Aminergic G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) have been a major focus of pharmaceutical research for many years. Due partly to the lack of reliable receptor structures, drug discovery efforts have been largely ligand-based. The recently determined X-ray structure of the β ₂ -adrenergic receptor offers an opportunity to investigate the advantages and limitations inherent in a structure-based approach to ligand discovery against this and related GPCR targets. Approximately 1 million commercially available, “lead-like” molecules were docked against the β ₂ -adrenergic receptor structure. On testing of 25 high-ranking molecules, 6 were active with binding affinities <4 μM, with the best molecule binding with a K _i of 9 nM (95% confidence interval 7–10 nM). Five of these molecules were inverse agonists. The high hit rate, the high affinity of the most potent molecule, the discovery of unprecedented chemotypes among the new inhibitors, and the apparent bias toward inverse agonists among the docking hits, have implications for structure-based approaches against GPCRs that recognize small organic molecules.

G protein-coupled receptors modulate a plethora of physiological processes and mediate the effects of one-third of FDA-approved drugs. Depending on which ligand activates a receptor, it can engage different intracellular transducers. This ‘biased signaling’ paradigm requires that we now characterize physiological signaling not just by receptors but by ligand-receptor pairs. Ligands eliciting biased signaling may constitute better drugs with higher efficacy and fewer adverse effects. However, ligand bias is very complex, making reproducibility and description challenging. Here, we provide guidelines and terminology for any scientists to design and report ligand bias experiments. The guidelines will aid consistency and clarity, as the basic receptor research and drug discovery communities continue to advance our understanding and exploitation of ligand bias. Scientific insight, biosensors, and analytical methods are still evolving and should benefit from and contribute to the implementation of the guidelines, together improving translation from in vitro to disease-relevant in vivo models.

GPCRs make up the largest family of human membrane proteins and of drug targets. Recent advances in GPCR pharmacology and crystallography have shed new light on signal transduction, allosteric modulation and biased signalling, translating into new mechanisms and principles for drug design. The GPCR database, GPCRdb, has served the community for over 20 years and has recently been extended to include a more multidisciplinary audience. This review is intended to introduce new users to the services in GPCRdb, which meets three overall purposes: firstly, to provide reference data in an integrated, annotated and structured fashion, with a focus on sequences, structures, single‐point mutations and ligand interactions. Secondly, to equip the community with a suite of web tools for swift analysis of structures, sequence similarities, receptor relationships, and ligand target profiles. Thirdly, to facilitate dissemination through interactive diagrams of, for example, receptor residue topologies, phylogenetic relationships and crystal structure statistics. Herein, these services are described for the first time; visitors and guides are provided with good practices for their utilization. Finally, we describe complementary databases cross‐referenced by GPCRdb and web servers with corresponding functionality.

Whereas docking screens have emerged as the most practical way to use protein structure for ligand discovery, an inconsistent track record raises questions about how well docking actually works. In its favor, a growing number of publications report the successful discovery of new ligands, often supported by experimental affinity data and controls for artifacts. Few reports, however, actually test the underlying structural hypotheses that docking makes. To be successful and not just lucky, prospective docking must not only rank a true ligand among the top scoring compounds, it must also correctly orient the ligand so the score it receives is biophysically sound. If the correct binding pose is not predicted, a skeptic might well infer that the discovery was serendipitous. Surveying over 15 years of the docking literature, we were surprised to discover how rarely sufficient evidence is presented to establish whether docking actually worked for the right reasons. The paucity of experimental tests of theoretically predicted poses undermines confidence in a technique that has otherwise become widely accepted. Of course, solving a crystal structure is not always possible, and even when it is, it can be a lot of work, and is not readily accessible to all groups. Even when a structure can be determined, investigators may prefer to gloss over an erroneous structural prediction to better focus on their discovery. Still, the absence of a direct test of theory by experiment is a loss for method developers seeking to understand and improve docking methods. We hope this review will motivate investigators to solve structures and compare them with their predictions whenever possible, to advance the field.