The differential engagement of arrestin surface charges by the various functional forms of the receptor

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.

Proximity Labeling to Identify β-Arrestin1 Binding Partners Downstream of Ligand-Activated G Protein-Coupled Receptors

β-arrestins are multifaceted adaptor proteins that regulate various aspects of G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling. β-arrestins are recruited to agonist-activated and phosphorylated GPCRs at the plasma membrane, thereby preventing G protein coupling, while also targeting GPCRs for internalization via clathrin-coated pits. In addition, β-arrestins can activate various effector molecules to prosecute their role in GPCR signaling; however, the full extent of their interacting partners remains unknown. To discover potentially novel β-arrestin interacting partners, we used APEX-based proximity labeling coupled with affinity purification and quantitative mass spectrometry. We appended APEX in-frame to the C-terminus of β-arrestin1 (βarr1-APEX), which we show does not impact its ability to support agonist-stimulated internalization of GPCRs. By using coimmunoprecipitation, we show that βarr1-APEX interacts with known interacting proteins. Furthermore, following agonist stimulation βarr1-APEX labeled known βarr1-interacting partners as assessed by streptavidin affinity purification and immunoblotting. Aliquots were prepared in a similar manner and analyzed by tandem mass tag labeling and high-content quantitative mass spectrometry. Several proteins were found to be increased in abundance following GPCR stimulation. Biochemical experiments confirmed two novel proteins that interact with β-arrestin1, which we predict are novel ligand-stimulated βarr1 interacting partners. Our study highlights that βarr1-APEX-based proximity labeling represents a valuable approach to identifying novel players involved in GPCR signaling.

Biological Role of Arrestin-1 Oligomerization

Members of the arrestin superfamily have great propensity of self-association, but the physiological significance of this phenomenon is unclear. To determine the biological role of visual arrestin-1 oligomerization in rod photoreceptors, we expressed mutant arrestin-1 with severely impaired self-association in mouse rods and analyzed mice of both sexes. We show that the oligomerization-deficient mutant is capable of quenching rhodopsin signaling normally, as judged by electroretinography and single-cell recording. Like wild type, mutant arrestin-1 is largely excluded from the outer segments in the dark, proving that the normal intracellular localization is not due the size exclusion of arrestin-1 oligomers. In contrast to wild type, supraphysiological expression of the mutant causes shortening of the outer segments and photoreceptor death. Thus, oligomerization reduces the cytotoxicity of arrestin-1 monomer, ensuring long-term photoreceptor survival.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Visual arrestin-1 forms dimers and tetramers. The biological role of its oligomerization is unclear. To test the role of arrestin-1 self-association, we expressed oligomerization-deficient mutant in arrestin-1 knock-out mice. The mutant quenches light-induced rhodopsin signaling like wild type, demonstrating that in vivo monomeric arrestin-1 is necessary and sufficient for this function. In rods, arrestin-1 moves from the inner segments and cell bodies in the dark to the outer segments in the light. Nonoligomerizing mutant undergoes the same translocation, demonstrating that the size of the oligomers is not the reason for arrestin-1 exclusion from the outer segments in the dark. High expression of oligomerization-deficient arrestin-1 resulted in rod death. Thus, oligomerization reduces the cytotoxicity of high levels of arrestin-1 monomer.

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

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

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.

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.

Critical role of the finger loop in arrestin binding to the receptors

We tested the interactions with four different G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) of arrestin-3 mutants with substitutions in the four loops, three of which contact the receptor in the structure of the arrestin-1-rhodopsin complex. Point mutations in the loop at the distal tip of the N-domain (Glu157Ala), in the C-loop (Phe255Ala), back loop (Lys313Ala), and one of the mutations in the finger loop (Gly65Pro) had mild variable effects on receptor binding. In contrast, the deletion of Gly65 at the beginning of the finger loop reduced the binding to all GPCRs tested, with the binding to dopamine D2 receptor being affected most dramatically. Thus, the presence of a glycine at the beginning of the finger loop appears to be critical for the arrestin-receptor interaction.

