Search

IP3 receptor (IP3R)-mediated Ca2+ transfer at the mitochondria-endoplasmic reticulum (ER) contact sites (MERCS) drives mitochondrial Ca2+ uptake and oxidative metabolism and is linked to different pathologies, including Parkinson’s disease (PD). The dependence of Ca2+ transfer efficiency on the ER-mitochondria distance remains unexplored. Employing molecular rulers that stabilize ER-mitochondrial distances at 5 nm resolution, and using genetically encoded Ca2+ indicators targeting the ER lumen and the sub-mitochondrial compartments, we now show that a distance of ~20 nm is optimal for Ca2+ transfer and mitochondrial oxidative metabolism due to enrichment of IP3R at MERCS. In human iPSC-derived astrocytes from PD patients, 20 nm MERCS were specifically reduced, which correlated with a reduction of mitochondrial Ca2+ uptake. Stabilization of the ER-mitochondrial interaction at 20 nm, but not at 10 nm, fully rescued mitochondrial Ca2+ uptake in PD astrocytes. Our work determines with precision the optimal distance for Ca2+ flux between ER and mitochondria and suggests a new paradigm for fine control over mitochondrial function.The distance-dependence analysis of ER-mitochondria Ca2+ transfer suggests that a distance of ∼20 nm between the organelles ensures maximal efficiency of mitochondrial Ca2+ uptake and OXPHOS and rescues Ca2+ uptake in Parkinson’s disease mitochondria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: Calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) is a potent vasodilator. While its signalling is assumed to be mediated via increases in cAMP, this study focused on elucidating the actual intracellular signalling pathways involved in CGRP‐induced relaxation of human isolated coronary arteries (HCA). Experimental Approach: HCA were obtained from heart valve donors (27 M, 25 F, age 54 ± 2 years). Concentration–response curves to human α‐CGRP or forskolin were constructed in HCA segments, incubated with different inhibitors of intracellular signalling pathways, and intracellular cAMP levels were measured with and without stimulation. Results: Adenylyl cyclase (AC) inhibitors SQ22536 + DDA and MDL‐12330A, and PKA inhibitors Rp‐8‐Br‐cAMPs and H89, did not inhibit CGRP‐induced relaxation of HCA, nor did the guanylyl cyclase inhibitor ODQ, PKG inhibitor KT5823, EPAC1/2 inhibitor ESI09, potassium channel blockers TRAM‐34 + apamin, iberiotoxin or glibenclamide, or the Gαq inhibitor YM‐254890. Phosphodiesterase inhibitors induced a concentration‐dependent decrease in the response to KCl but did not potentiate relaxation to CGRP. Relaxation to forskolin was not blocked by PKA or AC inhibitors, although AC inhibitors significantly inhibited the increase in cAMP. Inhibition of Gβγ subunits using gallein significantly inhibited the relaxation to CGRP in human coronary arteries. Conclusion: While CGRP signalling is generally assumed to act via cAMP, the CGRP‐induced vasodilation in HCA was not inhibited by targeting this intracellular signalling pathway at different levels. Instead, inhibition of Gβγ subunits did inhibit the relaxation to CGRP, suggesting a different mechanism of CGRP‐induced relaxation than generally believed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Platelets are necessary for maintaining haemostasis. Separately, platelets are important for the propagation of inflammation during the host immune response against infection. The activation of platelets also causes inappropriate inflammation in various disease pathologies, often in the absence of changes to haemostasis. The separate functions of platelets during inflammation compared with haemostasis are therefore varied and this will be reflected in distinct pathways of activation. The activation of platelets by the nucleotide adenosine diphosphate (ADP) acting on P2Y1 and P2Y12 receptors is important for the development of platelet thrombi during haemostasis. However, P2Y1 stimulation of platelets is also important during the inflammatory response and