Aspartic acid 564 in the third cytoplasmic loop of the luteinizing hormone/choriogonadotropin receptor is crucial for phosphorylation-independent interaction with arrestin2

Hormonal and Allosteric Regulation of the Luteinizing Hormone/Chorionic Gonadotropin Receptor

Luteinizing hormone (LH) and human chorionic gonadotropin (CG), like follicle-stimulating hormone, are the most important regulators of the reproductive system. They exert their effect on the cell through the LH/CG receptor (LHCGR), which belongs to the family of G protein-coupled receptors. Binding to gonadotropin induces the interaction of LHCGR with various types of heterotrimeric G proteins (Gs, Gq/11, Gi) and β-arrestins, which leads to stimulation (Gs) or inhibition (Gi) of cyclic adenosine monophosphate-dependent cascades, activation of the phospholipase pathway (Gq/11), and also to the formation of signalosomes that mediate the stimulation of mitogen-activated protein kinases (β-arrestins). The efficiency and selectivity of activation of intracellular cascades by different gonadotropins varies, which is due to differences in their interaction with the ligand-binding site of LHCGR. Gonadotropin signaling largely depends on the status of N- and O-glycosylation of LH and CG, on the formation of homo- and heterodimeric receptor complexes, on the cell-specific microenvironment of LHCGR and the presence of autoantibodies to it, and allosteric mechanisms are important in the implementation of these influences, which is due to the multiplicity of allosteric sites in different loci of the LHCGR. The development of low-molecular-weight allosteric regulators of LHCGR with different profiles of pharmacological activity, which can be used in medicine for the correction of reproductive disorders and in assisted reproductive technologies, is promising. These and other issues regarding the hormonal and allosteric regulation of LHCGR are summarized and discussed in this review.

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.

Delineating the interactions between the cannabinoid CB2 receptor and its regulatory effectors; β-arrestins and G protein-coupled receptor kinases

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The cannabinoid CB₂ receptor (CB₂ ) is a promising therapeutic target for modulating inflammation. However, little is known surrounding the mechanisms underpinning CB₂ desensitisation and regulation, particularly the role of G protein-coupled receptor kinases (GRKs). Here, we evaluated the role of six GRK isoforms in β-arrestin recruitment to CB₂ . Mutagenesis of several distal C-terminal aspartic acid residues was also performed in an attempt to delineate additional structural elements involved in the regulation of CB₂ .

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

In CB₂ -expressing HEK 293 cells, β-arrestin translocation was measured using real-time BRET assays. G protein dissociation BRET assays were performed to assess the activation and desensitisation of CB₂ in the presence of β-arrestin 2.

KEY RESULTS

Overexpression of GRK isoforms 1-6 failed to considerably improve translocation of either β-arrestin 1 or β-arrestin 2 to CB₂ . Consistent with this, inhibition of endogenous GRK2/3 did not substantially reduce β-arrestin 2 translocation. Mutagenesis of C-terminal aspartic acid residues resulted in attenuation of β-arrestin 2 translocation, which translated to a reduction in desensitisation of G protein activation.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Our findings suggest that CB₂ does not adhere to the classical GPCR regulatory paradigm, entailing GRK- and β-arrestin-mediated desensitisation. Instead, C-terminal aspartic acid residues may act as phospho-mimics to induce β-arrestin activation. This study provides novel insights into the regulatory mechanisms of CB₂ , which may aid in our understanding of drug tolerance and dependence.

Intrinsic bias at non-canonical, β-arrestin-coupled seven transmembrane receptors

G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), also known as seven transmembrane receptors (7TMRs), typically interact with two distinct signal-transducers, i.e., G proteins and β-arrestins (βarrs). Interestingly, there are some non-canonical 7TMRs that lack G protein coupling but interact with barrs, although an understanding of their transducer coupling preference, downstream signaling, and structural mechanism remains elusive. Here, we characterize two such non-canonical 7TMRs, namely, the decoy D6 receptor (D6R) and the complement C5a receptor subtype 2 (C5aR2), in parallel with their canonical GPCR counterparts. We discover that D6R and C5aR2 efficiently couple to βarrs, exhibit distinct engagement of GPCR kinases (GRKs), and activate non-canonical downstream signaling pathways. We also observe that βarrs adopt distinct conformations for D6R and C5aR2, compared to their canonical GPCR counterparts, in response to common natural agonists. Our study establishes D6R and C5aR2 as βarr-coupled 7TMRs and provides key insights into their regulation and signaling with direct implication for biased agonism.

Mechanistic insight into how gonadotropin hormone receptor complexes direct signaling†

Gonadotropin hormones and their receptors play a central role in the control of male and female reproduction. In recent years, there has been growing evidence surrounding the complexity of gonadotropin hormone/receptor signaling, with it increasingly apparent that the Gαs/cAMP/PKA pathway is not the sole signaling pathway that confers their biological actions. Here we review recent literature on the different receptor-receptor, receptor-scaffold, and receptor-signaling molecule complexes formed and how these modulate and direct gonadotropin hormone-dependent intracellular signal activation. We will touch upon the more controversial issue of extragonadal expression of FSHR and the differential signal pathways activated in these tissues, and lastly, highlight the open questions surrounding the role these gonadotropin hormone receptor complexes and how this will shape future research directions.

Agonist dependency of the second phase access of β-arrestin 2 to the heteromeric µ-V1b receptor

During the development of analgesic tolerance to morphine, the V1b vasopressin receptor has been proposed to bind to β-arrestin 2 and the µ-opioid receptor to enable their interaction. However, direct evidence of such a high-order complex is lacking. Using bioluminescent resonance energy transfer between a split Nanoluciferase and the Venus fluorescent protein, the NanoBit-NanoBRET system, we found that β-arrestin 2 closely located near the heteromer µ-V1b receptor in the absence of an agonist and moved closer to the receptor carboxyl-termini upon agonist stimulation. An additive effect of the two agonists for opioid and vasopressin receptors was detected on the NanoBRET between the µ-V1b heteromer and β-arrestin 2. To increase the agonist response of NanoBRET, the ratio of the donor luminophore to the acceptor fluorophore was decreased to the detection limit of luminescence. In the first phase of access, β-arrestin 2 was likely to bind to the unstimulated V1b receptor in both its phosphorylated and unphosphorylated forms. In contrast, the second-phase access of β-arrestin 2 was agonist dependent, indicating a possible pharmacological intervention strategy. Therefore, our efficient method should be useful for evaluating chemicals that directly target the vasopressin binding site in the µ-V1b heteromer to reduce the second-phase access of β-arrestin 2 and thereby to alleviate tolerance to morphine analgesia.

