Cited by 298Computational Drug Discovery MethodsReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingMast cells and histamine

In silico design of novel probes for the atypical opioid receptor MRGPRX2

Open access
Lansu, Katherine, Karpiak, Joel, Liu, Jing, Huang, Xi-Ping, McCorvy, John D, Kroeze, Wesley K, Che, Tao, Nagase, Hiroshi +4 more·2017·Nature Chemical Biology

Abstract

The primate-exclusive MRGPRX2 G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) has been suggested to modulate pain and itch. Despite putative peptide and small-molecule MRGPRX2 agonists, selective nanomolar-potency probes have not yet been reported. To identify a MRGPRX2 probe, we first screened 5,695 small molecules and found that many opioid compounds activated MRGPRX2, including (-)- and (+)-morphine, hydrocodone, sinomenine, dextromethorphan, and the prodynorphin-derived peptides dynorphin A, dynorphin B, and α- and β-neoendorphin. We used these to select for mutagenesis-validated homology models and docked almost 4 million small molecules. From this docking, we predicted ZINC-3573-a potent MRGPRX2-selective agonist, showing little activity against 315 other GPCRs and 97 representative kinases-along with an essentially inactive enantiomer. ZINC-3573 activates endogenous MRGPRX2 in a human mast cell line, inducing degranulation and calcium release. MRGPRX2 is a unique atypical opioid-like receptor important for modulating mast cell degranulation, which can now be specifically modulated with ZINC-3573.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nchembio.2334

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • 52 non-olfactory GPCRs are categorized as Tdark, and new screening platforms have begun the process of illuminating them.

    “Although 52 non-olfactory GPCRs are categorized as Tdark, the availability of new screening platforms to discover chemical matter for these GPCRs has begun the process of illumination64,67,68.”

    From Unexplored therapeutic opportunities in the human genome (2018) · cites this paper as [68]

    The Abstract describes new physical and computational screening approaches for finding ligands for understudied GPCRs, and the Results report their use to identify compounds active at MRGPRX receptors. That supports the claim that screening platforms have begun to illuminate these receptors. The paper does not give the figure of 52 non-olfactory GPCRs or categorize that group as Tdark; its Abstract instead discusses approximately 120 orphan or understudied non-olfactory GPCRs. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [52]Kirshenbaum AS Characterization of novel stem cell factor responsive human mast cell lines LAD 1 and 2 established from a patient with mast cell sarcoma/leukemia; activation following aggregation of FcepsilonRI or FcgammaRI Leuk Res 27 677 82 2003 12801524

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lansu, K., Karpiak, J., Liu, J., Huang, X.-P., McCorvy, J. D., Kroeze, W. K., Che, T., Nagase, H., Carroll, F. I., Jin, J., Shoichet, B. K., & Roth, B. L.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • University of Tsukuba (JP)
  • RTI International (US)
Corresponding author
Roth, Bryan L
Venue
Nature Chemical Biology
Published
2017-03-13
Volume
13
Issue
5
Pages
529-536
ISSN
  • 1552-4450 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-4469
OpenAlex
W2595605857
Cited by
293
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 13
FWCI
23.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Chemical Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (U19MH082441, U01MH104974)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (P01DA035764)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM007040)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (U24DK116195)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Receptor Mechanisms and Signaling
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Mast cells and histamine
Keywords
MRGPRX2, G protein-coupled receptors, opioid receptors, chemical probes, dynorphin, mast cell degranulation, calcium release, morphine, sinomenine, dextromethorphan, homology model, molecular docking, pruritus, pain modulation
MeSH terms
Calcium, Cell Line, Computer Simulation, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Drug Evaluation, Preclinical, Humans, Ligands, Mast Cells, Nerve Tissue Proteins, Pyrazoles, Pyrimidines, Structure-Activity Relationship, Drug Design, Molecular Probes, Molecular Structure, Cell Degranulation, Receptors, Neuropeptide, Receptors, G-Protein-Coupled, Molecular Docking Simulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review