John D. Pediani

Orexin-1 Receptor-Cannabinoid CB1 Receptor Heterodimerization Results in Both Ligand-dependent and -independent Coordinated Alterations of Receptor Localization and Function

Following inducible expression in HEK293 cells, the human orexin-1 receptor was targeted to the cell surface but became internalized following exposure to the peptide agonist orexin A. By contrast, constitutive expression of the human cannabinoid CB1 receptor resulted in a predominantly punctate, intracellular distribution pattern consistent with spontaneous, agonistindependent internalization. Expression of the orexin-1 receptor in the presence of the CB1 receptor resulted in both receptors displaying the spontaneous internalization phenotype. Single cell fluorescence resonance energy transfer imaging indicated the two receptors were present as heterodimers/oligomers in intracellular vesicles. Addition of the CB1 receptor antagonist SR-141716A to cells expressing only the CB1 receptor resulted in re-localization of the receptor to the cell surface. Although SR-141716A has no significant affinity for the orexin-1 receptor, in cells co-expressing the CB1 receptor, the orexin-1 receptor was also re-localized to the cell surface by treatment with SR-141716A. Treatment of cells co-expressing the orexin-1 and CB1 receptors with the orexin-1 receptor antagonist SB-674042 also resulted in re-localization of both receptors to the cell surface. Treatment with SR-141716A resulted in decreased potency of orexin A to activate the mitogen-activated protein kinases ERK1/2 only in cells co-expressing the two receptors. Treatment with SB-674042 also reduced the potency of a CB1 receptor agonist to phosphorylate ERK1/2 only when the two receptors were co-expressed. These studies introduce an entirely novel pharmacological paradigm, whereby ligands modulate the function of receptors for which they have no significant inherent affinity by acting as regulators of receptor heterodimers.

The α1b-adrenoceptor exists as a higher-order oligomer: effective oligomerization is required for receptor maturation, surface delivery and function

Approaches to identify G protein-coupled receptor oligomers rather than dimers have been lacking. Using concatamers of fluorescent proteins, we established conditions to monitor sequential three-color fluorescence resonance energy transfer (3-FRET) and used these to detect oligomeric complexes of the α1b-adrenoceptor in single living cells. Mutation of putative key hydrophobic residues in transmembrane domains I and IV resulted in substantial reduction of sequential 3-FRET and was associated with lack of protein maturation, prevention of plasma membrane delivery, and elimination of signaling function. Although these mutations prevented cell surface delivery, bimolecular fluorescence complementation studies indicated that they did not ablate protein-protein interactions and confirmed endoplasmic reticulum/Golgi retention of the transmembrane domain I plus transmembrane domain IV mutated receptor. The transmembrane domain I plus transmembrane domain IV mutated receptor was a “dominant-negative” in blocking cell surface delivery of the wild-type receptor. Mutations only in transmembrane domain I did not result in a reduction in 3-FRET, whereas restricting mutation to transmembrane domain IV did result in reduced 3-FRET. Mutations in either transmembrane domain I or transmembrane domain IV, however, were sufficient to eliminate cell surface delivery. Terminal N-glycosylation is insufficient to determine cell surface delivery because both transmembrane domain I and transmembrane domain IV mutants matured as effectively as the wild-type receptor. These data indicate that the α1b-adrenoceptor is able to form oligomeric rather than only simple dimeric complexes and that disruption of effective oligomerization by introducing mutations into transmembrane domain IV has profound consequences for cell surface delivery and function.

Applications of fluorescence and bioluminescence resonance energy transfer to drug discovery at G protein coupled receptors

AbstractThe role of G protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) in numerous physiological processes that may be disrupted or modified in disease makes them key targets for the development of new therapeutic medicines. A wide variety of resonance energy transfer (RET) techniques such as fluorescence RET and bioluminescence RET have been developed in recent years to detect protein–protein interactions in living cells. Furthermore, these techniques are now being exploited to screen for novel compounds that activate or block GPCRs and to search for new, previously undiscovered signaling pathways activated by well-known pharmacologically classified drugs. The high resolution that can be achieved with these RET methods means that they are well suited to study both intramolecular conformational changes in response to ligand binding at the receptor level and intermolecular interactions involving protein translocation in subcellular compartments resulting from external stimuli. In this review we highlight the latest advances in these technologies to illustrate general principles. FigureAcceptor photobleaching of a mCerulean-mCitrine fluorescent protein tandem. Images show HEK293 cells transfected with a mCerulean-mCitrine fluorescent protein concatamer prior to selective photo-bleaching of the acceptor in the region marked by a red square. The absence of fluorescence signal in post-bleached images within the region of interest confirms that the acceptor fluorescence has been bleached and irreversibly destroyed. Once this process has taken place the donor returns to its de-quenched state that, in turn, will result in an increase in donor fluorescence intensity being detected within the bleached region.

