Lakshmi A. Devi

G-protein-coupled receptor heterodimerization modulates receptor function

The opioid system modulates several physiological processes, including analgesia, the stress response, the immune response and neuroendocrine function. Pharmacological and molecular cloning studies have identified three opioid-receptor types, δ, κ and µ, that mediate these diverse effects,. Little is known about the ability of the receptors to interact to form new functional structures, the simplest of which would be a dimer. Structural and biochemical studies show that other G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) interact to form homodimers,. Moreover, two non-functional receptors heterodimerize to form a functional receptor, suggesting that dimerization is crucial for receptor function. However, heterodimerization between two fully functional receptors has not been documented. Here we provide biochemical and pharmacological evidence for the heterodimerization of two fully functional opioid receptors, κ and δ. This results in a new receptor that exhibits ligand binding and functional properties that are distinct from those of either receptor. Furthermore, the κ–δ heterodimer synergistically binds highly selective agonists and potentiates signal transduction. Thus, heterodimerization of these GPCRs represents a novel mechanism that modulates their function.

DIMERIZATION OF THE DELTA OPIOID RECEPTOR : IMPLICATION FOR A ROLE IN RECEPTOR INTERNALIZATION

Dimerization of G-protein-coupled receptors has been increasingly noted in the regulation of their biological activity. However, its involvement in agonist-induced receptor internalization is not well understood. In this study, we examined the ability of mouse δ-opioid receptors to dimerize and the role of receptor dimerization in agonist-induced internalization. Using differentially (Flag and c-Myc) epitope-tagged receptors we show that δ-opioid receptors exist as dimers. The level of dimerization is agonist dependent. Increasing concentrations of agonists reduce the levels of dimer with a corresponding increase in the levels of monomer. Interestingly, morphine does not affect the levels of either form. It has been shown that morphine, unlike other opioid agonists, does not induce receptor internalization. This suggests a relationship between the ability of agonists to reduce the levels of dimer and to induce receptor internalization. The time course of the agonist-induced decrease of δ-opioid receptor dimers is shorter than the time course of internalization, suggesting that monomerization precedes the agonist-induced internalization of the receptor. Furthermore, we found that a mutant δ-opioid receptor, with a 15-residue C-terminal deletion, does not exhibit dimerization. This mutant receptor has been shown to lack the ability to undergo agonist-induced internalization. These results suggest that the interconversion between the dimeric and monomeric forms plays a role in opioid receptor internalization.

G-protein-coupled receptor dimerization: Modulation of receptor function

G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) comprise the largest family of transmembrane receptors in the human genome that respond to a plethora of signals, including neurotransmitters, peptide hormones, and odorants, to name a few. They couple to second messenger signaling cascade mechanisms via heterotrimeric G-proteins. Recently, many studies have revealed that GPCRs exist as dimers, which may be present as homo- or heterodimers/oligomers. These recent findings have been met with skepticism, since they are contradictory to the dogma that GPCRs function as monomers. Although the existence of GPCR dimers/oligomers was predicted from early pharmacological and biochemical studies, further studies to critically evaluate this phenomenon were impeded by the lack of appropriate reagents. The availability of cDNAs for GPCRs, of highly selective ligands and of antibodies for these receptors has made it possible to visualize and investigate the functional effects of GPCR oligomers. Pharmacological studies, along with biochemical techniques, such as cross-linking and immunoprecipitation with differentially epitope-tagged receptors, have been employed to demonstrate the oligomerization of a number of GPCRs. Moreover, recent biophysical techniques, such as bioluminescence and fluorescence resonance energy transfer, now make it possible to examine GPCR dimerization/oligomerization in living cells. In this review, we provide a brief overview of some of the techniques employed to describe GPCR dimers, and we discuss their respective limitations. We also examine the implications of dimerization/oligomerization on GPCR function. In addition, we discuss domains of the receptors that are thought to facilitate dimerization/oligomerization. Finally, we consider recent evidence for the subcellular localization of the dimer/oligomer assembly.

