Further study of BATs
would allow further development of new drugs to treat depression, but it
is difficult to obtain a 3-dimensional structure of these molecules using X-Ray crystallography. Using the bacterial homologue of BATs,
The difference in affinity of BATs and LeuT was
overcome by genetically engineering the LeuT protein by mutating key residues
found in the primary binding pocket which are involved in substrate binding. It
is known that tryptophan binds to LeuT at the primary binding pocket as a
competitive inhibitor. The key residues in the primary binding pocket of the LeuT/tryptophan (Figure 1a) complex and LeuT/hSERT (human serotonin transporter)
complex (Figure
1b) were used in an amino acid
sequence alignment. From this alignment it was possible to determine 20
residues which point towards the primary binding pocket and are divergent from
SERT. These residues had previously been determined to be important in SERT
pharmacology. This information was used to create the LeuBAT mutant. The
“first shell” residues and the “second shell” residues were mutated
and the binding constant (Kd) of the two
therapeutic agents paroxetine and mazindol were
subsequently measured. A list of LeuBAT mutants and their respective mutated
residues can be found in table 1. LeuBAT mutants Δ5 and Δ6 have
similar Kd values for paroxetine and mazindol. The
final version of LeuBAT, Δ13, had a Kd value of 431 nM for paroxetine (SSRI)
and 112 nM for mazindol. The second value is very similar to
that of SERT, which is 103 nM. Sertraline had the highest affinity
for Δ13 with a Kd value of 18 nM. Comparing these Kd
values with the ones obtained with the LeuT wild-type shows how
important these key residues are for substrate binding in the primary binding
pocket. The LeuT wild-type had a Kd of 308 nM for sertraline and
22.3 nM for mazindol, while paroxetine had a very low
affinity that could not be measured. The Δ13 mutant has the most mutated
residues among the LeuBAT mutants and is structurally very similar to SERT.
Thus, Δ13 was used
to find out the structural basis of interaction between inhibitors and BATs.
Since the binding position of inhibitors is similar between theΔ6
andΔ13 construct (figure 2), higher resolution structures of the Δ6 complexes
were obtained for analysis to validate the drug-binding sites in Δ13.
There are still some
differences between LeuBAT and SERT. One of them is the position of one of
the sodium ions, Na1, which binds to different residues in each complex. In the
wild-type Na1 is bound to the α-carboxyl group of Leu
and Trp, while in the Δ13 mutant this position is occupied
by a water molecule which allows the formation of a salt bridge between Na1 and
Asp24. This stabilization of the structure with a sodium ion contributes to a
higher affinity for the therapeutic agents.
A
![]() |
| Table 1. The mutants are labelled as Δ5 to Δ13. Each mutant has different mutated residues. Δ13 has the most mutated residues. (Wang, Hui 2013) A B |
C
D
Figure 2. Comparison of sertraline, duloxetine, desvenlafaxine and mazindol binding between the Δ5, Δ6 and Δ13 variants. (a) Structural comparison of sertraline binding between Δ13 (cyans) and Δ6 (pink) mutants. (b) Structural comparison of duloxetine binding between Δ13 ( yellow) and Δ6 ( pink) mutants. (c) Structural comparison of desvenlafaxine binding between Δ13 (grey) and Δ6 (slate) mutants. (d) Structural comparison of desvenlafaxine binding between Δ6 (orange) and Δ5 ( palegreen) mutants.
More information about LeuT can be seen in the video below.
More information about LeuT can be seen in the video below.






