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

The Role of Individual Residues in the N-Terminus of Arrestin-1 in Rhodopsin Binding

Sequences and three-dimensional structures of the four vertebrate arrestins are very similar, yet in sharp contrast to other subtypes, arrestin-1 demonstrates exquisite selectivity for the active phosphorylated form of its cognate receptor, rhodopsin. The N-terminus participates in receptor binding and serves as the anchor of the C-terminus, the release of which facilitates arrestin transition into a receptor-binding state. We tested the effects of substitutions of fourteen residues in the N-terminus of arrestin-1 on the binding to phosphorylated and unphosphorylated light-activated rhodopsin of wild-type protein and its enhanced mutant with C-terminal deletion that demonstrates higher binding to both functional forms of rhodopsin. Profound effects of mutations identified lysine-15 as the main phosphate sensor and phenylalanine-13 as the key anchor of the C-terminus. These residues are conserved in all arrestin subtypes. Substitutions of five other residues reduced arrestin-1 selectivity for phosphorylated rhodopsin, indicating that wild-type residues participate in fine-tuning of arrestin-1 binding. Differential effects of numerous substitutions in wild-type and an enhanced mutant arrestin-1 suggest that these two proteins bind rhodopsin differently.

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.

Expression of Untagged Arrestins in E. coli and Their Purification

Purified arrestin proteins are necessary for biochemical, biophysical, and structural studies of these versatile regulators of cell signaling. Described herein is a basic protocol for arrestin expression in Escherichia coli and purification of tag-free wild-type and mutant arrestins. The method includes ammonium sulfate precipitation of arrestins from cell lysates, followed by Heparin-Sepharose chromatography. Depending on the arrestin type and/or mutations, the next step is Q-Sepharose or SP-Sepharose chromatography. In many cases, the nonbinding column is used as a filter to bind contaminants without retaining arrestin. In some cases, both chromatographic steps must be performed sequentially to achieve high purity. Purified arrestins can be concentrated up to 10 mg/ml, remain fully functional, and withstand several cycles of freezing and thawing, provided that the overall salt concentration is maintained at or above physiological levels. © 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol: Large-scale expression and purification of arrestins Alternate Protocol: Purification of arrestin-3 and truncated form of arrestin-1-(1-378) Support Protocol: Small-scale test expression of wild-type and mutant arrestins in E. coli.

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

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

The Role of Arrestin-1 Middle Loop in Rhodopsin Binding

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

The finger loop as an activation sensor in arrestin

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

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

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

Dissecting the structural features of β-arrestins as multifunctional proteins

β-arrestins bind active G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) and play a crucial role in receptor desensitization and internalization. The classical paradigm of arrestin function has been expanded with the identification of many non-receptor-binding partners, which indicated the multifunctional role of β-arrestins in cellular functions. To elucidate the molecular mechanism of β-arrestin-mediated signaling, the structural features of β-arrestins were investigated using X-ray crystallography and cryogenic electron microscopy (cryo-EM). However, the intrinsic conformational flexibility of β-arrestins hampers the elucidation of structural interactions between β-arrestins and their binding partners using conventional structure determination tools. Therefore, structural information obtained using complementary structure analysis techniques would be necessary in combination with X-ray crystallography and cryo-EM data. In this review, we describe how β-arrestins interact with their binding partners from a structural point of view, as elucidated by both traditional methods (X-ray crystallography and cryo-EM) and complementary structure analysis techniques.

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.

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.

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).

Arrestins: structural disorder creates rich functionality

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

Arrestin mutations: Some cause diseases, others promise cure

Arrestins play a key role in homologous desensitization of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) and regulate several other vital signaling pathways in cells. Considering the critical roles of these proteins in cellular signaling, surprisingly few disease-causing mutations in human arrestins were described. Most of these are loss-of-function mutations of visual arrestin-1 that cause excessive rhodopsin signaling and hence night blindness. Only one dominant arrestin-1 mutation was discovered so far. It reduces the thermal stability of the protein, which likely results in photoreceptor death via unfolded protein response. In case of the two nonvisual arrestins, only polymorphisms were described, some of which appear to be associated with neurological disorders and altered response to certain treatments. Structure-function studies revealed several ways of enhancing arrestins' ability to quench GPCR signaling. These enhanced arrestins have potential as tools for gene therapy of disorders associated with excessive signaling of mutant GPCRs.

