Mechanism of phosphorylation-recognition by visual arrestin and the transition of arrestin into a high affinity binding state

Arrestins: A Small Family of Multi-Functional Proteins

The first member of the arrestin family, visual arrestin-1, was discovered in the late 1970s. Later, the other three mammalian subtypes were identified and cloned. The first described function was regulation of G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling: arrestins bind active phosphorylated GPCRs, blocking their coupling to G proteins. It was later discovered that receptor-bound and free arrestins interact with numerous proteins, regulating GPCR trafficking and various signaling pathways, including those that determine cell fate. Arrestins have no enzymatic activity; they function by organizing multi-protein complexes and localizing their interaction partners to particular cellular compartments. Today we understand the molecular mechanism of arrestin interactions with GPCRs better than the mechanisms underlying other functions. However, even limited knowledge enabled the construction of signaling-biased arrestin mutants and extraction of biologically active monofunctional peptides from these multifunctional proteins. Manipulation of cellular signaling with arrestin-based tools has research and likely therapeutic potential: re-engineered proteins and their parts can produce effects that conventional small-molecule drugs cannot.

Functional Role of Arrestin-1 Residues Interacting with Unphosphorylated Rhodopsin Elements

Arrestin-1, or visual arrestin, exhibits an exquisite selectivity for light-activated phosphorylated rhodopsin (P-Rh*) over its other functional forms. That selectivity is believed to be mediated by two well-established structural elements in the arrestin-1 molecule, the activation sensor detecting the active conformation of rhodopsin and the phosphorylation sensor responsive to the rhodopsin phosphorylation, which only active phosphorylated rhodopsin can engage simultaneously. However, in the crystal structure of the arrestin-1-rhodopsin complex there are arrestin-1 residues located close to rhodopsin, which do not belong to either sensor. Here we tested by site-directed mutagenesis the functional role of these residues in wild type arrestin-1 using a direct binding assay to P-Rh* and light-activated unphosphorylated rhodopsin (Rh*). We found that many mutations either enhanced the binding only to Rh* or increased the binding to Rh* much more than to P-Rh*. The data suggest that the native residues in these positions act as binding suppressors, specifically inhibiting the arrestin-1 binding to Rh* and thereby increasing arrestin-1 selectivity for P-Rh*. This calls for the modification of a widely accepted model of the arrestin-receptor interactions.

The Role of Reversible Phosphorylation of Drosophila Rhodopsin

Vertebrate and fly rhodopsins are prototypical GPCRs that have served for a long time as model systems for understanding GPCR signaling. Although all rhodopsins seem to become phosphorylated at their C-terminal region following activation by light, the role of this phosphorylation is not uniform. Two major functions of rhodopsin phosphorylation have been described: (1) inactivation of the activated rhodopsin either directly or by facilitating binding of arrestins in order to shut down the visual signaling cascade and thus eventually enabling a high-temporal resolution of the visual system. (2) Facilitating endocytosis of activated receptors via arrestin binding that in turn recruits clathrin to the membrane for clathrin-mediated endocytosis. In vertebrate rhodopsins the shutdown of the signaling cascade may be the main function of rhodopsin phosphorylation, as phosphorylation alone already quenches transducin activation and, in addition, strongly enhances arrestin binding. In the Drosophila visual system rhodopsin phosphorylation is not needed for receptor inactivation. Its role here may rather lie in the recruitment of arrestin 1 and subsequent endocytosis of the activated receptor. In this review, we summarize investigations of fly rhodopsin phosphorylation spanning four decades and contextualize them with regard to the most recent insights from vertebrate phosphorylation barcode theory.

The Role of Arrestin-1 Middle Loop in Rhodopsin Binding

Arrestins preferentially bind active phosphorylated G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). The middle loop, highly conserved in all arrestin subtypes, is localized in the central crest on the GPCR-binding side. Upon receptor binding, it directly interacts with bound GPCR and demonstrates the largest movement of any arrestin element in the structures of the complexes. Comprehensive mutagenesis of the middle loop of rhodopsin-specific arrestin-1 suggests that it primarily serves as a suppressor of binding to non-preferred forms of the receptor. Several mutations in the middle loop increase the binding to unphosphorylated light-activated rhodopsin severalfold, which makes them candidates for improving enhanced phosphorylation-independent arrestins. The data also suggest that enhanced forms of arrestin do not bind GPCRs exactly like the wild-type protein. Thus, the structures of the arrestin-receptor complexes, in all of which different enhanced arrestin mutants and reengineered receptors were used, must be interpreted with caution.

Community Guidelines for GPCR Ligand Bias: IUPHAR Review XX

G protein-coupled receptors modulate a plethora of physiological processes and mediate the effects of one-third of FDA-approved drugs. Depending on which ligand activates a receptor, it can engage different intracellular transducers. This 'biased signaling' paradigm requires that we now characterize physiological signaling not just by receptors but by ligand-receptor pairs. Ligands eliciting biased signaling may constitute better drugs with higher efficacy and fewer adverse effects. However, ligand bias is very complex, making reproducibility and description challenging. Here, we provide guidelines and terminology for any scientists to design and report ligand bias experiments. The guidelines will aid consistency and clarity, as the basic receptor research and drug discovery communities continue to advance our understanding and exploitation of ligand bias. Scientific insight, biosensors, and analytical methods are still evolving and should benefit from and contribute to the implementation of the guidelines, together improving translation from in vitro to disease-relevant in vivo models.

New Structural Perspectives in G Protein-Coupled Receptor-Mediated Src Family Kinase Activation

Src family kinases (SFKs) are key regulators of cell proliferation, differentiation, and survival. The expression of these non-receptor tyrosine kinases is strongly correlated with cancer development and tumor progression. Thus, this family of proteins serves as an attractive drug target. The activation of SFKs can occur via multiple signaling pathways, yet many of them are poorly understood. Here, we summarize the current knowledge on G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR)-mediated regulation of SFKs, which is of considerable interest because GPCRs are among the most widely used pharmaceutical targets. This type of activation can occur through a direct interaction between the two proteins or be allosterically regulated by arrestins and G proteins. We postulate that a rearrangement of binding motifs within the active conformation of arrestin-3 mediates Src regulation by comparison of available crystal structures. Therefore, we hypothesize a potentially different activation mechanism compared to arrestin-2. Furthermore, we discuss the probable direct regulation of SFK by GPCRs and investigate the intracellular domains of exemplary GPCRs with conserved polyproline binding motifs that might serve as scaffolding domains to allow such a direct interaction. Large intracellular domains in GPCRs are often understudied and, in general, not much is known of their contribution to different signaling pathways. The suggested direct interaction between a GPCR and a SFK could allow for a potential immediate allosteric regulation of SFKs by GPCRs and thereby unravel a novel mechanism of SFK signaling. This overview will help to identify new GPCR-SFK interactions, which could serve to explain biological functions or be used to modulate downstream effectors.

