Paracrine Transactivation of the CB1 Cannabinoid Receptor by AT1 Angiotensin and Other Gq/11 Protein-coupled Receptors

Intracellular signaling systems of G protein-coupled receptors are well established, but their role in paracrine regulation of adjacent cells is generally considered as a tissue-specific mechanism. We have shown previously that AT₁ receptor (AT₁R) stimulation leads to diacylglycerol lipase-mediated transactivation of co-expressed CB₁Rs in Chinese hamster ovary cells. In the present study we detected a paracrine effect of the endocannabinoid release from Chinese hamster ovary, COS7, and HEK293 cells during the stimulation of AT₁ angiotensin receptors by determining CB₁ cannabinoid receptor activity with bioluminescence resonance energy transfer-based sensors of G protein activation expressed in separate cells. The angiotensin II-induced, paracrine activation of CB₁ receptors was visualized by detecting translocation of green fluorescent protein-tagged β-arrestin2. Mass spectrometry analyses have demonstrated angiotensin II-induced stimulation of 2-arachidonoylglycerol production, whereas no increase of anandamide levels was observed. Stimulation of G_q/11-coupled M₁, M₃, M₅ muscarinic, V₁ vasopressin, α_1a adrenergic, B₂ bradykinin receptors, but not G_i/o-coupled M₂ and M₄ muscarinic receptors, also led to paracrine transactivation of CB₁ receptors. These data suggest that, in addition to their retrograde neurotransmitter role, endocannabinoids have much broader paracrine mediator functions during activation of G_q/11-coupled receptors.Hormones, neurotransmitters, and other chemical mediators acting on G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs)² exert their effects on the target cells by stimulating G protein-dependent and independent intracellular signaling pathways (1–4). Activation of G_q/11 protein-coupled receptors causes phospholipase C activation, which produces inositol-trisphosphate and diacylglycerol from phosphatidylinositol (4,5)-bisphosphate, leading to Ca²⁺-signal generation and protein kinase C activation. However, the concerted response of tissues to chemical mediators frequently also involves the activation of cells adjacent to the target cells, due to the release of paracrine mediators. A well known example is NO, which can be released from activated endothelial cells to cause relaxation of adjacent vascular smooth muscle cells. Lipid mediators can also act as intercellular messengers. For example, endocannabinoids released from postsynaptic neurons after depolarization act as retrograde transmitters by binding to and stimulating presynaptic cannabinoid receptors, which leads to inhibition of γ-aminobutyric acid release (an event termed depolarization-induced suppression of inhibition, DSI) (5–7).Cannabinoid receptors were first identified based on their ability to selectively recognize marijuana analogs. To date, two cannabinoid receptors have been identified by molecular cloning, CB₁ and CB₂ receptors (CB₁R and CB₂R, respectively) (5, 8, 9), although additional GPCRs have also been proposed to function as cannabinoid receptors (10, 11). Cannabinoid receptors also recognize certain lipids present in animal tissues termed endocannabinoids, such as arachidonylethanolamide (anandamide), 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG), and 2-arachidonoylglyceryl ether (noladin ether) (7, 12–16). In adult and fetal neural tissues, the two major endocannabinoids, anandamide and 2-AG, are produced on demand, usually after depolarization of postsynaptic cells or following stimulation of G_q-coupled metabotropic glutamate or muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (7, 12, 17–20). Enzymes responsible for 2-AG production and metabolism in tissues are localized to well defined structures at synapses, near the axon terminals of CB₁R-expressing cells (5, 7). In contrast, in peripheral tissues baseline levels of endocannabinoid production usually manifest as “endocannabinoid tone,” with poorly understood localization of the various components of the endocannabinoid system. 2-AG levels in brain homogenates and in many peripheral tissues are near its K_d for the CB₁R (19), suggesting that function of endocannabinoids may not be limited to localized synaptic signaling.There is mounting evidence that endocannabinoids play important roles in peripheral cardiovascular, inflammatory, intestinal, and metabolic regulation (21–24). 2-AG is produced by diacylglycerol-lipase (DAGL) after cleavage of the fatty-acid in the sn-1 position of diacylglycerol (DAG) (19, 25). Phospholipase C activation by G_q/11 protein-coupled receptors produces DAG, which can serve as a substrate for DAGL. Plasma membrane phosphoinositides are enriched in arachidonic acid in the sn-2 position (26), and DAGL is expressed ubiquitously (27), which suggests that phospholipase C-mediated cleavage of polyphosphoinositides may routinely lead to the formation of 2-AG. In accordance with this hypothesis, we have recently shown that angiotensin II- (Ang II)-mediated activation of the G_q/11-coupled AT₁ angiotensin receptor (AT₁R) leads to DAGL-dependent activation of CB₁Rs expressed in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells (28).Here our aim has been to examine the possibility that 2-AG serves as a common paracrine signal generated via activation of G_q/11 protein-coupled, Ca²⁺-mobilizing receptors. Accordingly, we co-expressed CB₁Rs and BRET-based sensors of G protein activation in CHO cells, and used these cells to detect endocannabinoid release from adjacent cells that express AT₁R or other Ca²⁺-mobilizing GPCRs. We have further shown that activation of AT₁R by Ang II increases 2-AG levels in CHO cells. These findings suggest that 2-AG is commonly released following activation of Ca²⁺-mobilizing GPCRs and serves as a paracrine signal to activate CB₁R in neighboring cells.     

