JMB-HEADER RAS-JOURNALS EIMB Pleiades Publishing

RUS

             

ENG

YearIMPACT-FACTOR
2024  1,200
2023  1,500
2022  1,200
2021  1,540
2020  1,374
2019  1,023
2018  0,932
2017  0,977
2016  0,799
2015  0,662
2014  0,740
2013  0,739
2012  0,637
2011  0,658
2010  0,654
2009  0,570
2008  0,849
2007  0,805
2006  0,330
2005  0,435
2004  0,623
2003  0,567
2002  0,641
2001  0,490
2000  0,477
1999  0,762
1998  0,785
1997  0,507
1996  0,518
1995  0,502
Vol 60(2026) N 3 p. 484-493; DOI 10.1134/S0026893325603799 Full Text

I.V. Margatskiy1*, A.M. Eliseikin1, V.E. Artemov1, I.O. Ponkratenko1, A.E. Studennikov1, A.N. Glushkov1

Effect of ESR1 Somatic Mutations on SERM/SERD Binding: Insights from Molecular Docking and Molecular Dynamics Simulations

1Federal Research Center for Coal and Coal Chemistry, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Kemerovo, 650065 Russia

*margats00@yandex.ru
Received - 2025-09-03; Revised - 2025-12-09; Accepted - 2025-12-12

Acquired resistance to endocrine therapy poses a major limitation in the treatment of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer (BC). Somatic mutations of the ESR1 gene, which encodes ERα, are one of the key resistance mechanisms. However, the effect of mutations and especially double mutations on the binding of novel drugs remains insufficiently understood. To evaluate the effect of the mutations at the molecular level, a comprehensive computational approach was employed, including molecular docking, binding free energy calculations (MM-GBSA), and molecular dynamics simulations. A comparative analysis revealed opposite effects of ESR1 mutations on affinities of various selective ER degraders (SERDs). Vepdegestrant and fulvestrant were found to bind far less efficiently with ERα mutants and especially double mutants (e.g., Y537C/D538G) than with the native ERα. In contrast, the SERD ZB716 demonstrated the same or even better binding with most mutants. A potential structural cause of its resilience to mutations was identified via a comprehensive analysis, which included the evaluation of individual amino acid residue mobility through root-mean-square fluctuation (RMSF) calculations and an assessment of intermolecular hydrogen bond stability. ZB716 was shown to maintain a stable hydrogen bond with Glu353, and the bond was preserved in the ERα mutants. A lower stability of this key interaction was observed with fulvestrant. The findings elucidate the molecular mechanism of ESR1 mutation-driven resistance and support the promise of ZB716 as a compound capable of overcoming resistance conferred by a subset of the most common somatic ESR1 mutations in BC patients. The results justify the targeted design of new SERDs aimed at interacting with ERα mutants and outline an avenue of further research in the field of personalized therapy for ER+ BC.

breast cancer, estrogen receptor a, resistance, molecular dynamics, docking, somatic mutations, SERM, SERD, ESR1



JMB-FOOTER RAS-JOURNALS