Coupling mode of receptors and G proteins

A visual opsin from jellyfish enables precise temporal control of G protein signalling

Phototransduction is mediated by distinct types of G protein cascades in different animal taxa: bilateral invertebrates typically utilise the Gαq pathway whereas vertebrates typically utilise the Gαt(i/o) pathway. By contrast, photoreceptors in jellyfish (Cnidaria) utilise the Gαs intracellular pathway, similar to olfactory transduction in mammals¹. How this habitually slow pathway has adapted to support dynamic vision in jellyfish remains unknown. Here we study a light-sensing protein (rhodopsin) from the box jellyfish Carybdea rastonii and uncover a mechanism that dramatically speeds up phototransduction: an uninterrupted G protein-coupled receptor - G protein complex. Unlike known G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), this rhodopsin constitutively binds a single downstream Gαs partner to enable G-protein activation and inactivation within tens of milliseconds. We use this GPCR in a viral gene therapy to restore light responses in blind mice.

Two-step structural changes in M3 muscarinic receptor activation rely on the coupled Gq protein cycle

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) regulate diverse intracellular signaling pathways through the activation of heterotrimeric G proteins. However, the effects of the sequential activation-deactivation cycle of G protein on the conformational changes of GPCRs remains unknown. By developing a Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET) tool for human M3 muscarinic receptor (hM3R), we find that a single-receptor FRET probe can display the consecutive structural conversion of a receptor by G protein cycle. Our results reveal that the G protein activation evokes a two-step change in the hM3R structure, including the fast step mediated by G_q protein binding and the subsequent slower step mediated by the physical separation of the Gα_q and Gβγ subunits. We also find that the separated Gα_q-GTP forms a stable complex with the ligand-activated hM3R and phospholipase Cβ. In sum, the present study uncovers the real-time conformational dynamics of innate hM3R during the downstream G_q protein cycle.

Role of G-Proteins and GPCRs in Cardiovascular Pathologies

Cell signaling is a fundamental process that enables cells to survive under various ecological and environmental contexts and imparts tolerance towards stressful conditions. The basic machinery for cell signaling includes a receptor molecule that senses and receives the signal. The primary form of the signal might be a hormone, light, an antigen, an odorant, a neurotransmitter, etc. Similarly, heterotrimeric G-proteins principally provide communication from the plasma membrane G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) to the inner compartments of the cells to control various biochemical activities. G-protein-coupled signaling regulates different physiological functions in the targeted cell types. This review article discusses G-proteins' signaling and regulation functions and their physiological relevance. In addition, we also elaborate on the role of G-proteins in several cardiovascular diseases, such as myocardial ischemia, hypertension, atherosclerosis, restenosis, stroke, and peripheral artery disease.

A Collision Coupling Model Governs the Activation of Neuronal GIRK1/2 Channels by Muscarinic-2 Receptors

The G protein-activated Inwardly Rectifying K⁺-channel (GIRK) modulates heart rate and neuronal excitability. Following G-Protein Coupled Receptor (GPCR)-mediated activation of heterotrimeric G proteins (Gαβγ), opening of the channel is obtained by direct binding of Gβγ subunits. Interestingly, GIRKs are solely activated by Gβγ subunits released from Gα_i/o-coupled GPCRs, despite the fact that all receptor types, for instance Gα_q-coupled, are also able to provide Gβγ subunits. It is proposed that this specificity and fast kinetics of activation stem from pre-coupling (or pre-assembly) of proteins within this signaling cascade. However, many studies, including our own, point towards a diffusion-limited mechanism, namely collision coupling. Here, we set out to address this long-standing question by combining electrophysiology, imaging, and mathematical modeling. Muscarinic-2 receptors (M2R) and neuronal GIRK1/2 channels were coexpressed in Xenopus laevis oocytes, where we monitored protein surface expression, current amplitude, and activation kinetics. Densities of expressed M2R were assessed using a fluorescently labeled GIRK channel as a molecular ruler. We then incorporated our results, along with available kinetic data reported for the G-protein cycle and for GIRK1/2 activation, to generate a comprehensive mathematical model for the M2R-G-protein-GIRK1/2 signaling cascade. We find that, without assuming any irreversible interactions, our collision coupling kinetic model faithfully reproduces the rate of channel activation, the changes in agonist-evoked currents and the acceleration of channel activation by increased receptor densities.

Kinetic Analysis of the Early Signaling Steps of the Human Chemokine Receptor CXCR4

G protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs) are biologic switches that transduce extracellular stimuli into intracellular responses in the cell. Temporally resolving GPCR transduction pathways is key to understanding how cell signaling occurs. Here, we investigate the kinetics and dynamics of the activation and early signaling steps of the CXC chemokine receptor (CXCR) 4 in response to its natural ligands CXC chemokine ligand (CXCL) 12 and macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF), using Förster resonance energy transfer–based approaches. We show that CXCR4 presents a multifaceted response to CXCL12, with receptor activation (≈0.6 seconds) followed by a rearrangement in the receptor/G protein complex (≈1 seconds), a slower dimer rearrangement (≈1.7 seconds), and prolonged G protein activation (≈4 seconds). In comparison, MIF distinctly modulates every step of the transduction pathway, indicating distinct activation mechanisms and reflecting the different pharmacological properties of these two ligands. Our study also indicates that CXCR4 exhibits some degree of ligand-independent activity, a relevant feature for drug development.

