataset. This suggests that the detected pattern is not likely to be specific enough to distinguish between proteins that can and those that cannot bind PGH 2.

Table 1

Details of the common pattern calculated between the four PGH2 binding sites using MultiBind. PII (aromatic) interactions, hydrogen bond acceptor (ACC), or mixed donor-acceptor (DON, DAC) and Aliphatic interactions(ALI).

Site 1: PGES/ 1z9hB Site 2: PGDS/ 2cvdD Site 3:PGFS/ 2f38A Site 4: PGIS/ 3b6hA
Chain.ID A. A. Type C

hain.ID
A. A. Type Chain.ID A. A. Type Chain.ID A. A. Type

B.107 Tyr PII D.9 Phe PII A.24 Tyr PII A.99 Tyr PII
B.109 Thr PII D.13 Gly PII A.117 His PII A.283 Ala PII
B.109 Thr ACC D.13 Gly ACC A.117 His DAC A.283 Ala ACC
B.110 Cys ALI D.14 Arg ALI A.54 Leu ALI A.283 Ala ALI
B.246 Ile ALI D.99 Met ALI A.120 Met ALI A.128 Leu ALI
B.250 Val ALI D.160 Leu ALI A.318 Pro ALI A.447 Ala ALI
B.251 Tyr PII D.163 Phe PII A.319 Tyr PII A.434 Trp PII
Figure 2

Superimposition of the four synthases based on transformations suggested by MultiBind. Spatial arrangement of the recognized features and the superimposition of the proteins and the PGH 2 ligands, according to the transformations suggested by MultiBind. The structures of the four proteins are represented by strands. PGDS - blue, PGES - red, PGFS - green and PGIS - gray. PGH 2 are represented as space fill and colored according to the protein. The ligand molecules are presented for verification purpose only and are not a part of the input to MultiBind. The figure is prepared using PyMol [ 36]

Superimposition of the four synthases based on transformations suggested by MultiBind. Spatial arrangement of the recognized features and the superimposition of the proteins and the PGH2 ligands, according to the transformations suggested by MultiBind. The structures of the four proteins are represented by strands. PGDS - blue, PGES - red, PGFS - green and PGIS - gray. PGH2 are represented as space fill and colored according to the protein. The ligand molecules are presented for verification purpose only and are not a part of the input to MultiBind. The figure is prepared using PyMol [36]

Multiple alignments of three binding sites

The alignment between all the four binding sites resulted in a common pattern with seven physiochemical properties that is not unique enough for identification of the binding of PGH 2. Therefore binding sites were aligned, eliminating one synthase at a time from the MultiBind during run time.

Comparison between three predicted binding sites of PGH 2 at a time revealed a pattern of between 6-8 common physicochemical properties. The frequency of occurrence of this pattern in the ASTRAL dataset ranged between 17-38% showing that the frequency of occurrence of this pattern in this dataset is also too high to be statistically significant and once again it can be concluded that it is not specific enough to distinguish between proteins that can or cannot bind PGH 2.

Pairwise alignments

Pairwise surface alignments of the proteins detected more common features than those obtained while aligning three or four binding sites at a time. The summary of the six pairwise alignments of PGH 2 binding sites is listed in Table 2. The two binding sites that were recognized to be most similar to each other are those of PGFS and PGIS. As can be seen from the similarity score, the binding site of the PGDS was the most different from all the rest. The number of common properties varies between 10 and 18. The occurrences of the common patterns based on the 6 pairwise alignments in the ASTRAL dataset ranges from 3 to 12% again indicating the uniqueness of each PGH 2 binding site. This confirms that the PGH 2 binding site of these four Synthases differ considerably and are also very different from any other binding pocket found on the proteins in the ASTRAL dataset.

Table 2

Pairwise alignments of PGH2 binding sites using MultiBind

Compared Proteins No. of detected features Score
PGFS-PGIS 18 41.2
PGDS-PGFS 13 38.0
PGES-PGIS 15 35.2
PGES-PGFS 12 33.7
PGES-PGDS 10 30.7
PGDS-PGIS 12 28.9

Discussion

Based on the MultiBind similarity score, PGDS-PGFS is ranked second. PGFS is a dual acting enzyme leading to the formation of both PGF2α from PGH 2 and 9α,11β-PGF2 (PGF2αβ) from PGD2. It can bind to both PGH 2 and PGD 2 [ 15]. The former is converted to PGD 2 by PGDS; the later remains bound to the enzyme before being released. Having two common binding partners possibly explains their high similarity. It is surprising to note that both PGDS and PGES belonging to the same family with similar catalytic mechanism has the least number (11) of common features and are among the most different from each other when compared with other synthases. This is followed by PGIS-PGDS having 12 common features. mPGES-2 on the other hand is found to be more similar to PGIS which is a heme bound enzyme, than to PGDS. This can be explained based on a more recently solved structure in which PGES (PDBID: 2pbj[ 31]) is found to contain glutathione (GSH) and heme bound to it and it is involved in degradation reactions similar to that of cytochrome P450. It degrades PGH 2 into 12(S)-hydroxy-5(Z), 8(E),10(E)-heptadecatrienoic acid and malondialdehyde rather than converting it to PGE 2 [ 31].