Arrestin-dependent internalization of rhodopsin-like G protein-coupled receptors

The internalization of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) is an important mechanism regulating the signal strength and limiting the opportunity of receptor activation. Based on the importance of GPCRs, the detailed knowledge about the regulation of signal transduction is crucial. Here, current knowledge about the agonist-induced, arrestin-dependent internalization process of rhodopsin-like GPCRs is reviewed. Arrestins are conserved molecules that act as key players within the internalization process of many GPCRs. Based on highly conserved structural characteristics within the rhodopsin-like GPCRs, the identification of arrestin interaction sites in model systems can be compared and used for the investigation of internalization processes of other receptors. The increasing understanding of this essential regulation mechanism of receptors can be used for drug development targeting rhodopsin-like GPCRs. Here, we focus on the neuropeptide Y receptor family, as these receptors transmit various physiological processes such as food intake, energy homeostasis, and regulation of emotional behavior, and are further involved in pathophysiological processes like cancer, obesity and mood disorders. Hence, this receptor family represents an interesting target for the development of novel therapeutics requiring the understanding of the regulatory mechanisms influencing receptor mediated signaling.

The finger loop as an activation sensor in arrestin

The finger loop in the central crest of the receptor-binding site of arrestins engages the cavity between the transmembrane helices of activated G-protein-coupled receptors. Therefore, it was hypothesized to serve as the sensor that detects the activation state of the receptor. We performed comprehensive mutagenesis of the finger loop in bovine visual arrestin-1, generated mutant radiolabeled proteins by cell-free translation, and determined the effects of mutations on the in vitro binding of arrestin-1 to purified phosphorylated light-activated rhodopsin. This interaction is driven by two factors, rhodopsin activation and rhodopsin-attached phosphates. Therefore, the binding of arrestin-1 to light-activated unphosphorylated rhodopsin is low. To evaluate the role of the finger loop specifically in the recognition of the active receptor conformation, we tested the effects of these mutations in the context of truncated arrestin-1 that demonstrates much higher binding to unphosphorylated activated and phosphorylated inactive rhodopsin. The majority of finger loop residues proved important for arrestin-1 binding to light-activated rhodopsin, with six mutations affecting the binding exclusively to this form. Thus, the finger loop is the key element of arrestin-1 activation sensor. The data also suggest that arrestin-1 and its enhanced mutant bind various functional forms of rhodopsin differently.

Receptor-Arrestin Interactions: The GPCR Perspective

Arrestins are a small family of four proteins in most vertebrates that bind hundreds of different G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Arrestin binding to a GPCR has at least three functions: precluding further receptor coupling to G proteins, facilitating receptor internalization, and initiating distinct arrestin-mediated signaling. The molecular mechanism of arrestin-GPCR interactions has been extensively studied and discussed from the "arrestin perspective", focusing on the roles of arrestin elements in receptor binding. Here, we discuss this phenomenon from the "receptor perspective", focusing on the receptor elements involved in arrestin binding and emphasizing existing gaps in our knowledge that need to be filled. It is vitally important to understand the role of receptor elements in arrestin activation and how the interaction of each of these elements with arrestin contributes to the latter's transition to the high-affinity binding state. A more precise knowledge of the molecular mechanisms of arrestin activation is needed to enable the construction of arrestin mutants with desired functional characteristics.

Lysine in the lariat loop of arrestins does not serve as phosphate sensor

Arrestins demonstrate strong preference for phosphorylated over unphosphorylated receptors, but how arrestins "sense" receptor phosphorylation is unclear. A conserved lysine in the lariat loop of arrestins directly binds the phosphate in crystal structures of activated arrestin-1, -2, and -3. The lariat loop supplies two negative charges to the central polar core, which must be disrupted for arrestin activation and high-affinity receptor binding. Therefore, we hypothesized that receptor-attached phosphates pull the lariat loop via this lysine, thus removing the negative charges and destabilizing the polar core. We tested the role of this lysine by introducing charge elimination (Lys->Ala) and reversal (Lys->Glu) mutations in arrestin-1, -2, and -3. These mutations in arrestin-1 only moderately reduced phospho-rhodopsin binding and had no detectable effect on arrestin-2 and -3 binding to cognate non-visual receptors in cells. The mutations of Lys300 in bovine and homologous Lys301 in mouse arrestin-1 on the background of pre-activated mutants had variable effects on the binding to light-activated phosphorylated rhodopsin, while affecting the binding to unphosphorylated rhodopsin to a greater extent. Thus, conserved lysine in the lariat loop participates in receptor binding, but does not play a critical role in phosphate-induced arrestin activation.

An arrestin-1 surface opposite of its interface with photoactivated rhodopsin engages with enolase-1

Arrestin-1 is the arrestin family member responsible for inactivation of the G protein–coupled receptor rhodopsin in photoreceptors. Arrestin-1 is also well-known to interact with additional protein partners and to affect other signaling cascades beyond phototransduction. In this study, we investigated one of these alternative arrestin-1 binding partners, the glycolysis enzyme enolase-1, to map the molecular contact sites between these two proteins and investigate how the binding of arrestin-1 affects the catalytic activity of enolase-1. Using fluorescence quench protection of strategically placed fluorophores on the arrestin-1 surface, we observed that arrestin-1 primarily engages enolase-1 along a surface that is opposite of the side of arrestin-1 that binds photoactivated rhodopsin. Using this information, we developed a molecular model of the arrestin-1–enolase-1 complex, which was validated by targeted substitutions of charge-pair interactions. Finally, we identified the likely source of arrestin's modulation of enolase-1 catalysis, showing that selective substitution of two amino acids in arrestin-1 can completely remove its effect on enolase-1 activity while still remaining bound to enolase-1. These findings open up opportunities for examining the functional effects of arrestin-1 on enolase-1 activity in photoreceptors and their surrounding cells.

Targeting arrestin interactions with its partners for therapeutic purposes

Most vertebrates express four arrestin subtypes: two visual ones in photoreceptor cells and two non-visuals expressed ubiquitously. The latter two interact with hundreds of G protein-coupled receptors, certain receptors of other types, and numerous non-receptor partners. Arrestins have no enzymatic activity and work by interacting with other proteins, often assembling multi-protein signaling complexes. Arrestin binding to every partner affects cell signaling, including pathways regulating cell survival, proliferation, and death. Thus, targeting individual arrestin interactions has therapeutic potential. This requires precise identification of protein-protein interaction sites of both participants and the choice of the side of each interaction which would be most advantageous to target. The interfaces involved in each interaction can be disrupted by small molecule therapeutics, as well as by carefully selected peptides of the other partner that do not participate in the interactions that should not be targeted.

Plethora of functions packed into 45 kDa arrestins: biological implications and possible therapeutic strategies

Mammalian arrestins are a family of four highly homologous relatively small ~ 45 kDa proteins with surprisingly diverse functions. The most striking feature is that each of the two non-visual subtypes can bind hundreds of diverse G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) and dozens of non-receptor partners. Through these interactions, arrestins regulate the G protein-dependent signaling by the desensitization mechanisms as well as control numerous signaling pathways in the G protein-dependent or independent manner via scaffolding. Some partners prefer receptor-bound arrestins, some bind better to the free arrestins in the cytoplasm, whereas several show no apparent preference for either conformation. Thus, arrestins are a perfect example of a multi-functional signaling regulator. The result of this multi-functionality is that reduction (by knockdown) or elimination (by knockout) of any of these two non-visual arrestins can affect so many pathways that the results are hard to interpret. The other difficulty is that the non-visual subtypes can in many cases compensate for each other, which explains relatively mild phenotypes of single knockouts, whereas double knockout is lethal in vivo, although cultured cells lacking both arrestins are viable. Thus, deciphering the role of arrestins in cell biology requires the identification of specific signaling function(s) of arrestins involved in a particular phenotype. This endeavor should be greatly assisted by identification of structural elements of the arrestin molecule critical for individual functions and by the creation of mutants where only one function is affected. Reintroduction of these biased mutants, or introduction of monofunctional stand-alone arrestin elements, which have been identified in some cases, into double arrestin-2/3 knockout cultured cells, is the most straightforward way to study arrestin functions. This is a laborious and technically challenging task, but the upside is that specific function of arrestins, their timing, subcellular specificity, and relations to one another could be investigated with precision.