The in vivo specificity of synaptic Gβ and Gγ subunits to the α2a adrenergic receptor at CNS synapses

G proteins are major transducers of signals from G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs). They are made up of α, β, and γ subunits, with 16 Gα, 5 Gβ and 12 Gγ subunits. Though much is known about the specificity of Gα subunits, the specificity of Gβγs activated by a given GPCR and that activate each effector in vivo is not known. Here, we examined the in vivo Gβγ specificity of presynaptic α_2a-adrenergic receptors (α_2aARs) in both adrenergic (auto-α_2aARs) and non-adrenergic neurons (hetero-α_2aARs) for the first time. With a quantitative MRM proteomic analysis of neuronal Gβ and Gγ subunits, and co-immunoprecipitation of tagged α_2aARs from mouse models including transgenic FLAG-α_2aARs and knock-in HA-α_2aARs, we investigated the in vivo specificity of Gβ and Gγ subunits to auto-α_2aARs and hetero-α_2aARs activated with epinephrine to understand the role of Gβγ specificity in diverse physiological functions such as anesthetic sparing, and working memory enhancement. We detected Gβ₂, Gγ₂, Gγ₃, and Gγ₄ with activated auto α_2aARs, whereas we found Gβ₄ and Gγ₁₂ preferentially interacted with activated hetero-α_2aARs. Further understanding of in vivo Gβγ specificity to various GPCRs offers new insights into the multiplicity of genes for Gβ and Gγ, and the mechanisms underlying GPCR signaling through Gβγ subunits.

Hunting for the high-affinity state of G-protein-coupled receptors with agonist tracers: Theoretical and practical considerations for positron emission tomography imaging

The concept of the high‐affinity state postulates that a certain subset of G‐protein‐coupled receptors is primarily responsible for receptor signaling in the living brain. Assessing the abundance of this subset is thus potentially highly relevant for studies concerning the responses of neurotransmission to pharmacological or physiological stimuli and the dysregulation of neurotransmission in neurological or psychiatric disorders. The high‐affinity state is preferentially recognized by agonists in vitro. For this reason, agonist tracers have been developed as tools for the noninvasive imaging of the high‐affinity state with positron emission tomography (PET). This review provides an overview of agonist tracers that have been developed for PET imaging of the brain, and the experimental paradigms that have been developed for the estimation of the relative abundance of receptors configured in the high‐affinity state. Agonist tracers appear to be more sensitive to endogenous neurotransmitter challenge than antagonists, as was originally expected. However, other expectations regarding agonist tracers have not been fulfilled. Potential reasons for difficulties in detecting the high‐affinity state in vivo are discussed.

Potentiation of the activation of cholinergic receptors by multivalent presentation of ligands supported on gold nanoparticles

Gold nanoparticles (NP) with a functionalized ligand shell offer the possibility to potentiate the action of agonists at the receptor site by multivalency. In order to find out whether this can be realized for the pharmacologically important class of cholinergic receptors known to be involved in the regulation of most organ functions, carbachol-functionalized gold NPs (Au-MUDA-CCh) with an average diameter of 14 nm were synthesized. As functional read-out, cholinergic agonist-induced anion secretion was measured as increase in short-circuit current (Isc) across rat proximal colon in Ussing chambers. Similarly to the corresponding native agonist acetylcholine, Au-MUDA-CCh induced a concentration-dependent increase in Isc, which represents chloride secretion across the epithelium. This response was inhibited by atropine and hexamethonium indicating the activation of muscarinic and nicotinic receptors by the functionalized NPs. A strong potentiation of ligand-receptor interaction was a key benefit of functionalized NPs over native agonists. This was observed with physiological approaches as measurements of changes in Isc revealed a nearly equivalent response evoked by 1 pM Au-MUDA-CCh and 500 nM native CCh. To better determine this potentiation at the receptor level, pharmacological approaches based on the signaling cascade of ACh-induced activation of muscarinic receptors were used. FRET (Förster Resonance Energy Transfer) measurements performed on HEK293T cells transiently transfected with M3-R, Gαq-YFP, Gβ1-wt and CFP-Gγ2, revealed that both Au-MUDA-CCh and native CCh activated G-proteins with EC50 amounting to 127 ± 0.44 fM and 224 ± 7.12 nM, respectively. Thus, the functionalization of the NPs with CCh yields a potentiation by over 106, a property that could find usage in specific targeting, activation and compensation of pathologically reduced expression of receptors of interest.

Lifetime of muscarinic receptor-G-protein complexes determines coupling efficiency and G-protein subtype selectivity

G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are essential for the detection of extracellular stimuli by cells and transfer the encoded information via the activation of functionally distinct subsets of heterotrimeric G proteins into intracellular signals. Despite enormous achievements toward understanding GPCR structures, major aspects of the GPCR-G-protein selectivity mechanism remain unresolved. As this can be attributed to the lack of suitable and broadly applicable assays, we set out to develop a quantitative FRET-based assay to study kinetics and affinities of G protein binding to activated GPCRs in membranes of permeabilized cells in the absence of nucleotides. We measured the association and dissociation kinetics of agonist-induced binding of Gi/o, Gq/11, Gs, and G12/13 proteins to muscarinic M1, M2, and M3 receptors in the absence of nucleotides between fluorescently labeled G proteins and receptors expressed in mammalian cells. Our results show a strong quantitative correlation between not the on-rates of G-protein-M3-R interactions but rather the affinities of Gq and Go proteins to M3-Rs, their GPCR-G-protein lifetime and their coupling efficiencies determined in intact cells, suggesting that the G-protein subtype-specific affinity to the activated receptor in the absence of nucleotides is, in fact, a major determinant of the coupling efficiency. Our broadly applicable FRET-based assay represents a fast and reliable method to quantify the intrinsic affinity and relative coupling selectivity of GPCRs toward all G-protein subtypes.