paradoxically in scenarios where no changes to haemostasis and platelet aggregation occur. In these events, Rho‐GTPase signalling, rather than the canonical phospholipase Cβ (PLCβ) signalling pathway, is necessary. We describe our current understanding of these differences, reflecting on recent advances in knowledge of P2Y1 structure, and the possibility of biased agonism occurring from activation via other endogenous nucleotides compared with ADP. Knowledge arising from these different pathways of P2Y1 stimulation of platelets during inflammation compared with haemostasis may help therapeutic control of platelet function during inflammation or infection, while preserving essential haemostasis. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed issue on Platelet purinergic receptor and non‐thrombotic disease. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v181.4/issuetoc [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) bind to different G protein α-subtypes with varying degrees of selectivity. The mechanism by which GPCRs achieve this selectivity is still unclear. Using 13C methyl methionine and 19F NMR, we investigate the agonist-bound active state of β1AR and its ternary complexes with different G proteins in solution. We find the receptor in the ternary complexes adopts very similar conformations. In contrast, the full agonist-bound receptor active state assumes a conformation differing from previously characterised activation intermediates or from β1AR in ternary complexes. Assessing the kinetics of binding for the agonist-bound receptor with different G proteins, we find the increased affinity of β1AR for Gs results from its much faster association with the receptor. Consequently, we suggest a kinetic-driven selectivity gate between canonical and secondary coupling which arises from differential favourability of G protein binding to the agonist-bound receptor active state. The authors show G protein subtype selectivity at the β1-adrenergic receptor is driven by the binding kinetics of ternary complex formation. Bound to G protein, the receptor adopts conformations that differ from its agonist-bound solution states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Strategies aimed at mimicking or enhancing the action of the incretin hormone glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) therapeutically improve glucose-stimulated insulin secretion (GSIS); however, it is not clear whether GLP-1 directly drives insulin secretion in pancreatic islets. Here, we examined the mechanisms by which GLP-1 stimulates insulin secretion in mouse and human islets. We found that GLP-1 enhances GSIS at a half-maximal effective concentration of 0.4 pM. Moreover, we determined that GLP-1 activates PLC, which increases submembrane diacylglycerol and thereby activates PKC, resulting in membrane depolarization and increased action potential firing and subsequent stimulation of insulin secretion. The depolarizing effect of GLP-1 on electrical activity was mimicked by the PKC activator PMA, occurred without activation of PKA, and persisted in the presence of PKA inhibitors, the [K.sub.ATP] channel blocker tolbutamide, and the L-type [Ca.sup.2+] channel blocker isradipine; however, depolarization was abolished by lowering extracellular [Na.sup.+]. The PKC-dependent effect of GLP-1 on membrane potential and electrical activity was mediated by activation of [Na.sup.+]-permeable TRPM4 and TRPM5 channels by mobilization of intracellular [Ca.sup.2+] from thapsigargin-sensitive [Ca.sup.2+] stores. Concordantly, GLP-1 effects were negligible in Trpm4 or TrpmS KO islets. These data provide important insight into the therapeutic action of GLP-1 and suggest that circulating levels of this hormone directly stimulate insulin secretion by β cells., Introduction Type 2 diabetes currently affects approximately 350 million individuals in the world (1). It is caused by insufficient insulin secretion, often in combination with impaired insulin action (2). The [...]

