Click here to close
Hello! We notice that you are using Internet Explorer, which is not supported by Xenbase and may cause the site to display incorrectly.
We suggest using a current version of Chrome,
FireFox, or Safari.
???displayArticle.abstract???
The aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR) is a Per-ARNT-Sim (PAS) family protein that mediates the toxicity of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in vertebrates. Frogs are remarkably insensitive to TCDD, and AHRs from Xenopus laevis bind TCDD with low affinity. We sought to identify structural features of X. laevis AHR1β associated with low TCDD sensitivity. Substitution of the entire ligand binding domain (LBD) with the corresponding sequence from mouse AHR(b-1) dramatically increased TCDD responsiveness in transactivation assays. To identify the amino acid residues responsible, we constructed a comparative model of the AHR1β LBD using homologous domains of PAS proteins HIF2α and ARNT. The model revealed an internal cavity with dimensions similar to those of the putative binding cavity of mouse AHR(b-1), suggesting the importance of side chain interactions over cavity size. Of residues with side chains clearly pointing into the cavity, only two differed from the mouse sequence. When A354, located within a conserved β-strand, was changed to serine, the corresponding mouse residue, the EC50 for TCDD decreased more than 15-fold. When N325 was changed to serine, the EC50 decreased 3-fold. When the mutations were combined, the EC50 decreased from 18.6 to 0.8 nM, the value nearly matching the TCDD sensitivity of mouse AHR. Velocity sedimentation analysis confirmed that mutant frog AHRs exhibited correspondingly increased levels of TCDD binding. We also assayed mutant AHRs for responsiveness to a candidate endogenous ligand, 6-formylindolo[3,2-b]carbazole (FICZ). Mutations that increased sensitivity to TCDD also increased sensitivity to FICZ. This comparative study represents a novel approach to discerning fundamental information about the structure of AHR and its interactions with biologically important agonists.
Andersen,
Continuum secondary structure captures protein flexibility.
2002, Pubmed
Andersen,
Continuum secondary structure captures protein flexibility.
2002,
Pubmed Beischlag,
The aryl hydrocarbon receptor complex and the control of gene expression.
2008,
Pubmed Bisson,
Modeling of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) ligand binding domain and its utility in virtual ligand screening to predict new AhR ligands.
2009,
Pubmed Carlson,
A dynamic role for the Ah receptor in cell signaling? Insights from a diverse group of Ah receptor interacting proteins.
2002,
Pubmed Coumailleau,
Definition of a minimal domain of the dioxin receptor that is associated with Hsp90 and maintains wild type ligand binding affinity and specificity.
1995,
Pubmed Denison,
Activation of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor by structurally diverse exogenous and endogenous chemicals.
2003,
Pubmed Dundas,
CASTp: computed atlas of surface topography of proteins with structural and topographical mapping of functionally annotated residues.
2006,
Pubmed Ema,
Dioxin binding activities of polymorphic forms of mouse and human arylhydrocarbon receptors.
1994,
Pubmed Farmahin,
Sequence and in vitro function of chicken, ring-necked pheasant, and Japanese quail AHR1 predict in vivo sensitivity to dioxins.
2012,
Pubmed Farmahin,
Amino acid sequence of the ligand-binding domain of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor 1 predicts sensitivity of wild birds to effects of dioxin-like compounds.
2013,
Pubmed Fiser,
Modeling of loops in protein structures.
2000,
Pubmed Fraccalvieri,
Comparative analysis of homology models of the AH receptor ligand binding domain: verification of structure-function predictions by site-directed mutagenesis of a nonfunctional receptor.
2013,
Pubmed Frueh,
Use of cDNA microarrays to analyze dioxin-induced changes in human liver gene expression.
2001,
Pubmed Fukunaga,
Identification of functional domains of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor.
1995,
Pubmed Goodale,
AHR2 mutant reveals functional diversity of aryl hydrocarbon receptors in zebrafish.
2012,
Pubmed Head,
Key amino acids in the aryl hydrocarbon receptor predict dioxin sensitivity in avian species.
2008,
Pubmed Holm,
DaliLite workbench for protein structure comparison.
2000,
Pubmed Jones,
Protein secondary structure prediction based on position-specific scoring matrices.
1999,
Pubmed Karchner,
Identification and functional characterization of two highly divergent aryl hydrocarbon receptors (AHR1 and AHR2) in the teleost Fundulus heteroclitus. Evidence for a novel subfamily of ligand-binding basic helix loop helix-Per-ARNT-Sim (bHLH-PAS) factors.
1999,
Pubmed Karchner,
The molecular basis for differential dioxin sensitivity in birds: role of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor.
2006,
Pubmed Laub,
Responsiveness of a Xenopus laevis cell line to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor ligands 6-formylindolo[3,2-b]carbazole (FICZ) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD).
2010,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase Lavine,
Aryl hydrocarbon receptors in the frog Xenopus laevis: two AhR1 paralogs exhibit low affinity for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD).
2005,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase Long,
Protein kinase C activity is required for aryl hydrocarbon receptor pathway-mediated signal transduction.
1998,
Pubmed MacKerell,
All-atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and dynamics studies of proteins.
1998,
Pubmed Martí-Renom,
Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes.
2000,
Pubmed McIntosh,
Mammalian Per-Arnt-Sim proteins in environmental adaptation.
2010,
Pubmed Motto,
New aryl hydrocarbon receptor homology model targeted to improve docking reliability.
2011,
Pubmed Nebert,
Role of the aromatic hydrocarbon receptor and [Ah] gene battery in the oxidative stress response, cell cycle control, and apoptosis.
2000,
Pubmed Pandini,
Structural and functional characterization of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor ligand binding domain by homology modeling and mutational analysis.
2007,
Pubmed Pandini,
Detection of the TCDD binding-fingerprint within the Ah receptor ligand binding domain by structurally driven mutagenesis and functional analysis.
2009,
Pubmed Petrulis,
The role of chaperone proteins in the aryl hydrocarbon receptor core complex.
2002,
Pubmed Poland,
Analysis of the four alleles of the murine aryl hydrocarbon receptor.
1994,
Pubmed Pollenz,
The aryl hydrocarbon receptor and aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator protein show distinct subcellular localizations in Hepa 1c1c7 cells by immunofluorescence microscopy.
1994,
Pubmed Puga,
Ah receptor signals cross-talk with multiple developmental pathways.
2005,
Pubmed Puga,
The transcriptional signature of dioxin in human hepatoma HepG2 cells.
2000,
Pubmed Ramadoss,
Use of 2-azido-3-[125I]iodo-7,8-dibromodibenzo-p-dioxin as a probe to determine the relative ligand affinity of human versus mouse aryl hydrocarbon receptor in cultured cells.
2004,
Pubmed Sali,
Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints.
1993,
Pubmed Sippl,
Recognition of errors in three-dimensional structures of proteins.
1993,
Pubmed Tanguay,
Cloning and characterization of the zebrafish (Danio rerio) aryl hydrocarbon receptor.
1999,
Pubmed Thompson,
CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice.
1994,
Pubmed Wincent,
The suggested physiologic aryl hydrocarbon receptor activator and cytochrome P4501 substrate 6-formylindolo[3,2-b]carbazole is present in humans.
2009,
Pubmed Xing,
Identification of the Ah-receptor structural determinants for ligand preferences.
2012,
Pubmed