Molecular mechanism of GPCR-mediated arrestin activation

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

Molecular Defects of the Disease-Causing Human Arrestin-1 C147F Mutant

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to identify the molecular defect in the disease-causing human arrestin-1 C147F mutant.

METHODS

The binding of wild-type (WT) human arrestin-1 and several mutants with substitutions in position 147 (including C147F, which causes dominant retinitis pigmentosa in humans) to phosphorylated and unphosphorylated light-activated rhodopsin was determined. Thermal stability of WT and mutant human arrestin-1, as well as unfolded protein response in 661W cells, were also evaluated.

RESULTS

WT human arrestin-1 was selective for phosphorylated light-activated rhodopsin. Substitutions of Cys-147 with smaller side chain residues, Ala or Val, did not substantially affect binding selectivity, whereas residues with bulky side chains in the position 147 (Ile, Leu, and disease-causing Phe) greatly increased the binding to unphosphorylated rhodopsin. Functional survival of mutant proteins with bulky substitutions at physiological and elevated temperature was also compromised. C147F mutant induced unfolded protein response in cultured cells.

CONCLUSIONS

Bulky Phe substitution of Cys-147 in human arrestin-1 likely causes rod degeneration due to reduced stability of the protein, which induces unfolded protein response in expressing cells.

Molecular Mechanisms of GPCR Signaling: A Structural Perspective

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

Differential manipulation of arrestin-3 binding to basal and agonist-activated G protein-coupled receptors

Non-visual arrestins interact with hundreds of different G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Here we show that by introducing mutations into elements that directly bind receptors, the specificity of arrestin-3 can be altered. Several mutations in the two parts of the central "crest" of the arrestin molecule, middle-loop and C-loop, enhanced or reduced arrestin-3 interactions with several GPCRs in receptor subtype and functional state-specific manner. For example, the Lys139Ile substitution in the middle-loop dramatically enhanced the binding to inactive M2 muscarinic receptor, so that agonist activation of the M2 did not further increase arrestin-3 binding. Thus, the Lys139Ile mutation made arrestin-3 essentially an activation-independent binding partner of M2, whereas its interactions with other receptors, including the β2-adrenergic receptor and the D1 and D2 dopamine receptors, retained normal activation dependence. In contrast, the Ala248Val mutation enhanced agonist-induced arrestin-3 binding to the β2-adrenergic and D2 dopamine receptors, while reducing its interaction with the D1 dopamine receptor. These mutations represent the first example of altering arrestin specificity via enhancement of the arrestin-receptor interactions rather than selective reduction of the binding to certain subtypes.

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

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

Structural mechanism of arrestin activation

The large and multifunctional family of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are regulated by a small family of structurally conserved arrestin proteins. In order to bind an active GPCR, arrestin must first be activated by interaction with the phosphorylated receptor C-terminus. Recent years have witnessed major developments in high-resolution crystal structures of pre-active arrestins and arrestin or arrestin-derived peptides in complex with an active GPCR. Although each structure individually offers only a limited snapshot, taken together and interpreted in light of recent complementary functional data, they offer valuable insight into how arrestin is activated by and couples to a phosphorylated active GPCR.

A Novel Dominant Mutation in SAG, the Arrestin-1 Gene, Is a Common Cause of Retinitis Pigmentosa in Hispanic Families in the Southwestern United States

PURPOSE

To identify the causes of autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa (adRP) in a cohort of families without mutations in known adRP genes and consequently to characterize a novel dominant-acting missense mutation in SAG.

METHODS

Patients underwent ophthalmologic testing and were screened for mutations using targeted-capture and whole-exome next-generation sequencing. Confirmation and additional screening were done by Sanger sequencing. Haplotypes segregating with the mutation were determined using short tandem repeat and single nucleotide variant polymorphisms. Genealogies were established by interviews of family members.

