Synthetic biology with surgical precision: targeted reengineering of signaling proteins

A non-GPCR-binding partner interacts with a novel surface on β-arrestin1 to mediate GPCR signaling

The multifaceted adaptor protein β-arr1 (β-arrestin1) promotes activation of focal adhesion kinase (FAK) by the chemokine receptor CXCR4, facilitating chemotaxis. This function of β-arr1 requires the assistance of the adaptor protein STAM1 (signal-transducing adaptor molecule 1) because disruption of the interaction between STAM1 and β-arr1 reduces CXCR4-mediated activation of FAK and chemotaxis. To begin to understand the mechanism by which β-arr1 together with STAM1 activates FAK, we used site-directed spin-labeling EPR spectroscopy-based studies coupled with bioluminescence resonance energy transfer-based cellular studies to show that STAM1 is recruited to activated β-arr1 by binding to a novel surface on β-arr1 at the base of the finger loop, at a site that is distinct from the receptor-binding site. Expression of a STAM1-deficient binding β-arr1 mutant that is still able to bind to CXCR4 significantly reduced CXCL12-induced activation of FAK but had no impact on ERK-1/2 activation. We provide evidence of a novel surface at the base of the finger loop that dictates non-GPCR interactions specifying β-arrestin-dependent signaling by a GPCR. This surface might represent a previously unidentified switch region that engages with effector molecules to drive β-arrestin signaling.

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.

Structure-function analysis of β-arrestin Kurtz reveals a critical role of receptor interactions in downregulation of GPCR signaling in vivo

Arrestins control signaling via the G protein coupled receptors (GPCRs), serving as both signal terminators and transducers. Previous studies identified several structural elements in arrestins that contribute to their functions as GPCR regulators. However, the importance of these elements in vivo is unclear, and the developmental roles of arrestins are not well understood. We carried out an in vivo structure-function analysis of Kurtz (Krz), the single ortholog of mammalian β-arrestins in the Drosophila genome. A combination of Krz mutations affecting the GPCR-phosphosensing and receptor core-binding ("finger loop") functions (Krz-KKVL/A) resulted in a complete loss of Krz activity during development. Endosome recruitment and bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) assays revealed that the KKVL/A mutations abolished the GPCR-binding ability of Krz. We found that the isolated "finger loop" mutation (Krz-VL/A), while having a negligible effect on GPCR internalization, severely affected Krz function, suggesting that tight receptor interactions are necessary for proper termination of signaling in vivo. Genetic analysis as well as live imaging demonstrated that mutations in Krz led to hyperactivity of the GPCR Mist (also known as Mthl1), which is activated by its ligand Folded gastrulation (Fog) and is responsible for cellular contractility and epithelial morphogenesis. Krz mutations affected two developmental events that are under the control of Fog-Mist signaling: gastrulation and morphogenesis of the wing. Overall, our data reveal the functional importance in vivo of direct β-arrestin/GPCR binding, which is mediated by the recognition of the phosphorylated receptor tail and receptor core interaction. These Krz-GPCR interactions are critical for setting the correct level of Fog-Mist signaling during epithelial morphogenesis.

Arrestin-1 engineering facilitates complex stabilization with native rhodopsin

Arrestin-1 desensitizes the activated and phosphorylated photoreceptor rhodopsin by forming transient rhodopsin−arrestin-1 complexes that eventually decay to opsin, retinal and arrestin-1. Via a multi-dimensional screening setup, we identified and combined arrestin-1 mutants that form lasting complexes with light-activated and phosphorylated rhodopsin in harsh conditions, such as high ionic salt concentration. Two quadruple mutants, D303A + T304A + E341A + F375A and R171A + T304A + E341A + F375A share similar heterologous expression and thermo-stability levels with wild type (WT) arrestin-1, but are able to stabilize complexes with rhodopsin with more than seven times higher half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀) values for NaCl compared to the WT arrestin-1 protein. These quadruple mutants are also characterized by higher binding affinities to phosphorylated rhodopsin, light-activated rhodopsin and phosphorylated opsin, as compared with WT arrestin-1. Furthermore, the assessed arrestin-1 mutants are still specifically associating with phosphorylated or light-activated receptor states only, while binding to the inactive ground state of the receptor is not significantly altered. Additionally, we propose a novel functionality for R171 in stabilizing the inactive arrestin-1 conformation as well as the rhodopsin–arrestin-1 complex. The achieved stabilization of the active rhodopsin–arrestin-1 complex might be of great interest for future structure determination, antibody development studies as well as drug-screening efforts targeting G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs).