Interestingly all the seven Prostanoid synthases which bind to the same substrate PGH 2, do not share any sequence identity amongst them, are structurally quite different and belong to different families (Figure 3). Yet they share PGH 2 as the common binding partner. They even carry out the similar isomerization reaction at the cyclopentane ring of PGH 2. A divergent evolutionary relation between PGDS and mPGES-2 and PGIS and TXAS might explain their specificity but in the other apparently disconnected families it is unlikely that divergent evolution would have played a role. Our comparison study shows that it is unlikely, that identical active site constellations are responsible for PGH 2 specificity in these seven cases. Convergence seems to be limited to similarity in the ability to bind PGH 2 specifically and may not extend to the precise way in which this is achieved as indicated by the lack of similarity which can be characterized as a PGH 2 binding site. To answer these questions definitively we need much more biochemical information about each of the enzymes, details of the catalytic mechanism, rate constants, quantitative specificities, and regulatory dependencies.

Figure 3

Family and reaction details of the seven prostaglandin synthases. *Reaction Schemes taken from the Kegg Database[ 37]

Family and reaction details of the seven prostaglandin synthases. *Reaction Schemes taken from the Kegg Database[37]

But evolution of similar enzymatic function on different structural frameworks is not an entirely uncommon event. A classical example is that of serine proteases: the Ser-His-Asp triad is present in an almost identical three-dimensional constellation in the distinctly different structural frames of trypsin and subtilisin (and their relatives) [ 32, 33]. Another example is each of the three families of sugar kinases which appear to have a distinct three-dimensional fold, and conserved sequence patterns are strikingly different for the three families. Yet each catalyzes chemically equivalent reactions on similar or identical substrates. The enzymatic function of sugar phosphorylation appears to have evolved independently on the three distinct structural frameworks, by convergent evolution[ 33]. Another aspect which needs consideration is that these proteins can rearrange and undergo conformational changes to accommodate the substrate. In practice, both the side-chains and the protein backbone can undergo conformational changes upon substrate binding. Even the PGH2 molecule with 14 torsional degrees of freedom of rotation is highly flexible and can fit into different active sites differently. Also both the docking and the alignment algorithms used in the current study considers rigid conformations and do not address the possibility of protein and substrate flexibility.

In summary, the Prostanoid Synthases present a remarkable diversity of specificities for the binding of PGH 2. The discovery of this striking molecular dissimilarity, associated to a functional substrate similarity, may help in suggesting new experiments aimed at a deeper understanding of the cross reactivity of Prostanoid synthases known to be involved in many important biological processes and human diseases.

Conclusion

A computational approach was employed to understand the interaction of PGH 2 with the prostaglandin synthases. Docking models were consistent with the available experimental data for the interaction of PGH 2 with the synthases. The spatial and physicochemical properties of the suggested binding sites were compared. A patterns common to all the four synthases was detected but it was not specific enough and was not likely to represent the features essential for the binding of PGH 2. The alignment results suggest that the PGH 2 binding sites are different on different proteins and they also have no close similarity with any other binding site found in the proteins of the ASTRAL dataset.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

PP conceived the study, carried out the major part of the work, analyzed the data and has written the first draft of the paper. MD participated in discussions and analysis of the study and helped drafting of the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Padma Priya P V. thanks the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India for financial support.

This article has been published as part of BMC Bioinformatics Volume 11 Supplement 1, 2010: Selected articles from the Eighth Asia-Pacific Bioinformatics Conference (APBC 2010). The full contents of the supplement are available online at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/11?issue=S1.

