help button home button Biophys. J.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Originally published as Biophys J. BioFAST on September 15, 2006.
doi:10.1529/biophysj.106.093971
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplement
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
biophysj.106.093971v1
91/10/L84    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Holyoake, J.
Right arrow Articles by Sansom, M. S. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Holyoake, J.
Right arrow Articles by Sansom, M. S. P.
Biophysical Journal 91:L84-L86 (2006)
© 2006 The Biophysical Society

Modeling, Docking, and Simulation of the Major Facilitator Superfamily

John Holyoake *, Victoria Caulfeild *, Stephen A. Baldwin {dagger} and Mark S. P. Sansom *

* Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; and {dagger} Astbury Centre for Structural Molecular Biology, Institute of Membrane and Systems Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom

Correspondence: Address reprint requests and inquiries to Mark Sansom, E-mail: mark.sansom{at}bioch.ox.ac.uk.

X-ray structures are known for three members of the Major Facilitator Superfamily (MFS) of membrane transporter proteins, thus enabling the use of homology modeling to extrapolate to other MFS members. However, before employing such models for, e.g., mutational or docking studies, it is essential to develop a measure of their quality. To aid development of such metrics, two disparate MFS members (NupG and GLUT1) have been modeled. In addition, control models were created with shuffled sequences, to mimic poor quality homology models. These models and the template crystal structures have been examined in terms of both static and dynamic indicators of structural quality. Comparison of the behavior of modeled structures with the crystal structures in molecular dynamics simulations provided a metric for model quality. Docking of the inhibitor forskolin to GLUT1 and to a control model revealed significant differences, indicating that we may identify accurate models despite low sequence identity between target sequences and templates.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol.Home page
C. L. Buller, R. D. Loberg, M.-H. Fan, Q. Zhu, J. L. Park, E. Vesely, K. Inoki, K.-L. Guan, and F. C. Brosius III
A GSK-3/TSC2/mTOR pathway regulates glucose uptake and GLUT1 glucose transporter expression
Am J Physiol Cell Physiol, September 1, 2008; 295(3): C836 - C843.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Biophys. JHome page
R. J. Naftalin, N. Green, and P. Cunningham
Lactose Permease H+-Lactose Symporter: Mechanical Switch or Brownian Ratchet?
Biophys. J., May 15, 2007; 92(10): 3474 - 3491.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the Biophysical Society.