skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: What Do Structures Tell Us About Chemokine Receptor Function and Antagonism?

Abstract

Chemokines and their cell surface G protein–coupled receptors are critical for cell migration, not only in many fundamental biological processes but also in inflammatory diseases and cancer. Recent X-ray structures of two chemokines complexed with full-length receptors provided unprecedented insight into the atomic details of chemokine recognition and receptor activation, and computational modeling informed by new experiments leverages these insights to gain understanding of many more receptor:chemokine pairs. In parallel, chemokine receptor structures with small molecules reveal the complicated and diverse structural foundations of small molecule antagonism and allostery, highlight the inherent physicochemical challenges of receptor:chemokine interfaces, and suggest novel epitopes that can be exploited to overcome these challenges. The structures and models promote unique understanding of chemokine receptor biology, including the interpretation of two decades of experimental studies, and will undoubtedly assist future drug discovery endeavors.

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [1];  [1];  [1]
  1. Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093,,
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Argonne National Lab. (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States). Advanced Photon Source (APS)
Sponsoring Org.:
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
OSTI Identifier:
1372231
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Annual Review of Biophysics; Journal Volume: 46; Journal Issue: 1
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
ENGLISH
Subject:
59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

Citation Formats

Kufareva, Irina, Gustavsson, Martin, Zheng, Yi, Stephens, Bryan S., and Handel, Tracy M. What Do Structures Tell Us About Chemokine Receptor Function and Antagonism?. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.1146/annurev-biophys-051013-022942.
Kufareva, Irina, Gustavsson, Martin, Zheng, Yi, Stephens, Bryan S., & Handel, Tracy M. What Do Structures Tell Us About Chemokine Receptor Function and Antagonism?. United States. doi:10.1146/annurev-biophys-051013-022942.
Kufareva, Irina, Gustavsson, Martin, Zheng, Yi, Stephens, Bryan S., and Handel, Tracy M. 2017. "What Do Structures Tell Us About Chemokine Receptor Function and Antagonism?". United States. doi:10.1146/annurev-biophys-051013-022942.
@article{osti_1372231,
title = {What Do Structures Tell Us About Chemokine Receptor Function and Antagonism?},
author = {Kufareva, Irina and Gustavsson, Martin and Zheng, Yi and Stephens, Bryan S. and Handel, Tracy M.},
abstractNote = {Chemokines and their cell surface G protein–coupled receptors are critical for cell migration, not only in many fundamental biological processes but also in inflammatory diseases and cancer. Recent X-ray structures of two chemokines complexed with full-length receptors provided unprecedented insight into the atomic details of chemokine recognition and receptor activation, and computational modeling informed by new experiments leverages these insights to gain understanding of many more receptor:chemokine pairs. In parallel, chemokine receptor structures with small molecules reveal the complicated and diverse structural foundations of small molecule antagonism and allostery, highlight the inherent physicochemical challenges of receptor:chemokine interfaces, and suggest novel epitopes that can be exploited to overcome these challenges. The structures and models promote unique understanding of chemokine receptor biology, including the interpretation of two decades of experimental studies, and will undoubtedly assist future drug discovery endeavors.},
doi = {10.1146/annurev-biophys-051013-022942},
journal = {Annual Review of Biophysics},
number = 1,
volume = 46,
place = {United States},
year = 2017,
month = 5
}
  • Game theory provides a useful theoretical framework to examine the decision process operating in the context of environmental assessment, and to examine the rationality and legitimacy of decision-making subject to Environmental Assessment (EA). The research uses a case study of the Environmental Impact Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal processes undertaken in England. To these are applied an analytical framework, based on the concept of decision windows to identify the decisions to be assessed. The conditions for legitimacy are defined, based on game theory, in relation to the timing of decision information, the behaviour type (competitive, reciprocal, equity) exhibited by the decisionmore » maker, and the level of public engagement; as, together, these control the type of rationality which can be brought to bear on the decision. Instrumental rationality is based on self-interest of individuals, whereas deliberative rationality seeks broader consensus and is more likely to underpin legitimate decisions. The results indicate that the Sustainability Appraisal process, conducted at plan level, is better than EIA, conducted at project level, but still fails to provide conditions that facilitate legitimacy. Game theory also suggests that Sustainability Appraisal is likely to deliver ‘least worst’ outcomes rather than best outcomes when the goals of the assessment process are considered; this may explain the propensity of such ‘least worst’ decisions in practise. On the basis of what can be learned from applying this game theory perspective, it is suggested that environmental assessment processes need to be redesigned and better integrated into decision making in order to guarantee the legitimacy of the decisions made. - Highlights: • Decision legitimacy is defined in terms of game theory. • Game theory is applied to EIA and SA decision windows. • Game theory suggests least worst outcomes prevail. • SA is more likely to be perceived legitimate than EIA.« less
  • Past research involving R and D data has produced results which have suggested a number of specific relationships between research and development activities and economic growth, and have helped to identify certain characteristics of the process of technological change. However, many of these results remain ambiguous and their quantitative interpretation and synthesis have been hampered by the absence of definitive data. Many problems surround the concept and measurement of technological change. Until recently, limitations of the R and D data precluded analyses of R and D inputs in the theoretically preferred form of capital stocks. Some of the past researchmore » and theoretical discussions are reviewed. An approach is suggested for constructing systematic data which would permit a better focus on technological change than the data now available. 23 references.« less