To sense or not to sense-new insights from GPCR-based and arrestin-based biosensors

Advances in resolving crystal structures of GPCRs and their binding partners as well as improvements in live-cell microscopy and the fluorescent proteins pallet has greatly driven new ideas for designing optical sensors for the same. Sensors have been developed to monitor ligand binding as well as the ensuing ligand-induced conformational changes in GPCRs, G-proteins and arrestins. In this review we will highlight the functionality of such sensor designs starting from monitoring ligand binding to receptor activation and interaction with arrestins. Furthermore, we will highlight the importance of sensor designs to monitor receptor-dependent arrestin conformations and give an idea about the various detected arrestin conformations and their possible implications.

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.

Arrestins: Introducing Signaling Bias Into Multifunctional Proteins

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

Structural Basis of Arrestin-Dependent Signal Transduction

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

Molecular mechanism of GPCR-mediated arrestin activation

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

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.

Uncovering missing pieces: duplication and deletion history of arrestins in deuterostomes

BACKGROUND

The cytosolic arrestin proteins mediate desensitization of activated G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) via competition with G proteins for the active phosphorylated receptors. Arrestins in active, including receptor-bound, conformation are also transducers of signaling. Therefore, this protein family is an attractive therapeutic target. The signaling outcome is believed to be a result of structural and sequence-dependent interactions of arrestins with GPCRs and other protein partners. Here we elucidated the detailed evolution of arrestins in deuterostomes.

RESULTS

Identity and number of arrestin paralogs were determined searching deuterostome genomes and gene expression data. In contrast to standard gene prediction methods, our strategy first detects exons situated on different scaffolds and then solves the problem of assigning them to the correct gene. This increases both the completeness and the accuracy of the annotation in comparison to conventional database search strategies applied by the community. The employed strategy enabled us to map in detail the duplication- and deletion history of arrestin paralogs including tandem duplications, pseudogenizations and the formation of retrogenes. The two rounds of whole genome duplications in the vertebrate stem lineage gave rise to four arrestin paralogs. Surprisingly, visual arrestin ARR3 was lost in the mammalian clades Afrotheria and Xenarthra. Duplications in specific clades, on the other hand, must have given rise to new paralogs that show signatures of diversification in functional elements important for receptor binding and phosphate sensing.

CONCLUSION

The current study traces the functional evolution of deuterostome arrestins in unprecedented detail. Based on a precise re-annotation of the exon-intron structure at nucleotide resolution, we infer the gain and loss of paralogs and patterns of conservation, co-variation and selection.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Functional map of arrestin binding to phosphorylated opsin, with and without agonist

Arrestins desensitize G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) and act as mediators of signalling. Here we investigated the interactions of arrestin-1 with two functionally distinct forms of the dim-light photoreceptor rhodopsin. Using unbiased scanning mutagenesis we probed the individual contribution of each arrestin residue to the interaction with the phosphorylated apo-receptor (Ops-P) and the agonist-bound form (Meta II-P). Disruption of the polar core or displacement of the C-tail strengthened binding to both receptor forms. In contrast, mutations of phosphate-binding residues (phosphosensors) suggest the phosphorylated receptor C-terminus binds arrestin differently for Meta II-P and Ops-P. Likewise, mutations within the inter-domain interface, variations in the receptor-binding loops and the C-edge of arrestin reveal different binding modes. In summary, our results indicate that arrestin-1 binding to Meta II-P and Ops-P is similarly dependent on arrestin activation, although the complexes formed with these two receptor forms are structurally distinct.

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

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

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.

Molecular mechanism of phosphorylation-dependent arrestin activation

The past years have seen tremendous progress towards understanding how arrestins recognize phosphorylated G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Two arrestin crystal structures, one of a pre-activated splice variant and one bound to a GPCR phosphopeptide, provided insights into the conformational changes upon phosphate recognition. Scanning mutagenesis and spectroscopic studies complete the picture of arrestin activation and receptor binding. Most perspicuous is the C-tail exchange mechanism, by which the C-tail of arrestin is released from its basal conformation and replaced by the phosphorylated GPCR C-terminus. Three positively charged clusters could act as conserved arrestin phosphosensors. Variations in the pattern of phosphorylation in a GPCR and variations within the C-terminus of different GPCRs may encode specificity to arrestin subtypes and particular physiological responses.