Arrestins: structural disorder creates rich functionality

Arrestins are soluble relatively small 44-46 kDa proteins that specifically bind hundreds of active phosphorylated GPCRs and dozens of non-receptor partners. There are binding partners that demonstrate preference for each of the known arrestin conformations: free, receptor-bound, and microtubule-bound. Recent evidence suggests that conformational flexibility in every functional state is the defining characteristic of arrestins. Flexibility, or plasticity, of proteins is often described as structural disorder, in contrast to the fixed conformational order observed in high-resolution crystal structures. However, protein-protein interactions often involve highly flexible elements that can assume many distinct conformations upon binding to different partners. Existing evidence suggests that arrestins are no exception to this rule: their flexibility is necessary for functional versatility. The data on arrestins and many other multi-functional proteins indicate that in many cases, "order" might be artificially imposed by highly non-physiological crystallization conditions and/or crystal packing forces. In contrast, conformational flexibility (and its extreme case, intrinsic disorder) is a more natural state of proteins, representing true biological order that underlies their physiologically relevant functions.

Arrestins: Introducing Signaling Bias Into Multifunctional Proteins

Arrestins were discovered as proteins that bind active phosphorylated G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) and block their interactions with G proteins, i.e., for their role in homologous desensitization of GPCRs. Mammals express only four arrestin subtypes, two of which are largely restricted to the retina. Two nonvisual arrestins are ubiquitous and interact with hundreds of different GPCRs and dozens of other binding partners. Changes of just a few residues on the receptor-binding surface were shown to dramatically affect GPCR preference of inherently promiscuous nonvisual arrestins. Mutations on the cytosol-facing side of arrestins modulate their interactions with individual downstream signaling molecules. Thus, it appears feasible to construct arrestin mutants specifically linking particular GPCRs with signaling pathways of choice or mutants that sever the links between selected GPCRs and unwanted pathways. Signaling-biased "designer arrestins" have the potential to become valuable molecular tools for research and therapy.

Structural Basis of Arrestin-Dependent Signal Transduction

Arrestins are a small family of proteins with four isoforms in humans. Remarkably, two arrestins regulate signaling from >800 G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) or nonreceptor activators by simultaneously binding an activator and one out of hundreds of other signaling proteins. When arrestins are bound to GPCRs or other activators, the affinity for these signaling partners changes. Thus, it is proposed that an activator alters arrestin's ability to transduce a signal. The comparison of all available arrestin structures identifies several common conformational rearrangements associated with activation. In particular, it identifies elements that are directly involved in binding to GPCRs or other activators, elements that likely engage distinct downstream effectors, and elements that likely link the activator-binding sites with the effector-binding sites.

Molecular mechanism of GPCR-mediated arrestin activation

Despite intense interest in discovering drugs that cause G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) to selectively stimulate or block arrestin signalling, the structural mechanism of receptor-mediated arrestin activation remains unclear1,2. Here we reveal this mechanism through extensive atomic-level simulations of arrestin. We find that the receptor's transmembrane core and cytoplasmic tail-which bind distinct surfaces on arrestin-can each independently stimulate arrestin activation. We confirm this unanticipated role of the receptor core, and the allosteric coupling between these distant surfaces of arrestin, using site-directed fluorescence spectroscopy. The effect of the receptor core on arrestin conformation is mediated primarily by interactions of the intracellular loops of the receptor with the arrestin body, rather than the marked finger-loop rearrangement that is observed upon receptor binding. In the absence of a receptor, arrestin frequently adopts active conformations when its own C-terminal tail is disengaged, which may explain why certain arrestins remain active long after receptor dissociation. Our results, which suggest that diverse receptor binding modes can activate arrestin, provide a structural foundation for the design of functionally selective ('biased') GPCR-targeted ligands with desired effects on arrestin signalling.

Molecular Mechanisms of GPCR Signaling: A Structural Perspective

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are cell surface receptors that respond to a wide variety of stimuli, from light, odorants, hormones, and neurotransmitters to proteins and extracellular calcium. GPCRs represent the largest family of signaling proteins targeted by many clinically used drugs. Recent studies shed light on the conformational changes that accompany GPCR activation and the structural state of the receptor necessary for the interactions with the three classes of proteins that preferentially bind active GPCRs, G proteins, G protein-coupled receptor kinases (GRKs), and arrestins. Importantly, structural and biophysical studies also revealed activation-related conformational changes in these three types of signal transducers. Here, we summarize what is already known and point out questions that still need to be answered. Clear understanding of the structural basis of signaling by GPCRs and their interaction partners would pave the way to designing signaling-biased proteins with scientific and therapeutic potential.

Functional role of the three conserved cysteines in the N domain of visual arrestin-1

Arrestins specifically bind active and phosphorylated forms of their cognate G protein-coupled receptors, blocking G protein coupling and often redirecting the signaling to alternative pathways. High-affinity receptor binding is accompanied by two major structural changes in arrestin: release of the C-tail and rotation of the two domains relative to each other. The first requires detachment of the arrestin C-tail from the body of the molecule, whereas the second requires disruption of the network of charge-charge interactions at the interdomain interface, termed the polar core. These events can be facilitated by mutations destabilizing the polar core or the anchoring of the C-tail that yield "preactivated" arrestins that bind phosphorylated and unphosphorylated receptors with high affinity. Here we explored the functional role in arrestin activation of the three native cysteines in the N domain, which are conserved in all arrestin subtypes. Using visual arrestin-1 and rhodopsin as a model, we found that substitution of these cysteines with serine, alanine, or valine virtually eliminates the effects of the activating polar core mutations on the binding to unphosphorylated rhodopsin while only slightly reducing the effects of the C-tail mutations. Thus, these three conserved cysteines play a role in the domain rotation but not in the C-tail release.

The Diverse Roles of Arrestin Scaffolds in G Protein-Coupled Receptor Signaling

The visual/β-arrestins, a small family of proteins originally described for their role in the desensitization and intracellular trafficking of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), have emerged as key regulators of multiple signaling pathways. Evolutionarily related to a larger group of regulatory scaffolds that share a common arrestin fold, the visual/β-arrestins acquired the capacity to detect and bind activated GPCRs on the plasma membrane, which enables them to control GPCR desensitization, internalization, and intracellular trafficking. By acting as scaffolds that bind key pathway intermediates, visual/β-arrestins both influence the tonic level of pathway activity in cells and, in some cases, serve as ligand-regulated scaffolds for GPCR-mediated signaling. Growing evidence supports the physiologic and pathophysiologic roles of arrestins and underscores their potential as therapeutic targets. Circumventing arrestin-dependent GPCR desensitization may alleviate the problem of tachyphylaxis to drugs that target GPCRs, and find application in the management of chronic pain, asthma, and psychiatric illness. As signaling scaffolds, arrestins are also central regulators of pathways controlling cell growth, migration, and survival, suggesting that manipulating their scaffolding functions may be beneficial in inflammatory diseases, fibrosis, and cancer. In this review we examine the structure-function relationships that enable arrestins to perform their diverse roles, addressing arrestin structure at the molecular level, the relationship between arrestin conformation and function, and sites of interaction between arrestins, GPCRs, and nonreceptor-binding partners. We conclude with a discussion of arrestins as therapeutic targets and the settings in which manipulating arrestin function might be of clinical benefit.