RESULTS

Eight families in a cohort of 300 adRP families, and four additional families, were found to have a novel heterozygous mutation in the SAG gene, c.440G>T; p.Cys147Phe. Patients exhibited symptoms of retinitis pigmentosa and none showed symptoms characteristic of Oguchi disease. All families are of Hispanic descent and most were ascertained in Texas or California. A single haplotype including the SAG mutation was identified in all families. The mutation dramatically alters a conserved amino acid, is extremely rare in global databases, and was not found in 4000+ exomes from Hispanic controls. Molecular modeling based on the crystal structure of bovine arrestin-1 predicts protein misfolding/instability.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first dominant-acting mutation identified in SAG, a founder mutation possibly originating in Mexico several centuries ago. The phenotype is clearly adRP and is distinct from the previously reported phenotypes of recessive null mutations, that is, Oguchi disease and recessive RP. The mutation accounts for 3% of the 300 families in the adRP Cohort and 36% of Hispanic families in this cohort.

Structural evidence for the role of polar core residue Arg175 in arrestin activation

Binding mechanism of arrestin requires photoactivation and phosphorylation of the receptor protein rhodopsin, where the receptor bound phosphate groups cause displacement of the long C-tail ‘activating’ arrestin. Mutation of arginine 175 to glutamic acid (R175E), a central residue in the polar core and previously predicted as the ‘phosphosensor’ leads to a pre-active arrestin that is able to terminate phototransduction by binding to non-phosphorylated, light-activated rhodopsin. Here, we report the first crystal structure of a R175E mutant arrestin at 2.7 Å resolution that reveals significant differences compared to the basal state reported in full-length arrestin structures. These differences comprise disruption of hydrogen bond network in the polar core, and three-element interaction including disordering of several residues in the receptor-binding finger loop and the C-terminus (residues 361–404). Additionally, R175E structure shows a 7.5° rotation of the amino and carboxy-terminal domains relative to each other. Consistent to the biochemical data, our structure suggests an important role of R29 in the initial activation step of C-tail release. Comparison of the crystal structures of basal arrestin and R175E mutant provide insights into the mechanism of arrestin activation, where binding of the receptor likely induces structural changes mimicked as in R175E.

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.

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.

C-terminal threonines and serines play distinct roles in the desensitization of rhodopsin, a G protein-coupled receptor

Rod photoreceptors generate measurable responses to single-photon activation of individual molecules of the G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR), rhodopsin. Timely rhodopsin desensitization depends on phosphorylation and arrestin binding, which quenches G protein activation. Rhodopsin phosphorylation has been measured biochemically at C-terminal serine residues, suggesting that these residues are critical for producing fast, low-noise responses. The role of native threonine residues is unclear. We compared single-photon responses from rhodopsin lacking native serine or threonine phosphorylation sites. Contrary to expectation, serine-only rhodopsin generated prolonged step-like single-photon responses that terminated abruptly and randomly, whereas threonine-only rhodopsin generated responses that were only modestly slower than normal. We show that the step-like responses of serine-only rhodopsin reflect slow and stochastic arrestin binding. Thus, threonine sites play a privileged role in promoting timely arrestin binding and rhodopsin desensitization. Similar coordination of phosphorylation and arrestin binding may more generally permit tight control of the duration of GPCR activity.

The rhodopsin-arrestin-1 interaction in bicelles

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

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

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

Arrestin expression in E. coli and purification

Purified arrestin proteins are necessary for biochemical, biophysical, and crystallographic studies of these versatile regulators of cell signaling. Described herein is a basic protocol for arrestin expression in E. coli and purification of the tag-free wild-type and mutant arrestins. The method includes ammonium sulfate precipitation of arrestins from cell lysates, followed by heparin-Sepharose chromatography. Depending on the arrestin type and/or mutations, the next step is Q-Sepharose or SP-Sepharose chromatography. In many cases the nonbinding column is used as a filter to bind contaminants without retaining arrestin. In some cases both chromatographic steps must be performed sequentially to achieve high purity. Purified arrestins can be concentrated up to 10 mg/ml, remain fully functional, and withstand several cycles of freezing and thawing, provided that overall salt concentration is maintained at or above physiological levels.