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.

Glycoprotein G-protein Coupled Receptors in Disease: Luteinizing Hormone Receptors and Follicle Stimulating Hormone Receptors

Signal transduction by luteinizing hormone receptors (LHRs) and follicle-stimulating hormone receptors (FSHRs) is essential for the successful reproduction of human beings. Both receptors and the thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor are members of a subset of G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) described as the glycoprotein hormone receptors. Their ligands, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) and a structurally related hormone produced in pregnancy, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), are large protein hormones that are extensively glycosylated. Although the primary physiologic functions of these receptors are in ovarian function and maintenance of pregnancy in human females and spermatogenesis in males, there are reports of LHRs or FSHRs involvement in disease processes both in the reproductive system and elsewhere. In this review, we evaluate the aggregation state of the structure of actively signaling LHRs or FSHRs, their functions in reproduction as well as summarizing disease processes related to receptor mutations affecting receptor function or expression in reproductive and non-reproductive tissues. We will also present novel strategies for either increasing or reducing the activity of LHRs signaling. Such approaches to modify signaling by glycoprotein receptors may prove advantageous in treating diseases relating to LHRs or FSHRs function in addition to furthering the identification of new strategies for modulating GPCR signaling.

Biased GPCR signaling: Possible mechanisms and inherent limitations

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are targeted by about a third of clinically used drugs. Many GPCRs couple to more than one type of heterotrimeric G proteins, become phosphorylated by any of several different GRKs, and then bind one or more types of arrestin. Thus, classical therapeutically active drugs simultaneously initiate several branches of signaling, some of which are beneficial, whereas others result in unwanted on-target side effects. The development of novel compounds to selectively channel the signaling into the desired direction has the potential to become a breakthrough in health care. However, there are natural and technological hurdles that must be overcome. The fact that most GPCRs are subject to homologous desensitization, where the active receptor couples to G proteins, is phosphorylated by GRKs, and then binds arrestins, suggest that in most cases the GPCR conformations that facilitate their interactions with these three classes of binding partners significantly overlap. Thus, while partner-specific conformations might exist, they are likely low-probability states. GPCRs are inherently flexible, which suggests that complete bias is highly unlikely to be feasible: in the conformational ensemble induced by any ligand, there would be some conformations facilitating receptor coupling to unwanted partners. Things are further complicated by the fact that virtually every cell expresses numerous G proteins, several GRK subtypes, and two non-visual arrestins with distinct signaling capabilities. Finally, novel screening methods for measuring ligand bias must be devised, as the existing methods are not specific for one particular branch of signaling.

The structural basis of the arrestin binding to GPCRs

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are the largest family of signaling proteins targeted by more clinically used drugs than any other protein family. GPCR signaling via G proteins is quenched (desensitized) by the phosphorylation of the active receptor by specific GPCR kinases (GRKs) followed by tight binding of arrestins to active phosphorylated receptors. Thus, arrestins engage two types of receptor elements: those that contain GRK-added phosphates and those that change conformation upon activation. GRKs attach phosphates to serines and threonines in the GPCR C-terminus or any one of the cytoplasmic loops. In addition to these phosphates, arrestins engage the cavity that appears between trans-membrane helices upon receptor activation and several other non-phosphorylated elements. The residues that bind GPCRs are localized on the concave side of both arrestin domains. Arrestins undergo a global conformational change upon receptor binding (become activated). Arrestins serve as important hubs of cellular signaling, emanating from activated GPCRs and receptor-independent.

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.

Intracellular Trafficking of Gonadotropin Receptors in Health and Disease

Gonadotropin receptors belong to the highly conserved subfamily of the G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) superfamily, the so-called Rhodopsin-like family (class A), which is the largest class of GPCRs and currently a major drug target. Both the follicle-stimulating hormone receptor (FSHR) and the luteinizing hormone/chorionic gonadotropin hormone receptor (LHCGR) are mainly located in the gonads where they play key functions associated to essential reproductive functions. As any other protein, gonadotropin receptors must be properly folded into a mature tertiary conformation compatible with quaternary assembly and endoplasmic reticulum export to the cell surface plasma membrane. Several primary and secondary structural features, including presence of particular amino acid residues and short motifs and in addition, posttranslational modifications, regulate intracellular trafficking of gonadotropin receptors to the plasma membrane as well as internalization and recycling of the receptor back to the cell surface after activation by agonist. Inactivating mutations of gonadotropin receptors may derive from receptor misfolding and lead to absent or reduced plasma membrane expression of the altered receptor, thereby manifesting an array of phenotypical abnormalities mostly characterized by reproductive failure and/or abnormal or absence of development of secondary sex characteristics. In this chapter we review the structural requirements necessary for intracellular trafficking of the gonadotropin receptors, and describe how mutations in these receptors may lead to receptor misfolding and disease in humans.

Structure-Function Relationships of the Follicle-Stimulating Hormone Receptor

The follicle-stimulating hormone receptor (FSHR) plays a crucial role in reproduction. This structurally complex receptor is a member of the G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) superfamily of membrane receptors. As with the other structurally similar glycoprotein hormone receptors (the thyroid-stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone-chorionic gonadotropin hormone receptors), the FSHR is characterized by an extensive extracellular domain, where binding to FSH occurs, linked to the signal specificity subdomain or hinge region. This region is involved in ligand-stimulated receptor activation whereas the seven transmembrane domain is associated with receptor activation and transmission of the activation process to the intracellular loops comprised of amino acid sequences, which predicate coupling to effectors, interaction with adapter proteins, and triggering of downstream intracellular signaling. In this review, we describe the most important structural features of the FSHR intimately involved in regulation of FSHR function, including trafficking, dimerization, and oligomerization, ligand binding, agonist-stimulated activation, and signal transduction.

