Aug 2026· ChemBioChem· Vol 27· 0 citations· 112 references
Medicine
TL;DR
This review examines how endogenous cyclic peptides, venom‐derived peptides, plant cyclotides, and microbial macrocycles provide structurally defined templates for probing GPCR recognition, and how engineering approaches have expanded their utility as both bioactive ligands and molecular probes.
Abstract
Peptide‐responsive G protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) often recognize endogenous peptide ligands through extended receptor interfaces, providing opportunities for peptide‐based ligands to engage receptor contacts that conventional small molecules struggle to access effectively. In this context, cyclic peptides are more than stabilized peptide analogs: their constrained topologies can preorganize key pharmacophoric elements, support engagement with extended orthosteric or allosteric receptor interfaces, and allow precise tuning of selectivity and signaling output. In this review, we discuss cyclic peptides targeting peptide‐responsive GPCRs through three connected dimensions: natural macrocyclic ligands and scaffolds, chemical strategies for topological and functional optimization, and emerging discovery platforms for GPCR‐active macrocycles. Specifically, we examine how endogenous cyclic peptides, venom‐derived peptides, plant cyclotides, and microbial macrocycles provide structurally defined templates for probing GPCR recognition, and how engineering approaches, including bridge replacement, conformational locking, residue modification, and half‐life extension, have expanded their utility as both bioactive ligands and molecular probes. We further highlight discovery technologies (e.g., mRNA display, phage display, cell‐based screening, and structure‐ and computation‐guided design) that are advancing the discovery and optimization of macrocycles with improved receptor specificity and pharmacological properties. Together, these advances position cyclic peptides as a topology‐guided molecular strategy for dissecting peptide–GPCR recognition and developing next‐generation therapeutics.
It is suggested that Gα protein selectivity is an allosterically encoded property of GPCRs and provide a conceptual framework for designing ligands and receptors with tailored Gα protein-biased signaling.
Tegvir S. Boora, Han-Yu Chen, Aaron Cho et al.· bioRxiv· 0 citations
This review comprehensively examines the biological significance of PPIs in human disease and details how MPPs effectively modulate historically undruggable targets, highlighting current synthetic strategies, peptide engineering platforms, and the clinical and preclinical status of leading MPP candidates, while weighin...
Comprehensive in vitro and in vivo biological evaluations revealed that cyclic peptide effectively suppresses tumor cell proliferation and induces both apoptosis and autophagy.
Yang Lv, Chun-Yu Qu, Yue Lei et al.· Chemico-Biological Interacti...· 0 citations
G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) often engage multiple intracellular transducers, yet the structural basis by which endogenous ligands influence G protein selectivity remains poorly understood. GPR119 is a lipid-activated receptor expressed in pancreatic β-cells and enteroendocrine L-cells, where it regulates glucos...
Donggyun Kim, Mohsen Ranjbar, Aleksey Raskovalov et al.· bioRxiv· 0 citations
This study established a native mass spectrometry platform to probe ligand-induced conformational heterogeneity at the GPCR intracellular interface and demonstrated the utility of nanobody-based nMS for evaluating the structural heterogeneity and dynamic landscapes of GPCRs.
HighMorph is presented, an interaction-guided framework that combines protein–protein interaction information with artificial intelligence for rational cyclic peptide design and provides insights for developing therapeutics targeting challenging protein interfaces.
M. Lan, Cheng-Yun Zhang, Wentong Wang et al.· Journal of Medicinal Chemist...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.