Understanding the Differential Selectivity of Arrestins toward the Phosphorylation State of the Receptor

Proteins in the arrestin family exhibit a conserved structural fold that nevertheless allows for significant differences in their selectivity for G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) and their phosphorylation states. To reveal the mechanism of activation that prepares arrestin for selective interaction with GPCRs, and to understand the basis for these differences, we used unbiased molecular dynamics simulations to compare the structural and dynamic properties of wild type Arr1 (Arr1-WT), Arr3 (Arr3-WT), and a constitutively active Arr1 mutant, Arr1-R175E, characterized by a perturbation of the phosphate recognition region called "polar core". We find that in our simulations the mutant evolves toward a conformation that resembles the known preactivated structures of an Arr1 splice-variant, and the structurally similar phosphopeptide-bound Arr2-WT, while this does not happen for Arr1-WT. Hence, we propose an activation allosteric mechanism connecting the perturbation of the polar core to a global conformational change, including the relative reorientation of N- and C-domains, and the emergence of electrostatic properties of putative binding surfaces. The underlying local structural changes are interpreted as markers of the evolution of an arrestin structure toward an active-like conformation. Similar activation related changes occur in Arr3-WT in the absence of any perturbation of the polar core, suggesting that this system could spontaneously visit preactivated states in solution. This hypothesis is proposed to explain the lower selectivity of Arr3 toward nonphosphorylated receptors. Moreover, by elucidating the allosteric mechanism underlying activation, we identify functionally critical regions on arrestin structure that can be targeted with drugs or chemical tools for functional modulation.

Development of a BRET2 Screening Assay Using β-Arrestin 2 Mutants

This study has focused on enhancing the signal generated from the interaction between a G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) and β-arrestin 2 (β-arr2), measured by the bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET2) technology. Both class A (β2-adrenergic receptor [β2-AR]) and class B (neurokinin-type 1 receptor [NK1-R]) GPCRs, classified based on their internalization characteristics, have been analyzed. It was evaluated whether the BRET2 signal can be enhanced by using (1) β-arr2 phosphorylation-independent mutant (β-arr2 R169E) and (2) β-arr2 mutants deficient in their ability to interact with the components of the clathrin-coated vesicles (β-arr2 R393E, R395E and β-arr2 373 stop). For the class B receptor, there was no major difference in the agonist-promoted BRET2 signal when comparing results obtained with wild-type (wt) and mutant β-arr2. However, with the class A receptor, a more than 2-fold increase in the BRET2 signal was observed with β-arr2 mutants lacking the AP-2 or both AP-2 and clathrin binding sites. This set of data suggests that the inability of these β-arr2 mutants to interact with the components of the clathrin-coated vesicle probably prevents their rapid dissociation from the receptor, thus yielding an increased and more stable BRET2 signal. The β-arr2 R393E, R395E mutant also enhanced the signal window with other members of the GPCR family (neuropeptide Y type 2 receptor [NPY2-R] and TG1019 receptor) and was successfully applied in full-plate BRET2-based agonist and antagonist screening assays.

How genetic errors in GPCRs affect their function: Possible therapeutic strategies

Activating and inactivating mutations in numerous human G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are associated with a wide range of disease phenotypes. Here we use several class A GPCRs with a particularly large set of identified disease-associated mutations, many of which were biochemically characterized, along with known GPCR structures and current models of GPCR activation, to understand the molecular mechanisms yielding pathological phenotypes. Based on this mechanistic understanding we also propose different therapeutic approaches, both conventional, using small molecule ligands, and novel, involving gene therapy.

G Protein-coupled Receptor Kinases of the GRK4 Protein Subfamily Phosphorylate Inactive G Protein-coupled Receptors (GPCRs)

G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) kinases (GRKs) play a key role in homologous desensitization of GPCRs. It is widely assumed that most GRKs selectively phosphorylate only active GPCRs. Here, we show that although this seems to be the case for the GRK2/3 subfamily, GRK5/6 effectively phosphorylate inactive forms of several GPCRs, including β2-adrenergic and M2 muscarinic receptors, which are commonly used as representative models for GPCRs. Agonist-independent GPCR phosphorylation cannot be explained by constitutive activity of the receptor or membrane association of the GRK, suggesting that it is an inherent ability of GRK5/6. Importantly, phosphorylation of the inactive β2-adrenergic receptor enhanced its interactions with arrestins. Arrestin-3 was able to discriminate between phosphorylation of the same receptor by GRK2 and GRK5, demonstrating preference for the latter. Arrestin recruitment to inactive phosphorylated GPCRs suggests that not only agonist activation but also the complement of GRKs in the cell regulate formation of the arrestin-receptor complex and thereby G protein-independent signaling.

The rhodopsin-arrestin-1 interaction in bicelles

G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are essential mediators of information transfer in eukaryotic cells. Interactions between GPCRs and their binding partners modulate the signaling process. For example, the interaction between GPCR and cognate G protein initiates the signal, while the interaction with cognate arrestin terminates G-protein-mediated signaling. In visual signal transduction, arrestin-1 selectively binds to the phosphorylated light-activated GPCR rhodopsin to terminate rhodopsin signaling. Under physiological conditions, the rhodopsin-arrestin-1 interaction occurs in highly specialized disk membrane in which rhodopsin resides. This membrane is replaced with mimetics when working with purified proteins. While detergents are commonly used as membrane mimetics, most detergents denature arrestin-1, preventing biochemical studies of this interaction. In contrast, bicelles provide a suitable alternative medium. An advantage of bicelles is that they contain lipids, which have been shown to be necessary for normal rhodopsin-arrestin-1 interaction. Here we describe how to reconstitute rhodopsin into bicelles, and how bicelle properties affect the rhodopsin-arrestin-1 interaction.

Analyzing the roles of multi-functional proteins in cells: The case of arrestins and GRKs

Most proteins have multiple functions. Obviously, conventional methods of manipulating the level of the protein of interest in the cell, such as over-expression, knockout or knockdown, affect all of its functions simultaneously. The key advantage of these methods is that over-expression, knockout or knockdown does not require any knowledge of the molecular mechanisms of the function(s) of the protein of interest. The disadvantage is that these approaches are inadequate to elucidate the role of an individual function of the protein in a particular cellular process. An alternative is the use of re-engineered proteins, in which a single function is eliminated or enhanced. The use of mono-functional elements of a multi-functional protein can also yield cleaner answers. This approach requires detailed knowledge of the structural basis of each function of the protein in question. Thus, a lot of preliminary structure-function work is necessary to make it possible. However, when this information is available, replacing the protein of interest with a mutant in which individual functions are modified can shed light on the biological role of those particular functions. Here, we illustrate this point using the example of protein kinases, most of which have additional non-enzymatic functions, as well as arrestins, known multi-functional signaling regulators in the cell.