Sphingosine 1-Phosphate Receptor 1 Signaling in Mammalian Cells

The bioactive lipid, sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) binds to a family of G protein-coupled receptors, termed S1P₁-S1P₅. These receptors function in, for example, the cardiovascular system to regulate vascular barrier integrity and tone, the nervous system to regulate neuronal differentiation, myelination and oligodendrocyte/glial cell survival and the immune system to regulate T- and B-cell subsets and trafficking. S1P receptors also participate in the pathophysiology of autoimmunity, inflammatory disease, cancer, neurodegeneration and others. In this review, we describe how S1P₁ can form a complex with G-protein and β-arrestin, which function together to regulate effector pathways. We also discuss the role of the S1P₁-Platelet derived growth factor receptor β functional complex (which deploys G-protein/β-arrestin and receptor tyrosine kinase signaling) in regulating cell migration. Possible mechanisms by which different S1P-chaperones, such as Apolipoprotein M-High-Density Lipoprotein induce biological programmes in cells are also described. Finally, the role of S1P₁ in health and disease and as a target for clinical intervention is appraised.

The effect of phosphorylation on arrestin-rhodopsin interaction in the squid visual system

Invertebrate visual opsins are G protein-coupled receptors coupled to retinoid chromophores that isomerize reversibly between inactive rhodopsin and active metarhodopsin upon absorption of photons of light. The squid visual system has an arrestin protein that binds to metarhodopsin to block signaling to Gq and activation of phospholipase C. Squid rhodopsin kinase (SQRK) can phosphorylate both metarhodopsin and arrestin, a dual role that is unique among the G protein-coupled receptor kinases. The sites and role of arrestin phosphorylation by SQRK were investigated here using recombinant proteins. Arrestin was phosphorylated on serine 392 and serine 397 in the C-terminus. Unphosphorylated arrestin bound to metarhodopsin and phosphorylated metarhodopsin with similar high affinities (Kd 33 and 21 nM respectively), while phosphorylation of arrestin reduced the affinity 3- to 5-fold (Kd 104 nM). Phosphorylation of metarhodopsin slightly increased the dissociation of arrestin observed during a 1 hour incubation. Together these studies suggest a unique role for SQRK in phosphorylating both receptor and arrestin and inhibiting the binding of these two proteins in the squid visual system. Invertebrate visual systems are inactivated by arrestin binding to metarhodopsin that does not require receptor phosphorylation. Here we show that squid rhodopsin kinase phosphorylates arrestin on two serines (S392,S397) in the C-terminus and phosphorylation decreases the affinity of arrestin for squid metarhodopsin. Metarhodopsin phosphorylation has very little effect on arrestin binding but does increase arrestin dissociation.

Analysis of functional selectivity through G protein-dependent and -independent signaling pathways at the adrenergic α(2C) receptor

Although G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are traditionally categorized as Gs-, Gq-, or Gi/o-coupled, their signaling is regulated by multiple mechanisms. GPCRs can couple to several effector pathways, having the capacity to interact not only with more than one G protein subtype but also with alternative signaling or effector proteins such as arrestins. Moreover, GPCR ligands can have different efficacies for activating these signaling pathways, a characteristic referred to as biased agonism or functional selectivity. In this work our aim was to detect differences in the ability of various agonists acting at the α2C type of adrenergic receptors (α2C-ARs) to modulate cAMP accumulation, cytoplasmic Ca(2+) release, β-arrestin recruitment and receptor internalization. A detailed comparative pharmacological characterization of G protein-dependent and -independent signaling pathways was carried out using adrenergic agonists (norepinephrine, phenylephrine, brimonidine, BHT-920, oxymetazoline, clonidine, moxonidine, guanabenz) and antagonists (MK912, yohimbine). As initial analysis of agonist Emax and EC50 values suggested possible functional selectivity, ligand bias was quantified by applying the relative activity scale and was compared to that of the endogenous agonist norepinephrine. Values significantly different from 0 between pathways indicated an agonist that promoted different level of activation of diverse effector pathways most likely due to the stabilization of a subtly different receptor conformation from that induced by norepinephrine. Our results showed that a series of agonists acting at the α2C-AR displayed different degree of functional selectivity (bias factors ranging from 1.6 to 36.7) through four signaling pathways. As signaling via these pathways seems to have distinct functional and physiological outcomes, studying all these stages of receptor activation could have further implications for the development of more selective therapeutics with improved efficacy and/or fewer side effects.

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.

Arrestin-dependent but G-protein coupled receptor kinase-independent uncoupling of D2-dopamine receptors

We reconstituted D2 like dopamine receptor (D2R) and the delta opioid receptor (DOR) coupling to G-protein gated inwardly rectifying potassium channels (K(ir)3) and directly compared the effects of co-expression of G-protein coupled receptor kinase (GRK) and arrestin on agonist-dependent desensitization of the receptor response. We found, as described previously, that co-expression of a GRK and an arrestin synergistically increased the rate of agonist-dependent desensitization of DOR. In contrast, only arrestin expression was required to produce desensitization of D2R responses. Furthermore, arrestin-dependent GRK-independent desensitization of D2R-K(ir)3 coupling could be transferred to DOR by substituting the third cytoplasmic loop of DOR with that of D2R. The arrestin-dependent GRK-independent desensitization of D2R desensitization was inhibited by staurosporine treatment, and blocked by alanine substitution of putative protein kinase C phosphorylation sites in the third cytoplasmic loop of D2R. Finally, the D2R construct in which putative protein kinase C phosphorylation sites were mutated did not undergo significant agonist-dependent desensitization even after GRK co-expression, suggesting that GRK phosphorylation of D2R does not play an important role in uncoupling of the receptor.

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.

Arrestins: role in the desensitization, sequestration, and vesicular trafficking of G protein-coupled receptors

Over the years, β-arrestins have emerged as multifunctional molecular scaffolding proteins regulating almost every imaginable G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) function. Originally discovered as GPCR-desensitizing molecules, they have been shown to also serve as important regulators of GPCR signaling, sequestration, and vesicular trafficking. This broad functional role implicates β-arrestins as key regulatory proteins for cellular function. Hence, this chapter summarizes the current understanding of the β-arrestin family's unique ability to control the kinetics as well as the extent of GPCR activity at the level of desensitization, sequestration, and subsequent intracellular trafficking.