ER/K linked GPCR-G protein fusions systematically modulate second messenger response in cells

FRET and BRET approaches are well established for detecting ligand induced GPCR-G protein interactions in cells. Currently, FRET/BRET assays rely on co-expression of GPCR and G protein, and hence depend on the stoichiometry and expression levels of the donor and acceptor probes. On the other hand, GPCR-G protein fusions have been used extensively to understand the selectivity of GPCR signaling pathways. However, the signaling properties of fusion proteins are not consistent across GPCRs. In this study, we describe and characterize novel sensors based on the Systematic Protein Affinity Strength Modulation (SPASM) technique. Sensors consist of a GPCR and G protein tethered by an ER/K linker flanked by FRET probes. SPASM sensors are tested for the β2-, α1-, and α2- adrenergic receptors, and adenosine type 1 receptor (A₁R), tethered to Gαs-XL, Gαi₂, or Gαq subunits. Agonist stimulation of β2-AR and α2-AR increases FRET signal comparable to co-expressed FRET/BRET sensors. SPASM sensors also retain signaling through the endogenous G protein milieu. Importantly, ER/K linker length systematically tunes the GPCR-G protein interaction, with consequent modulation of second messenger signaling for cognate interactions. SPASM GPCR sensors serve the dual purpose of detecting agonist-induced changes in GPCR-G protein interactions, and linking these changes to downstream signaling.

The G protein Gi1 exhibits basal coupling but not preassembly with G protein-coupled receptors

The G_i/o protein family transduces signals from a diverse group of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). The observed specificity of G_i/o-GPCR coupling and the high rate of G_i/o signal transduction have been hypothesized to be enabled by the existence of stable associates between G_i/o proteins and their cognate GPCRs in the inactive state (G_i/o-GPCR preassembly). To test this hypothesis, we applied the recently developed technique of two-photon polarization microscopy (2PPM) to Gα_i1 subunits labeled with fluorescent proteins and four GPCRs: the α_2A-adrenergic receptor, GABA_B, cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB₁R), and dopamine receptor type 2. Our experiments with non-dissociating mutants of fluorescently labeled Gα_i1 subunits (exhibiting impaired dissociation from activated GPCRs) showed that 2PPM is capable of detecting GPCR-G protein interactions. 2PPM experiments with non-mutated fluorescently labeled Gα_i1 subunits and α_2A-adrenergic receptor, GABA_B, or dopamine receptor type 2 receptors did not reveal any interaction between the G_i1 protein and the non-stimulated GPCRs. In contrast, non-stimulated CB₁R exhibited an interaction with the G_i1 protein. Further experiments revealed that this interaction is caused solely by CB₁R basal activity; no preassembly between CB₁R and the G_i1 protein could be observed. Our results demonstrate that four diverse GPCRs do not preassemble with non-active G_i1 However, we also show that basal GPCR activity allows interactions between non-stimulated GPCRs and G_i1 (basal coupling). These findings suggest that G_i1 interacts only with active GPCRs and that the well known high speed of GPCR signal transduction does not require preassembly between G proteins and GPCRs.

Gaq proteins: molecular pharmacology and therapeutic potential

Seven transmembrane G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) have gained much interest in recent years as it is the largest class among cell surface receptors. G proteins lie in the heart of GPCRs signalling and therefore can be therapeutically targeted to overcome complexities in GPCR responses and signalling. G proteins are classified into four families (Gi, Gs, G12/13 and Gq); Gq is further subdivided into four classes. Among them Gαq and Gαq/11 isoforms are most crucial and ubiquitously expressed; these isoforms are almost 88% similar at their amino acid sequence but may exhibit functional divergences. However, uncertainties often arise about Gαq and Gαq/11 inhibitors, these G proteins might also have suitability to the invention of novel-specific inhibitors for each isoforms. YM-254890 and UBO-QIC are discovered as potent inhibitors of Gαq functions and also investigated in thrombin protease-activated receptor (PAR)-1 inhibitors and platelet aggregation inhibition. The most likely G protein involved in PAR-1 stimulates responses is one of the Gαq family isoforms. In this review, we highlight the molecular structures and pharmacological responses of Gαq family which may reflect the biochemical and molecular role of Gαq and Gαq/11. The advanced understanding of Gαq and Gαq/11 role in GPCR signalling may shed light on our understanding on cell biology, cellular physiology and pathophysiology and also lead to the development of novel therapeutic agents for a number of diseases.

Membrane coordination of receptors and channels mediating the inhibition of neuronal ion currents by ADP

ADP and other nucleotides control ion currents in the nervous system via various P2Y receptors. In this respect, Cav2 and Kv7 channels have been investigated most frequently. The fine tuning of neuronal ion channel gating via G protein coupled receptors frequently relies on the formation of higher order protein complexes that are organized by scaffolding proteins and harbor receptors and channels together with interposed signaling components. However, ion channel complexes containing P2Y receptors have not been described. Therefore, the regulation of Cav2.2 and Kv7.2/7.3 channels via P2Y1 and P2Y12 receptors and the coordination of these ion channels and receptors in the plasma membranes of tsA 201 cells have been investigated here. ADP inhibited currents through Cav2.2 channels via both P2Y1 and P2Y12 receptors with phospholipase C and pertussis toxin-sensitive G proteins being involved, respectively. The nucleotide controlled the gating of Kv7 channels only via P2Y1 and phospholipase C. In fluorescence energy transfer assays using conventional as well as total internal reflection (TIRF) microscopy, both P2Y1 and P2Y12 receptors were found juxtaposed to Cav2.2 channels, but only P2Y1, and not P2Y12, was in close proximity to Kv7 channels. Using fluorescence recovery after photobleaching in TIRF microscopy, evidence for a physical interaction was obtained for the pair P2Y12/Cav2.2, but not for any other receptor/channel combination. These results reveal a membrane juxtaposition of P2Y receptors and ion channels in parallel with the control of neuronal ion currents by ADP. This juxtaposition may even result in apparent physical interactions between receptors and channels.

