Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Crystal structures of the M1 and M4 muscarinic acetylcholine receptors

Abstract

Muscarinic M1–M5 acetylcholine receptors are G-protein-coupled receptors that regulate many vital functions of the central and peripheral nervous systems. In particular, the M1 and M4 receptor subtypes have emerged as attractive drug targets for treatments of neurological disorders, such as Alzheimer’s disease and schizophrenia, but the high conservation of the acetylcholine-binding pocket has spurred current research into targeting allosteric sites on these receptors. Here we report the crystal structures of the M1 and M4 muscarinic receptors bound to the inverse agonist, tiotropium. Comparison of these structures with each other, as well as with the previously reported M2 and M3 receptor structures, reveals differences in the orthosteric and allosteric binding sites that contribute to a role in drug selectivity at this important receptor family. We also report identification of a cluster of residues that form a network linking the orthosteric and allosteric sites of the M4 receptor, which provides new insight into how allosteric modulation may be transmitted between the two spatially distinct domains.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Structural comparison of the M1–M4 receptors.
Figure 2: Comparison of orthosteric and allosteric binding site residues across the M1–M4 receptors.
Figure 3: Electrostatic and surface properties of the different muscarinic receptor structures.
Figure 4: Model of an active M4 receptor bound to acetylcholine and LY2033298.
Figure 5: A cooperativity network at the M4 receptor.

Accession codes

Primary accessions

Protein Data Bank

Data deposits

Atomic coordinates and structure factors for the M1 and M4 receptors, respectively, have been deposited in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) under accession numbers 5CXV and 5DSG.

References

  1. Wess, J., Eglen, R. M. & Gautam, D. Muscarinic acetylcholine receptors: mutant mice provide new insights for drug development. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 6, 721–733 (2007)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hasselmo, M. E. The role of acetylcholine in learning and memory. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 16, 710–715 (2006)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hasselmo, M. E. & Giocomo, L. M. Cholinergic modulation of cortical function. J. Mol. Neurosci. 30, 133–135 (2006)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kruse, A. C. et al. Muscarinic acetylcholine receptors: novel opportunities for drug development. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 13, 549–560 (2014)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kruse, A. C., Hu, J., Kobilka, B. K. & Wess, J. Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor X-ray structures: potential implications for drug development. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 16, 24–30 (2014)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Foster, D. J., Jones, C. K. & Conn, P. J. Emerging approaches for treatment of schizophrenia: modulation of cholinergic signaling. Discov. Med. 14, 413–420 (2012)

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Shekhar, A. et al. Selective muscarinic receptor agonist xanomeline as a novel treatment approach for schizophrenia. Am. J. Psychiatry 165, 1033–1039 (2008)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bodick, N. C. et al. Effects of xanomeline, a selective muscarinic receptor agonist, on cognitive function and behavioral symptoms in Alzheimer disease. Arch. Neurol. 54, 465–473 (1997)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Heinrich, J. N. et al. Pharmacological comparison of muscarinic ligands: historical versus more recent muscarinic M1-preferring receptor agonists. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 605, 53–56 (2009)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Conn, P. J., Christopoulos, A. & Lindsley, C. W. Allosteric modulators of GPCRs: a novel approach for the treatment of CNS disorders. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 8, 41–54 (2009)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Digby, G. J., Shirey, J. K. & Conn, P. J. Allosteric activators of muscarinic receptors as novel approaches for treatment of CNS disorders. Mol. Biosyst. 6, 1345–1354 (2010)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Keov, P., Sexton, P. M. & Christopoulos, A. Allosteric modulation of G protein-coupled receptors: a pharmacological perspective. Neuropharmacology 60, 24–35 (2011)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Suratman, S. et al. Impact of species variability and ‘probe-dependence’ on the detection and in vivo validation of allosteric modulation at the M4 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. Br. J. Pharmacol. 162, 1659–1670 (2011)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Leach, K. et al. Molecular mechanisms of action and in vivo validation of an M4 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor allosteric modulator with potential antipsychotic properties. Neuropsychopharmacology 35, 855–869 (2010)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chan, W. Y. et al. Allosteric modulation of the muscarinic M4 receptor as an approach to treating schizophrenia. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 10978–10983 (2008)