Different conformational dynamics of β-arrestin1 and β-arrestin2 analyzed by hydrogen/deuterium exchange mass spectrometry

Arrestins have important roles in G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling including desensitization of GPCRs and G protein-independent signaling. There have been four arrestins identified: arrestin1, arrestin2 (e.g. β-arrestin1), arrestin3 (e.g. β-arrestin2), and arrestin4. β-Arrestin1 and β-arrestin2 are ubiquitously expressed and regulate a broad range of GPCRs, while arrestin1 and arrestin4 are expressed in the visual system. Although the functions of β-arrestin1 and β-arrestin2 widely overlap, β-arrestin2 has broader receptor selectivity, and a few studies have suggested that β-arrestin1 and β-arrestin2 have distinct cellular functions. Here, we compared the conformational dynamics of β-arrestin1 and β-arrestin2 by hydrogen/deuterium exchange mass spectrometry (HDX-MS). We also used the R169E mutant as a pre-activation model system. HDX-MS data revealed that β-strands II through IV were more dynamic in β-arrestin2 in the basal state, while the middle loop was more dynamic in β-arrestin1. With pre-activation, both β-arrestin1 and β-arrestin2 became more flexible, but broader regions of β-arrestin1 became flexible compared to β-arrestin2. The conformational differences between β-arrestin1 and β-arrestin2 in both the basal and pre-activated states might determine their different receptor selectivities and different cellular functions.

β-Arrestin-dependent deactivation of mouse melanopsin

In mammals, the expression of the unusual visual pigment, melanopsin, is restricted to a small subset of intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs), whose signaling regulate numerous non-visual functions including sleep, circadian photoentrainment and pupillary constriction. IpRGCs exhibit attenuated electrical responses following sequential and prolonged light exposures indicative of an adaptational response. The molecular mechanisms underlying deactivation and adaptation in ipRGCs however, have yet to be fully elucidated. The role of melanopsin phosphorylation and β-arrestin binding in this adaptive process is suggested by the phosphorylation-dependent reduction of melanopsin signaling in vitro and the ubiquitous expression of β-arrestin in the retina. These observations, along with the conspicuous absence of visual arrestin in ipRGCs, suggest that a β-arrestin terminates melanopsin signaling. Here, we describe a light- and phosphorylation- dependent reduction in melanopsin signaling mediated by both β-arrestin 1 and β-arrestin 2. Using an in vitro calcium imaging assay, we demonstrate that increasing the cellular concentration of β-arrestin 1 and β-arrestin 2 significantly increases the rate of deactivation of light-activated melanopsin in HEK293 cells. Furthermore, we show that this response is dependent on melanopsin carboxyl-tail phosphorylation. Crosslinking and co-immunoprecipitation experiments confirm β-arrestin 1 and β-arrestin 2 bind to melanopsin in a light- and phosphorylation- dependent manner. These data are further supported by proximity ligation assays (PLA), which demonstrate a melanopsin/β-arrestin interaction in HEK293 cells and ipRGCs. Together, these results suggest that melanopsin signaling is terminated in a light- and phosphorylation-dependent manner through the binding of a β-arrestin within the retina.

Novel roles for β-arrestins in the regulation of pharmacological sequestration to predict agonist-induced desensitization of dopamine D3 receptors

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In addition to typical GPCR kinase (GRK)-/β-arrestin-dependent internalization, dopamine D3 receptor employed an additional GRK-independent sequestration pathway. In this study, we investigated the molecular mechanism of this novel sequestration pathway.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Radioligand binding, flow cytometry and cell surface biotinylation assay were used to characterize trafficking properties of D2 and D3 receptors. Serine/threonine and N-linked glycosylation mutants of the D3 receptor were utilized to locate receptor regions involved in pharmacological sequestration and desensitization. Various point mutants of the D2 and D3 receptors, whose sequestration and desensitization properties were altered, were combined with knockdown cells of GRKs or β-arrestins to functionally correlate pharmacological sequestration and desensitization.

KEY RESULTS

The D3 receptor, but not the D2 receptor, showed characteristic trafficking behaviour in which receptors were shifted towards the more hydrophobic domains within the plasma membrane without translocation into other intracellular compartments. Among various amino acid residues tested, S145/S146, C147 and N12/19 were involved in pharmacological sequestration and receptor desensitization. Both pharmacological sequestration and desensitization of D3 receptor required β-arrestins, and functional relationship was observed between two processes when it was tested for D3 receptor variants and agonists.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Pharmacological sequestration of D3 receptor accompanies movement of cell surface receptors into a more hydrophobic fraction within the plasma membrane and renders D3 receptor inaccessible to hydrophilic ligands. Pharmacological sequestration is correlated with desensitization of the D3 receptor in a Gβγ- and β-arrestin-dependent manner. This study provides new insights into molecular mechanism governing GPCR trafficking and desensitization.

Differential regulation of endosomal GPCR/β-arrestin complexes and trafficking by MAPK

β-Arrestins are signaling adaptors that bind to agonist-occupied G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) and target them for endocytosis; however, the mechanisms regulating receptor/β-arrestin complexes and trafficking in endosomes, remain ill defined. Here we show, in live cells, differential dynamic regulation of endosomal bradykinin B2 receptor (B2R) complexes with either β-arrestin-1 or -2. We find a novel role for MAPK in the B2R/β-arrestin-2 complex formation, receptor trafficking and signaling mediated by an ERK1/2 regulatory motif in the hinge domain of the rat β-arrestin-2 (PET(178)P), but not rat β-arrestin-1 (PER(177)P). While the ERK1/2 regulatory motif is conserved between rat and mouse β-arrestin-2, it is surprisingly not conserved in human β-arrestin-2 (PEK(178)P). However, mutation of lysine 178 to threonine is sufficient to confer MAPK sensitivity to the human β-arrestin-2. Furthermore, substitution for a phosphomimetic residue in both the rat and the human β-arrestin-2 (T/K178D) significantly stabilizes B2R/β-arrestin complexes in endosomes, delays receptor recycling to the plasma membrane and maintains intracellular MAPK signaling. Similarly, the endosomal trafficking of β2-adrenergic, angiotensin II type 1 and vasopressin V2 receptors was altered by the β-arrestin-2 T178D mutant. Our findings unveil a novel subtype specific mode of MAPK-dependent regulation of β-arrestins in intracellular trafficking and signaling of GPCRs, and suggest differential endosomal receptor/β-arrestin-2 signaling roles among species.

Therapeutic potential of small molecules and engineered proteins

Virtually all currently used therapeutic agents are small molecules, largely because the development and delivery of small molecule drugs is relatively straightforward. Small molecules have serious limitations: drugs of this type can be fairly good enzyme inhibitors, receptor ligands, or allosteric modulators. However, most cellular functions are mediated by protein interactions with other proteins, and targeting protein-protein interactions by small molecules presents challenges that are unlikely to be overcome with these compounds as the only tools. Recent advances in gene delivery techniques and characterization of cell type-specific promoters open the prospect of using reengineered signaling-biased proteins as next-generation therapeutics. The first steps in targeted engineering of proteins with desired functional characteristics look very promising. As quintessential scaffolds that act strictly via interactions with other proteins in the cell, arrestins represent a perfect model for the development of these novel therapeutic agents with enormous potential: custom-designed signaling proteins will allow us to tell the cell what to do and when to do it in a way it cannot disobey.

