Urban, D. J. & Roth, B. L. DREADDs (designer receptors exclusively activated by designer drugs): chemogenetic tools with therapeutic utility. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 55, 399–417 (2015).
Google Scholar
Roth, B. L. DREADDs for neuroscientists. Neuron 89, 683–694 (2016).
Google Scholar
Roth, B. L. How structure informs and transforms chemogenetics. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 57, 9–16 (2019).
Google Scholar
Wang, L. et al. Use of DREADD technology to identify novel targets for antidiabetic drugs. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 61, 421–440 (2021).
Google Scholar
Armbruster, B. N., Li, X., Pausch, M. H., Herlitze, S. & Roth, B. L. Evolving the lock to fit the key to create a family of G protein-coupled receptors potently activated by an inert ligand. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 5163–5168 (2007).
Google Scholar
Boyden, E. S., Zhang, F., Bamberg, E., Nagel, G. & Deisseroth, K. Millisecond-timescale, genetically targeted optical control of neural activity. Nat. Neurosci. 8, 1263–1268 (2005).
Google Scholar
Isberg, V. et al. Generic GPCR residue numbers—aligning topology maps while minding the gaps. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 36, 22–31 (2015).
Google Scholar
Hu, J. et al. A G protein-biased designer G protein-coupled receptor useful for studying the physiological relevance of Gq/11-dependent signaling pathways. J. Biol. Chem. 291, 7809–7820 (2016).
Google Scholar
Nakajima, K. & Wess, J. Design and functional characterization of a novel, arrestin-biased designer G protein-coupled receptor. Mol. Pharmacol. 82, 575–582 (2012).
Google Scholar
Guettier, J. M. et al. A chemical-genetic approach to study G protein regulation of β cell function in vivo. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 19197–19202 (2009).
Google Scholar
Inoue, A. et al. Illuminating G-protein-coupling selectivity of GPCRs. Cell 177, 1933–1947.e25 (2019).
Google Scholar
Bender, D., Holschbach, M. & Stöcklin, G. Synthesis of n.c.a. carbon-11 labelled clozapine and its major metabolite clozapine-N-oxide and comparison of their biodistribution in mice. Nucl. Med. Biol. 21, 921–925 (1994).
Google Scholar
Gomez, J. L. et al. Chemogenetics revealed: DREADD occupancy and activation via converted clozapine. Science 357, 503–507 (2017).
Google Scholar
Jann, M. W., Lam, Y. W. & Chang, W. H. Rapid formation of clozapine in guinea-pigs and man following clozapine-N-oxide administration. Arch. Int. Pharmacodyn. Ther. 328, 243–250 (1994).
Google Scholar
Roth, B. L., Sheffler, D. J. & Kroeze, W. K. Magic shotguns versus magic bullets: selectively non-selective drugs for mood disorders and schizophrenia. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 353–359 (2004).
Google Scholar
Weston, M. et al. Olanzapine: a potent agonist at the hM4D(Gi) DREADD amenable to clinical translation of chemogenetics. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw1567 (2019).
Google Scholar
Nagai, Y. et al. Deschloroclozapine, a potent and selective chemogenetic actuator enables rapid neuronal and behavioral modulations in mice and monkeys. Nat. Neurosci. 23, 1157–1167 (2020).
Google Scholar
Thompson, K. J. et al. DREADD agonist 21 is an effective agonist for muscarinic-based DREADDs in vitro and in vivo. ACS Pharmacol. Transl. Sci. 1, 61–72 (2018).
Google Scholar
Chen, X. et al. The first structure–activity relationship studies for designer receptors exclusively activated by designer drugs. ACS Chem. Neurosci. 6, 476–484 (2015).
Google Scholar
Bonaventura, J. et al. High-potency ligands for DREADD imaging and activation in rodents and monkeys. Nat. Commun. 10, 4627 (2019).
Google Scholar
Nehme, R. et al. Mini-G proteins: novel tools for studying GPCRs in their active conformation. PLoS ONE 12, e0175642 (2017).
Google Scholar
Kim, K. et al. Structure of a hallucinogen-activated Gq-coupled 5-HT2A serotonin receptor. Cell 182, 1574–1588.e19 (2020).
Google Scholar
Garcia-Nafria, J., Nehme, R., Edwards, P. C. & Tate, C. G. Cryo-EM structure of the serotonin 5-HT1B receptor coupled to heterotrimeric Go. Nature 558, 620–623 (2018).
Google Scholar
Zhang, S. et al. Inactive and active state structures template selective tools for the human 5-HT5A receptor. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 29, 677–687 (2022).