1  

Helliwell RJA, Adams LF, Mitchell MDProstaglandin synthases: recent developments and a novel hypothesisProstaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids(2004) 70: 101113 10.1016/j.plefa.2003.04.002

2  

William SLProstanoid biosynthesis and mechanisms of actionAm J Physiol Renal Physiol(1992) 263: 181191

3  

Murakami M, Nakatani Y, Tanioka T, Kudo IProstaglandin E synthaseProstaglandins Other Lipid Media(2002) 68: 38399 10.1016/S0090-6980(02)00043-6

4  

Watanabe KProstaglandin F synthaseProstaglandins & other Lipid Mediators(2002) 68: 401407 10.1016/S0090-6980(02)00044-8 Pubmed ID: 12432932

5  

Kanaoka Y, Urade YHematopoietic prostaglandin D synthaseLeukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids(2003) 69: 63167

6  

Vane J, Corin REProstacyclin: A Vascular MediatorEur J Vasc Endovasc Surg(2003) 26: 571578 10.1016/S1078-5884(03)00385-X Pubmed ID: 14603414

7  

Wang LH, Kulmacz RJThromboxane synthase: structure and function of protein and geneProstaglandins & other Lipid Mediators(2002) 68: 409422 10.1016/S0090-6980(02)00045-X Pubmed ID: 12432933

8  

Scholich K, Geisslinger GIs mPGES-1 a promising target for pain therapy?Trends in Pharmacological Sciences(2006) 27: 399401 10.1016/j.tips.2006.06.001 Pubmed ID: 16815559

9  

Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng G, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PEThe Protein Data BankNucleic Acids Research(2000) 28: 235242 10.1093/nar/28.1.235 Pubmed ID: 10592235

10  

Schneidman-Duhovny D, Inbar Y, Nussinov R, Wolfson HJPatchDock and SymmDock: servers for rigid and symmetric dockingNucleic Acids Res(2005) 33: W363367 10.1093/nar/gki481 Pubmed ID: 15980490

11  

Shatsky M, Shulman-peleg A, Nussinov R, Wolfson HJThe Multiple Common Point Set Problem and Its Application to Molecule Binding Pattern DetectionJournal of Computational Biology(2006) 13: 407428 10.1089/cmb.2006.13.407 Pubmed ID: 16597249

12  

Aritake K, Kado Y, Inoue T, Miyano M, Urade YStructural and Functional Characterization of HQL-79, an Orally Selective Inhibitor of Human Hematopoietic Prostaglandin D SynthaseThe Journal of Biological Chemistry(2006) 281: 527715286 10.1074/jbc.M506431200 Pubmed ID: 16373339

13  

Yamada T, Komoto J, Watanabe K, Ohmiya Y, Takusagawa FCrystal Structure and Possible Catalytic Mechanism of Microsomal Prostaglandin E Synthase Type 2(mPGES-2)J Mol Biol(2005) 348: 11631176 10.1016/j.jmb.2005.03.035 Pubmed ID: 15854652

14  

Komoto J, Yamada T, Watanabe K, Woodward DF, Takusagawa FProstaglandin F2R Formation from Prostaglandin H2 by Prostaglandin F Synthase (PGFS): Crystal Structure of PGFS Containing BimatoprostBiochemistry(2006) 45: 19871996 10.1021/bi051861t Pubmed ID: 16475787

15  

Li YC, Chiang CW, Yeh HC, Hsu PY, Whitby FG, Wang LH, Chan NLStructures of Prostacyclin Synthase and Its Complexes with Substrate Analog and Inhibitor Reveal a Ligand-specific Heme Conformation ChangeJ Biol Chem(2008) 283: 29172926 10.1074/jbc.M707470200 Pubmed ID: 18032380

16  

Benyamini H, Shulman-Peleg A, Wolfson HJ, Belgorodsky B, Fadeev L, Gozin MInteraction of C60-Fullerene and Carboxyfullerene with Proteins: Docking and Binding Site AlignmentBioconjugate Chem(2006) 17: 378386 10.1021/bc050299g

17  

Inbar Y, Schneidman-Duhovny D, Halperin I, Oron A, Nussinov R, Wolfson HJApproaching the CAPRI challenge with an efficient geometry-based dockingProteins(2005) 60: 217223 10.1002/prot.20561 Pubmed ID: 15981251

18  

Gidalevitz T, Biswas C, Ding H, Schneidman-Duhovny D, Wolfson HJ, Stevens F, Radford S, Argon YIdentification of the N-terminal peptide binding site of glucoseregulated protein 94J Biol Chem(2004) 279: 1654316552 10.1074/jbc.M313060200 Pubmed ID: 14754890

19  

Schneidman-Duhovny D, Inbar Y, Polak V, Shatsky M, Halperin I, Benyamini H, Barzilai A, Dror O, Haspel N, Nussinov R, Wolfson HJTaking geometry to its edge: fast unbound rigid (and hinge-bent) dockingProteins(2003) 52: 107112 10.1002/prot.10397 Pubmed ID: 12784375

20  

Brenner SE, Koehl P, Levitt MThe ASTRAL compendium for protein structure and sequence analysisNucleic Acids Res(2000) 28: 254256 10.1093/nar/28.1.254 Pubmed ID: 10592239