The Pharmacology of TUG-891, a Potent and Selective Agonist of the Free Fatty Acid Receptor 4 (FFA4/GPR120), Demonstrates Both Potential Opportunity and Possible Challenges to Therapeutic Agonism

TUG-891 [3-(4-((4-fluoro-4′-methyl-[1,1′-biphenyl]-2-yl)methoxy)phenyl)propanoic acid] was recently described as a potent and selective agonist for the long chain free fatty acid (LCFA) receptor 4 (FFA4; previously G protein–coupled receptor 120, or GPR120). Herein, we have used TUG-891 to further define the function of FFA4 and used this compound in proof of principle studies to indicate the therapeutic potential of this receptor. TUG-891 displayed similar signaling properties to the LCFA α-linolenic acid at human FFA4 across various assay end points, including stimulation of Ca2+ mobilization, β-arrestin-1 and β-arrestin-2 recruitment, and extracellular signal-regulated kinase phosphorylation. Activation of human FFA4 by TUG-891 also resulted in rapid phosphorylation and internalization of the receptor. While these latter events were associated with desensitization of the FFA4 signaling response, removal of TUG-891 allowed both rapid recycling of FFA4 back to the cell surface and resensitization of the FFA4 Ca2+ signaling response. TUG-891 was also a potent agonist of mouse FFA4, but it showed only limited selectivity over mouse FFA1, complicating its use in vivo in this species. Pharmacologic dissection of responses to TUG-891 in model murine cell systems indicated that activation of FFA4 was able to mimic many potentially beneficial therapeutic properties previously reported for LCFAs, including stimulating glucagon-like peptide-1 secretion from enteroendocrine cells, enhancing glucose uptake in 3T3-L1 adipocytes, and inhibiting release of proinflammatory mediators from RAW264.7 macrophages, which suggests promise for FFA4 as a therapeutic target for type 2 diabetes and obesity. Together, these results demonstrate both potential but also significant challenges that still need to be overcome to therapeutically target FFA4.

Real-time monitoring of redox changes in the mammalian endoplasmic reticulum

Redox-sensitive GFPs with engineered disulphide bonds have been used previously to monitor redox status in the cytosol and mitochondria of living cells. The usefulness of these redox probes depends on the reduction potential of the disulphide, with low values suiting the cytosol and mitochondrion, and higher values suiting the more oxidising environment of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). Here, we targeted a modified redox-sensitive GFP (roGFP1-iL), with a relatively high reduction potential, to the ER of mammalian cells. We showed that the disulphide is partially oxidised, allowing roGFP1-iL to monitor changes in ER redox status. When cells were treated with puromycin, the redox balance became more reducing, suggesting that the release of nascent chains from ribosomes alters the ER redox balance. In addition, downregulating Ero1α prevented normal rapid recovery from dithiothreitol (DTT), whereas downregulating peroxiredoxin IV had no such effect. This result illustrates the contribution of the Ero1α oxidative pathway to ER redox balance. This first report of the use of roGFP to study the ER of mammalian cells demonstrates that roGFP1-iL can be used to monitor real-time changes to the redox status in individual living cells.

Heteromultimerization of cannabinoid CB(1) receptor and orexin OX(1) receptor generates a unique complex in which both protomers are regulated by orexin A.