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Shirey, J. K. et al. A selective allosteric potentiator of the M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor increases activity of medial prefrontal cortical neurons and restores impairments in reversal learning. J. Neurosci. 29, 14271–14286 (2009)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ma, L. et al. Selective activation of the M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor achieved by allosteric potentiation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 15950–15955 (2009)

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Abdul-Ridha, A. et al. Molecular determinants of allosteric modulation at the M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. J. Biol. Chem. 289, 6067–6079 (2014)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Abdul-Ridha, A. et al. Mechanistic insights into allosteric structure-function relationships at the M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. J. Biol. Chem. 289, 33701–33711 (2014)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Leach, K., Davey, A. E., Felder, C. C., Sexton, P. M. & Christopoulos, A. The role of transmembrane domain 3 in the actions of orthosteric, allosteric, and atypical agonists of the M4 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. Mol. Pharmacol. 79, 855–865 (2011)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nawaratne, V., Leach, K., Felder, C. C., Sexton, P. M. & Christopoulos, A. Structural determinants of allosteric agonism and modulation at the M4 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor: identification of ligand-specific and global activation mechanisms. J. Biol. Chem. 285, 19012–19021 (2010)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kruse, A. C. et al. Structure and dynamics of the M3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. Nature 482, 552–556 (2012)

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Haga, K. et al. Structure of the human M2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor bound to an antagonist. Nature 482, 547–551 (2012)

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Caffrey, M. & Cherezov, V. Crystallizing membrane proteins using lipidic mesophases. Nature Protocols 4, 706–731 (2009)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chun, E. et al. Fusion partner toolchest for the stabilization and crystallization of G protein-coupled receptors. Structure 20, 967–976 (2012)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. van Rhee, A. M. & Jacobson, K. A. Molecular architecture of G protein-coupled receptors. Drug Dev. Res. 37, 1–38 (1996)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lu, Z.-L., Saldanha, J. W. & Hulme, E. C. Transmembrane domains 4 and 7 of the M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor are critical for ligand binding and the receptor activation switch. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 34098–34104 (2001)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Caulfield, M. P. & Birdsall, N. J. M. International Union of Pharmacology. XVII. Classification of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. Pharmacol. Rev. 50, 279–290 (1998)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Goodwin, J. A., Hulme, E. C., Langmead, C. J. & Tehan, B. G. Roof and floor of the muscarinic binding pocket: variations in the binding modes of orthosteric ligands. Mol. Pharmacol. 72, 1484–1496 (2007)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gregory, K. J., Sexton, P. M. & Christopoulos, A. Allosteric modulation of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. Curr. Neuropharmacol. 5, 157–167 (2007)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Stockton, J. M., Birdsall, N. J., Burgen, A. S. & Hulme, E. C. Modification of the binding properties of muscarinic receptors by gallamine. Mol. Pharmacol. 23, 551–557 (1983)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gnagey, A. L., Seidenberg, M. & Ellis, J. Site-directed mutagenesis reveals two epitopes involved in the subtype selectivity of the allosteric interactions of gallamine at muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. Mol. Pharmacol. 56, 1245–1253 (1999)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Tautermann, C. S. et al. Molecular basis for the long duration of action and kinetic selectivity of tiotropium for the muscarinic M3 receptor. J. Med. Chem. 56, 8746–8756 (2013)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kruse, A. C. et al. Activation and allosteric modulation of a muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. Nature 504, 101–106 (2013)

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Conn, P. J., Jones, C. K. & Lindsley, C. W. Subtype-selective allosteric modulators of muscarinic receptors for the treatment of CNS disorders. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 30, 148–155 (2009)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Schober, D. A., Croy, C. H., Xiao, H., Christopoulos, A. & Felder, C. C. Development of a radioligand, [3H]LY2119620, to probe the human M2 and M4 muscarinic receptor allosteric binding sites. Mol. Pharmacol. 86, 116–123 (2014)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Croy, C. H. et al. Characterization of the novel positive allosteric modulator, LY2119620, at the muscarinic M2 and M4 receptors. Mol. Pharmacol. 86, 106–115 (2014)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Khoury, E., Clément, S. & Laporte, S. A. Allosteric and biased g protein-coupled receptor signaling regulation: potentials for new therapeutics. Front. Endocrinol. 5, 68 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Scarselli, M., Li, B., Kim, S. K. & Wess, J. Multiple residues in the second extracellular loop are critical for M3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor activation. J. Biol. Chem. 282, 7385–7396 (2007)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Avlani, V. A. et al. Critical role for the second extracellular loop in the binding of both orthosteric and allosteric G protein-coupled receptor ligands. J. Biol. Chem. 282, 25677–25686 (2007)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lockless, S. W. & Ranganathan, R. Evolutionarily conserved pathways of energetic connectivity in protein families. Science 286, 295–299 (1999)