Pancreatic Beta Cell G-Protein Coupled Receptors and Second Messenger Interactions: A Systems Biology Computational Analysis

Insulin secretory in pancreatic beta-cells responses to nutrient stimuli and hormonal modulators include multiple messengers and signaling pathways with complex interdependencies. Here we present a computational model that incorporates recent data on glucose metabolism, plasma membrane potential, G-protein-coupled-receptors (GPCR), cytoplasmic and endoplasmic reticulum calcium dynamics, cAMP and phospholipase C pathways that regulate interactions between second messengers in pancreatic beta-cells. The values of key model parameters were inferred from published experimental data. The model gives a reasonable fit to important aspects of experimentally measured metabolic and second messenger concentrations and provides a framework for analyzing the role of metabolic, hormones and neurotransmitters changes on insulin secretion. Our analysis of the dynamic data provides support for the hypothesis that activation of Ca²⁺-dependent adenylyl cyclases play a critical role in modulating the effects of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and catecholamines. The regulatory properties of adenylyl cyclase isoforms determine fluctuations in cytoplasmic cAMP concentration and reveal a synergistic action of glucose, GLP-1 and GIP on insulin secretion. On the other hand, the regulatory properties of phospholipase C isoforms determine the interaction of glucose, acetylcholine and free fatty acids (FFA) (that act through the FFA receptors) on insulin secretion. We found that a combination of GPCR agonists activating different messenger pathways can stimulate insulin secretion more effectively than a combination of GPCR agonists for a single pathway. This analysis also suggests that the activators of GLP-1, GIP and FFA receptors may have a relatively low risk of hypoglycemia in fasting conditions whereas an activator of muscarinic receptors can increase this risk. This computational analysis demonstrates that study of second messenger pathway interactions will improve understanding of critical regulatory sites, how different GPCRs interact and pharmacological targets for modulating insulin secretion in type 2 diabetes.

β-Arrestin biosensors reveal a rapid, receptor-dependent activation/deactivation cycle

(β-)Arrestins are important regulators of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). They bind to active, phosphorylated GPCRs and thereby shut off 'classical' signalling to G proteins, trigger internalization of GPCRs via interaction with the clathrin machinery and mediate signalling via 'non-classical' pathways. In addition to two visual arrestins that bind to rod and cone photoreceptors (termed arrestin1 and arrestin4), there are only two (non-visual) β-arrestin proteins (β-arrestin1 and β-arrestin2, also termed arrestin2 and arrestin3), which regulate hundreds of different (non-visual) GPCRs. Binding of these proteins to GPCRs usually requires the active form of the receptors plus their phosphorylation by G-protein-coupled receptor kinases (GRKs). The binding of receptors or their carboxy terminus as well as certain truncations induce active conformations of (β-)arrestins that have recently been solved by X-ray crystallography. Here we investigate both the interaction of β-arrestin with GPCRs, and the β-arrestin conformational changes in real time and in living human cells, using a series of fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET)-based β-arrestin2 biosensors. We observe receptor-specific patterns of conformational changes in β-arrestin2 that occur rapidly after the receptor-β-arrestin2 interaction. After agonist removal, these changes persist for longer than the direct receptor interaction. Our data indicate a rapid, receptor-type-specific, two-step binding and activation process between GPCRs and β-arrestins. They further indicate that β-arrestins remain active after dissociation from receptors, allowing them to remain at the cell surface and presumably signal independently. Thus, GPCRs trigger a rapid, receptor-specific activation/deactivation cycle of β-arrestins, which permits their active signalling.

Structure, Function, Pharmacology, and Therapeutic Potential of the G Protein, Gα/q,11

G protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) are one of the major classes of cell surface receptors and are associated with a group of G proteins consisting of three subunits termed alpha, beta, and gamma. G proteins are classified into four families according to their α subunit; Gα_i, Gα_s, Gα_12/13, and Gα_q. There are several downstream pathways of Gα_q of which the best known is upon activation via guanosine triphosphate (GTP), Gα_q activates phospholipase Cβ, hydrolyzing phosphatidylinositol 4,5-biphosphate into diacylglycerol and inositol triphosphate and activating protein kinase C and increasing calcium efflux from the endoplasmic reticulum. Although G proteins, in particular, the Gα_q/11 are central elements in GPCR signaling, their actual roles have not yet been thoroughly investigated. The lack of research of the role on Gα_q/11 in cell biology is partially due to the obscure nature of the available pharmacological agents. YM-254890 is the most useful Gα_q-selective inhibitor with antiplatelet, antithrombotic, and thrombolytic effects. YM-254890 inhibits Gα_q signaling pathways by preventing the exchange of guanosine diphosphate for GTP. UBO-QIC is a structurally similar compound to YM-254890, which can inhibit platelet aggregation and cause vasorelaxation in rats. Many agents are available for the study of signaling downstream of Gα_q/11. The role of G proteins could potentially represent a novel therapeutic target. This review will explore the range of pharmacological and molecular tools available for the study of the role of Gα_q/11 in GPCR signaling.