Background: Altered function has been reported when cannabinoid CB1 and orexin OX1 receptors are co-expressed. Results: Direct physical interactions between these receptors were observed. Conclusion: The CB1-OX1 heteromer is a selective target for orexin A. Significance: Co-regulation of this heteromer may alter wakefulness and feeding behavior. Agonist-induced internalization was observed for both inducible and constitutively expressed forms of the cannabinoid CB1 receptor. These were also internalized by the peptide orexin A, which has no direct affinity for the cannabinoid CB1 receptor, but only when the orexin OX1 receptor was co-expressed along with the cannabinoid CB1 receptor. This effect of orexin A was concentration-dependent and blocked by OX1 receptor antagonists. Moreover, the ability of orexin A to internalize the CB1 receptor was also blocked by CB1 receptor antagonists. Remarkably, orexin A was substantially more potent in producing internalization of the CB1 receptor than in causing internalization of the bulk OX1 receptor population, and this was true in cells in which the CB1 receptor was maintained at a constant level, whereas levels of OX1 could be varied and vice versa. Both co-immunoprecipitation and cell surface, homogenous time-resolved fluorescence resonance energy transfer based on covalent labeling of N-terminal “SNAP” and “CLIP” tags present in the extracellular N-terminal domain of the receptors confirmed the capacity of these two receptors to heteromultimerize. These studies confirm the capacity of the CB1 and OX1 receptors to interact directly and demonstrate that this complex has unique regulatory characteristics. The higher potency of the agonist orexin A to regulate the CB1-OX1 heteromer compared with the OX1-OX1 homomer present in the same cells and the effects of CB1 receptor antagonists on the function of orexin A suggest an interplay between these two systems that may modulate appetite, feeding, and wakefulness.

Ligand Regulation of the Quaternary Organization of Cell Surface M3 Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptors Analyzed by Fluorescence Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET) Imaging and Homogeneous Time-resolved FRET

Flp-InTM T-RExTM 293 cells expressing a wild type human M3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor construct constitutively and able to express a receptor activated solely by synthetic ligand (RASSL) form of this receptor on demand maintained response to the muscarinic agonist carbachol but developed response to clozapine N-oxide only upon induction of the RASSL. The two constructs co-localized at the plasma membrane and generated strong ratiometric fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) signals consistent with direct physical interactions. Increasing levels of induction of the FRET donor RASSL did not alter wild type receptor FRET-acceptor levels substantially. However, ratiometric FRET was modulated in a bell-shaped fashion with maximal levels of the donor resulting in decreased FRET. Carbachol, but not the antagonist atropine, significantly reduced the FRET signal. Cell surface homogeneous time-resolved FRET, based on SNAP-tag technology and employing wild type and RASSL forms of the human M3 receptor expressed stably in Flp-InTM TRExTM 293 cells, also identified cell surface dimeric/oligomeric complexes. Now, however, signals were enhanced by appropriate selective agonists. At the wild type receptor, large increases in FRET signal to carbachol and acetylcholine were concentration-dependent with EC50 values consistent with the relative affinities of the two ligands. These studies confirm the capacity of the human M3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor to exist as dimeric/oligomeric complexes at the surface of cells and demonstrate that the organization of such complexes can be modified by ligand binding. However, conclusions as to the effect of ligands on such complexes may depend on the approach used.

Developing Chemical Genetic Approaches to Explore G Protein-Coupled Receptor Function: Validation of the Use of a Receptor Activated Solely by Synthetic Ligand (RASSL)

Molecular evolution and chemical genetics have been applied to generate functional pairings of mutated G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) and nonendogenous ligands. These mutant receptors, referred to as receptors activated solely by synthetic ligands (RASSLs) or designer receptors exclusively activated by designer drugs (DREADDs), have huge potential to define physiological roles of GPCRs and to validate receptors in animal models as therapeutic targets to treat human disease. However, appreciation of ligand bias and functional selectivity of different ligands at the same receptor suggests that RASSLs may signal differently than wild-type receptors activated by endogenous agonists. We assessed this by generating forms of wild-type human M3 muscarinic receptor and a RASSL variant that responds selectively to clozapine N-oxide. Although the RASSL receptor had reduced affinity for muscarinic antagonists, including atropine, stimulation with clozapine N-oxide produced effects very similar to those generated by acetylcholine at the wild-type M3-receptor. Such effects included the relative movement of the third intracellular loop and C-terminal tail of intramolecular fluorescence resonance energy transfer sensors and the ability of the wild type and evolved mutant to regulate extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 phosphorylation. Each form interacted similarly with β-arrestin 2 and was internalized from the cell surface in response to the appropriate ligand. Furthermore, the pattern of phosphorylation of specific serine residues within the evolved receptor in response to clozapine N-oxide was very similar to that produced by acetylcholine at the wild type. Such results provide confidence that, at least for the M3 muscarinic receptor, results obtained after transgenic expression of this RASSL are likely to mirror the actions of acetylcholine at the wild type receptor.

Coordinated agonist regulation of receptor and G protein palmitoylation and functional rescue of palmitoylation-deficient mutants of the G protein G11alpha following fusion to the alpha1b-adrenoreceptor: palmitoylation of G11alpha is not required for interaction with beta*gamma complex.

