Daniel H. Arlow

mTOR controls mitochondrial oxidative function through a YY1-PGC-1α transcriptional complex

Transcriptional complexes that contain peroxisome-proliferator-activated receptor coactivator (PGC)-1α control mitochondrial oxidative function to maintain energy homeostasis in response to nutrient and hormonal signals. An important component in the energy and nutrient pathways is mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), a kinase that regulates cell growth, size and survival. However, it is unknown whether and how mTOR controls mitochondrial oxidative activities. Here we show that mTOR is necessary for the maintenance of mitochondrial oxidative function. In skeletal muscle tissues and cells, the mTOR inhibitor rapamycin decreased the gene expression of the mitochondrial transcriptional regulators PGC-1α, oestrogen-related receptor α and nuclear respiratory factors, resulting in a decrease in mitochondrial gene expression and oxygen consumption. Using computational genomics, we identified the transcription factor yin-yang 1 (YY1) as a common target of mTOR and PGC-1α. Knockdown of YY1 caused a significant decrease in mitochondrial gene expression and in respiration, and YY1 was required for rapamycin-dependent repression of those genes. Moreover, mTOR and raptor interacted with YY1, and inhibition of mTOR resulted in a failure of YY1 to interact with and be coactivated by PGC-1α. We have therefore identified a mechanism by which a nutrient sensor (mTOR) balances energy metabolism by means of the transcriptional control of mitochondrial oxidative function. These results have important implications for our understanding of how these pathways might be altered in metabolic diseases and cancer.

Structure and function of an irreversible agonist-β 2 adrenoceptor complex

G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are eukaryotic integral membrane proteins that modulate biological function by initiating cellular signalling in response to chemically diverse agonists. Despite recent progress in the structural biology of GPCRs, the molecular basis for agonist binding and allosteric modulation of these proteins is poorly understood. Structural knowledge of agonist-bound states is essential for deciphering the mechanism of receptor activation, and for structure-guided design and optimization of ligands. However, the crystallization of agonist-bound GPCRs has been hampered by modest affinities and rapid off-rates of available agonists. Using the inactive structure of the human β2 adrenergic receptor (β2AR) as a guide, we designed a β2AR agonist that can be covalently tethered to a specific site on the receptor through a disulphide bond. The covalent β2AR-agonist complex forms efficiently, and is capable of activating a heterotrimeric G protein. We crystallized a covalent agonist-bound β2AR–T4L fusion protein in lipid bilayers through the use of the lipidic mesophase method, and determined its structure at 3.5 Å resolution. A comparison to the inactive structure and an antibody-stabilized active structure (companion paper) shows how binding events at both the extracellular and intracellular surfaces are required to stabilize an active conformation of the receptor. The structures are in agreement with long-timescale (up to 30 μs) molecular dynamics simulations showing that an agonist-bound active conformation spontaneously relaxes to an inactive-like conformation in the absence of a G protein or stabilizing antibody.

Structure and dynamics of the M3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor

Acetylcholine, the first neurotransmitter to be identified, exerts many of its physiological actions via activation of a family of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) known as muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (mAChRs). Although the five mAChR subtypes (M1–M5) share a high degree of sequence homology, they show pronounced differences in G-protein coupling preference and the physiological responses they mediate. Unfortunately, despite decades of effort, no therapeutic agents endowed with clear mAChR subtype selectivity have been developed to exploit these differences. We describe here the structure of the Gq/11-coupled M3 mAChR (‘M3 receptor’, from rat) bound to the bronchodilator drug tiotropium and identify the binding mode for this clinically important drug. This structure, together with that of the Gi/o-coupled M2 receptor, offers possibilities for the design of mAChR subtype-selective ligands. Importantly, the M3 receptor structure allows a structural comparison between two members of a mammalian GPCR subfamily displaying different G-protein coupling selectivities. Furthermore, molecular dynamics simulations suggest that tiotropium binds transiently to an allosteric site en route to the binding pocket of both receptors. These simulations offer a structural view of an allosteric binding mode for an orthosteric GPCR ligand and provide additional opportunities for the design of ligands with different affinities or binding kinetics for different mAChR subtypes. Our findings not only offer insights into the structure and function of one of the most important GPCR families, but may also facilitate the design of improved therapeutics targeting these critical receptors.