Dynamics of Gαq-protein-p63RhoGEF interaction and its regulation by RGS2

Some G-protein-coupled receptors regulate biological processes via Gα12/13- or Gαq/11-mediated stimulation of RhoGEFs (guanine-nucleotide-exchange factors). p63RhoGEF is known to be specifically activated by Gαq/11 and mediates a major part of the acute response of vascular smooth muscle cells to angiotensin II treatment. In order to gain information about the dynamics of receptor-mediated activation of p63RhoGEF, we developed a FRET-based assay to study interactions between Gαq-CFP and Venus-p63RhoGEF in single living cells. Upon activation of histaminergic H1 or muscarinic M3 receptors, a robust FRET signal occurred that allowed for the first time the analysis of the kinetics of this interaction in detail. On- and off-set kinetics of Gαq-p63RhoGEF interactions closely resembled the kinetics of Gαq activity. Analysis of the effect of RGS2 (regulator of G-protein signalling 2) on the dynamics of Gαq activity and their interaction with p63RhoGEF showed that RGS2 is able to accelerate both deactivation of Gαq proteins and dissociation of Gαq and p63RhoGEF to a similar extent. Furthermore, we were able to detect activation-dependent FRET between RGS2 and p63RhoGEF and observed a reduced p63RhoGEF-mediated downstream signalling in the presence of RGS2. In summary, these observations support the concept of a functional activation-dependent p63RhoGEF-Gαq-RGS2 complex.

M3 muscarinic receptor interaction with phospholipase C β3 determines its signaling efficiency

Phospholipase Cβ (PLCβ) enzymes are activated by G protein-coupled receptors through receptor-catalyzed guanine nucleotide exchange on Gαβγ heterotrimers containing Gq family G proteins. Here we report evidence for a direct interaction between M3 muscarinic receptor (M3R) and PLCβ3. Both expressed and endogenous M3R interacted with PLCβ in coimmunoprecipitation experiments. Stimulation of M3R with carbachol significantly increased this association. Expression of M3R in CHO cells promoted plasma membrane localization of YFP-PLCβ3. Deletion of the PLCβ3 C terminus or deletion of the PLCβ3 PDZ ligand inhibited coimmunoprecipitation with M3R and M3R-dependent PLCβ3 plasma membrane localization. Purified PLCβ3 bound directly to glutathione S-transferase (GST)-fused M3R intracellular loops 2 and 3 (M3Ri2 and M3Ri3) as well as M3R C terminus (M3R/H8-CT). PLCβ3 binding to M3Ri3 was inhibited when the PDZ ligand was removed. In assays using reconstituted purified components in vitro, M3Ri2, M3Ri3, and M3R/H8-CT potentiated Gαq-dependent but not Gβγ-dependent PLCβ3 activation. Disruption of key residues in M3Ri3N and of the PDZ ligand in PLCβ3 inhibited M3Ri3-mediated potentiation. We propose that the M3 muscarinic receptor maximizes the efficiency of PLCβ3 signaling beyond its canonical role as a guanine nucleotide exchange factor for Gα.

Disheveled regulates precoupling of heterotrimeric G proteins to Frizzled 6

Frizzleds (FZDs) are classified as G-protein-coupling receptors, but how signals are initiated and specified through heterotrimeric G proteins is unknown. FZD6 regulates convergent extension movements, and its C-terminal Arg511Cys mutation causes nail dysplasia in humans. We investigated the functional relationship between FZD6, Disheveled (DVL), and heterotrimeric G proteins. Live cell imaging combined with fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) revealed that inactive human FZD6 precouples to Gαi1 and Gαq but not to GαoA,Gαs, and Gα12 proteins. G-protein coupling is measured as a 10-20% reduction in the mobile fraction of fluorescently tagged G proteins on chemical receptor surface cross-linking. The FZD6 Arg511Cys mutation is incapable of G-protein precoupling, even though it still binds DVL. Using both FRAP and Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET) technology, we showed that the FZD6-Gαi1 and FZD-Gαq complexes dissociate on WNT-5A stimulation. Most important, G-protein precoupling of FZD6 and WNT-5A-induced signaling to extracellular signal-regulated kinase1/2 were impaired by DVL knockdown or overexpression, arguing for a strict dependence of FZD6-G-protein coupling on DVL levels and identifying DVL as a master regulator of FZD/G-protein signaling. In summary, we propose a mechanistic connection between DVL and G proteins integrating WNT, FZD, G-protein, and DVL function.

Fine-tuning of GPCR signals by intracellular G protein modulators

Heterotrimeric G proteins convey receptor signals to intracellular effectors. Superimposed over the basic GPCR-G protein-effector scheme are three types of auxiliary proteins that also modulate Gα. Regulator of G protein signaling proteins and G protein signaling modifier proteins respectively promote GTPase activity and hinder GTP/GDP exchange to limit Gα activation. There are also diverse proteins that, like GPCRs, can promote nucleotide exchange and thus activation. Here we review the impact of these auxiliary proteins on GPCR signaling. Although their precise physiological functions are not yet clear, all of them can produce significant effects in experimental systems. These signaling changes are generally consistent with established effects on isolated Gα; however, the activation state of Gα is seldom verified and many such changes appear also to reflect the physical disruption of or indirect effects on interactions between Gα and its associated GPCR, Gβγ, and/or effector.