Arrestin-3 binds the MAP kinase JNK3α2 via multiple sites on both domains

Although arrestins bind dozens of non-receptor partners, the interaction sites for most signaling proteins remain unknown. Here we report the identification of arrestin-3 elements involved in binding MAP kinase JNK3α2. Using purified JNK3α2 and MBP fusions containing separated arrestin-3 domains and peptides exposed on the non-receptor-binding surface of arrestin-3 we showed that both domains bind JNK3α2 and identified one element on the N-domain and two on the C-domain that directly interact with JNK3α2. Using in vitro competition we confirmed that JNK3α2 engages identified N-domain element and one of the C-domain peptides in the full-length arrestin-3. The 25-amino acid N-domain element has the highest affinity for JNK3α2, suggesting that it is the key site for JNK3α2 docking. The identification of elements involved in protein-protein interactions paves the way to targeted redesign of signaling proteins to modulate cell signaling in desired ways. The tools and methods developed here to elucidate the molecular mechanism of arrestin-3 interactions with JNK3α2 are suitable for mapping of arrestin-3 sites involved in interactions with other partners.

Enhanced phosphorylation-independent arrestins and gene therapy

A variety of heritable and acquired disorders is associated with excessive signaling by mutant or overstimulated GPCRs. Since any conceivable treatment of diseases caused by gain-of-function mutations requires gene transfer, one possible approach is functional compensation. Several structurally distinct forms of enhanced arrestins that bind phosphorylated and even non-phosphorylated active GPCRs with much higher affinity than parental wild-type proteins have the ability to dampen the signaling by hyperactive GPCR, pushing the balance closer to normal. In vivo this approach was so far tested only in rod photoreceptors deficient in rhodopsin phosphorylation, where enhanced arrestin improved the morphology and light sensitivity of rods, prolonged their survival, and accelerated photoresponse recovery. Considering that rods harbor the fastest, as well as the most demanding and sensitive GPCR-driven signaling cascade, even partial success of functional compensation of defect in rhodopsin phosphorylation by enhanced arrestin demonstrates the feasibility of this strategy and its therapeutic potential.

Targeting individual GPCRs with redesigned nonvisual arrestins

Numerous human diseases are caused by excessive signaling of mutant G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) or receptors that are overstimulated due to upstream signaling imbalances. The feasibility of functional compensation by arrestins with enhanced ability to quench receptor signaling was recently tested in the visual system. The results showed that even in this extremely demanding situation of rods that have no ability to phosphorylate rhodopsin, enhanced arrestin improved rod morphology, light sensitivity, survival, and accelerated photoresponse recovery. Structurally distinct enhanced mutants of arrestins that bind phosphorylated and non-phosphorylated active GPCRs with much higher affinity than parental wild-type (WT) proteins have been constructed. These "super-arrestins" are likely to have the power to dampen the signaling by hyperactive GPCRs. However, most cells express 5-20 GPCR subtypes, only one of which would be overactive, while nonvisual arrestins are remarkably promiscuous, binding hundreds of different GPCRs. Thus, to be therapeutically useful, enhanced versions of nonvisual arrestins must be made fairly specific for particular receptors. Recent identification of very few arrestin residues as key receptor discriminators paves the way to the construction of receptor subtype-specific nonvisual arrestins.

Arrestin interactions with G protein-coupled receptors

G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are the primary interaction partners for arrestins. The visual arrestins, arrestin1 and arrestin4, physiologically bind to only very few receptors, i.e., rhodopsin and the color opsins, respectively. In contrast, the ubiquitously expressed nonvisual variants β-arrestin1 and 2 bind to a large number of receptors in a fairly nonspecific manner. This binding requires two triggers, agonist activation and receptor phosphorylation by a G-protein-coupled receptor kinase (GRK). These two triggers are mediated by two different regions of the arrestins, the "phosphorylation sensor" in the core of the protein and a less well-defined "activation sensor." Binding appears to occur mostly in a 1:1 stoichiometry, involving the N-terminal domain of GPCRs, but in addition a second GPCR may loosely bind to the C-terminal domain when active receptors are abundant.Arrestin binding initially uncouples GPCRs from their G-proteins. It stabilizes receptors in an active conformation and also induces a conformational change in the arrestins that involves a rotation of the two domains relative to each other plus changes in the polar core. This conformational change appears to permit the interaction with further downstream proteins. The latter interaction, demonstrated mostly for β-arrestins, triggers receptor internalization as well as a number of nonclassical signaling pathways.Open questions concern the exact stoichiometry of the interaction, possible specificity with regard to the type of agonist and of GRK involved, selective regulation of downstream signaling (=biased signaling), and the options to use these mechanisms as therapeutic targets.

Self-association of arrestin family members

Mammals express four arrestin subtypes, three of which have been shown to self-associate. Cone photoreceptor-specific arrestin-4 is the only one that is a constitutive monomer. Visual arrestin-1 forms tetramers both in crystal and in solution, but the shape of its physiologically relevant solution tetramer is very different from that in the crystal. The biological role of the self-association of arrestin-1, expressed at very high levels in rod and cone photoreceptors, appears to be protective, reducing the concentration of cytotoxic monomers. The two nonvisual arrestin subtypes are highly homologous, and self-association of both is facilitated by IP6, yet they form dramatically different oligomers. Arrestin-2 apparently self-associates into "infinite" chains, very similar to those observed in IP6-soaked crystals, where IP6 connects the concave sides of the N- and C-domains of adjacent protomers. In contrast, arrestin-3 only forms dimers, in which IP6 likely connects the C-domains of two arrestin-3 molecules. Thus, each of the three self-associating arrestins does it in its own way, forming three different types of oligomers. The physiological role of the oligomerization of arrestin-1 and both nonvisual arrestins might be quite different, and in each case it remains to be definitively elucidated.

Constitutively active rhodopsin mutants causing night blindness are effectively phosphorylated by GRKs but differ in arrestin-1 binding

The effects of activating mutations associated with night blindness on the stoichiometry of rhodopsin interactions with G protein-coupled receptor kinase 1 (GRK1) and arrestin-1 have not been reported. Here we show that the monomeric form of WT rhodopsin and its constitutively active mutants M257Y, G90D, and T94I, reconstituted into HDL particles are effectively phosphorylated by GRK1, as well as two more ubiquitously expressed subtypes, GRK2 and GRK5. All versions of arrestin-1 tested (WT, pre-activated, and constitutively monomeric mutants) bind to monomeric rhodopsin and show the same selectivity for different functional forms of rhodopsin as in native disc membranes. Rhodopsin phosphorylation by GRK1 and GRK2 promotes arrestin-1 binding to a comparable extent, whereas similar phosphorylation by GRK5 is less effective, suggesting that not all phosphorylation sites on rhodopsin are equivalent in promoting arrestin-1 binding. The binding of WT arrestin-1 to phospho-opsin is comparable to the binding to its preferred target, P-Rh*, suggesting that in photoreceptors arrestin-1 only dissociates after opsin regeneration with 11-cis-retinal, which converts phospho-opsin into inactive phospho-rhodopsin that has lower affinity for arrestin-1. Reduced binding of arrestin-1 to the phospho-opsin form of G90D mutant likely contributes to night blindness caused by this mutation in humans.