Google Scholar
Duan, J. et al. Cryo-EM structure of an activated VIP1 receptor–G protein complex revealed by a NanoBiT tethering strategy. Nat. Commun. 11, 4121 (2020).
Google Scholar
Maeda, S., Qu, Q., Robertson, M. J., Skiniotis, G. & Kobilka, B. K. Structures of the M1 and M2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor/G-protein complexes. Science 364, 552–557 (2019).
Google Scholar
Wang, J. et al. The unconventional activation of the muscarinic acetylcholine receptor M4R by diverse ligands. Nat. Commun. 13, 2855 (2022).
Google Scholar
Liu, H. et al. Structure-guided development of selective M3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor antagonists. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 12046–12050 (2018).
Google Scholar
Thorsen, T. S., Matt, R., Weis, W. I. & Kobilka, B. K. Modified T4 lysozyme fusion proteins facilitate G protein-coupled receptor crystallogenesis. Structure 22, 1657–1664 (2014).
Google Scholar
Kruse, A. C. et al. Structure and dynamics of the M3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. Nature 482, 552–556 (2012).
Google Scholar
Kenakin, T., Watson, C., Muniz-Medina, V., Christopoulos, A. & Novick, S. A simple method for quantifying functional selectivity and agonist bias. ACS Chem. Neurosci. 3, 193–203 (2012).
Google Scholar
Wess, J., Maggio, R., Palmer, J. R. & Vogel, Z. Role of conserved threonine and tyrosine residues in acetylcholine binding and muscarinic receptor activation. A study with M3 muscarinic receptor point mutants. J. Biol. Chem. 267, 19313–19319 (1992).
Google Scholar
Heitz, F. et al. Site-directed mutagenesis of the putative human muscarinic M2 receptor binding site. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 380, 183–195 (1999).
Google Scholar
Nawaratne, V. et al. New insights into the function of M4 muscarinic acetylcholine receptors gained using a novel allosteric modulator and a DREADD (designer receptor exclusively activated by a designer drug). Mol. Pharmacol. 74, 1119–1131 (2008).
Google Scholar
Abdul-Ridha, A., Lane, J. R., Sexton, P. M., Canals, M. & Christopoulos, A. Allosteric modulation of a chemogenetically modified G protein-coupled receptor. Mol. Pharmacol. 83, 521–530 (2013).
Google Scholar
Haga, K. et al. Structure of the human M2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor bound to an antagonist. Nature 482, 547–551 (2012).
Google Scholar
Jumper, J. et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 596, 583–589 (2021).
Google Scholar
McCorvy, J. D. et al. Structural determinants of 5-HT2B receptor activation and biased agonism. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 25, 787–796 (2018).
Google Scholar
Wacker, D., Stevens, R. C. & Roth, B. L. How ligands illuminate GPCR molecular pharmacology. Cell 170, 414–427 (2017).
Google Scholar
Suno, R. et al. Structural insights into the subtype-selective antagonist binding to the M2 muscarinic receptor. Nat. Chem. Biol. 14, 1150–1158 (2018).
Google Scholar
Flock, T. et al. Universal allosteric mechanism for Gα activation by GPCRs. Nature 524, 173–179 (2015).
Google Scholar
Xia, R. et al. Cryo-EM structure of the human histamine H1 receptor/Gq complex. Nat. Commun. 12, 2086 (2021).
Google Scholar
Cao, C. et al. Structure, function and pharmacology of human itch GPCRs. Nature 600, 170–175 (2021).
Google Scholar
Mobbs, J. I. et al. Structures of the human cholecystokinin 1 (CCK1) receptor bound to Gs and Gq mimetic proteins provide insight into mechanisms of G protein selectivity. PLoS Biol. 19, e3001295 (2021).
Google Scholar
Yin, Y. L. et al. Molecular basis for kinin selectivity and activation of the human bradykinin receptors. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 28, 755–761 (2021).
Google Scholar
Blin, N., Yun, J. & Wess, J. Mapping of single amino acid residues required for selective activation of Gq/11 by the m3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. J. Biol. Chem. 270, 17741–17748 (1995).
Google Scholar
Xu, P. et al. Structural insights into the lipid and ligand regulation of serotonin receptors. Nature 592, 469–473 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kooistra, A. J. et al. GPCRdb in 2021: integrating GPCR sequence, structure and function. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, D335–D343 (2021).
Google Scholar
Wang, Y. et al. Molecular recognition of an acyl-peptide hormone and activation of ghrelin receptor. Nat. Commun. 12, 5064 (2021).