The dynamic process of β2-adrenergic receptor activation

G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) can modulate diverse signaling pathways, often in a ligand-specific manner. The full range of functionally relevant GPCR conformations is poorly understood. Here, we use NMR spectroscopy to characterize the conformational dynamics of the transmembrane core of the β(2)-adrenergic receptor (β(2)AR), a prototypical GPCR. We labeled β(2)AR with (13)CH(3)ε-methionine and obtained HSQC spectra of unliganded receptor as well as receptor bound to an inverse agonist, an agonist, and a G-protein-mimetic nanobody. These studies provide evidence for conformational states not observed in crystal structures, as well as substantial conformational heterogeneity in agonist- and inverse-agonist-bound preparations. They also show that for β(2)AR, unlike rhodopsin, an agonist alone does not stabilize a fully active conformation, suggesting that the conformational link between the agonist-binding pocket and the G-protein-coupling surface is not rigid. The observed heterogeneity may be important for β(2)ARs ability to engage multiple signaling and regulatory proteins.

Pathway and mechanism of drug binding to G-protein-coupled receptors

How drugs bind to their receptors—from initial association, through drug entry into the binding pocket, to adoption of the final bound conformation, or “pose”—has remained unknown, even for G-protein-coupled receptor modulators, which constitute one-third of all marketed drugs. We captured this pharmaceutically critical process in atomic detail using the first unbiased molecular dynamics simulations in which drug molecules spontaneously associate with G-protein-coupled receptors to achieve final poses matching those determined crystallographically. We found that several beta blockers and a beta agonist all traverse the same well-defined, dominant pathway as they bind to the β1- and β2-adrenergic receptors, initially making contact with a vestibule on each receptor’s extracellular surface. Surprisingly, association with this vestibule, at a distance of 15 Å from the binding pocket, often presents the largest energetic barrier to binding, despite the fact that subsequent entry into the binding pocket requires the receptor to deform and the drug to squeeze through a narrow passage. The early barrier appears to reflect the substantial dehydration that takes place as the drug associates with the vestibule. Our atomic-level description of the binding process suggests opportunities for allosteric modulation and provides a structural foundation for future optimization of drug–receptor binding and unbinding rates.

High-resolution crystal structure of human protease-activated receptor 1

Protease-activated receptor 1 (PAR1) is the prototypical member of a family of G-protein-coupled receptors that mediate cellular responses to thrombin and related proteases. Thrombin irreversibly activates PAR1 by cleaving the amino-terminal exodomain of the receptor, which exposes a tethered peptide ligand that binds the heptahelical bundle of the receptor to affect G-protein activation. Here we report the 2.2-Å-resolution crystal structure of human PAR1 bound to vorapaxar, a PAR1 antagonist. The structure reveals an unusual mode of drug binding that explains how a small molecule binds virtually irreversibly to inhibit receptor activation by the tethered ligand of PAR1. In contrast to deep, solvent-exposed binding pockets observed in other peptide-activated G-protein-coupled receptors, the vorapaxar-binding pocket is superficial but has little surface exposed to the aqueous solvent. Protease-activated receptors are important targets for drug development. The structure reported here will aid the development of improved PAR1 antagonists and the discovery of antagonists to other members of this receptor family.