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.

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.

Few residues within an extensive binding interface drive receptor interaction and determine the specificity of arrestin proteins

Arrestins bind active phosphorylated forms of G protein-coupled receptors, terminating G protein activation, orchestrating receptor trafficking, and redirecting signaling to alternative pathways. Visual arrestin-1 preferentially binds rhodopsin, whereas the two non-visual arrestins interact with hundreds of G protein-coupled receptor subtypes. Here we show that an extensive surface on the concave side of both arrestin-2 domains is involved in receptor binding. We also identified a small number of residues on the receptor binding surface of the N- and C-domains that largely determine the receptor specificity of arrestins. We show that alanine substitution of these residues blocks the binding of arrestin-1 to rhodopsin in vitro and of arrestin-2 and -3 to β2-adrenergic, M2 muscarinic cholinergic, and D2 dopamine receptors in intact cells, suggesting that these elements critically contribute to the energy of the interaction. Thus, in contrast to arrestin-1, where direct phosphate binding is crucial, the interaction of non-visual arrestins with their cognate receptors depends to a lesser extent on phosphate binding and more on the binding to non-phosphorylated receptor elements.

CK2 phosphorylation of an acidic Ser/Thr di-isoleucine motif in the Na+/H+ exchanger NHE5 isoform promotes association with beta-arrestin2 and endocytosis

Internalization of the Na(+)/H(+) exchanger NHE5 into recycling endosomes is enhanced by the endocytic adaptor proteins β-arrestin1 and -2, best known for their preferential recognition of ligand-activated G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). However, the mechanism underlying their atypical association with non-GPCRs, such as NHE5, is unknown. In this study, we identified a highly acidic, serine/threonine-rich, di-isoleucine motif (amino acids 697-723) in the cytoplasmic C terminus of NHE5 that is recognized by β-arrestin2. Gross deletions of this site decreased the state of phosphorylation of NHE5 as well as its binding and responsiveness to β-arrestin2 in intact cells. More refined in vitro analyses showed that this site was robustly phosphorylated by the acidotropic protein kinase CK2, whereas other kinases, such as CK1 or the GPCR kinase GRK2, were considerably less potent. Simultaneous mutation of five Ser/Thr residues within 702-714 to Ala ((702)ST/AA(714)) abolished phosphorylation and binding of β-arrestin2. In transfected cells, the CK2 catalytic α subunit formed a complex with NHE5 and decreased wild-type but not (702)ST/AA(714) NHE5 activity, further supporting a regulatory role for this kinase. The rate of internalization of (702)ST/AA(714) was also diminished and relatively insensitive to overexpression of β-arrestin2. However, unlike in vitro, this mutant retained its ability to form a complex with β-arrestin2 despite its lack of responsiveness. Additional mutations of two di-isoleucine-based motifs (I697A/L698A and I722A/I723A) that immediately flank the acidic cluster, either separately or together, were required to disrupt their association. These data demonstrate that discrete elements of an elaborate sorting signal in NHE5 contribute to β-arrestin2 binding and trafficking along the recycling endosomal pathway.

Signal transduction by protease-activated receptors

The family of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) constitutes the largest class of signalling receptors in the human genome, controlling vast physiological responses and are the target of many drugs. After activation, GPCRs are rapidly desensitized by phosphorylation and beta-arrestin binding. Most classic GPCRs are internalized through a clathrin, dynamin and beta-arrestin-dependent pathway and then recycled back to the cell surface or sorted to lysosomes for degradation. Given the vast number and diversity of GPCRs, different mechanisms are likely to exist to precisely regulate the magnitude, duration and spatial aspects of receptor signalling. The G protein-coupled protease-activated receptors (PARs) provide elegant examples of GPCRs that are regulated by distinct desensitization and endocytic sorting mechanisms, processes that are critically important for the spatial and temporal fidelity of PAR signalling. PARs are irreversibly activated through proteolytic cleavage and transmit cellular responses to extracellular proteases. Activated PAR(1) internalizes through a clathrin- and dynamin-dependent pathway independent of beta-arrestins. Interestingly, PAR(1) is basally ubiquitinated and deubiquitinated after activation and traffics from endosomes to lysosomes independent of ubiquitination. In contrast, beta-arrestins mediate activated PAR(2) internalization and function as scaffolds that promote signalling from endocytic vesicles. Moreover, activated PAR(2) is modified with ubiquitin, which facilitates lysosomal degradation. Activated PARs also adopt distinct active conformations that signal to diverse effectors and are likely regulated by different mechanisms. Thus, the identification of the molecular machinery important for PAR signal regulation will enable the development of new strategies to manipulate receptor signalling and will provide novel targets for the development of drugs.

G protein-coupled receptor kinase-mediated phosphorylation regulates post-endocytic trafficking of the D2 dopamine receptor

We investigated the role of G protein-coupled receptor kinase (GRK)-mediated phosphorylation in agonist-induced desensitization, arrestin association, endocytosis, and intracellular trafficking of the D(2) dopamine receptor (DAR). Agonist activation of D(2) DARs results in rapid and sustained receptor phosphorylation that is solely mediated by GRKs. A survey of GRKs revealed that only GRK2 or GRK3 promotes D(2) DAR phosphorylation. Mutational analyses resulted in the identification of eight serine/threonine residues within the third cytoplasmic loop of the receptor that are phosphorylated by GRK2/3. Simultaneous mutation of these eight residues results in a receptor construct, GRK(-), that is completely devoid of agonist-promoted GRK-mediated receptor phosphorylation. We found that both wild-type (WT) and GRK(-) receptors underwent a similar degree of agonist-induced desensitization as assessed using [(35)S]GTPgammaS binding assays. Similarly, both receptor constructs internalized to the same extent in response to agonist treatment. Furthermore, using bioluminescence resonance energy transfer assays to directly assess receptor association with arrestin3, we found no differences between the WT and GRK(-) receptors. Thus, phosphorylation is not required for arrestin-receptor association or agonist-induced desensitization or internalization. In contrast, when we examined recycling of the D(2) DARs to the cell surface, subsequent to agonist-induced endocytosis, the GRK(-) construct exhibited less recycling in comparison with the WT receptor. This impairment appears to be due to a greater propensity of the GRK(-) receptors to down-regulate once internalized. In contrast, if the receptor is highly phosphorylated, then receptor recycling is promoted. These results reveal a novel role for GRK-mediated phosphorylation in regulating the post-endocytic trafficking of a G protein-coupled receptor.