Identification of receptor binding-induced conformational changes in non-visual arrestins

The non-visual arrestins, arrestin-2 and arrestin-3, belong to a small family of multifunctional cytosolic proteins. Non-visual arrestins interact with hundreds of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) and regulate GPCR desensitization by binding active phosphorylated GPCRs and uncoupling them from heterotrimeric G proteins. Recently, non-visual arrestins have been shown to mediate G protein-independent signaling by serving as adaptors and scaffolds that assemble multiprotein complexes. By recruiting various partners, including trafficking and signaling proteins, directly to GPCRs, non-visual arrestins connect activated receptors to diverse signaling pathways. To investigate arrestin-mediated signaling, a structural understanding of arrestin activation and interaction with GPCRs is essential. Here we identified global and local conformational changes in the non-visual arrestins upon binding to the model GPCR rhodopsin. To detect conformational changes, pairs of spin labels were introduced into arrestin-2 and arrestin-3, and the interspin distances in the absence and presence of the receptor were measured by double electron electron resonance spectroscopy. Our data indicate that both non-visual arrestins undergo several conformational changes similar to arrestin-1, including the finger loop moving toward the predicted location of the receptor in the complex as well as the C-tail release upon receptor binding. The arrestin-2 results also suggest that there is no clam shell-like closure of the N- and C-domains and that the loop containing residue 136 (homolog of 139 in arrestin-1) has high flexibility in both free and receptor-bound states.

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.

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.

Functional map of arrestin-1 at single amino acid resolution

Arrestins function as adapter proteins that mediate G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) desensitization, internalization, and additional rounds of signaling. Here we have compared binding of the GPCR rhodopsin to 403 mutants of arrestin-1 covering its complete sequence. This comprehensive and unbiased mutagenesis approach provides a functional dimension to the crystal structures of inactive, preactivated p44 and phosphopeptide-bound arrestins and will guide our understanding of arrestin-GPCR complexes. The presented functional map quantitatively connects critical interactions in the polar core and along the C tail of arrestin. A series of amino acids (Phe375, Phe377, Phe380, and Arg382) anchor the C tail in a position that blocks binding of the receptor. Interaction of phosphates in the rhodopsin C terminus with Arg29 controls a C-tail exchange mechanism in which the C tail of arrestin is released and exposes several charged amino acids (Lys14, Lys15, Arg18, Lys20, Lys110, and Lys300) for binding of the phosphorylated receptor C terminus. In addition to this arrestin phosphosensor, our data reveal several patches of amino acids in the finger (Gln69 and Asp73-Met75) and the lariat loops (L249-S252 and Y254) that can act as direct binding interfaces. A stretch of amino acids at the edge of the C domain (Trp194-Ser199, Gly337-Gly340, Thr343, and Thr345) could act as membrane anchor, binding interface for a second rhodopsin, or rearrange closer to the central loops upon complex formation. We discuss these interfaces in the context of experimentally guided docking between the crystal structures of arrestin and light-activated rhodopsin.

Enhanced phosphorylation-independent arrestins and gene therapy

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

Targeting individual GPCRs with redesigned nonvisual arrestins

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

Arrestin-dependent activation of JNK family kinases

The activity of all mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs) is stimulated via phosphorylation by upstream MAPK kinases (MAPKK), which are in their turn activated via phosphorylation by MAPKK kinases (MAPKKKs). The cells ensure the specificity of signaling in these cascades by employing a variety of scaffolding proteins that bind matching MAPKKKs, MAPKKs, and MAPKs. All four vertebrate arrestin subtypes bind JNK3, but only arrestin-3 serves as a scaffold, promoting JNK3 activation in intact cells. Arrestin-3-mediated JNK3 activation does not depend on arrestin-3 interaction with G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), as demonstrated by the ability of some arrestin mutants that cannot bind receptors to activate JNK3, whereas certain mutants with enhanced GPCR binding fail to promote JNK3 activation. Recent findings suggest that arrestin-3 directly binds both MAPKKs necessary for JNK activation and facilitates JNK3 phosphorylation at both Thr (by MKK4) and Tyr (by MKK7). JNK3 is expressed in a limited set of cell types, whereas JNK1 and JNK2 isoforms are as ubiquitous as arrestin-3. Recent study showed that arrestin-3 facilitates the activation of JNK1 and JNK2, scaffolding MKK4/7-JNK1/2/3 signaling complexes. In all cases, arrestin-3 acts by bringing the kinases together: JNK phosphorylation shows biphasic dependence on arrestin-3, being enhanced at lower and suppressed at supraoptimal concentrations. Thus, arrestin-3 regulates the activity of multiple JNK isoforms, suggesting that it might play a role in survival and apoptosis of all cell types.