21  

Chandonia JM, Hon G, Walker NS, Lo Conte L, Koehl P, Levitt M, Brenner SEThe ASTRAL Compendium in 2004Nucleic Acids Res(2004) 32: D189192 10.1093/nar/gkh034 Pubmed ID: 14681391

22  

Inoue T, Okano Y, Kado Y, Aritake K, Irikura D, Uodome N, Okazaki N, Kinugasa S, Shishitani H, Matsumura HFirst Determination of the Inhibitor Complex Structure of Human Hematopoietic Prostaglandin D SynthaseJ Biochem(2004) 135: 279283 10.1093/jb/mvh033 Pubmed ID: 15113825

23  

Inoue T, Irikura D, Okazaki N, Kinugasa S, Matsumura H, Uodome N, Yamamoto M, Kumasaka T, Miyano M, Kai YMechanism of metal activation of human hematopoietic prostaglandin D synthaseNature structural biology(2003) 10: 291296 10.1038/nsb907 Pubmed ID: 12627223

24  

Kanaoka Y, Ago H, Inagaki E, Nanayama T, Miyano M, Kikuno R, Fujii Y, Eguchi N, Toh H, Urade YCloning and Crystal Structure of Hematopoietic Prostaglandin D SynthaseCell(1997) 90: 10851095 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80374-8 Pubmed ID: 9323136

25  

Huang X, Yan W, Gao D, Tong M, Tai HH, Zhan CGStructural and functional characterization of human microsomal prostaglandin E synthase-1 by computational modeling and site-directed mutagenesisBioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry(2006) 14: 35533562 10.1016/j.bmc.2006.01.010 Pubmed ID: 16439136

26  

Watanabe K, Ohkubo H, Niwa H, Tanikawa N, Koda N, Ito S, Ohmiya YEssential 110Cys in active site of membrane-associated prostaglandin E synthase-2Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications(2003) 306: 577581 10.1016/S0006-291X(03)01025-8 Pubmed ID: 12804604

27  

Suzuki T, Fujii Y, Miyano M, Chen LY, Takahashi T, Watanabe KcDNA Cloning, Expression, and Mutagenesis Study of Liver-type Prostaglandin F SynthaseThe Journal of Biological Chemistry(1999) 274: 1241248

28  

Komoto J, Yamada T, Watanabe K, Takusagawa FCrystal Structure of Human Prostaglandin F Synthase (AKR1C3)Biochemistry(2004) 43: 21882198 10.1021/bi036046x Pubmed ID: 14979715

29  

Shyue SK, Ruan KH, Wang LH, Wu KKProstacyclin Synthase Active Sites, Identification by moleculer modelling-guided site-directed mutagenesisThe Journal of Biological Chemistry(1997) 272: 36573662 10.1074/jbc.272.6.3657 Pubmed ID: 9013619

30  

Chiang CW, Yeh HC, Wang LH, Chan NLCrystal Structure of the Human Prostacyclin SynthaseJ Mol Biol(2006) 364: 266274 10.1016/j.jmb.2006.09.039 Pubmed ID: 17020766

31  

Yamada T, Takusagawa FPGH2 degradation pathway catalyzed by GSH-heme complex bound microsomal prostaglandin E2 synthase type 2: the first example of a dual-function enzymeBiochemistry(2007) 46: 84148424 10.1021/bi700605m Pubmed ID: 17585783

32  

Wright CS, Alden RA, Kraut JStructure of subtilisin BPN at 2.5 A resolutionNature(1969) 221: 235242 10.1038/221235a0 Pubmed ID: 5763076

33  

Brok P, Sander C, Valencia AConvergent evolution of similar enzymatic function on different protein folds: The hexokinase, ribokinase, and galactokinase families of sugar kinasesProtein Science(1993) 2: 3140 Pubmed ID: 8382990

34  

Park JY, Pillinger MH, Abramson SBProstaglandin E2 synthesis and secretion:The role of PGE2 synthasesClinical Immunology(2006) 119: 229240 10.1016/j.clim.2006.01.016 Pubmed ID: 16540375

35  

Ruan KH, Li P, Kulmacz RJ, Wu KKCharacterization of the Structure and Membrane Interaction of NH2-terminal Domain of Thromboxane A SynthaseJBC(1994) 269: 20932094

36  

Delano WLThe PyMOL Molecular Graphics System(2002) DeLano Scientific LLC, San Carlos, CA

37  

Kanehisa M, Goto SKEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and GenomesNucleic Acids Res(2000) 28: 2730 10.1093/nar/28.1.27 Pubmed ID: 10592173