Transfection of either the α1b-adrenoreceptor or Gα11 into a fibroblast cell line derived from a Gαq/Gα11 double knockout mouse failed to produce elevation of intracellular [Ca2+] upon the addition of agonist. Co-expression of these two polypeptides, however, produced a significant stimulation. Co-transfection of the α1b-adrenoreceptor with the palmitoylation-resistant C9S,C10S Gα11 also failed to produce a signal, and much reduced and kinetically delayed signals were obtained using either C9S Gα11 or C10S Gα11. Expression of a fusion protein between the α1b-adrenoreceptor and Gα11 allowed [Ca2+] i elevation, and this was also true for a fusion protein between the α1b-adrenoreceptor and C9S,C10S Gα11, since this strategy ensures proximity of the two polypeptides at the cell membrane. For both fusion proteins, co-expression of transducin α, as a β·γ-sequestering agent, fully attenuated the Ca2+signal. Both of these fusion proteins and one in which an acylation-resistant form of the receptor was linked to wild type Gα11 were also targets for agonist-regulated [3H]palmitoylation and bound [35S]guanosine 5′-3-O-(thio)triphosphate (GTPγS) in an agonist concentration-dependent manner. The potency of agonist to stimulate [35S]GTPγS binding was unaffected by the palmitoylation potential of either receptor or G protein. These studies provide clear evidence for coordinated, agonist-mediated regulation of the post-translational acylation of both a receptor and partner G protein and demonstrate the capacity of such fusions to bind and then release β·γ complex upon agonist stimulation whether or not the G protein can be palmitoylated. They also demonstrate that Ca2+ signaling in EF88 cells by such fusion proteins is mediated via release of the G protein β·γ complex.

The role of GPCR dimerisation/oligomerisation in receptor signalling.

A wide range of techniques have been employed to examine the quaternary structure of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Although it is well established that homo-dimerisation is common, recent studies have sought to explore the physical basis of these interactions and the role of dimerisation in signal transduction. Growing evidence hints at the existence of higher-order organisation of individual GPCRs and the potential for hetero-dimerisation between pairs of co-expressed GPCRs. Here we consider how both homo-dimerisation/oligomerisation and hetero-dimerisation can regulate signal transduction through GPCRs and the potential consequences of this for function of therapeutic medicines that target GPCRs. Hetero-dimerisation is not the sole means by which co-expressed GPCRs may regulate the function of one another. Heterologous desensitisation may be at least as important and we also consider if this can be the basis for physiological antagonism between pairs of co-expressed GPCRs. Although there may be exceptions (Meyer et al. 2006), a great deal of recent evidence has indicated that most G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) do not exist as monomers but rather as dimers or, potentially, within higher-order oligomers (Milligan 2004b; Park et al. 2004). Support for such models has been provided by a range of studies employing different approaches, including co-immunoprecipitation of differentially epitope-tagged but co-expressed forms of the same GPCR, co-operativity in ligand binding and a variety of resonance energy transfer techniques (Milligan and Bouvier 2005). Only for the photon receptor rhodopsin has the organisational structure of a GPCR been studied in situ. The application of atomic force microscopy to murine rod outer segment discs indicated that rhodopsin is organised in a series of parallel arrays of dimers (Liang et al. 2003) and based on this, molecular models were constructed to try to define and interpret regions of contact between the monomers (Fotiadis et al. 2004). Only for relatively few other GPCRs are details of the molecular basis of dimerisation available but within this limited data set, recent studies on the dopamine D2 receptor suggest a means by which information on the binding of an agonist can be transmitted between the two elements of the dimer via the dimer interface (Guo et al. 2005). Although the availability of cDNAs encoding molecularly defined GPCRs has allowed high-throughput screening for ligands that modulate GPCR function, this is performed almost exclusively in heterologous cell lines transfected to express only the specific GPCR of interest. Given that the human genome contains some 400-450 genes encoding non-chemosensory GPCRs, it is clear that any individual cell of the body may express a considerable number of GPCRs. Interactions between these, either via hetero-dimerisation, via heterologous desensitisation or via the integration of downstream signals can potentially alter the pharmacology, sensitivity and function of receptor agonists and hence produce varied responses. In this article, we will use specific examples to consider the role of homo-dimerisation/oligomerisation in GPCR function and whether either direct hetero-dimerisation or heterologous desensitisation between pairs of co-expressed GPCRs affects the function of the receptor pairs.