Microbial production of cannabinoids promises to provide a consistent, cheaper, and more sustainable supply of these important therapeutic molecules. However, scaling production to compete with traditional plant-based sources is challenging. Our ability to make strain variants greatly exceeds our capacity to screen and identify high producers, creating a bottleneck in metabolic engineering efforts. Here, we present a yeast-based biosensor for detecting microbially produced Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to increase throughput and lower the cost of screening. We port five human cannabinoid G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) into yeast, showing the cannabinoid type 2 receptor, CB2R, can couple to the yeast pheromone response pathway and report on the concentration of a variety of cannabinoids over a wide dynamic and operational range. We demonstrate that our cannabinoid biosensor can detect THC from microbial cell culture and use this as a tool for measuring relative production yields from a library of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol acid synthase (THCAS) mutants. Microbial production of cannabinoids promises a cheaper and more sustainable route to these important therapeutic molecules, but strain improvement and screening is challenging. Here, the authors develop a yeast-based Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) biosensor for screening microbial mutant libraries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Signalling of the calcitonin-like receptor (CLR) is multifaceted, due to its interaction with receptor activity modifying proteins (RAMPs), and three endogenous peptide agonists. Previous studies have focused on the bias of G protein signalling mediated by the receptor and receptor internalisation of the CLR-RAMP complex has been assumed to follow the same pattern as other Class B1 G Protein-Coupled Receptors (GPCRs). Here we sought to measure desensitisation of the three CLR-RAMP complexes in response to the three peptide agonists, through the measurement of β-arrestin recruitment and internalisation. We then delved further into the mechanism of desensitisation through modulation of β-arrestin activity and the expression of GPCR kinases (GRKs), a key component of homologous GPCR desensitisation. First, we have shown that CLR-RAMP1 is capable of potently recruiting β-arrestin1 and 2, subsequently undergoing rapid endocytosis, and that CLR-RAMP2 and -RAMP3 also utilise these pathways, although to a lesser extent. Following this we have shown that agonist-dependent internalisation of CLR is β-arrestin dependent, but not required for full agonism. Overexpression of GRK2-6 was then found to decrease receptor signalling, due to an agonist-independent reduction in surface expression of the CLR-RAMP complex. These results represent the first systematic analysis of the importance of β-arrestins and GRKs in CLR-RAMP signal transduction and pave the way for further investigation regarding other Class B1 GPCRs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The first intracellular loop (ICL1) of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) has received little attention, although there is evidence that, with the 8th helix (H8), it is involved in early conformational changes following receptor activation as well as contacting the G protein β subunit. In class B1 GPCRs, the distal part of ICL1 contains a conserved R12.48KLRCxR2.46b motif that extends into the base of the second transmembrane helix; this is weakly conserved as a [R/H]12.48KL[R/H] motif in class A GPCRs. In the current study, the role of ICL1 and H8 in signaling through cAMP, iCa2+ and ERK1/2 has been examined in two class B1 GPCRs, using mutagenesis and molecular dynamics. Mutations throughout ICL1 can either enhance or disrupt cAMP production by CGRP at the CGRP receptor. Alanine mutagenesis identified subtle differences with regard elevation of iCa2+, with the distal end of the loop being particularly sensitive. ERK1/2 activation displayed little sensitivity to ICL1 mutation. A broadly similar pattern was observed with the glucagon receptor, although there were differences in significance of individual residues. Extending the study revealed that at the CRF1 receptor, an insertion in ICL1 switched signaling bias between iCa2+ and cAMP. Molecular dynamics suggested that changes in ICL1 altered the conformation of ICL2 and the H8/TM7 junction (ICL4). For H8, alanine mutagenesis showed the importance of E3908.49b for all three signal transduction pathways, for the CGRP receptor, but mutations of other residues largely just altered ERK1/2 activation. Thus, ICL1 may modulate GPCR bias via interactions with ICL2, ICL4 and the Gβ subunit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adhesion G protein-coupled receptors (aGPCRs) form a sub-group within the GPCR superfamily. Their distinctive structure contains an abnormally large N-terminal, extracellular region with a GPCR autoproteolysis-inducing (GAIN) domain. In most aGPCRs, the GAIN domain constitutively cleaves the receptor into two fragments. This process is often required for aGPCR signalling. Over the last two decades, much research has focussed on aGPCR-ligand interactions, in an attempt to deorphanize the family. Most ligands have been found to bind to regions N-terminal to the GAIN domain. These receptors may bind a variety of ligands, ranging across membrane-bound proteins and extracellular matrix components. Recent advancements have revealed a conserved method of aGPCR activation involving a tethered ligand within the GAIN domain. Evidence for this comes from increased activity in receptor mutants exposing the tethered ligand. As a result, G protein-coupling partners of aGPCRs have been more extensively characterised, making use of their tethered ligand to create constitutively active mutants. This has led to demonstrations of aGPCR function in, for example, neurodevelopment and tumour growth. However, questions remain around the ligands that may bind many aGPCRs, how this binding is translated into changes in the GAIN domain, and the exact mechanism of aGPCR activation following GAIN domain conformational changes. This review aims to examine the current knowledge around aGPCR activation, including ligand binding sites, the mechanism of GAIN domain-mediated receptor activation and how aGPCR transmembrane domains may relate to activation. Other aspects of aGPCR signalling will be touched upon, such as downstream effectors and physiological roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]