Bax cleavage is mediated by calpain during drug-induced apoptosis

The anti-apoptotic molecule Bcl-2 is located in the mitochondrial and endoplasmic reticulum membranes as well as the nuclear envelope. Although its location has not been as rigorously defined, the pro-apoptotic molecule Bax appears to be mainly a cytosolic protein which translocates to the mitochondria upon induction of apoptosis. Here we identify a protease activity in mitochondria-enriched membrane fractions from HL-60 cells capable of cleaving Bax which is absent from the cytosolic fraction. Bax protease activity is blocked in vitro by cysteine protease inhibitors including E-64 which distinguishes it from all known caspases and granzyme B, both of which are involved in apoptosis. Protease activity is also blocked by inhibitors against the calcium-activated neutral cysteine endopeptidase calpain. Partial purification of the Bax protease activity from HL-60 cell membrane fractions by column chromatography revealed that a calpain-like activity was the protease responsible for Bax cleavage. In addition, purified calpain enzymes cleaved Bax in a calcium-dependent manner. Pretreatment of HL-60 cells with the specific calpain inhibitor calpeptin effectively blocked both drug-induced Bax cleavage and calpain activation, but not PARP cleavage or cell death. These results suggest that calpains and caspases are activated during drug-induced apoptosis and that calpains, along with caspases, may be involved in modulating cell death by acting selectively on cellular substrates.

G Protein–Coupled Receptor Oligomerization Revisited: Functional and Pharmacological Perspectives

Most evidence indicates that, as for family C G protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs), family A GPCRs form homo- and heteromers. Homodimers seem to be a predominant species, with potential dynamic formation of higher-order oligomers, particularly tetramers. Although monomeric GPCRs can activate G proteins, the pentameric structure constituted by one GPCR homodimer and one heterotrimeric G protein may provide a main functional unit, and oligomeric entities can be viewed as multiples of dimers. It still needs to be resolved if GPCR heteromers are preferentially heterodimers or if they are mostly constituted by heteromers of homodimers. Allosteric mechanisms determine a multiplicity of possible unique pharmacological properties of GPCR homomers and heteromers. Some general mechanisms seem to apply, particularly at the level of ligand-binding properties. In the frame of the dimer-cooperativity model, the two-state dimer model provides the most practical method to analyze ligand–GPCR interactions when considering receptor homomers. In addition to ligand-binding properties, unique properties for each GPCR oligomer emerge in relation to different intrinsic efficacy of ligands for different signaling pathways (functional selectivity). This gives a rationale for the use of GPCR oligomers, and particularly heteromers, as novel targets for drug development. Herein, we review the functional and pharmacological properties of GPCR oligomers and provide some guidelines for the application of discrete direct screening and high-throughput screening approaches to the discovery of receptor-heteromer selective compounds.

Building a new conceptual framework for receptor heteromers

Receptor heteromers constitute a new area of research that is reshaping our thinking about biochemistry, cell biology, pharmacology and drug discovery. In this commentary, we recommend clear definitions that should facilitate both information exchange and research on this growing class of transmembrane signal transduction units and their complex properties. We also consider research questions underlying the proposed nomenclature, with recommendations for receptor heteromer identification in native tissues and their use as targets for drug development.

μ opioid and CB1 cannabinoid receptor interactions: reciprocal inhibition of receptor signaling and neuritogenesis

1 Several studies have described functional interactions between opioid and cannabinoid receptors; the underlying mechanism(s) have not been well explored. One possible mechanism is direct receptor–receptor interactions, as has been demonstrated for a number of G‐protein‐coupled receptors. 2 In order to investigate interactions between opioid and cannabinoid receptors, we epitope tagged μ, δ and κ opioid receptors with Renilla luciferase and CB1 cannabinoid or CCR5 chemokine receptors with yellow fluorescent protein and examined the extent of substrate hydrolysis induced bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) signal. 3 We find that coexpression of opioid receptors with cannabinoid receptors, but not with chemokine receptors, leads to a significant increase in the level of BRET signal, suggesting that the opioid–cannabinoid interactions are receptor specific. 4 In order to examine the implications of these interactions to signaling, we used GTPγS binding and mitogen‐activated protein kinase (MAPK) phosphorylation assays and examined the effect of receptor activation on signaling. 5 We find that the μ receptor‐mediated signaling is attenuated by the CB1 receptor agonist; this effect is reciprocal and is seen in heterologous cells and endogenous tissue expressing both receptors. 6 In order to explore the physiological consequences of this interaction, we examined the effect of receptor activation on the extent of Src and STAT3 phosphorylation and neuritogenesis in Neuro‐2A cells. 7 We find that the simultaneous activation of μ opioid and CB1 cannabinoid receptors leads to a significant attenuation of the response seen upon activation of individual receptors, implicating a role for receptor–receptor interactions in modulating neuritogenesis.