A dopamine D2 receptor mutant capable of G protein-mediated signaling but deficient in arrestin binding

Arrestins mediate G protein-coupled receptor desensitization, internalization, and signaling. Dopamine D(2) and D(3) receptors have similar structures but distinct characteristics of interaction with arrestins. The goals of this study were to compare arrestin-binding determinants in D(2) and D(3) receptors other than phosphorylation sites and to create a D(2) receptor that is deficient in arrestin binding. We first assessed the ability of purified arrestins to bind to glutathione transferase (GST) fusion proteins containing the receptor third intracellular loops (IC3). Arrestin3 bound to IC3 of both D(2) and D(3) receptors, with the affinity and localization of the binding site indistinguishable between the receptor subtypes. Mutagenesis of the GST-IC3 fusion proteins identified an important determinant of the binding of arrestin3 in the N-terminal region of IC3. Alanine mutations of this determinant (IYIV212-215) in the full-length D(2) receptor generated a signaling-biased receptor with intact ligand binding and G-protein coupling and activation, but deficient in receptor-mediated arrestin3 translocation to the membrane, agonist-induced receptor internalization, and agonist-induced desensitization in human embryonic kidney 293 cells. This mutation also decreased arrestin-dependent activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinases. The finding that nonphosphorylated D(2)-IC3 and D(3)-IC3 have similar affinity for arrestin is consistent with previous suggestions that the differential effects of D(2) and D(3) receptor activation on membrane translocation of arrestin and receptor internalization are due, at least in part, to differential phosphorylation of the receptors. In addition, these results imply that the sequence IYIV212-215 at the N terminus of IC3 of the D(2) receptor is a key element of the arrestin binding site.

Location, location, location...site-specific GPCR phosphorylation offers a mechanism for cell-type-specific signalling

It is now established that most of the approximately 800 G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are regulated by phosphorylation in a process that results in the recruitment of arrestins, leading to receptor desensitization and the activation of arrestin-dependent processes. This generalized view of GPCR regulation, however, does not provide an adequate mechanism for the control of tissue-specific GPCR signalling. Here, we review the evidence that GPCR phosphorylation is, in fact, a flexible and dynamic regulatory process in which GPCRs are phosphorylated in a unique manner that is associated with the cell type in which the receptor is expressed. In this scenario, phosphorylation offers a mechanism of regulating the signalling outcome of GPCRs that can be tailored to meet a specific physiological role.

Human chorionic gonadotropin stimulates trophoblast invasion through extracellularly regulated kinase and AKT signaling

Chorionic gonadotropin (CG) is indispensable for human pregnancy because it controls implantation, decidualization, and placental development. However, its particular role in the differentiation process of invasive trophoblasts has not been fully unraveled. Here we demonstrate that the hormone promotes trophoblast invasion and migration in different trophoblast model systems. RT-PCR and Western blot analyses revealed expression of the LH/CG receptor in trophoblast cell lines and different trophoblast primary cultures. In vitro, CG increased migration and invasion of trophoblastic SGHPL-5 cells through uncoated and Matrigel-coated transwells, respectively. The hormone also increased migration of first-trimester villous explant cultures on collagen I. Proliferation of the trophoblast cell line and villous explant cultures measured by cumulative cell numbers and in situ 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine labeling, respectively, was unaffected by CG. Addition of the hormone activated ERK-1/2 and AKT in SGHPL-5 cells and pure, extravillous trophoblasts. Inhibition of MAPK kinase/ERK and phosphatidylinositide 3-kinase/AKT blocked phosphorylation of the kinases and attenuated CG-dependent invasion of SGHPL-5 cells. Similarly, the inhibitors decreased hormone-stimulated migration in villous explant cultures. Western blot analyses and gelatin zymography suggested that CG increased matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2 protein levels and activity in both culture systems. Inhibition of ERK or AKT diminished CG-induced MMP-2 expression. In summary, the data demonstrate that CG promotes trophoblast invasion and migration through activation of ERK and AKT signaling involving their downstream effector MMP-2. Because the increase of CG during the first trimester of pregnancy correlates with rising trophoblast motility, the hormone could be a critical regulator of the early invasion process.

G-protein-coupled receptor phosphorylation: where, when and by whom

Almost all G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) are regulated by phosphorylation and this process is a key event in determining the signalling properties of this receptor super-family. Receptors are multiply phosphorylated at sites that can occur throughout the intracellular regions of the receptor. This diversity of phospho-acceptor sites together with a lack of consensus phosphorylation sequences has led to the suggestion that the precise site of phosphorylation is not important in the phosphorylation-dependent regulation of GPCR function but rather it is the increase in bulk negative charge of the intracellular face of the receptor which is the significant factor. This review investigates the possibility that the multi-site nature of GPCR phosphorylation reflects the importance of specific phosphorylation events which mediate distinct signalling outcomes. In this way receptor phosphorylation may provide for a flexible regulatory mechanism that can be tailored in a tissue specific manner to regulate physiological processes. By understanding the flexible nature of GPCR phosphorylation if may be possible to develop agonists or allosteric modulators that promote a subset of phosphorylation events on the target GPCR and thereby restrict the action of the drug to a particular receptor mediated signalling response.

Regulation of receptor trafficking by GRKs and arrestins

To ensure that extracellular stimuli are translated into intracellular signals of appropriate magnitude and specificity, most signaling cascades are tightly regulated. One of the major mechanisms involved in the regulation of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) involves their endocytic trafficking. GPCR endocytic trafficking entails the targeting of receptors to discrete endocytic sites at the plasma membrane, followed by receptor internalization and intracellular sorting. This regulates the level of cell surface receptors, the sorting of receptors to degradative or recycling pathways, and in some cases the specific signaling pathways. In this chapter we discuss the mechanisms that regulate receptor endocytic trafficking, emphasizing the role of GPCR kinases (GRKs) and arrestins in this process.

The structural basis of arrestin-mediated regulation of G-protein-coupled receptors

The 4 mammalian arrestins serve as almost universal regulators of the largest known family of signaling proteins, G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Arrestins terminate receptor interactions with G proteins, redirect the signaling to a variety of alternative pathways, and orchestrate receptor internalization and subsequent intracellular trafficking. The elucidation of the structural basis and fine molecular mechanisms of the arrestin-receptor interaction paved the way to the targeted manipulation of this interaction from both sides to produce very stable or extremely transient complexes that helped to understand the regulation of many biologically important processes initiated by active GPCRs. The elucidation of the structural basis of arrestin interactions with numerous non-receptor-binding partners is long overdue. It will allow the construction of fully functional arrestins in which the ability to interact with individual partners is specifically disrupted or enhanced by targeted mutagenesis. These "custom-designed" arrestin mutants will be valuable tools in defining the role of various interactions in the intricate interplay of multiple signaling pathways in the living cell. The identification of arrestin-binding sites for various signaling molecules will also set the stage for designing molecular tools for therapeutic intervention that may prove useful in numerous disorders associated with congenital or acquired disregulation of GPCR signaling.

Beta-arrestin1 and beta-arrestin2 are differentially required for phosphorylation-dependent and -independent internalization of delta-opioid receptors

Beta-arrestins are key negative regulators and scaffolds of G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signalling. Beta-arrestin1 and beta-arrestin2 preferentially bind to the phosphorylated GPCRs in response to agonist stimulation, resulting in receptor internalization and desensitization. The critical roles of GPCR kinases (GRKs)-catalyzed receptor phosphorylation and interaction of beta-arrestins with the phosphorylated receptor in receptor internalization are well established. However, emerging evidence suggests that an agonist-stimulated internalization mechanism that is independent of receptor phosphorylation may also be employed in some cases, although the molecular mechanism for the phosphorylation-independent GPCR internalization is not clear. The current study investigated the role of receptor phosphorylation and the involvement of different beta-arrestin subtypes in agonist-induced delta-opioid receptor (DOR) internalization in HEK293 cells. Results from flow cytometry, fluorescence microscopy, and surface biotin labelling experiments showed that elimination of agonist-induced DOR phosphorylation by mutation GRK binding or phosphorylation sites only partially blocked agonist-induced receptor internalization, indicating the presence of an agonist-induced, GRK-independent mechanism for DOR internalization. Fluorescence and co-immunoprecipitation studies indicated that both the wild-type DOR and the phosphorylation-deficient mutant receptor could bind and recruit beta-arrestin1 and beta-arrestin2 to the plasma membrane in an agonist-stimulated manner. Furthermore, internalization of both the wild-type and phosphorylation-deficient receptors was increased by overexpression of either type of beta-arrestins and blocked by dominant-negative mutants of beta-arrestin-mediated internalization, demonstrating that both phosphorylation-dependent and -independent internalization require beta-arrestin. Moreover, double-stranded RNA-mediated interference experiments showed that either beta-arrestin1 or beta-arrestin2 subtype-specific RNAi only partially inhibited agonist-induced internalization of the wild-type DOR. However, agonist-induced internalization of the phosphorylation-deficient DOR was not affected by beta-arrestin1-specific RNAi but was blocked by RNAi against beta-arrestin2 subtype. These data indicate that endogenous beta-arrestin1 functions exclusively in the phosphorylation-dependent receptor internalization, whereas endogenous beta-arrestin2, but not beta-arrestin1, is required for the phosphorylation-independent receptor internalization. These results thus provide the first evidence of different requirement for beta-arrestin isoforms in the agonist induced phosphorylation-dependent and -independent GPCR internalization.

Dopamine D1 receptor interaction with arrestin3 in neostriatal neurons

Dopamine D1 receptor interactions with arrestins have been characterized using heterologously expressed D1 receptor and arrestins. The purpose of this study was to investigate the interaction of the endogenous D1 receptor with endogenous arrestin2 and 3 in neostriatal neurons. Endogenous arrestin2 and 3 in striatal homogenates bound to the C-terminus of the D1 receptor in a glutathione-S-transferase (GST) pulldown assay, with arrestin3 binding more strongly. The D1 C-terminus and, to a lesser extent, the third cytoplasmic loop also bound purified arrestin2 and 3. In neostriatal neurons, 2, 5, and 20 min agonist treatment increased the colocalization of the D1 receptor and arrestin3 immunoreactivity without altering the colocalization of the D1 receptor and arrestin2. Further, agonist treatment for 5 and 20 min caused translocation of arrestin3, but not arrestin2, to the membrane. The binding of arrestin3, but not arrestin2, to the D1 receptor was increased as assessed by coimmunoprecipitation after agonist treatment for 5 and 20 min. Agonist treatment of neurons induced D1 receptor internalization (35-45%) that was maximal within 2-5 min, a time-course similar to that of the increase in colocalization of the D1 receptor with arrestin3. These data indicate that the D1 receptor preferentially interacts with arrestin3 in neostriatal neurons.

Stable Interaction between β-Arrestin 2 and Angiotensin Type 1A Receptor Is Required for β-Arrestin 2-mediated Activation of Extracellular Signal-regulated Kinases 1 and 2

