Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
This study utilizes extensive molecular dynamics simulations to probe the binding of a widely-used myosin II inhibitor to several closely-related myosin isoforms. The authors focused on so called 'cryptic' drug binding site, which is not apparent in isolated 'apo' states of the proteins, but are unveiled in simulations. The probability of unveiling these sites was implicated as the factor that distinguished myosins that bind blebbistatin from those that do not. Importantly, they focus on targetting an allosteric site, which can circumvent issues with targeting the binding site of the cognate ligand that can lead to nonselective binding in other targets. These simulations were accompanied by markov state model decompositions of those trajectories to isolate states conducive to drug binding, which were assessed using molecular docking to yield aggregated drug binding free energies. To demonstrate the reliability of their model, they performed a blinded prediction for an as-of-then uncharacterized myosin variant and found strong agreement with experimentally measured affinity (micromolar). Another finding of note includes identifying the ADP/Pi-bound myosin state as the preferred conformation for blebbistatin, which is line with the drug's inhibition of myosin ATPase activity.
Strengths:<br /> This study is impactful for several reasons. Firstly, the authors provide a molecular basis for the allosteric inhibition of myosin II by blebbistatin, through extensive GROMACS molecular dynamics simulations. They implicate a cryptic binding site that is obscured in apo state structures of the enzyme, for differences in the ligand's affinity measured for several myosin proteins. Their simulations indicate that the binding site spontaneously opens for apo state myosin isoforms that are inhibited by blebbistatin, but remains closed for other myosins. Moreover, they discovered that the drug's apparent affinity is proportional to the probability of forming the open conformation of the cryptic binding site in the apo state structure. This knowledge is important for guiding selective drug development, because there is generally lesser conservation in allosteric binding sites, e.g. off-target binding is less likely, relative to the primary site for endogenous ligands that are shared for homologous proteins. In addition, they used Markov State Models (MSMs) to identify protein conformational states that are conducive to ligand binding, to which they docked blebbistatin using Autodock Vina. The predicted drug affinities for each state in the MSM ensemble were weighted according to the state's probability, which yielded an aggregate estimate of drug affinity that strongly agreed with experimental data. To further establish the approach's validity, the modeler co-authors predicted the affinity for blebbistatin binding to a myosin protein that had not yet been characterized. The predicted affinity was also found to be in very good agreement with the affinity ultimately reported by the experimentalist co-authors. Overall, this is a strong computational approach applied to a drug/target interaction that is invaluable to the research and clinical community. The researchers' claims are well-supported by the provided data.
Weaknesses<br /> A prominent limitation in the study is that the contributions of entropy in their `multi-state' ligand binding model is not apparent - at the very least I would anticipate an entropic contribution from the states identified from the MSM characterization of the apo myosin simulations. Relatedly, the docking scores likely account for changes in ligand entropy upon binding, but it is unlikely that the 3 structures selected from each MSM state would be sufficient to describe the protein disorder within the state. This limitation does not impact the novelty of the study, but is rather an opportunity to discuss extension of the method in future applications. Additionally, by design the myosins used for the study shared 90% or greater sequence identity. On one hand, this is a great set for testing the limits of predicting selectivity. On the other hand, it would be helpful to know how the approach might work for myosins with lower homology but very similar tertiary structures. Would there still be a cryptic site amenable to drugging, and if so, would its open probability necessarily scale with ligand binding affinity? On a related note, would this approach perform best for well-buried ligand binding domains, or could it also be expected to perform well for more surface exposed sites or those with extensive loops?
It is expected that this work will be impactful to the scientific community on two fronts. The first of which is establishing a molecular mechanism of selective myosin inhibition, which will be invaluable for drug design efforts targeting the myosin II cardiac isoform in particular. The abundance of ATPases and ATP-responsive proteins in cardiac tissues renders difficult the task of designing molecular species that competitively bind to the ATP pocket - targeting an allosteric site with lesser homology across isoforms is a compelling alternative. The use of markov state models with standard docking techniques to improve binding free energy estimates among closely related proteins has the potential to be broadly used by the computer aided drug design community. The potential for widespread adoption is tempered by the authors' use of a specialized resource, folding at home, to achieve millisecond-length simulations. Enhanced sampling techniques, however, may yield similar results with smaller simulation requirements.