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Dolinsky, T. J., Nielsen, J. E., McCammon, J. A. & Baker, N. A. PDB2PQR: an automated pipeline for the setup of Poisson-Boltzmann electrostatics calculations. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, W665–W667 (2004)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Dolinsky, T. J. et al. PDB2PQR: expanding and upgrading automated preparation of biomolecular structures for molecular simulations. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, W522–W525 (2007)

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Baker, N. A., Sept, D., Joseph, S., Holst, M. J. & McCammon, J. A. Electrostatics of nanosystems: application to microtubules and the ribosome. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 10037–10041 (2001)

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Kabsch, W. XDS. Acta Crystallogr. D 66, 125–132 (2010)

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. McCoy, A. J. et al. Phaser crystallographic software. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 40, 658–674 (2007)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Skubák, P., Murshudov, G. N. & Pannu, N. S. Direct incorporation of experimental phase information in model refinement. Acta Crystallogr. D 60, 2196–2201 (2004)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Emsley, P., Lohkamp, B., Scott, W. G. & Cowtan, K. Features and development of Coot. Acta Crystallogr. D 66, 486–501 (2010)

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Adams, P. D. et al. PHENIX: a comprehensive Python-based system for macromolecular structure solution. Acta Crystallogr. D 66, 213–221 (2010)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Chen, V. B. et al. MolProbity: all-atom structure validation for macromolecular crystallography. Acta Crystallogr. D 66, 12–21 (2010)

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Schrodinger, L. The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, version 1.7.0.3 (2010)

  53. Schrödinger release 2014-2: Maestro, version 9.7 (2014)

  54. Guex, N., Peitsch, M. C. & Schwede, T. Automated comparative protein structure modeling with SWISS-MODEL and Swiss-PdbViewer: a historical perspective. Electrophoresis 30 (Suppl. 1), S162–S173 (2009)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Arnold, K., Bordoli, L., Kopp, J. & Schwede, T. The SWISS-MODEL workspace: a web-based environment for protein structure homology modelling. Bioinformatics 22, 195–201 (2006)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Grosdidier, A., Zoete, V. & Michielin, O. SwissDock, a protein-small molecule docking web service based on EADock DSS. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, W270–W277 (2011)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 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)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Motulsky, H. & Christopoulos, A. Fitting Models to Biological Data Using Linear and Nonlinear Regression: A Practical Guide to Curve Fitting (Oxford Univ. Press, 2004)

  59. Ehlert, F. J. Estimation of the affinities of allosteric ligands using radioligand binding and pharmacological null methods. Mol. Pharmacol. 33, 187–194 (1988)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Celniker, G. et al. ConSurf: using evolutionary data to raise testable hypotheses about protein function. Isr. J. Chem. 53, 199–206 (2013)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ashkenazy, H., Erez, E., Martz, E., Pupko, T. & Ben-Tal, N. ConSurf 2010: calculating evolutionary conservation in sequence and structure of proteins and nucleic acids. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, W529–W533 (2010)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Landau, M. et al. ConSurf 2005: the projection of evolutionary conservation scores of residues on protein structures. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, W299–W302 (2005)

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Glaser, F. et al. ConSurf: identification of functional regions in proteins by surface-mapping of phylogenetic information. Bioinformatics 19, 163–164 (2003)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Larkin, M. A. et al. Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0. Bioinformatics 23, 2947–2948 (2007)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Molecular Operating Environment (MOE) (Chemical Computing Group, 2015)

  66. Karplus, P. A. & Diederichs, K. Linking crystallographic model and data quality. Science 336, 1030–1033 (2012)

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank L. Lopez for generating initial M4 homology models. This work was funded by Program Grant APP1055134 of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia (A.C., P.M.S.). Portions of this work were supported by a Lilly Research Award Program grant. W.I.W. and B.K.K. were supported by the Mathers Foundation. A.C. is a Senior Principal, and P.M.S. a Principal, Research Fellow of the NHMRC. GM/CA @ APS has been funded in whole or in part with federal funds from the National Cancer Institute (Y1-CO-1020) and the National Institute of General Medical Science (Y1-GM-1104). Use of the Advanced Photon Source was supported by the US Department of Energy, Basic Energy Sciences, Office of Science, under contract number W-31-109-ENG-38.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

