Derek J. Francis

Structure and function of the visual arrestin oligomer

A distinguishing feature of rod arrestin is its ability to form oligomers at physiological concentrations. Using visible light scattering, we show that rod arrestin forms tetramers in a cooperative manner in solution. To investigate the structure of the tetramer, a nitroxide side chain (R1) was introduced at 18 different positions. The effects of R1 on oligomer formation, EPR spectra, and inter‐spin distance measurements all show that the structures of the solution and crystal tetramers are different. Inter‐subunit distance measurements revealed that only arrestin monomer binds to light‐activated phosphorhodopsin, whereas both monomer and tetramer bind microtubules, which may serve as a default arrestin partner in dark‐adapted photoreceptors. Thus, the tetramer likely serves as a ‘storage’ form of arrestin, increasing the arrestin‐binding capacity of microtubules while readily dissociating to supply active monomer when it is needed to quench rhodopsin signaling.

Few Residues within an Extensive Binding Interface Drive Receptor Interaction and Determine the Specificity of Arrestin Proteins

Arrestins bind active phosphorylated forms of G protein-coupled receptors, terminating G protein activation, orchestrating receptor trafficking, and redirecting signaling to alternative pathways. Visual arrestin-1 preferentially binds rhodopsin, whereas the two non-visual arrestins interact with hundreds of G protein-coupled receptor subtypes. Here we show that an extensive surface on the concave side of both arrestin-2 domains is involved in receptor binding. We also identified a small number of residues on the receptor binding surface of the N- and C-domains that largely determine the receptor specificity of arrestins. We show that alanine substitution of these residues blocks the binding of arrestin-1 to rhodopsin in vitro and of arrestin-2 and -3 to β2-adrenergic, M2 muscarinic cholinergic, and D2 dopamine receptors in intact cells, suggesting that these elements critically contribute to the energy of the interaction. Thus, in contrast to arrestin-1, where direct phosphate binding is crucial, the interaction of non-visual arrestins with their cognate receptors depends to a lesser extent on phosphate binding and more on the binding to non-phosphorylated receptor elements.

Visual Arrestin Binding to Microtubules Involves a Distinct Conformational Change

Recently we found that visual arrestin binds microtubules and that this interaction plays an important role in arrestin localization in photoreceptor cells. Here we use site-directed mutagenesis and spin labeling to explore the molecular mechanism of this novel regulatory interaction. The microtubule binding site maps to the concave sides of the two arrestin domains, overlapping with the rhodopsin binding site, which makes arrestin interactions with rhodopsin and microtubules mutually exclusive. Arrestin interaction with microtubules is enhanced by several “activating mutations” and involves multiple positive charges and hydrophobic elements. The comparable affinity of visual arrestin for microtubules and unpolymerized tubulin (KD > 40 μm and >65 μm, respectively) suggests that the arrestin binding site is largely localized on the individual αβ-dimer. The changes in the spin-spin interaction of a double-labeled arrestin indicate that the conformation of microtubule-bound arrestin differs from that of free arrestin in solution. In sharp contrast to rhodopsin, where tight binding requires an extended interdomain hinge, arrestin binding to microtubules is enhanced by deletions in this region, suggesting that in the process of microtubule binding the domains may move in the opposite direction. Thus, microtubule and rhodopsin binding induce different conformational changes in arrestin, suggesting that arrestin assumes three distinct conformations in the cell, likely with different functional properties.

A Model for the Solution Structure of the Rod Arrestin Tetramer

Visual rod arrestin has the ability to self-associate at physiological concentrations. We previously demonstrated that only monomeric arrestin can bind the receptor and that the arrestin tetramer in solution differs from that in the crystal. We employed the Rosetta docking software to generate molecular models of the physiologically relevant solution tetramer based on the monomeric arrestin crystal structure. The resulting models were filtered using the Rosetta energy function, experimental intersubunit distances measured with DEER spectroscopy, and intersubunit contact sites identified by mutagenesis and site-directed spin labeling. This resulted in a unique model for subsequent evaluation. The validity of the model is strongly supported by model-directed crosslinking and targeted mutagenesis that yields arrestin variants deficient in self-association. The structure of the solution tetramer explains its inability to bind rhodopsin and paves the way for experimental studies of the physiological role of rod arrestin self-association.

The Role of Arrestin α-Helix I in Receptor Binding

Arrestins rapidly bind phosphorylated activated forms of their cognate G protein-coupled receptors, thereby preventing G protein coupling and often switching signaling to other pathways. Amphipathic alpha-helix I (residues 100-111) has been implicated in receptor binding, but the mechanism of its action has not been determined yet. Here we show that several mutations in the helix itself and in adjacent hydrophobic residues in the body of the N-domain reduce arrestin1 binding to light-activated phosphorylated rhodopsin (P-Rh*). On the background of phosphorylation-independent mutants that bind with high affinity to both P-Rh* and light-activated unphosphorylated rhodopsin, these mutations reduce the stability of the arrestin complex with P-Rh*, but not with light-activated unphosphorylated rhodopsin. Using site-directed spin labeling, we found that the local structure around alpha-helix I changes upon binding to rhodopsin. However, the intramolecular distances between alpha-helix I and adjacent beta-strand I (or the rest of the N-domain), measured using double electron-electron resonance, do not change, ruling out relocation of the helix due to receptor binding. Collectively, these data demonstrate that alpha-helix I plays an indirect role in receptor binding, likely keeping beta-strand I, which carries several phosphate-binding residues, in a position favorable for its interaction with receptor-attached phosphates.