Binding of beta-arrestins to seven-membrane-spanning receptors (7MSRs) not only leads to receptor desensitization and endocytosis but also elicits additional signaling processes. We recently proposed that stimulation of the angiotensin type 1A (AT(1A)) receptor results in independent beta-arrestin 2- and G protein-mediated extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1 and 2 (ERK1/2) activation. Here we utilize two AT(1A) mutant receptors to study these independent pathways, one truncated at residue 324, thus removing all potential carboxyl-terminal phosphorylation sites, and the other bearing four mutations in the serine/threonine-rich clusters in the carboxyl terminus. As assessed by confocal microscopy, the two mutant receptors interacted with beta-arrestin 2-green fluorescent protein with much lower affinity than did the wild-type receptor. In addition, the mutant receptors more robustly stimulated G protein-mediated inositol phosphate production. Approximately one-half of the wild-type AT(1A) receptor-stimulated ERK1/2 activation was via a beta-arrestin 2-dependent pathway (suppressed by beta-arrestin 2 small interfering RNA), whereas the rest was mediated by a G protein-dependent pathway (suppressed by protein kinase C inhibitor). ERK1/2 activation by the mutant receptors was insensitive to beta-arrestin 2 small interfering RNA but was reduced more than 80% by a protein kinase C inhibitor. The biochemical consequences of ERK activation by the G protein and beta-arrestin 2-dependent pathways were also distinct. G-protein-mediated ERK activation enhanced the transcription of early growth response 1, whereas beta-arrestin 2-dependent ERK activation did not. In addition, stimulation of the truncated AT(1A) mutant receptor caused significantly greater early growth response 1 transcription than did the wild-type receptor. These findings demonstrate how the ability of receptors to interact with beta-arrestins determines both the mechanism of ERK activation as well as the physiological consequences of this activation.

Preferential Interaction between the dopamine D2 receptor and Arrestin2 in neostriatal neurons

Dopamine D2 receptor interactions with arrestins and arrestin-dependent internalization have been characterized using heterologously expressed D2 receptor and arrestins. The purpose of this study was to investigate D2 receptor interaction with endogenous arrestins. Arrestin2 and arrestin3 in striatal homogenates bound to the third cytoplasmic loop of the D2 receptor, and purified arrestin2 and arrestin3 bound to the second and third loops and C terminus of the D2 receptor, in a glutathione S-transferase pull-down assay. In NS20Y neuroblastoma cells expressing an enhanced green-fluorescent protein-tagged D2 receptor (D2-EGFP), 2-h D2 agonist stimulation enhanced the colocalization of D2-EGFP with endogenous arrestin2 and arrestin3. These results suggest that the D2 receptor has the intrinsic ability to bind both nonvisual arrestins. Agonist treatment of D2-EGFP NS20Y cells induced D2 receptor internalization (36-46%) that was maximal within 20 min, but that was prevented by small interfering RNA-induced depletion of arrestin2 and arrestin3. In neostriatal neurons, 2-h agonist treatment selectively increased the colocalization of the endogenous D2 receptor with arrestin2, whereas receptor colocalization with arrestin3 was reduced. Agonist stimulation caused translocation of arrestin2, but not arrestin3, to the membrane in neurons and selectively enhanced the coimmunoprecipitation of the D2 receptor and arrestin2. All three measures of receptor/arrestin interaction (colocalization, translocation, and coprecipitation) demonstrated selective agonist-induced interaction between the D2 receptor and arrestin2 in neurons.

A survey of the year 2002 commercial optical biosensor literature

We have compiled 819 articles published in the year 2002 that involved commercial optical biosensor technology. The literature demonstrates that the technology's application continues to increase as biosensors are contributing to diverse scientific fields and are used to examine interactions ranging in size from small molecules to whole cells. Also, the variety of available commercial biosensor platforms is increasing and the expertise of users is improving. In this review, we use the literature to focus on the basic types of biosensor experiments, including kinetics, equilibrium analysis, solution competition, active concentration determination and screening. In addition, using examples of particularly well-performed analyses, we illustrate the high information content available in the primary response data and emphasize the impact of including figures in publications to support the results of biosensor analyses.

Arf GAPs: multifunctional proteins that regulate membrane traffic and actin remodelling

The ADP-ribosylation factor (Arf) Arf GTPase-activating proteins (GAPs) are a family of proteins that induce hydrolysis of GTP bound to Arf. A conserved domain containing a zinc finger motif mediates catalysis. The substrate, Arf.GTP, affects membrane trafficking and actin remodelling. Consistent with activity as an Arf regulator, the Arf GAPs affect both of these pathways. However, the Arf GAPs are likely to have Arf-independent activities that contribute to their cellular functions. Structures of the Arf GAPs are diverse containing catalytic, protein-protein interaction and lipid interaction domains in addition to the Arf GAP domain. Some Arf GAPs have been identified and characterized on the basis of activities other than Arf GAP. Here, we describe the Arf GAP family, enzymology of some members of the Arf GAP family and known functions of the proteins. The results discussed illustrate roles for both Arf-dependent and -independent activities in the regulation of cellular architecture.

Termination of protease-activated receptor-1 signaling by beta-arrestins is independent of receptor phosphorylation

Protease-activated receptor 1 (PAR1), a G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) for thrombin, is the prototypic member of a family of protease-activated receptors. PAR1 is irreversibly proteolytically activated; thus, the magnitude and duration of thrombin cellular responses are determined primarily by mechanisms responsible for termination of receptor signaling. Both phosphorylation and beta-arrestins contribute to rapid desensitization of PAR1 signaling. However, the relative contribution of each of these pathways to the termination of PAR1 signaling is not known. Co-expression of PAR1 with beta-arrestin 1 (betaarr1) in COS-7 cells resulted in a marked inhibition of PAR1 signaling, whereas beta-arrestin 2 (betaarr2) was essentially inactive. Strikingly, signaling by a PAR1 cytoplasmic tail mutant defective in agonist-induced phosphorylation was also attenuated more effectively by betaarr1 compared with betaarr2. In contrast, both beta-arrestin isoforms were equally effective at desensitizing the substance P receptor, a classic reversibly activated GPCR. PAR1 coimmunoprecipitated betaarr1 in an agonist-dependent manner, whereas betaarr2 association was virtually undetectable. Remarkably, betaarr1 also interacted with phosphorylation defective PAR1 mutant, whereas betaarr2 did not. Moreover, constitutively active beta-arrestin mutants, betaarr1 R169E and betaarr2 R170E, that bind to activated receptor independent of phosphorylation failed to enhance either wild type or mutant PAR1 desensitization compared with normal versions of these proteins. In contrast, beta-arrestin mutants displayed enhanced activity at desensitizing the serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine(2A) receptor. Taken together, these results suggest that, in addition to PAR1 cytoplasmic tail phosphorylation itself, beta-arrestin binding independent of phosphorylation promotes desensitization of PAR1 signaling. These findings reveal a new level of complexity in the regulation of protease-activated GPCR signaling.