D.M.T. performed cloning, protein expression, purification, crystallization, data collection, structure refinement, and radioligand binding assays on the M4 receptor. D.F. purified and crystallized the M1 receptor. B.S. performed data collection and structure refinement on the M1 receptor. K.L., V.N., and D.M.T. performed mutagenesis and radioligand binding studies that examined the effects of amino-acid substitutions on ligand pharmacology. C.C.F., M.G.B., and D.E. provided the pirenzepine IFD and active-state M4 homology model. P.B. generated the active-state model of the M1 receptor. T.S.K. supervised the M1 muscarinic receptor production and purification. W.I.W. supervised structure refinement. B.K.K., P.M.S., and A.C. provided overall project supervision. D.M.T. and A.C. wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Patrick M. Sexton, Brian K. Kobilka or Arthur Christopoulos.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

C.C.F., M.G.B. and D.E. are employees of Eli Lilly.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 Crystallization construct design, purification and crystallization.

a, b, Crystallization constructs used for the (a) M1 receptor and (b) M4 receptor. All constructs contain an N-terminal Flag epitope (yellow), C-terminal histidine tag (purple), and a T4L lysozyme fusion protein (red). For the M4 receptor, initial constructs diffracted out to 4 Å; however, the diffraction data appeared to suffer from a lattice translocation disorder and were unsolvable. The final crystallization construct contained a shortened N terminus with an HRV 3C cleavage site, shown in dark green, and a minimal T4 lysozyme fusion (mT4L)26, shown in red. c, Snake-plot diagram of the best diffracting M4 mAChR construct coloured according to a. Residues coloured blue are single-point mutations from this study, and residues coloured orange are previously studied mutations20,21. d, Size-exclusion chromatography trace of purified monodispersed M4-mT4L bound to tiotropium. e, Crystals of M4-mT4L obtained in lipidic cubic phase and observed under circularly polarized light.

Extended Data Figure 2 Sequence conservation across the muscarinic receptor subfamily.

ac, The sequence alignment of the human M1–M5 receptors (d) was determined on the ConSurf server to calculate amino-acid conservation scores60,61. Conservation scores for each residue were mapped62,63 onto the M4 structure and coloured as a gradient from blue (highly conserved) to red (least conserved) with views from the (b) extracellular and (c) intracellular sides. The radius of the cartoon increases as the residues at each position become more poorly conserved. Tiotropium and PEG 300 from the M4 structure are shown as spheres and coloured with carbon in white, oxygen in red, nitrogen in blue, and sulfur in yellow. d, Amino-acid sequences of the human M1–M5 receptors were aligned using the ClustalW2 server64. Alpha helical regions are shown as blue boxes as determined by the consensus of the M1–M4 structures. The most conserved residue in each TM (X.50) is in bold lettering. Regions of the N terminus, C terminus, and ICL3 regions are removed for space and clarity. Insertion points of the T4 lysozyme fusion proteins between TM5 and TM6 are underlined with bold lettering. Residues from the orthosteric binding-site are highlighted in red and allosteric binding-site residues in blue. Residues that contribute to both sites are coloured in yellow.

Extended Data Figure 3 Distinct structural features for the M1 and M4 receptors.

The receptors shown are aligned and coloured as in Fig. 1. a, b, The M1 receptor was crystallized with the Flag peptide (DYKDDDD; coloured cyan sticks) co-bound on the cytoplasmic surface. Residues of the M1 receptor within 4 Å of the Flag peptide are shown as magenta coloured sticks with views from the (a) membrane and (b) cytoplasmic side. c, The linkage between TM7 and helix 8 of the M1 receptor undergoes a bend starting with a change in rotamer of residue Y7.53, which may be a result of perturbations in TM6 due to the Flag peptide. d, The M1-N110Q3.37 mutation causes a slight bulge in TM4 due to the loss of a hydrogen bond with S4.53. e, Chain B of the M4 receptor has an intact ionic lock with R3.50 forming hydrogen bonds with T6.34 and E6.30.

Extended Data Figure 4 Induced fit docking of pirenzepine into the M1–M4 structures.