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.

The many faces of compartmentalized PKA signalosomes

Cellular signal transmission requires the dynamic formation of spatiotemporally controlled molecular interactions. At the cell surface information is received by receptor complexes and relayed through intracellular signaling platforms which organize the actions of functionally interacting signaling enzymes and substrates. The list of hormone or neurotransmitter pathways that utilize the ubiquitous cAMP-sensing protein kinase A (PKA) system is expansive. This requires that the specificity, duration, and intensity of PKA responses are spatially and temporally restricted. Hereby, scaffolding proteins take the center stage for ensuring proper signal transmission. They unite second messenger sensors, activators, effectors, and kinase substrates within cellular micro-domains to precisely control and route signal propagation. A-kinase anchoring proteins (AKAPs) organize such subcellular signalosomes by tethering the PKA holoenzyme to distinct cell compartments. AKAPs differ in their modular organization showing pathway specific arrangements of interaction motifs or domains. This enables the cell- and compartment- guided assembly of signalosomes with unique enzyme composition and function. The AKAP-mediated clustering of cAMP and other second messenger sensing and interacting signaling components along with functional successive enzymes facilitates the rapid and precise dissemination of incoming signals. This review article delineates examples for different means of PKA regulation and for snapshots of compartmentalized PKA signalosomes.

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.

Beyond traditional pharmacology: new tools and approaches

Traditional pharmacology is defined as the science that deals with drugs and their actions. While small molecule drugs have clear advantages, there are many cases where they have proved to be ineffective, prone to unacceptable side effects, or where due to a particular disease aetiology they cannot possibly be effective. A dominant feature of the small molecule drugs is their single mindedness: they provide either continuous inhibition or continuous activation of the target. Because of that, these drugs tend to engage compensatory mechanisms leading to drug tolerance, drug resistance or, in some cases, sensitization and consequent loss of therapeutic efficacy over time and/or unwanted side effects. Here we discuss new and emerging therapeutic tools and approaches that have potential for treating the majority of disorders for which small molecules are either failing or cannot be developed. These new tools include biologics, such as recombinant hormones and antibodies, as well as approaches involving gene transfer (gene therapy and genome editing) and the introduction of specially designed self-replicating cells. It is clear that no single method is going to be a 'silver bullet', but collectively, these novel approaches hold promise for curing practically every disorder.

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.

GPCR structure, function, drug discovery and crystallography: report from Academia-Industry International Conference (UK Royal Society) Chicheley Hall, 1-2 September 2014

G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) are the targets of over half of all prescribed drugs today. The UniProt database has records for about 800 proteins classified as GPCRs, but drugs have only been developed against 50 of these. Thus, there is huge potential in terms of the number of targets for new therapies to be designed. Several breakthroughs in GPCRs biased pharmacology, structural biology, modelling and scoring have resulted in a resurgence of interest in GPCRs as drug targets. Therefore, an international conference, sponsored by the Royal Society, with world-renowned researchers from industry and academia was recently held to discuss recent progress and highlight key areas of future research needed to accelerate GPCR drug discovery. Several key points emerged. Firstly, structures for all three major classes of GPCRs have now been solved and there is increasing coverage across the GPCR phylogenetic tree. This is likely to be substantially enhanced with data from x-ray free electron sources as they move beyond proof of concept. Secondly, the concept of biased signalling or functional selectivity is likely to be prevalent in many GPCRs, and this presents exciting new opportunities for selectivity and the control of side effects, especially when combined with increasing data regarding allosteric modulation. Thirdly, there will almost certainly be some GPCRs that will remain difficult targets because they exhibit complex ligand dependencies and have many metastable states rendering them difficult to resolve by crystallographic methods. Subtle effects within the packing of the transmembrane helices are likely to mask and contribute to this aspect, which may play a role in species dependent behaviour. This is particularly important because it has ramifications for how we interpret pre-clinical data. In summary, collaborative efforts between industry and academia have delivered significant progress in terms of structure and understanding of GPCRs and will be essential for resolving problems associated with the more difficult targets in the future.