International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. LXVII. Recommendations for the Recognition and Nomenclature of G Protein-Coupled Receptor Heteromultimers

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) have long been considered to be monomeric membrane proteins. Although numerous recent studies have indicated that GPCRs can form multimeric complexes, the functional and pharmacological consequences of this phenomenon have remained elusive. With the discovery that the functional GABAB receptor is an obligate heterodimer and with the use of energy transfer technologies, it is now accepted that GPCRs can form heteromultimers. In some cases, specific properties of such heteromers not shared by their respective homomers have been reported. Although in most cases these properties have only been observed in heterologous expression systems, there are a few reports describing data consistent with such heteromultimeric GPCR complexes also existing in native tissues. The present article illustrates well-documented examples of such native multimeric complexes, lists a number of recommendations for recognition and acceptance of such multimeric receptors, and gives recommendations for their nomenclature.

Sequestration of the δ Opioid Receptor ROLE OF THE C TERMINUS IN AGONIST-MEDIATED INTERNALIZATION

The primary structure of the opioid receptors have revealed that many of the structural features that are conserved in other G protein-coupled receptors are also conserved in the opioid receptors. Upon exposure to agonists, some G protein-coupled receptors internalize rapidly, whereas other structurally homologous G protein-coupled receptors do not. It is not known whether opioid receptors are regulated by rapid endocytosis. In transfected Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing the epitope-tagged wild type δ opioid receptor, exposure to 100 nM [D-Ala2,D-Leu5]enkephalin causes internalization of the receptor within 30 min as determined by confocal microscopy. The rate of internalization of the wild type receptor is rapid with a half-maximal reduction by about 10 min, as determined by the reduction in mean surface receptor fluorescence intensity measured using flow cytometry. In contrast, the cells expressing receptors lacking the C-terminal 15 or 37 amino acids exhibit a substantially slower rate of internalization. Furthermore, the cells expressing receptors with point mutations of any of the Ser/Thr between Ser344 and Ser363 in the C-terminal tail exhibit a significant reduction in the rate of receptor internalization. These results suggest that a portion of the C-terminal tail is involved in receptor internalization. Agents that block the formation of clathrin-coated pits considerably reduce the extent of agonist-mediated internalization of the wild type receptor. Taken together, these results suggest that the wild type opioid receptor undergoes rapid agonist-mediated internalization via a classic endocytic pathway and that a portion of the C-terminal tail plays an important role in this internalization process.

Hemopressin is an inverse agonist of CB1 cannabinoid receptors.

To date, the endogenous ligands described for cannabinoid receptors have been derived from membrane lipids. To identify a peptide ligand for CB1 cannabinoid receptors, we used the recently described conformation-state sensitive antibodies and screened a panel of endogenous peptides from rodent brain or adipose tissue. This led to the identification of hemopressin (PVNFKFLSH) as a peptide ligand that selectively binds CB1 cannabinoid receptors. We find that hemopressin is a CB1 receptor-selective antagonist, because it is able to efficiently block signaling by CB1 receptors but not by other members of family A G protein-coupled receptors (including the closely related CB2 receptors). Hemopressin also behaves as an inverse agonist of CB1 receptors, because it is able to block the constitutive activity of these receptors to the same extent as its well characterized antagonist, rimonabant. Finally, we examine the activity of hemopressin in vivo using different models of pain and find that it exhibits antinociceptive effects when administered by either intrathecal, intraplantar, or oral routes, underscoring hemopressins therapeutic potential. These results represent a demonstration of a peptide ligand for CB1 cannabinoid receptors that also exhibits analgesic properties. These findings are likely to have a profound impact on the development of novel therapeutics targeting CB1 receptors.