Agonist high- and low-affinity states of dopamine D₂ receptors: methods of detection and clinical implications

Dopamine D(2) receptors, similar to other G-protein-coupled receptors, exist in a high- and low-affinity state for agonists. Based upon a review of the methods for detecting D(2) receptor agonist high-affinity states, we discuss alterations of such states in animal models of disease and the implications of such alterations for their labelling with positron emission tomography (PET) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) tracers. The classic approach of detecting agonist high-affinity states compares agonist competition for antagonist radioligands, in most cases using [(3)H]-spiperone as the radioligand; alternative approaches and radioligands have been proposed, but their claimed advantages have not been substantiated by other investigators. In view of the advantages and disadvantages of various techniques, we critically have reviewed reported findings on the detection of D(2) receptor agonist high-affinity states in a variety of animal models. These data are compared to the less numerous findings from human in vivo studies based on PET and SPECT tracers; they are interpreted in light of the finding that D(2) receptor agonist high-affinity states under control conditions may differ between rodent and human brain. The potential advantages of agonist ligands in studies of pathophysiology and as diagnostics are being discussed.

Fluorescence/bioluminescence resonance energy transfer techniques to study G-protein-coupled receptor activation and signaling

Fluorescence and bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (FRET and BRET) techniques allow the sensitive monitoring of distances between two labels at the nanometer scale. Depending on the placement of the labels, this permits the analysis of conformational changes within a single protein (for example of a receptor) or the monitoring of protein-protein interactions (for example, between receptors and G-protein subunits). Over the past decade, numerous such techniques have been developed to monitor the activation and signaling of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) in both the purified, reconstituted state and in intact cells. These techniques span the entire spectrum from ligand binding to the receptors down to intracellular second messengers. They allow the determination and the visualization of signaling processes with high temporal and spatial resolution. With these techniques, it has been demonstrated that GPCR signals may show spatial and temporal patterning. In particular, evidence has been provided for spatial compartmentalization of GPCRs and their signals in intact cells and for distinct physiological consequences of such spatial patterning. We review here the FRET and BRET technologies that have been developed for G-protein-coupled receptors and their signaling proteins (G-proteins, effectors) and the concepts that result from such experiments.

Rapid steroid hormone actions initiated at the cell surface and the receptors that mediate them with an emphasis on recent progress in fish models

In addition to the classic genomic mechanism of steroid action mediated by activation of intracellular nuclear receptors, there is now extensive evidence that steroids also activate receptors on the cell surface to initiate rapid intracellular signaling and biological responses that are often nongenomic. Recent progress in our understanding of rapid, cell surface-initiated actions of estrogens, progestins, androgens and corticosteroids and the identities of the membrane receptors that act as their intermediaries is briefly reviewed with a special emphasis on studies in teleost fish. Two recently discovered novel proteins with seven-transmembrane domains, G protein-coupled receptor 30 (GPR30), and membrane progestin receptors (mPRs) have the ligand binding and signaling characteristics of estrogen and progestin membrane receptors, respectively, but their functional significance is disputed by some researchers. GPR30 is expressed on the cell surface of fish oocytes and mediates estrogen inhibition of oocyte maturation. mPRα is also expressed on the oocyte cell surface and is the intermediary in progestin induction of oocyte maturation in fish. Recent results suggest there is cross-talk between these two hormonal pathways and that there is reciprocal down-regulation of GPR30 and mPRα expression by estrogens and progestins at different phases of oocyte development to regulate the onset of oocyte maturation. There is also evidence in fish that mPRs are involved in progestin induction of sperm hypermotility and anti-apoptotic actions in ovarian follicle cells. Nonclassical androgen and corticosteroid actions have also been described in fish models but the membrane receptors mediating these actions have not been identified.

Receptor-G protein interaction studied by bioluminescence resonance energy transfer: lessons from protease-activated receptor 1

Since its development, the bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) approach has been extensively applied to study G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) in real-time and in live cells. One of the major aspects of GPCRs investigated in considerable details is their physical coupling to the heterotrimeric G proteins. As a result, new concepts have emerged, but few questions are still a matter of debate illustrating the complexity of GPCR-G protein interactions and coupling. Here, we summarized the recent advances on our understanding of GPCR-G protein coupling based on BRET approaches and supported by other FRET-based studies. We essentially focused on our recent studies in which we addressed the concept of preassembly vs. the agonist-dependent interaction between the protease-activated receptor 1 (PAR1) and its cognate G proteins. We discussed the concept of agonist-induced conformational changes within the preassembled PAR1-G protein complexes as well as the critical question how the multiple coupling of PAR1 with two different G proteins, Gαi1 and Gα12, but also β-arrestin 1, can be regulated.

Subtype differences in pre-coupling of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors

Based on the kinetics of interaction between a receptor and G-protein, a myriad of possibilities may result. Two extreme cases are represented by: 1/Collision coupling, where an agonist binds to the free receptor and then the agonist-receptor complex “collides” with the free G-protein. 2/Pre-coupling, where stable receptor/G-protein complexes exist in the absence of agonist. Pre-coupling plays an important role in the kinetics of signal transduction. Odd-numbered muscarinic acetylcholine receptors preferentially couple to G_q/11, while even-numbered receptors prefer coupling to G_i/o. We analyzed the coupling status of the various subtypes of muscarinic receptors with preferential and non-preferential G-proteins. The magnitude of receptor-G-protein coupling was determined by the proportion of receptors existing in the agonist high-affinity binding conformation. Antibodies directed against the C-terminus of the α-subunits of the individual G-proteins were used to interfere with receptor-G-protein coupling. Effects of mutations and expression level on receptor-G-protein coupling were also investigated. Tested agonists displayed biphasic competition curves with the antagonist [³H]-N-methylscopolamine. Antibodies directed against the C-terminus of the α-subunits of the preferential G-protein decreased the proportion of high-affinity sites, and mutations at the receptor-G-protein interface abolished agonist high-affinity binding. In contrast, mutations that prevent receptor activation had no effect. Expression level of preferential G-proteins had no effect on pre-coupling to non-preferential G-proteins. Our data show that all subtypes of muscarinic receptors pre-couple with their preferential classes of G-proteins, but only M₁ and M₃ receptors also pre-couple with non-preferential G_i/o G-proteins. Pre-coupling is not dependent on agonist efficacy nor on receptor activation. The ultimate mode of coupling is therefore dictated by a combination of the receptor subtype and the class of G-protein.