Activation mechanism of the β2-adrenergic receptor

A third of marketed drugs act by binding to a G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) and either triggering or preventing receptor activation. Although recent crystal structures have provided snapshots of both active and inactive functional states of GPCRs, these structures do not reveal the mechanism by which GPCRs transition between these states. Here we propose an activation mechanism for the β2-adrenergic receptor, a prototypical GPCR, based on atomic-level simulations in which an agonist-bound receptor transitions spontaneously from the active to the inactive crystallographically observed conformation. A loosely coupled allosteric network, comprising three regions that can each switch individually between multiple distinct conformations, links small perturbations at the extracellular drug-binding site to large conformational changes at the intracellular G-protein-binding site. Our simulations also exhibit an intermediate that may represent a receptor conformation to which a G protein binds during activation, and suggest that the first structural changes during receptor activation often take place on the intracellular side of the receptor, far from the drug-binding site. By capturing this fundamental signaling process in atomic detail, our results may provide a foundation for the design of drugs that control receptor signaling more precisely by stabilizing specific receptor conformations.

Identification of two distinct inactive conformations of the β2-adrenergic receptor reconciles structural and biochemical observations

Fully understanding the mechanisms of signaling proteins such as G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) will require the characterization of their conformational states and the pathways connecting those states. The recent crystal structures of the β2- and β1-adrenergic receptors in a nominally inactive state constituted a major advance toward this goal, but also raised new questions. Although earlier biochemical observations had suggested that these receptors possessed a set of contacts between helices 3 and 6, known as the ionic lock, which was believed to form a molecular switch for receptor activation, the crystal structures lacked these contacts. The unexpectedly broken ionic lock has raised questions about the true conformation(s) of the inactive state and the role of the ionic lock in receptor activation and signaling. To address these questions, we performed microsecond-timescale molecular dynamics simulations of the β2-adrenergic receptor (β2AR) in multiple wild-type and mutant forms. In wild-type simulations, the ionic lock formed reproducibly, bringing the intracellular ends of helices 3 and 6 together to adopt a conformation similar to that found in inactive rhodopsin. Our results suggest that inactive β2AR exists in equilibrium between conformations with the lock formed and the lock broken, whether or not the cocrystallized ligand is present. These findings, along with the formation of several secondary structural elements in the β2AR loops during our simulations, may provide a more comprehensive picture of the inactive state of the β-adrenergic receptors, reconciling the crystal structures with biochemical studies.

Structural basis for modulation of a G-protein-coupled receptor by allosteric drugs.

The design of G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) allosteric modulators, an active area of modern pharmaceutical research, has proved challenging because neither the binding modes nor the molecular mechanisms of such drugs are known. Here we determine binding sites, bound conformations and specific drug–receptor interactions for several allosteric modulators of the M2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor (M2 receptor), a prototypical family A GPCR, using atomic-level simulations in which the modulators spontaneously associate with the receptor. Despite substantial structural diversity, all modulators form cation–π interactions with clusters of aromatic residues in the receptor extracellular vestibule, approximately 15 Å from the classical, ‘orthosteric’ ligand-binding site. We validate the observed modulator binding modes through radioligand binding experiments on receptor mutants designed, on the basis of our simulations, either to increase or to decrease modulator affinity. Simulations also revealed mechanisms that contribute to positive and negative allosteric modulation of classical ligand binding, including coupled conformational changes of the two binding sites and electrostatic interactions between ligands in these sites. These observations enabled the design of chemical modifications that substantially alter a modulator’s allosteric effects. Our findings thus provide a structural basis for the rational design of allosteric modulators targeting muscarinic and possibly other GPCRs.

The homeobox protein Prox1 is a negative modulator of ERRα/PGC-1α bioenergetic functions

Estrogen-related receptor alpha (ERRalpha) and proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator-1alpha (PGC-1alpha) play central roles in the transcriptional control of energy homeostasis, but little is known about factors regulating their activity. Here we identified the homeobox protein prospero-related homeobox 1 (Prox1) as one such factor. Prox1 interacts with ERRalpha and PGC-1alpha, occupies promoters of metabolic genes on a genome-wide scale, and inhibits the activity of the ERRalpha/PGC-1alpha complex. DNA motif analysis suggests that Prox1 interacts with the genome through tethering to ERRalpha and other factors. Importantly, ablation of Prox1 and ERRalpha have opposite effects on the respiratory capacity of liver cells, revealing an unexpected role for Prox1 in the control of energy homeostasis.