The receptors shown are aligned and coloured as in Fig. 1. a, Superposition of the poses of pirenzepine from the IFD experiments. b, Comparison of the pirenzepine poses for the M1 and M4 receptor with residues that contribute to the orthosteric site of the M1–M4 receptors (several residues omitted for clarity).

Extended Data Figure 5 PEG 300 occupies the allosteric binding site of the inactive M4 receptor.

a, The cross section of the solvent accessible surface area of the M4 receptor is coloured blue. Tiotropium and PEG 300 are shown as spheres with respective carbons coloured white and peach. The aromatic cage of covering tiotropium is highlighted in orange b, View from the extracellular side with residues that contact PEG 300 shown as spheres. c, Dissociation kinetics of [3H]NMS in the presence of PEG 300. [3H]NMS was incubated with M4-mT4L membranes at 37 °C for 3 h, followed by addition of 10 μM atropine ± PEG 300 at the indicated concentrations and time points. Representative data from three experiments, performed in duplicate, fitted to a one-phase exponential decay are shown. d, PEG 300 has an apparent binding affinity for the NMS-occupied receptor of approximately 10 mM (log(IC50) = −1.95 ± 0.02).

Extended Data Figure 6 Ligand interaction diagrams for the M4 receptor.

a, b, The molecular interactions between the (a) orthosteric and (b) allosteric binding sites are shown by the program MOE65 for the inactive (M4•tiotropium structure) and active states (M4•acetylcholine•LY2033298 model). Residues with a bold outline were selected in this study or others20,21 as single-point mutations.

Extended Data Figure 7 Identification of key residues that govern LY2033298 affinity and binding cooperativity with ACh at the M4 receptor.

Competition between a fixed concentration of [3H]QNB and increasing concentrations of ACh (black circles), LY2033298 (blue triangles), or LY2033298 in the presence of an IC20 concentration of ACh (red squares) are shown. The curves drawn through the points represent the best global fit of an extended ternary complex model. For data sets where the binding of [3H]QNB changed by less than 10% at 10−5M LY2033298 relative to zero LY2033298, the value of α′ was fixed to 1 (connecting line shown). Data points represent the mean ± s.e.m. of at least three experiments performed in triplicate.

Extended Data Figure 8 Comparison of cooperativity network residues between the inactive and active-states.

a, b, Chemical structures of (a) the M4 ligands used in this study and (b) the M2 ligands from the active-state crystal structures (PDB accession number 4MQT and 4MQS). cf, Mapping of the allosteric network onto the (c, d) inactive M4 structure (blue residues), M4 active-state model (orange residues) and (e, f) the inactive (yellow residues) and active-state M2 structures (magenta and green residues) with views from the (c, e) membrane or (d, f) extracellular surface. Ligands are coloured according to element: carbon, cyan; oxygen, red; nitrogen, blue; sulfur, yellow; chlorine, green.

Extended Data Figure 9 LY2033298 binding to active-state M1 and M4 models.

Comparison of active-state M1 (green) and M4 (orange) models bound to LY2033298 and acetylcholine, with acetylcholine and LY2033298 shown as sticks and coloured according to element: carbon, white; oxygen, red; nitrogen, blue; sulfur, yellow; chlorine, green. Several residues surrounding LY2033298 are shown as sticks and coloured according to receptor. M4-N4236.58 is predicted to undergo significant movement between the inactive and active states to form a hydrogen bond with the methoxy group of LY2033298. In the M1 receptor this residue is a serine (S3886.58) and is unable to form a similar hydrogen bond. However, mutation of N4236.58 to alanine at the M4 receptor results in no loss of LY2033298 affinity, but does result in a sixfold loss in cooperativity between acetylcholine and LY2033298 (Supplementary Table 3). This is suggestive of selectivity being derived through cooperativity as a possible mechanism between the M1 and M4 receptors. Additional determinants for M1 and M4 selectivity could also arise through differences in residues on TMs 2 and 7, which contribute to (I932.65) or sit proximal to (D4327.32 and S4367.36) the allosteric network.

Extended Data Table 1 Data collection and refinement statistics

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Tables 1-4 and additional references. (PDF 235 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thal, D., Sun, B., Feng, D. et al. Crystal structures of the M1 and M4 muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. Nature 531, 335–340 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17188

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17188

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing