Search

The histamine H4 receptor (H4R) activates Gαi-mediated signaling and recruits β-arrestin2 upon stimulation with histamine. β-Arrestins play a regulatory role in G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling by interacting with phosphorylated serine and threonine residues in the GPCR C-terminal tail and intracellular loop 3, resulting in receptor desensitization and internalization. Using bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET)-based biosensors, we show that G protein-coupled receptor kinases (GRK) 2 and 3 are more quickly recruited to the H4R than β-arrestin1 and 2 upon agonist stimulation, whereas receptor internalization dynamics toward early endosomes was slower. Alanine-substitution revealed that a serine cluster at the distal end of the H4R C-terminal tail is essential for the recruitment of β-arrestin1/2, and consequently, receptor internalization and desensitization of G protein-driven extracellular-signal-regulated kinase (ERK)1/2 phosphorylation and label-free cellular impedance. In contrast, alanine substitution of serines and threonines in the intracellular loop 3 of the H4R did not affect β-arrestin2 recruitment and receptor desensitization, but reduced β-arrestin1 recruitment and internalization. Hence, β-arrestin recruitment to H4R requires the putative phosphorylated serine cluster in the H4R C-terminal tail, whereas putative phosphosites in the intracellular loop 3 have different effects on β-arrestin1 versus β-arrestin2. Mutation of these putative phosphosites in either intracellular loop 3 or the C-terminal tail did not affect the histamine-induced recruitment of GRK2 and GRK3 but does change the interaction of H4R with GRK5 and GRK6, respectively. Identification of H4R interactions with these proteins is a first step in the understanding how this receptor might be dysregulated in pathophysiological conditions.

Increased prevalence of inflammatory airway diseases including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) together with a significant number of patients being inadequately controlled by current frontline treatments means that there is a need to define novel therapeutic targets for these conditions1. Here we investigate a member of the G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) family, FFA4, which responds to free circulating fatty acids, including dietary omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oils2–4. Although usually associated with metabolic responses linked with food intake, we show that FFA4 is expressed in the lung where it is coupled to Gq/11-signalling. Activation of FFA4 by drug-like agonists produced relaxation of murine airway smooth muscle mediated, at least in part, by the release of the prostaglandin PGE2 that subsequently acts on EP2 prostanoid receptors. In normal mice, activation of FFA4 resulted in a decrease in lung resistance. Importantly, in acute and chronic ozone models of pollution-mediated inflammation, and in house-dust mite and cigarette smoke-induced inflammatory disease, FFA4 agonists acted to reduce airway resistance, whilst this response was absent in mice lacking expression of FFA4. The expression profile of FFA4 in human lung was very similar to that observed in mice and the response to FFA4/FFA1 agonists similarly mediated human airway smooth muscle relaxation. Hence, our study provides evidence that pharmacological targeting of lung FFA4, and possibly combined activation of FFA4 and FFA1, has in vivo efficacy that might have therapeutic value in the treatment of bronchoconstriction associated with inflammatory airway diseases such as asthma and COPD.

Crystal structures of protease-activated receptor 2 (PAR2) in complex with two different antagonist ligands and with a blocking antibody reveal binding sites that are distinct from those found on PAR1, offering new leads for structure-based drug design. Protease-activated receptors (PARs) are a family of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) with roles in diverse diseases, such as neuroinflammation and cancer, and are considered important target for drug discovery. Here, Fiona Marshall and colleagues have determined three crystal structures of PAR2 in complex with two different antagonists and a blocking antibody, respectively. The antagonists bind to distinct allosteric sites on the receptor and these binding sites are different to the one previously found on PAR1. Therefore this family of GPCRs can be inhibited by a number of different allosteric mechanisms, offering new leads for structure-based drug design. Protease-activated receptors (PARs) are a family of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) that are irreversibly activated by proteolytic cleavage of the N terminus, which unmasks a tethered peptide ligand that binds and activates the transmembrane receptor domain, eliciting a cellular cascade in response to inflammatory signals and other stimuli. PARs are implicated in a wide range of diseases, such as cancer and inflammation1,2,3. PARs have been the subject of major pharmaceutical research efforts3 but the discovery of small-molecule antagonists that effectively bind them has proved challenging. The only marketed drug targeting a PAR is vorapaxar4, a selective antagonist of PAR1 used to prevent thrombosis. The structure of PAR1 in complex with vorapaxar has been reported previously5. Despite sequence homology across the PAR isoforms, discovery of PAR2 antagonists has been less successful, although GB88 has been described as a weak antagonist6. Here we report crystal structures of PAR2 in complex with two distinct antagonists and a blocking antibody. The antagonist AZ8838 binds in a fully occluded pocket near the extracellular surface. Functional and binding studies reveal that AZ8838 exhibits slow binding kinetics, which is an attractive feature for a PAR2 antagonist competing against a tethered ligand. Antagonist AZ3451 binds to a remote allosteric site outside the helical bundle. We propose that antagonist binding prevents structural rearrangements required for receptor activation and signalling. We also show that a blocking antibody antigen-binding fragment binds to the extracellular surface of PAR2, preventing access of the tethered ligand to the peptide-binding site. These structures provide a basis for the development of selective PAR2 antagonists for a range of therapeutic uses.