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

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

Therapeutic potential of small molecules and engineered proteins

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

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

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

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.

Self-association of arrestin family members

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

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.

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.

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

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

Structural determinants of arrestin functions

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

Involvement of distinct arrestin-1 elements in binding to different functional forms of rhodopsin

Solution NMR spectroscopy of labeled arrestin-1 was used to explore its interactions with dark-state phosphorylated rhodopsin (P-Rh), phosphorylated opsin (P-opsin), unphosphorylated light-activated rhodopsin (Rh*), and phosphorylated light-activated rhodopsin (P-Rh*). Distinct sets of arrestin-1 elements were seen to be engaged by Rh* and inactive P-Rh, which induced conformational changes that differed from those triggered by binding of P-Rh*. Although arrestin-1 affinity for Rh* was seen to be low (K(D) > 150 μM), its affinity for P-Rh (K(D) ~80 μM) was comparable to the concentration of active monomeric arrestin-1 in the outer segment, suggesting that P-Rh generated by high-gain phosphorylation is occupied by arrestin-1 under physiological conditions and will not signal upon photo-activation. Arrestin-1 was seen to bind P-Rh* and P-opsin with fairly high affinity (K(D) of~50 and 800 nM, respectively), implying that arrestin-1 dissociation is triggered only upon P-opsin regeneration with 11-cis-retinal, precluding noise generated by opsin activity. Based on their observed affinity for arrestin-1, P-opsin and inactive P-Rh very likely affect the physiological monomer-dimer-tetramer equilibrium of arrestin-1, and should therefore be taken into account when modeling photoreceptor function. The data also suggested that complex formation with either P-Rh* or P-opsin results in a global transition in the conformation of arrestin-1, possibly to a dynamic molten globule-like structure. We hypothesize that this transition contributes to the mechanism that triggers preferential interactions of several signaling proteins with receptor-activated arrestins.

Engineering visual arrestin-1 with special functional characteristics

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

Distinct loops in arrestin differentially regulate ligand binding within the GPCR opsin

G-protein-coupled receptors are universally regulated by arrestin binding. Here we show that rod arrestin induces uptake of the agonist all-trans-retinol in only half the population of phosphorylated opsin in the native membrane. Agonist uptake blocks subsequent entry of the inverse agonist 11-cis-retinal (that is, regeneration of rhodopsin), but regeneration is not blocked in the other half of aporeceptors. Environmentally sensitive fluorophores attached to arrestin reported that conformational changes in loop^V−VI (N-domain) are coupled to the entry of agonist, while loop^XVIII−XIX (C-domain) engages the aporeceptor even before agonist is added. The data are most consistent with a model in which each domain of arrestin engages its own aporeceptor, and the different binding preferences of the domains lead to asymmetric ligand binding by the aporeceptors. Such a mechanism would protect the rod cell in bright light by concurrently sequestering toxic all-trans-retinol and allowing regeneration with 11-cis-retinal.

Following retinal cis/trans isomerisation, the active form of the G-protein-coupled receptor rhodopsin decays to opsin and all-trans-retinal. In this study, arrestin, a regulator of G-protein-coupled receptor activity, is shown to facilitate the concurrent sequestering of toxic all-trans-retinal and regeneration of 11-cis-retinal within the opsin population.

Synthetic biology with surgical precision: targeted reengineering of signaling proteins

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

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

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

Differential association of receptor-Gβγ complexes with β-arrestin2 determines recycling bias and potential for tolerance of δ opioid receptor agonists

Opioid tendency to generate analgesic tolerance has been previously linked to biased internalization. Here, we assessed an alternative possibility; whether tolerance of delta opioid receptor agonists (DORs) could be related to agonist-specific recycling. A first series of experiments revealed that DOR internalization by DPDPE and SNC-80 was similar, but only DPDPE induced recycling. We then established that the non-recycling agonist SNC-80 generated acute analgesic tolerance that was absent in mice treated with DPDPE. Furthermore, both agonists stabilized different conformations, whose distinct interaction with Gβγ subunits led to different modalities of β-arrestin2 (βarr2) recruitment. In particular, bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) assays revealed that sustained activation by SNC-80 drew the receptor C terminus in close proximity of the N-terminal domain of Gγ2, causing βarr2 to interact with receptors and Gβγ subunits. DPDPE moved the receptor C-tail away from the Gβγ dimer, resulting in βarr2 recruitment to the receptor but not in the vicinity of Gγ2. These differences were associated with stable DOR-βarr2 association, poor recycling, and marked desensitization following exposure to SNC-80, while DPDPE promoted transient receptor interaction with βarr2 and effective recycling, which conferred protection from desensitization. Together, these data indicate that DORs may adopt ligand-specific conformations whose distinct recycling properties determine the extent of desensitization and are predictive of analgesic tolerance. Based on these findings, we propose that the development of functionally selective DOR ligands that favor recycling could constitute a valid strategy for the production of longer acting opioid analgesics.

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 effect of arrestin conformation on the recruitment of c-Raf1, MEK1, and ERK1/2 activation

Arrestins are multifunctional signaling adaptors originally discovered as proteins that “arrest” G protein activation by G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Recently GPCR complexes with arrestins have been proposed to activate G protein-independent signaling pathways. In particular, arrestin-dependent activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 (ERK1/2) has been demonstrated. Here we have performed in vitro binding assays with pure proteins to demonstrate for the first time that ERK2 directly binds free arrestin-2 and -3, as well as receptor-associated arrestins-1, -2, and -3. In addition, we showed that in COS-7 cells arrestin-2 and -3 association with β₂-adrenergic receptor (β2AR) significantly enhanced ERK2 binding, but showed little effect on arrestin interactions with the upstream kinases c-Raf1 and MEK1. Arrestins exist in three conformational states: free, receptor-bound, and microtubule-associated. Using conformationally biased arrestin mutants we found that ERK2 preferentially binds two of these: the “constitutively inactive” arrestin-Δ7 mimicking microtubule-bound state and arrestin-3A, a mimic of the receptor-bound conformation. Both rescue arrestin-mediated ERK1/2/activation in arrestin-2/3 double knockout fibroblasts. We also found that arrestin-2-c-Raf1 interaction is enhanced by receptor binding, whereas arrestin-3-c-Raf1 interaction is not.

Nonvisual arrestins function as simple scaffolds assembling the MKK4-JNK3α2 signaling complex

Arrestins make up a small family of proteins with four mammalian members that play key roles in the regulation of multiple G protein-coupled receptor-dependent and -independent signaling pathways. Although arrestins were reported to serve as scaffolds for MAP kinase cascades, promoting the activation of JNK3, ERK1/2, and p38, the molecular mechanisms involved were not elucidated, and even the direct binding of arrestins with MAP kinases was never demonstrated. Here, using purified proteins, we show that both nonvisual arrestins directly bind JNK3α2 and its upstream activator MKK4, and that the affinity of arrestin-3 for these kinases is higher than that of arrestin-2. Reconstitution of the MKK4-JNK3α2 signaling module from pure proteins in the presence of different arrestin-3 concentrations showed that arrestin-3 acts as a "true" scaffold, facilitating JNK3α2 phosphorylation by bringing the two kinases together. Both the level of JNK3α2 phosphorylation by MKK4 and JNK3α2 activity toward its substrate ATF2 increase at low and then decrease at high arrestin-3 levels, yielding a bell-shaped concentration dependence expected with true scaffolds that do not activate the upstream kinase or its substrate. Thus, direct binding of both kinases and true scaffolding is the molecular mechanism of action of arrestin-3 on the MKK4-JNK3α2 signaling module.

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.