Mutations in arrestin-3 differentially affect binding to neuropeptide Y receptor subtypes

Based on the identification of residues that determine receptor selectivity in arrestins and the phylogenetic analysis of the arrestin (arr) family, we introduced fifteen mutations of receptor-discriminator residues in arr-3, which were identified previously using mutagenesis, in vitro binding, and BRET-based recruitment assay in intact cells. The effects of these mutations were tested using neuropeptide Y receptors Y1R and Y2R. NPY-elicited arr-3 recruitment to Y1R was not affected by these mutations, or even alanine substitution of all ten residues (arr-3-NCA), which prevented arr-3 binding to other receptors tested so far. However, NCA and two other mutations prevented agonist-independent arr-3 pre-docking to Y1R. In contrast, eight out of 15 mutations significantly reduced agonist-dependent arr-3 recruitment to Y2R. NCA eliminated arr-3 binding to active Y2R, whereas Tyr239Thr reduced it ~7-fold. Thus, manipulation of key residues on the receptor-binding surface generates arr-3 with high preference for Y1R over Y2R. Several mutations differentially affect arr-3 pre-docking and agonist-induced recruitment. Thus, arr-3 recruitment to the receptor involves several mechanistically distinct steps. Targeted mutagenesis can fine-tune arrestins directing them to specific receptors and particular activation states of the same receptor.

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.

Arrestins as regulatory hubs in cancer signalling pathways

Non-visual arrestins were initially appreciated for the roles they play in the negative regulation of G protein-coupled receptors through the processes of desensitisation and endocytosis. The arrestins are also now known as protein scaffolding platforms that act downstream of multiple types of receptors, ensuring relevant transmission of information for an appropriate cellular response. They function as regulatory hubs in several important signalling pathways that are often dysregulated in human cancers. Interestingly, several recent studies have documented changes in expression and localisation of arrestins that occur during cancer progression and that correlate with clinical outcome. Here, we discuss these advances and how changes in expression/localisation may affect functional outputs of arrestins in cancer biology.

Arrestins in apoptosis

Programmed cell death (apoptosis) is a coordinated set of events eventually leading to the massive activation of specialized proteases (caspases) that cleave numerous substrates, orchestrating fairly uniform biochemical changes than culminate in cellular suicide. Apoptosis can be triggered by a variety of stimuli, from external signals or growth factor withdrawal to intracellular conditions, such as DNA damage or ER stress. Arrestins regulate many signaling cascades involved in life-or-death decisions in the cell, so it is hardly surprising that numerous reports document the effects of ubiquitous nonvisual arrestins on apoptosis under various conditions. Although these findings hardly constitute a coherent picture, with the same arrestin subtypes, sometimes via the same signaling pathways, reported to promote or inhibit cell death, this might reflect real differences in pro- and antiapoptotic signaling in different cells under a variety of conditions. Recent finding suggests that one of the nonvisual subtypes, arrestin-2, is specifically cleaved by caspases. Generated fragment actively participates in the core mechanism of apoptosis: it assists another product of caspase activity, tBID, in releasing cytochrome C from mitochondria. This is the point of no return in committing vertebrate cells to death, and the aspartate where caspases cleave arrestin-2 is evolutionary conserved in vertebrate, but not in invertebrate arrestins. In contrast to wild-type arrestin-2, its caspase-resistant mutant does not facilitate cell death.

Arrestins in host-pathogen interactions

In the context of host-pathogen interaction, host cell receptors and signaling pathways are essential for both invading pathogens, which exploit them for their own profit, and the defending organism, which activates early mechanism of defense, known as innate immunity, to block the aggression. Because of their central role as scaffolding proteins downstream of activated receptors, β-arrestins are involved in multiple signaling pathways activated in host cells by pathogens. Some of these pathways participate in the innate immunity and the inflammatory response. Other β-arrestin-dependent pathways are actually hijacked by microbes and toxins to penetrate into host cells and spread in the organism.

Extensive shape shifting underlies functional versatility of arrestins

Among four vertebrate arrestins, only two are ubiquitously expressed. Arrestins specifically bind active phosphorylated G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), thereby precluding further G protein activation. Recent discoveries suggest that the formation of the arrestin-receptor complex initiates the second round of signaling with comparable biological importance. Despite having virtually no recognizable sequence motifs known to mediate protein-protein interactions, arrestins bind a surprising variety of signaling proteins with mind-boggling range of functional consequences. High conformational flexibility allows arrestins to show many distinct 'faces' to the world, which allows these relatively small ∼45kDa proteins to bind various partners under different physiological conditions, organizing multi-protein signaling complexes and localizing them to distinct subcellular compartments.

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.

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.

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.