Imaging the high-affinity state of the dopamine D2 receptor in vivo: fact or fiction?

Positron Emission Tomography (PET) has been used for more than three decades to image and quantify dopamine D2 receptors (D2R) in vivo with antagonist radioligands but in the recent years agonist radioligands have also been employed. In vitro competition studies have demonstrated that agonists bind to both a high and a low-affinity state of the D2Rs, of which the high affinity state reflects receptors that are coupled to G-proteins and the low-affinity state reflects receptors uncoupled from G-proteins. In contrast, antagonists bind with uniform affinity to the total pool of receptors. Results of these studies led to the proposal that D2Rs exist in high and low-affinity states for agonists in vivo and sparked the development and use of agonist radioligands for PET imaging with the primary purpose of measuring the proportion of receptors in the high-affinity (activating) state. Although several lines of research support the presence of high and low-affinity states of D2Rs and their detection by in vivo imaging paradigms, a growing body of controversial data has now called this into question. These include both in vivo and ex vivo studies of anesthesia effects, rodent models with increased proportions of high-affinity state D2Rs as well as the molecular evidence for stable receptor-G-protein complexes. In this commentary we review these data and discuss the evidence for the in vivo existence of D2Rs configured in high and low-affinity states and whether or not the high-affinity state of the D2R can, in fact, be imaged in vivo with agonist radioligands.

Inactive-state preassembly of G(q)-coupled receptors and G(q) heterotrimers

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) transmit signals by forming active-state complexes with heterotrimeric G proteins. It has been suggested that some GPCRs also assemble with G proteins before ligand-induced activation and that inactive-state preassembly facilitates rapid and specific G protein activation. However, no mechanism of preassembly has been described, and no functional consequences of preassembly have been demonstrated. Here we show that M(3) muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (M3R) form inactive-state complexes with G(q) heterotrimers in intact cells. The M3R C terminus is sufficient, and a six-amino-acid polybasic sequence distal to helix 8 ((565)KKKRRK(570)) is necessary for preassembly with G(q). Replacing this sequence with six alanine residues prevents preassembly, slows the rate of G(q) activation and decreases steady-state agonist sensitivity. That other G(q)-coupled receptors possess similar polybasic regions and also preassemble with G(q) suggests that these GPCRs may use a common preassembly mechanism to facilitate activation of G(q) heterotrimers.

Compartmentalization of beta-adrenergic signals in cardiomyocytes

Activation of adrenergic receptors (AR) represents the primary mechanism to increase cardiac performance under stress. Activated βAR couple to Gs protein, leading to adenylyl cyclase-dependent increases in secondary-messenger cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) to activate protein kinase A. The increased protein kinase A activities promote phosphorylation of diversified substrates, ranging from the receptor and its associated partners to proteins involved in increases in contractility and heart rate. Recent progress with live-cell imaging has drastically advanced our understanding of the βAR-induced cAMP and protein kinase A activities that are precisely regulated in a spatiotemporal fashion in highly differentiated myocytes. Several features stand out: membrane location of βAR and its associated complexes dictates the cellular compartmentalization of signaling; βAR agonist dose-dependent equilibrium between cAMP production and cAMP degradation shapes persistent increases in cAMP signals for sustained cardiac contraction response; and arrestin acts as an agonist dose-dependent master switch to promote cAMP diffusion and propagation into intracellular compartments by sequestrating phosphodiesterase isoforms associated with the βAR signaling cascades. These features and the underlying molecular mechanisms of dynamic regulation of βAR complexes with adenylyl cyclase and phosphodiesterase enzymes and the implication in heart failure are discussed.

Using BRET to detect ligand-specific conformational changes in preformed signalling complexes

Bioluminescence energy transfer (BRET) has become a powerful tool to study protein-protein interactions and conformational changes among interacting proteins. In particular, BRET assays performed in living cells have revealed that heptahelical receptors (7TMRs), heterotrimeric G proteins and their proximal effectors form constitutive signalling complexes. BRET technology has also allowed us to demonstrate that these multimeric protein arrays remain intact throughout initial stages of receptor signalling, thus providing a platform for direct transmission of conformational information from activated receptors to downstream signalling partners. A clear example of the latter are the distinct intermolecular re-arrangements undergone by 7TMRs and G protein subunits following activation of the receptor by different ligands. Here we present protocols describing the type of BRET assay that has been used to reveal the existence of constitutive signalling arrays formed by 7TMRs and proximal signalling partners as well as the ability of complex components to undergo ligand-specific conformational changes.