Progressive reduction of its expression in rods reveals two pools of arrestin-1 in the outer segment with different roles in photoresponse recovery

Light-induced rhodopsin signaling is turned off with sub-second kinetics by rhodopsin phosphorylation followed by arrestin-1 binding. To test the availability of the arrestin-1 pool in dark-adapted outer segment (OS) for rhodopsin shutoff, we measured photoresponse recovery rates of mice with arrestin-1 content in the OS of 2.5%, 5%, 60%, and 100% of wild type (WT) level by two-flash ERG with the first (desensitizing) flash at 160, 400, 1000, and 2500 photons/rod. The time of half recovery (t_half) in WT retinas increases with the intensity of the initial flash, becoming ∼2.5-fold longer upon activation of 2500 than after 160 rhodopsins/rod. Mice with 60% and even 5% of WT arrestin-1 level recovered at WT rates. In contrast, the mice with 2.5% of WT arrestin-1 had a dramatically slower recovery than the other three lines, with the t_half increasing ∼28 fold between 160 and 2500 rhodopsins/rod. Even after the dimmest flash, the rate of recovery of rods with 2.5% of normal arrestin-1 was two times slower than in other lines, indicating that arrestin-1 level in the OS between 100% and 5% of WT is sufficient for rapid recovery, whereas with lower arrestin-1 the rate of recovery dramatically decreases with increased light intensity. Thus, the OS has two distinct pools of arrestin-1: cytoplasmic and a separate pool comprising ∼2.5% that is not immediately available for rhodopsin quenching. The observed delay suggests that this pool is localized at the periphery, so that its diffusion across the OS rate-limits the recovery. The line with very low arrestin-1 expression is the first where rhodopsin inactivation was made rate-limiting by arrestin manipulation.

A single mutation in arrestin-2 prevents ERK1/2 activation by reducing c-Raf1 binding

Arrestins regulate the signaling and trafficking of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). GPCR complexes with both nonvisual arrestins channel signaling to G protein-independent pathways, one of which is the activation of extracellular signal regulated kinase 1/2 (ERK1/2). Here we used alanine-scanning mutagenesis of residues on the nonreceptor-binding surface conserved between arrestin-2 and arrestin-3. We show that an Arg307Ala mutation significantly reduced arrestin-2 binding to c-Raf1, whereas the binding of the mutant to active phosphorylated receptor and downstream kinases MEK1 and ERK2 was not affected. In contrast to wild-type arrestin-2, the Arg307Ala mutant failed to rescue arrestin-dependent ERK1/2 activation via β2-adrenergic receptor in arrestin-2/3 double knockout mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Thus, Arg307 plays a specific role in arrestin-2 binding to c-Raf1 and is indispensable in the productive scaffolding of c-Raf1-MEK1-ERK1/2 signaling cascade. Arg307Ala mutation specifically eliminates arrestin-2 signaling through ERK, which makes arrestin-2-Arg307Ala the first signaling-biased arrestin mutant constructed. In the crystal structure the side chain of homologous arrestin-3 residue Lys308 points in a different direction. Alanine substitution of Lys308 does not significantly affect c-Raf1 binding to arrestin-3 and its ability to promote ERK1/2 activation, suggesting that the two nonvisual arrestins perform the same function via distinct molecular mechanisms.

Identification of arrestin-3-specific residues necessary for JNK3 kinase activation

Arrestins bind active phosphorylated G protein-coupled receptors, blocking G protein activation and channeling the signaling to G protein-independent pathways. Free arrestin-3 and receptor-bound arrestin-3 scaffold the ASK1-MKK4-JNK3 module, promoting JNK3 phosphorylation, whereas highly homologous arrestin-2 does not. Here, we used arrestin-2/3 chimeras and mutants to identify key residues of arrestin-3 responsible for its ability to facilitate JNK3 activation. Our data demonstrate that both arrestin domains are involved in JNK3 activation, with the C-terminal domain being more important than the N-terminal domain. We found that Val-343 is the key contributor to this function, whereas Leu-278, Ser-280, His-350, Asp-351, His-352, and Ile-353 play supporting roles. We also show that the arrestin-3-specific difference in the arrangement of the β-strands in the C-terminal domain that underlies its lower selectivity for active phosphoreceptors does not play an appreciable role in its ability to enhance JNK3 activation. Importantly, the strength of the binding of ASK1 or JNK3, as revealed by the efficiency of co-immunoprecipitation, does not correlate with the ability of arrestin proteins to promote ASK1-dependent JNK3 phosphorylation. Thus, multiple residues on the non-receptor-binding side of arrestin-3 are crucial for JNK3 activation, and this function and the receptor-binding characteristics of arrestin can be manipulated independently by targeted mutagenesis.