Google Scholar
Zhang, X. et al. Structures of the human cholecystokinin receptors bound to agonists and antagonists. Nat. Chem. Biol. 17, 1230–1237 (2021).
Google Scholar
Peck, J. V., Fay, J. F. & Strauss, J. D. High-speed high-resolution data collection on a 200 keV cryo-TEM. IUCrJ 9, 243–252 (2022).
Google Scholar
Mastronarde, D. N. Automated electron microscope tomography using robust prediction of specimen movements. J. Struct. Biol. 152, 36–51 (2005).
Google Scholar
Bepler, T., Kelley, K., Noble, A. J. & Berger, B. Topaz-Denoise: general deep denoising models for cryoEM and cryoET. Nat. Commun. 11, 5208 (2020).
Google Scholar
Punjani, A., Rubinstein, J. L., Fleet, D. J. & Brubaker, M. A. cryoSPARC: algorithms for rapid unsupervised cryo-EM structure determination. Nat. Methods 14, 290–296 (2017).
Google Scholar
Punjani, A., Zhang, H. & Fleet, D. J. Non-uniform refinement: adaptive regularization improves single-particle cryo-EM reconstruction. Nat. Methods 17, 1214–1221 (2020).
Google Scholar
Rosenthal, P. B. & Henderson, R. Optimal determination of particle orientation, absolute hand, and contrast loss in single-particle electron cryomicroscopy. J. Mol. Biol. 333, 721–745 (2003).
Google Scholar
Heymann, J. B. & Belnap, D. M. Bsoft: image processing and molecular modeling for electron microscopy. J. Struct. Biol. 157, 3–18 (2007).
Google Scholar
Sanchez-Garcia, R. et al. DeepEMhancer: a deep learning solution for cryo-EM volume post-processing. Commun. Biol. 4, 874 (2021).
Google Scholar
Pettersen, E. F. et al. UCSF Chimera—a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J. Comput. Chem. 25, 1605–1612 (2004).
Google Scholar
Emsley, P. & Cowtan, K. Coot: model-building tools for molecular graphics. Acta Crystallogr. D 60, 2126–2132 (2004).
Google Scholar
Adams, P. D. et al. PHENIX: a comprehensive Python-based system for macromolecular structure solution. Acta Crystallogr. D 66, 213–221 (2010).
Google Scholar
Chen, V. B. et al. MolProbity: all-atom structure validation for macromolecular crystallography. Acta Crystallogr. D 66, 12–21 (2010).
Google Scholar
Olsen, R. H. J. et al. TRUPATH, an open-source biosensor platform for interrogating the GPCR transducerome. Nat. Chem. Biol. 16, 841–849 (2020).
Google Scholar
Lomize, M. A., Pogozheva, I. D., Joo, H., Mosberg, H. I. & Lomize, A. L. OPM database and PPM web server: resources for positioning of proteins in membranes. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D370–D376 (2012).
Google Scholar
Brooks, B. R. et al. CHARMM: the biomolecular simulation program. J. Comput. Chem. 30, 1545–1614 (2009).
Google Scholar
Jo, S., Kim, T., Iyer, V. G. & Im, W. CHARMM-GUI: a web-based graphical user interface for CHARMM. J. Comput. Chem. 29, 1859–1865 (2008).
Google Scholar
Lee, J. et al. CHARMM-GUI input generator for NAMD, GROMACS, AMBER, OpenMM, and CHARMM/OpenMM simulations using the CHARMM36 additive force field. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 12, 405–413 (2016).
Google Scholar
Wu, E. L. et al. CHARMM-GUI membrane builder toward realistic biological membrane simulations. J. Comput. Chem. 35, 1997–2004 (2014).
Google Scholar
Huang, J. et al. CHARMM36m: an improved force field for folded and intrinsically disordered proteins. Nat. Methods 14, 71–73 (2017).
Google Scholar
Klauda, J. B. et al. Update of the CHARMM all-atom additive force field for lipids: validation on six lipid types. J. Phys. Chem. B 114, 7830–7843 (2010).
Google Scholar
Case, D. A. et al. AMBER v.2020 (Univ. of California, San Francisco, 2020).
Roe, D. R. & Cheatham, T. E. PTRAJ and CPPTRAJ: software for processing and analysis of molecular dynamics trajectory data. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 9, 3084–3095 (2013).
Google Scholar
Humphrey, W., Dalke, A. & Schulten, K. VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J. Mol. Graphics 14, 33–38 (1996).
Google Scholar
Pettersen, E. F. et al. UCSF ChimeraX: structure visualization for researchers, educators, and developers. Protein Sci. 30, 70–82 (2021).
Google Scholar