Not just signal shutoff: the protective role of arrestin-1 in rod cells

The retinal rod cell is an exquisitely sensitive single-photon detector that primarily functions in dim light (e.g., moonlight). However, rod cells must routinely survive light intensities more than a billion times greater (e.g., bright daylight). One serious challenge to rod cell survival in daylight is the massive amount of all-trans-retinal that is released by Meta II, the light-activated form of the photoreceptor rhodopsin. All-trans-retinal is toxic, and its condensation products have been implicated in disease. Our recent work has developed the concept that rod arrestin (arrestin-1), which terminates Meta II signaling, has an additional role in protecting rod cells from the consequences of bright light by limiting free all-trans-retinal. In this chapter we will elaborate upon the molecular mechanisms by which arrestin-1 serves as both a single-photon response quencher as well as an instrument of rod cell survival in bright light. This discussion will take place within the framework of three distinct functional modules of vision: signal transduction, the retinoid cycle, and protein translocation.

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.

Rapid degeneration of rod photoreceptors expressing self-association-deficient arrestin-1 mutant

Arrestin-1 binds light-activated phosphorhodopsin and ensures timely signal shutoff. We show that high transgenic expression of an arrestin-1 mutant with enhanced rhodopsin binding and impaired oligomerization causes apoptotic rod death in mice. Dark rearing does not prevent mutant-induced cell death, ruling out the role of arrestin complexes with light-activated rhodopsin. Similar expression of WT arrestin-1 that robustly oligomerizes, which leads to only modest increase in the monomer concentration, does not affect rod survival. Moreover, WT arrestin-1 co-expressed with the mutant delays retinal degeneration. Thus, arrestin-1 mutant directly affects cell survival via binding partner(s) other than light-activated rhodopsin. Due to impaired self-association of the mutant its high expression dramatically increases the concentration of the monomer. The data suggest that monomeric arrestin-1 is cytotoxic and WT arrestin-1 protects rods by forming mixed oligomers with the mutant and/or competing with it for the binding to non-receptor partners. Thus, arrestin-1 self-association likely serves to keep low concentration of the toxic monomer. The reduction of the concentration of harmful monomer is an earlier unappreciated biological function of protein oligomerization.

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.

Crystal structure of pre-activated arrestin p44

Arrestins interact with G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) to block interaction with G proteins and initiate G-protein-independent signalling. Arrestins have a bi-lobed structure that is stabilized by a long carboxy-terminal tail (C-tail), and displacement of the C-tail by receptor-attached phosphates activates arrestins for binding active GPCRs. Structures of the inactive state of arrestin are available, but it is not known how C-tail displacement activates arrestin for receptor coupling. Here we present a 3.0 Å crystal structure of the bovine arrestin-1 splice variant p44, in which the activation step is mimicked by C-tail truncation. The structure of this pre-activated arrestin is profoundly different from the basal state and gives insight into the activation mechanism. p44 displays breakage of the central polar core and other interlobe hydrogen-bond networks, leading to a ∼21° rotation of the two lobes as compared to basal arrestin-1. Rearrangements in key receptor-binding loops in the central crest region include the finger loop, loop 139 (refs 8, 10, 11) and the sequence Asp 296-Asn 305 (or gate loop), here identified as controlling the polar core. We verified the role of these conformational alterations in arrestin activation and receptor binding by site-directed fluorescence spectroscopy. The data indicate a mechanism for arrestin activation in which C-tail displacement releases critical central-crest loops from restricted to extended receptor-interacting conformations. In parallel, increased flexibility between the two lobes facilitates a proper fitting of arrestin to the active receptor surface. Our results provide a snapshot of an arrestin ready to bind the active receptor, and give an insight into the role of naturally occurring truncated arrestins in the visual system.