Critical role of the central 139-loop in stability and binding selectivity of arrestin-1

Arrestin-1 selectively binds active phosphorylated rhodopsin (P-Rh*), demonstrating much lower affinity for inactive phosphorylated (P-Rh) and unphosphorylated active (Rh*) forms. Receptor interaction induces significant conformational changes in arrestin-1, which include large movement of the previously neglected 139-loop in the center of the receptor binding surface, away from the incoming receptor. To elucidate the functional role of this loop, in mouse arrestin-1 we introduced deletions of variable lengths and made several substitutions of Lys-142 in it and Asp-72 in the adjacent loop. Several mutants with perturbations in the 139-loop demonstrate increased binding to P-Rh*, dark P-Rh, Rh*, and phospho-opsin. Enhanced binding of arrestin-1 mutants to non-preferred forms of rhodopsin correlates with decreased thermal stability. The 139-loop perturbations increase P-Rh* binding of arrestin-1 at low temperatures and further change its binding profile on the background of 3A mutant, where the C-tail is detached from the body of the molecule by triple alanine substitution. Thus, the 139-loop stabilizes basal conformation of arrestin-1 and acts as a brake, preventing its binding to non-preferred forms of rhodopsin. Conservation of this loop in other subtypes suggests that it has the same function in all members of the arrestin family.

Engineering visual arrestin-1 with special functional characteristics

Arrestin-1 preferentially binds active phosphorylated rhodopsin. Previously, a mutant with enhanced binding to unphosphorylated active rhodopsin (Rh*) was shown to partially compensate for lack of rhodopsin phosphorylation in vivo. Here we showed that reengineering of the receptor binding surface of arrestin-1 further improves the binding to Rh* while preserving protein stability. In mammals, arrestin-1 readily self-associates at physiological concentrations. The biological role of this phenomenon can only be elucidated by replacing wild type arrestin-1 in living animals with a non-oligomerizing mutant retaining all other functions. We demonstrate that constitutively monomeric forms of arrestin-1 are sufficiently stable for in vivo expression. We also tested the idea that individual functions of arrestin-1 can be independently manipulated to generate mutants with the desired combinations of functional characteristics. Here we showed that this approach is feasible; stable forms of arrestin-1 with high Rh* binding can be generated with or without the ability to self-associate. These novel molecular tools open the possibility of testing of the biological role of arrestin-1 self-association and pave the way to elucidation of full potential of compensational approach to gene therapy of gain-of-function receptor mutations.

Structural determinants of arrestin functions

Arrestins are a small protein family with only four members in mammals. Arrestins demonstrate an amazing versatility, interacting with hundreds of different G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) subtypes, numerous nonreceptor signaling proteins, and components of the internalization machinery, as well as cytoskeletal elements, including regular microtubules and centrosomes. Here, we focus on the structural determinants that mediate various arrestin functions. The receptor-binding elements in arrestins were mapped fairly comprehensively, which set the stage for the construction of mutants targeting particular GPCRs. The elements engaged by other binding partners are only now being elucidated and in most cases we have more questions than answers. Interestingly, even very limited and imprecise identification of structural requirements for the interaction with very few other proteins has enabled the development of signaling-biased arrestin mutants. More comprehensive understanding of the structural underpinning of different arrestin functions will pave the way for the construction of arrestins that can link the receptor we want to the signaling pathway of our choosing.

Synthetic biology with surgical precision: targeted reengineering of signaling proteins

The complexity of living systems exceeds everything else studied by natural sciences. Sophisticated networks of intimately intertwined signaling pathways coordinate cellular functions. Clear understanding how the integration of multiple inputs produces coherent behavior is one of the major challenges of cell biology. Integration via perfectly timed highly regulated protein-protein interactions and precise targeting of the "output" proteins to particular substrates is emerging as a common theme of signaling regulation. This often involves specialized scaffolding proteins, whose key function is to ensure that correct partners come together in an appropriate place at the right time. Defective or faulty signaling underlies many congenital and acquired human disorders. Several pioneering studies showed that ectopic expression of existing proteins or their elements can restore functions destroyed by mutations or normalize the signaling pushed out of balance by disease and/or current small molecule-based therapy. Several recent studies show that proteins with new functional modalities can be generated by mixing and matching existing domains, or via functional recalibration and fine-tuning of existing proteins by precisely targeted mutations. Using arrestins as an example, we describe how manipulation of individual functions yields signaling-biased proteins. Creative protein redesign generates novel tools valuable for unraveling the intricacies of cell biology. Engineered proteins with specific functional changes also have huge therapeutic potential in disorders associated with inherited or acquired signaling errors.

Manipulation of very few receptor discriminator residues greatly enhances receptor specificity of non-visual arrestins

Based on the identification of residues that determine receptor selectivity of arrestins and the analysis of the evolution in the arrestin family, we introduced 10 mutations of "receptor discriminator" residues in arrestin-3. The recruitment of these mutants to M2 muscarinic (M2R), D1 (D1R) and D2 (D2R) dopamine, and β(2)-adrenergic receptors (β(2)AR) was assessed using bioluminescence resonance energy transfer-based assays in cells. Seven of 10 mutations differentially affected arrestin-3 binding to individual receptors. D260K and Q262P reduced the binding to β(2)AR, much more than to other receptors. The combination D260K/Q262P virtually eliminated β(2)AR binding while preserving the interactions with M2R, D1R, and D2R. Conversely, Y239T enhanced arrestin-3 binding to β(2)AR and reduced the binding to M2R, D1R, and D2R, whereas Q256Y selectively reduced recruitment to D2R. The Y239T/Q256Y combination virtually eliminated the binding to D2R and reduced the binding to β(2)AR and M2R, yielding a mutant with high selectivity for D1R. Eleven of 12 mutations significantly changed the binding to light-activated phosphorhodopsin. Thus, manipulation of key residues on the receptor-binding surface modifies receptor preference, enabling the construction of non-visual arrestins specific for particular receptor subtypes. These findings pave the way to the construction of signaling-biased arrestins targeting the receptor of choice for research or therapeutic purposes.

Disruption of parathyroid hormone and parathyroid hormone-related peptide receptor phosphorylation prolongs ERK1/2 MAPK activation and enhances c-fos expression

Previous studies have demonstrated that parathyroid hormone (PTH) binding to the PTH/PTH-related peptide receptor (PPR) stimulates G protein coupling, receptor phosphorylation, β-arrestin translocation, and internalization of the ligand/receptor complex. The extracellular signal-regulated mitogen-activated protein kinases 1/2 (ERK1/2 MAPK) are downstream effectors of PPR. In the current study, we investigated the role of PPR phosphorylation in the PTH regulation of the ERK1/2 MAPK pathway. Short treatment with PTH (0-40 min) of LLCP-K(1) cells stably expressing a wild-type (WT) or a phosphorylation-deficient (PD) PPR (WT-PPR or PD-PPR cells, respectively) results in similar activation of ERK1/2. Interestingly, PTH stimulation of ERK1/2 in the WT-PPR cells then decreases as a result of longer PTH (60 min) treatment, and inhibition of ERK1/2 by PTH is observed at 90 min. Strikingly, the PD-PPR cells exhibit prolonged ERK1/2 activation up to 90 min of PTH treatment. An ERK1/2-dependent increase in c-fos expression is observed in the PD-PPR cells. Subsequently, c-fos expression in the WT-PPR and PD-PPR cells was markedly attenuated by a specific ERK1/2 pathway inhibitor. Further investigations revealed that PTH treatment causes a robust recruitment of a green fluorescent protein-tagged β-arrestin2 (β-arrestin2-GFP) in the WT-PPR cells. In contrast, β-arrestin2 recruitment was reduced in the PD-PPR cells. Importantly, expression of a receptor phosphorylation-independent β-arrestin2 (R169E) in the PD-PPR cells restored the biphasic effect of PTH on ERK1/2 as in the WT-PPR cells. The study reports a novel role for receptor phosphorylation and β-arrestin2 in the subsequent inhibition of the ERK1/2 pathway and in control of gene expression.