Kinetics of M1 muscarinic receptor and G protein signaling to phospholipase C in living cells

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) mediate responses to external stimuli in various cell types. Early events, such as the binding of ligand and G proteins to the receptor, nucleotide exchange (NX), and GTPase activity at the Galpha subunit, are common for many different GPCRs. For G(q)-coupled M(1) muscarinic (acetylcholine) receptors (M(1)Rs), we recently measured time courses of intermediate steps in the signaling cascade using Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET). The expression of FRET probes changes the density of signaling molecules. To provide a full quantitative description of M(1)R signaling that includes a simulation of kinetics in native (tsA201) cells, we now determine the density of FRET probes and construct a kinetic model of M(1)R signaling through G(q) to activation of phospholipase C (PLC). Downstream effects on the trace membrane lipid phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate (PIP(2)) and PIP(2)-dependent KCNQ2/3 current are considered in our companion paper in this issue (Falkenburger et al. 2010. J. Gen. Physiol. doi:10.1085/jgp.200910345). By calibrating their fluorescence intensity, we found that we selected transfected cells for our experiments with approximately 3,000 fluorescently labeled receptors, G proteins, or PLC molecules per microm(2) of plasma membrane. Endogenous levels are much lower, 1-40 per microm(2). Our kinetic model reproduces the time courses and concentration-response relationships measured by FRET and explains observed delays. It predicts affinities and rate constants that align well with literature values. In native tsA201 cells, much of the delay between ligand binding and PLC activation reflects slow binding of G proteins to receptors. With M(1)R and Gbeta FRET probes overexpressed, 10% of receptors have G proteins bound at rest, rising to 73% in the presence of agonist. In agreement with previous work, the model suggests that binding of PLC to Galpha(q) greatly speeds up NX and GTPase activity, and that PLC is maintained in the active state by cycles of rapid GTP hydrolysis and NX on Galpha(q) subunits bound to PLC.

PAR1 and PAR2 couple to overlapping and distinct sets of G proteins and linked signaling pathways to differentially regulate cell physiology

The protease-activated receptors (PAR1 and PAR2) are unusual G protein-coupled receptors that are activated by distinct serine proteases and are coexpressed in many different cell types. Limited recent evidence suggests these closely related receptors regulate different physiological outputs in the same cell, although little is known about the comparative signaling pathways used by these receptors. Here we report that PAR1 and PAR2 couple to overlapping and distinct sets of G proteins to regulate receptor-specific signaling pathways involved in cell migration. In functionally PAR-null COS-7 cells, ectopically expressed PAR1 and PAR2 both form stable complexes with G alpha(q), G alpha(11), G alpha(14), G alpha(12), and G alpha(13). It is surprising that PAR1 but not PAR2 coupled to G alpha(o), G alpha(i1), and G alpha(i2). Consistent with these observations, PAR1 and PAR2 stimulation of inositol phosphate production and RhoA activation was blocked by specific inhibitors of G(q/11) and G(12/13) signaling, respectively. Both receptors stimulated extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) 1/2 phosphorylation, but only PAR1 inhibited adenylyl cyclase activity, and pertussis toxin blocked PAR1 effects on both adenylyl cyclase and ERK1/2 signaling. Neu7 astrocytes express native PAR1 and PAR2 receptors that activate inositol phosphate, RhoA, and ERK1/2 signaling. However, only PAR1 inhibited adenylyl cyclase activity. PAR1 and PAR2 also stimulate Neu7 cell migration. PAR1 effects on ERK1/2 phosphorylation and cell migration were blocked both by pertussis toxin and by the mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase/ERK inhibitor [1,4-diamino-2,3-dicyano-1,4-bis(methylthio)butadiene (U0126)], whereas PAR2 effects were only blocked by U0126. These studies demonstrate that PAR1 and PAR2 physically and functionally link to overlapping and distinct profiles of G proteins to differentially regulate downstream signaling pathways and cell physiology.

Regulators of G protein signaling proteins as central components of G protein-coupled receptor signaling complexes

The regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins bind directly to G protein alpha (Gα) subunits to regulate the signaling functions of Gα and their linked G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Recent studies indicate that RGS proteins also interact with GPCRs, not just G proteins, to form preferred functional pairs. Interactions between GPCRs and RGS proteins may be direct or indirect (via a linker protein) and are dictated by the receptors, rather than the linked G proteins. Emerging models suggest that GPCRs serve as platforms for assembling an overlapping and distinct constellation of signaling proteins that perform receptor-specific signaling tasks. Compelling evidence now indicates that RGS proteins are central components of these GPCR signaling complexes. This review will outline recent discoveries of GPCR/RGS pairs as well as new data in support of the idea that GPCRs serve as platforms for the formation of multiprotein signaling complexes.

Lipid rafts constrain basal alpha(1A)-adrenergic receptor signaling by maintaining receptor in an inactive conformation

We have reported that the alpha(1A)-adrenergic receptor (alpha(1A)AR) in rat-1 fibroblasts is a lipid raft protein. Here we examined whether disrupting lipid rafts by methyl-beta-cyclodextrin (MCD) sequestration of cholesterol affects alpha(1A)AR signaling. Unexpectedly, MCD increased alpha(1A)AR-dependent basal inositol phosphate formation and p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase activation in a cholesterol-dependent manner. It also initiated internalization of surface alpha(1A)AR, which was partially blocked by receptor inhibition. Binding assays revealed MCD-mediated increases in receptor agonist affinity as well as reciprocal decreases in inverse agonist affinity, a behavior that is usually interpreted as a shift toward the active receptor conformation. In untreated cells a fraction of the receptor was found to be present in preassociated receptor/G protein complexes, which rapidly dissociate upon receptor stimulation. Consistent with MCD-induced signaling, raft disruption resulted in an increase in receptor/G protein complexes. These results strongly suggest that lipid rafts constrain basal alpha(1A)AR activity; however, preassembled receptor/G protein complexes could still provide a mechanism for accelerating alpha(1A)AR signaling following stimulation.