Membrane organization of luteinizing hormone receptors differs between actively signaling and desensitized receptors

Signaling by the luteinizing hormone/choriogonadotropin receptor (LHR) is of considerable interest because of its requirement for successful reproduction. Time-resolved phosphorescence anisotropy and fluorescence resonance energy transfer were used to investigate the organization of endogenous LHRs in porcine follicular membranes in two distinct signaling states, active and desensitized. Desensitized LHRs exhibited approximately 3-fold slower rotational correlation times compared with active LHRs (59 +/- 4 and 21 +/- 9 mus, respectively), suggesting that with agonist-dependent desensitization the receptors are organized into larger protein complexes. Incubation of membranes with inhibitors of LHR desensitization, such as neutralizing anti-arrestin antibodies, a synthetic peptide corresponding to the third intracellular loop of the LHR but not the corresponding scrambled peptide, or catalytically inactive ARNO, resulted in faster rotational diffusion times equivalent to those of actively signaling LHRs. Furthermore, desensitized LHRs exhibited a 2.4-fold increase in fluorescence resonance energy transfer between LHRs suggesting that the larger protein aggregates formed during desensitization contain more self-associated LHRs. These results indicate that agonist-dependent LHR desensitization precedes organization of LHRs at the cells surface into larger protein aggregates.

Mapping the arrestin-receptor interface. Structural elements responsible for receptor specificity of arrestin proteins

Arrestins selectively bind to phosphorylated activated forms of their cognate G protein-coupled receptors. Arrestin binding prevents further G protein activation and often redirects signaling to other pathways. The comparison of the high-resolution crystal structures of arrestin2, visual arrestin, and rhodopsin as well as earlier mutagenesis and peptide inhibition data collectively suggest that the elements on the concave sides of both arrestin domains most likely participate in receptor binding directly, thereby dictating its receptor preference. Using comparative binding of visual arrestin/arrestin2 chimeras to the preferred target of visual arrestin, light-activated phosphorylated rhodopsin (PRh*), and to the arrestin2 target, phosphorylated activated m2 muscarinic receptor (P-m2 mAChR*), we identified the elements that determine the receptor specificity of arrestins. We found that residues 49-90 (beta-strands V and VI and adjacent loops in the N-domain) and 237-268 (beta-strands XV and XVI in the C-domain) in visual arrestin and homologous regions in arrestin2 are largely responsible for their receptor preference. Only 35 amino acids (22 of which are nonconservative substitutions) in the two elements are different. Simultaneous exchange of both elements between visual arrestin and arrestin2 fully reverses their receptor specificity, demonstrating that these two elements in the two domains of arrestin are necessary and sufficient to determine their preferred receptor targets.

The association of arrestin-3 with the follitropin receptor depends on receptor activation and phosphorylation

We have recently shown that the binding of arrestin-3 to the lutropin receptor (LHR) is dependent mostly on receptor activation rather than on phosphorylation. The experiments presented here were designed to test the involvement of these two events in the association of arrestin-3 with the closely related follitropin receptor (FSHR). Activation of the FSHR leads to the phosphorylation of residues in the first and third intracellular loops. Mutation of the phosphorylation sites in the third intracellular loop of the rat (r) FSHR partially reduces phosphorylation but has no effect on arrestin-3 association. Mutation of the phosphorylation sites in the first intracellular loop abolishes phosphorylation and arrestin-3 association. Dominant-negative mutants of G protein-coupled receptor kinase (GRKs) 2 and 6 inhibit rFSHR phosphorylation to the same extent but only the dominant-negative mutant of GRK2 inhibits arrestin-3 association. Two mutations of the rFSHR (D389N and Y530F) that impair activation and abolish phosphorylation also impair arrestin-3 binding. GRK2 restores the phosphorylation of both mutants but it restores arrestin-3 association only to the D389N mutant. We conclude that, in contrast to the data obtained with the LHR, the association of arrestin-3 with the FSHR is dependent on receptor phosphorylation. The phosphorylation of the third intracellular loop residues is not needed for arrestin-3 association, however.

Human substance P receptor lacking the C-terminal domain remains competent to desensitize and internalize

Substance P receptor (SPR) and its naturally occurring splice-variant, lacking the C-terminal tail, are found in brain and spinal cord. Whether C-terminally truncated SPR desensitizes like full-length SPR is controversial. We used a multivaried approach to determine whether human SPR (hSPR) and a C-terminally truncated mutant, hSPRDelta325, differ in their desensitization and internalization. In HEK-293 cells expressing either hSPRDelta325 or hSPR, SP-induced desensitization of the two receptors was similar when measured by inositol triphosphate accumulation or by transient translocation of coexpressed PKCbetaII-GFP to the plasma membrane. Moreover, translocation of beta-arrestin 1 or 2-GFP (betaarr1-GFP or betaarr2-GFP) to the plasma membrane, and receptor internalization were also similar. However, hSPR and hSPRDelta325 differ in their phosphorylation and in their ability to form beta-arrestin-containing endocytic vesicles. Unlike hSPR, hSPRDelta325 is not phosphorylated to a detectable level in intact HEK293 cells, and whereas hSPR forms vesicles containing either betaarr1-GFP or betaarr2-GFP, hSPRDelta325 does not form any vesicles with betaarr1-GFP, and forms fewer vesicles with betaarr2-GFP. We conclude that truncated hSPR undergoes agonist-dependent desensitization and internalization without detectable receptor phosphorylation.

ARF6: a newly appreciated player in G protein-coupled receptor desensitization

The luteinizing hormone/choriogonadotropin hormone receptor (LH/CG R) signals to regulate ovulation, corpus luteum formation, and fetal survival during pregnancy. Agonist binding to the LH/CG R is poorly reversible, emphasizing the importance of a cellular mechanism to temper signaling by a potentially persistently active receptor. Like other G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), signaling by this receptor is modulated by its binding of an arrestin. We have identified ADP ribosylation factor 6 (ARF6) as a protein whose activation state is regulated by the LH/CG R and which functions to regulate the availability of plasma membrane-docked arrestin 2 to this receptor. We hypothesize that ARF6 might also serve GPCRs other than the LH/CG R to regulate the availability of arrestin 2 for receptor desensitization.