The histamine H4 receptor (H4R) activates Gαi-mediated signaling and recruits β-arrestin2 upon stimulation with histamine. β-Arrestins play a regulatory role in G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling by interacting with phosphorylated serine and threonine residues in the GPCR C-terminal tail and intracellular loop 3, resulting in receptor desensitization and internalization. Using bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET)-based biosensors, we show that G protein-coupled receptor kinases (GRK) 2 and 3 are more quickly recruited to the H4R than β-arrestin1 and 2 upon agonist stimulation, whereas receptor internalization dynamics toward early endosomes was slower. Alanine-substitution revealed that a serine cluster at the distal end of the H4R C-terminal tail is essential for the recruitment of β-arrestin1/2, and consequently, receptor internalization and desensitization of G protein-driven extracellular-signal-regulated kinase (ERK)1/2 phosphorylation and label-free cellular impedance. In contrast, alanine substitution of serines and threonines in the intracellular loop 3 of the H4R did not affect β-arrestin2 recruitment and receptor desensitization, but reduced β-arrestin1 recruitment and internalization. Hence, β-arrestin recruitment to H4R requires the putative phosphorylated serine cluster in the H4R C-terminal tail, whereas putative phosphosites in the intracellular loop 3 have different effects on β-arrestin1 versus β-arrestin2. Mutation of these putative phosphosites in either intracellular loop 3 or the C-terminal tail did not affect the histamine-induced recruitment of GRK2 and GRK3 but does change the interaction of H4R with GRK5 and GRK6, respectively. Identification of H4R interactions with these proteins is a first step in the understanding how this receptor might be dysregulated in pathophysiological conditions.

It is established that long-chain free fatty acids includingω-3 fatty acids mediate an array of biologic responses through members of the free fatty acid (FFA) receptor family, which includes FFA4. However, the signaling mechanisms and modes of regulation of this receptor class remain unclear. Here, we employed mass spectrometry to determine that phosphorylation of mouse (m)FFAR4 occurs at five serine and threonine residues clustered in two separable regions of the C-terminal tail, designated cluster 1 (Thr(347), Thr(349), and Ser(350)) and cluster 2 (Ser(357)and Ser(361)). Mutation of these phosphoacceptor sites to alanine completely prevented phosphorylation of mFFA4 but did not limit receptor coupling to extracellular signal regulated protein kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2) activation. Rather, an inhibitor of Gq/11proteins completely prevented receptor signaling to ERK1/2. By contrast, the recruitment of arrestin 3, receptor internalization, and activation of Akt were regulated by mFFA4 phosphorylation. The analysis of mFFA4 phosphorylation-dependent signaling was extended further by selective mutations of the phosphoacceptor sites. Mutations within cluster 2 did not affect agonist activation of Akt but instead significantly compromised receptor internalization and arrestin 3 recruitment. Distinctly, mutation of the phosphoacceptor sites within cluster 1 had no effect on receptor internalization and had a less extensive effect on arrestin 3 recruitment but significantly uncoupled the receptor from Akt activation. These unique observations define differential effects on signaling mediated by phosphorylation at distinct locations. This hallmark feature supports the possibility that the signaling outcome of mFFA4 activation can be determined by the pattern of phosphorylation (phosphorylation barcode) at the C terminus of the receptor.

Chemical genetic has played an important role in linking specific G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signalling to cellular processes involved in central nervous system (CNS) functions. Key to this approach has been the modification of receptor properties such that receptors no longer respond to endogenous ligands but rather can be activated selectively by synthetic ligands. Such modified receptors have been called Receptors Activated Solely by Synthetic Ligands (RASSLs) or Designer Receptors Exclusively Activated by Designer Drugs (DREADDs). Unlike knock-out animal models which allow detection of phenotypic changes caused by loss of receptor functions, RASSL and DREADD receptors offer the possibility of rescuing "knock-out" phenotypic deficits by administration of the synthetic ligands. Here we describe the use of these modified receptors in defining the physiological role of GPCRs and validation of receptors as drug targets. This article is part of the Special Issue entitled 'Neuropharmacology on Muscarinic Receptors'.