Role of receptor-attached phosphates in binding of visual and non-visual arrestins to G protein-coupled receptors

Arrestins are a small family of proteins that regulate G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Arrestins specifically bind to phosphorylated active receptors, terminating G protein coupling, targeting receptors to endocytic vesicles, and initiating G protein-independent signaling. The interaction of rhodopsin-attached phosphates with Lys-14 and Lys-15 in β-strand I was shown to disrupt the interaction of α-helix I, β-strand I, and the C-tail of visual arrestin-1, facilitating its transition into an active receptor-binding state. Here we tested the role of conserved lysines in homologous positions of non-visual arrestins by generating K2A mutants in which both lysines were replaced with alanines. K2A mutations in arrestin-1, -2, and -3 significantly reduced their binding to active phosphorhodopsin in vitro. The interaction of arrestins with several GPCRs in intact cells was monitored by a bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET)-based assay. BRET data confirmed the role of Lys-14 and Lys-15 in arrestin-1 binding to non-cognate receptors. However, this was not the case for non-visual arrestins in which the K2A mutations had little effect on net BRET(max) values for the M2 muscarinic acetylcholine (M2R), β(2)-adrenergic (β(2)AR), or D2 dopamine receptors. Moreover, a phosphorylation-deficient mutant of M2R interacted with wild type non-visual arrestins normally, whereas phosphorylation-deficient β(2)AR mutants bound arrestins at 20-50% of the level of wild type β(2)AR. Thus, the contribution of receptor-attached phosphates to arrestin binding varies depending on the receptor-arrestin pair. Although arrestin-1 always depends on receptor phosphorylation, its role in the recruitment of arrestin-2 and -3 is much greater in the case of β(2)AR than M2R and D2 dopamine receptor.

One-step purification of a functional, constitutively activated form of visual arrestin

Desensitization of agonist-activated G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) requires phosphorylation followed by the binding of arrestin, a ~48 kDa soluble protein. While crystal structures for the inactive, 'basal' state of various arrestins are available, the conformation of 'activated' arrestin adopted upon interaction with activated GPCRs remains unknown. As a first step towards applying high-resolution structural methods to study arrestin conformation and dynamics, we have utilized the subtilisin prodomain/Profinity eXact™ fusion-tag system for the high-level bacterial expression and one-step purification of wild-type visual arrestin (arrestin 1) as well as a mutant form (R175E) of the protein that binds to non-phosphorylated, light-activated rhodopsin (Rho∗). The results show that both prodomain/Profinity eXact™ fusion-tagged wild-type and R175E arrestins can be expressed to levels approaching 2-3 mg/l in Luria-Bertani media, and that the processed, tag-free mature forms can be purified to near homogeneity using a Bio-Scale™ Mini Profinity eXact™ cartridge on the Profinia™ purification system. Functional analysis of R175E arrestin generated using this approach shows that it binds to non-phosphorylated rhodopsin in a light-dependent manner. These findings should facilitate the structure determination of this 'constitutively activated' state of arrestin 1 as well as the monitoring of conformational changes upon interaction with Rho∗.

The functional cycle of visual arrestins in photoreceptor cells

Visual arrestin-1 plays a key role in the rapid and reproducible shutoff of rhodopsin signaling. Its highly selective binding to light-activated phosphorylated rhodopsin is an integral part of the functional perfection of rod photoreceptors. Structure-function studies revealed key elements of the sophisticated molecular mechanism ensuring arrestin-1 selectivity and paved the way to the targeted manipulation of the arrestin-1 molecule to design mutants that can compensate for congenital defects in rhodopsin phosphorylation. Arrestin-1 self-association and light-dependent translocation in photoreceptor cells work together to keep a constant supply of active rhodopsin-binding arrestin-1 monomer in the outer segment. Recent discoveries of arrestin-1 interaction with other signaling proteins suggest that it is a much more versatile signaling regulator than previously thought, affecting the function of the synaptic terminals and rod survival. Elucidation of the fine molecular mechanisms of arrestin-1 interactions with rhodopsin and other binding partners is necessary for the comprehensive understanding of rod function and for devising novel molecular tools and therapeutic approaches to the treatment of visual disorders.

β-arrestin2 plays permissive roles in the inhibitory activities of RGS9-2 on G protein-coupled receptors by maintaining RGS9-2 in the open conformation

Together with G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) kinases (GRKs) and β-arrestins, RGS proteins are the major family of molecules that control the signaling of GPCRs. The expression pattern of one of these RGS family members, RGS9-2, coincides with that of the dopamine D(3) receptor (D(3)R) in the brain, and in vivo studies have shown that RGS9-2 regulates the signaling of D2-like receptors. In this study, β-arrestin2 was found to be required for scaffolding of the intricate interactions among the dishevelled-EGL10-pleckstrin (DEP) domain of RGS9-2, Gβ5, R7-binding protein (R7BP), and D(3)R. The DEP domain of RGS9-2, under the permission of β-arrestin2, inhibited the signaling of D(3)R in collaboration with Gβ5. β-Arrestin2 competed with R7BP and Gβ5 so that RGS9-2 is placed in the cytosolic region in an open conformation which is able to inhibit the signaling of GPCRs. The affinity of the receptor protein for β-arrestin2 was a critical factor that determined the selectivity of RGS9-2 for the receptor it regulates. These results show that β-arrestins function not only as mediators of receptor-G protein uncoupling and initiators of receptor endocytosis but also as scaffolding proteins that control and coordinate the inhibitory effects of RGS proteins on the signaling of certain GPCRs.

The arrestin fold: variations on a theme

Endocytosis of ligand-activated plasma membrane receptors has been shown to contribute to the regulation of their downstream signaling. β-arrestins interact with the phosphorylated tail of activated receptors and act as scaffolds for the recruitment of adaptor proteins and clathrin, that constitute the machinery used for receptor endocytosis. Visual- and β-arrestins have a two-lobe, immunoglobulin-like, β-strand sandwich structure. The recent resolution of the crystal structure of VPS26, one of the retromer subunits, unexpectedly evidences an arrestin fold in this protein, which is otherwise unrelated to arrestins. From a functional point of view, VPS26 is involved in the retrograde transport of the mannose 6-P receptor from the endosomes to the trans-Golgi network. In addition to the group of genuine arrestins and Vps26, mammalian cells harbor a vast repertoire of proteins that are related to arrestins on the basis of their PFAM Nter and Cter arrestin- domains, which are named Arrestin Domain- Containing proteins (ADCs). The biological role of ADC proteins is still poorly understood. The three subfamilies have been merged into an arrestin-related protein clan.

This paper provides an overall analysis of arrestin clan proteins. The structures and functions of members of the subfamilies are reviewed in mammals and model organisms such as Drosophila, Caenorhabditis, Saccharomyces and Dictyostelium.