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) can initiate intracellular signaling cascades by coupling to an array of heterotrimeric G proteins and arrestin adaptor proteins. Understanding the contribution of each of these coupling options to GPCR signaling has been hampered by a paucity of tools to selectively perturb receptor function. Here we employ CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing to eliminate selected G proteins (Gαq and Gα11) or arrestin2 and arrestin3 from HEK293 cells together with the elimination of receptor phosphorylation sites to define the relative contribution of G proteins, arrestins, and receptor phosphorylation to the signaling outcomes of the free fatty acid receptor 4 (FFA4). A lack of FFA4-mediated elevation of intracellular Ca2+ in Gαq/Gα11-null cells and agonist-mediated receptor internalization in arrestin2/3-null cells confirmed previously reported canonical signaling features of this receptor, thereby validating the genome-edited HEK293 cells. FFA4-mediated ERK1/2 activation was totally dependent on Gq/11 but intriguingly was substantially enhanced for FFA4 receptors lacking sites of regulated phosphorylation. This was not due to a simple lack of desensitization of Gq/11 signaling because the Gq/11-dependent calcium response was desensitized by both receptor phosphorylation and arrestin-dependent mechanisms, whereas a substantially enhanced ERK1/2 response was only observed for receptors lacking phosphorylation sites and not in arrestin2/3-null cells. In conclusion, we validate CRISPR/Cas9 engineered HEK293 cells lacking Gq/11 or arrestin2/3 as systems for GPCR signaling research and employ these cells to reveal a previously unappreciated interplay of signaling pathways where receptor phosphorylation can impact on ERK1/2 signaling through a mechanism that is likely independent of arrestins.

G-protein-coupled receptors are hyper-phosphorylated in a process that controls receptor coupling to downstream signaling pathways. The pattern of receptor phosphorylation has been proposed to generate a "bar code" that can be varied in a tissue-specific manner to direct physiologically relevant receptor signaling. If such a mechanism existed, receptors would be expected to be phosphorylated in a cell/tissue-specific manner. Using tryptic phosphopeptide maps, mass spectrometry, and phospho-specific antibodies, it was determined here that the prototypical G(q/11)-coupled M(3)-muscarinic receptor was indeed differentially phosphorylated in various cell and tissue types supporting a role for differential receptor phosphorylation in directing tissue-specific signaling. Furthermore, the phosphorylation profile of the M(3)-muscarinic receptor was also dependent on the stimulus. Full and partial agonists to the M(3)-muscarinic receptor were observed to direct phosphorylation preferentially to specific sites. This hitherto unappreciated property of ligands raises the possibility that one mechanism underlying ligand bias/functional selectivity, a process where ligands direct receptors to preferred signaling pathways, may be centered on the capacity of ligands to promote receptor phosphorylation at specific sites.

Establishing the in vivo activation status of G protein-coupled receptors would not only indicate physiological roles of G protein-coupled receptors but would also aid drug discovery by establishing drug/receptor engagement. Here, we develop a phospho-specific antibody-based biosensor to detect activation of the M-1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor (M-1 mAChR) in vitro and in vivo. Mass spectrometry phosphoproteomics identified 14 sites of phosphorylation on the M-1 mAChR. Phospho-specific antibodies to four of these sites established that serine at position 228 (Ser(228)) on the M-1 mAChR showed extremely low levels of basal phosphorylation that were significantly up-regulated by orthosteric agonist stimulation. In addition, the M-1 mAChR-positive allosteric modulator, 1-(4-methoxybenzyl)-4-oxo-1,4-dihydroquinoline-3-carboxylic acid, enhanced acetylcholine-mediated phosphorylation at Ser(228). These data supported the hypothesis that phosphorylation at Ser(228) was an indicator of M-1 mAChR activation. This was further supported in vivo by the identification of phosphorylated Ser(228) on the M-1 mAChR in the hippocampus of mice following administration of the muscarinic ligands xanomeline and 1-(4-methoxybenzyl)-4-oxo-1,4-dihydroquinoline-3-carboxylic acid. Finally, Ser(228) phosphorylation was seen to increase in the CA1 region of the hippocampus following memory acquisition, a response that correlated closely with up-regulation of CA1 neuronal activity. Thus, determining the phosphorylation status of the M-1 mAChR at Ser(228) not only provides a means of establishing receptor activation following drug treatment both in vitro and in vivo but also allows for the mapping of the activation status of the M-1 mAChR in the hippocampus following memory acquisition thereby establishing a link between M-1 mAChR activation and hippocampus-based memory and learning.

reversible phosphorylation plays an important role in regulating the functions of many cellular proteins. This posttranslational modification acts as a molecular switch to turn proteins on and off in an acute and transient manner ([4][1]). Although there have been major advances in recent years in

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 M(3) 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 M(3)-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 M(3) muscarinic receptor, results obtained after transgenic expression of this RASSL are likely to mirror the actions of acetylcholine at the wild type receptor.

reply: How to employ systems biology to describe complex pathway interactions and ultimately cellular responses will no doubt occupy biologists for many decades to come. Knepper and colleagues ([2][1]) have an important point when they say that our Editorial Focus ([3][2]) regarding their recent