Ubiquitination Regulates Proteolytic Processing of G Protein-coupled Receptors after Their Sorting to Lysosomes

Ubiquitination is essential for the endocytic sorting of various G protein-coupled receptors to lysosomes. Here we identify a distinct function of this covalent modification in controlling the later proteolytic processing of receptors. Mutation of all cytoplasmic lysine residues in the murine δ-opioid receptor blocked receptor ubiquitination without preventing ligand-induced endocytosis of receptors or their subsequent delivery to lysosomes, as verified by proteolysis of extramembrane epitope tags and down-regulation of radioligand binding to the transmembrane helices. Surprisingly, a functional screen revealed that the E3 ubiquitin ligase AIP4 specifically controls down-regulation of wild type receptors measured by radioligand binding without detectably affecting receptor delivery to lysosomes defined both immunochemically and biochemically. This specific AIP4-dependent regulation required direct ubiquitination of receptors and was also regulated by two deubiquitinating enzymes, AMSH and UBPY, which localized to late endosome/lysosome membranes containing internalized δ-opioid receptor. These results identify a distinct function of AIP4-dependent ubiquitination in controlling the later proteolytic processing of G protein-coupled receptors, without detectably affecting their endocytic sorting to lysosomes. We propose that ubiquitination or ubiquitination/deubiquitination cycling specifically regulates later proteolytic processing events required for destruction of the receptor''s hydrophobic core.A fundamental cellular mechanism contributing to homeostatic regulation of receptor-mediated signal transduction involves ligand-induced endocytosis of receptors followed by proteolysis in lysosomes. The importance of such proteolytic down-regulation has been documented extensively for a number of seven-transmembrane or G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs),³ which comprise the largest known family of signaling receptors expressed in animals, as well as for other important signaling receptors, such as the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase (1–5).One GPCR that is well known to undergo endocytic trafficking to lysosomes is the δ-opioid peptide receptor (DOR or DOP-R) (6). Following endocytosis, DOR traffics efficiently to lysosomes in both neural and heterologous cell models (6–8), whereas many membrane proteins, including various GPCRs, recycle rapidly to the plasma membrane (9–12). Such molecular sorting of internalized receptors between divergent recycling and degradative pathways is thought to play a fundamental role in determining the functional consequences of regulated endocytosis (2, 3, 13, 14). The sorting process that directs internalized DOR to lysosomes is remarkably efficient and appears to occur rapidly (within several min) after receptor endocytosis (11). Nevertheless, biochemical mechanisms that control lysosomal trafficking and proteolysis of DOR remain poorly understood.A conserved mechanism that promotes lysosomal trafficking of a number of membrane proteins, including various signaling receptors, is mediated by covalent modification of cytoplasmic lysine residues with ubiquitin (4, 15–17). Ubiquitination was first identified as an endocytic sorting determinant in studies of vacuolar trafficking of the yeast GPCR Ste2p (18). Subsequent studies have established numerous examples of lysyl-ubiquitination being required for sorting endocytic cargo to lysosomes and have identified conserved machinery responsible for the targeting of ubiquitinated cargo to lysosomes (3, 17, 19–22).The CXCR4 chemokine receptor provides a clear example of ubiquitin-dependent lysosomal sorting of a mammalian GPCR. Ubiquitination of the carboxyl-terminal cytoplasmic domain of the CXCR4 receptor, mediated by the E3 ubiquitin ligase AIP4, is specifically required for the HRS- and VPS4-dependent trafficking of internalized receptors to lysosomes. Blocking this ubiquitination event by Lys → Arg mutation of the receptor specifically inhibits trafficking of internalized receptors to lysosomes, resulting in recycling rather than lysosomal proteolysis of receptors after ligand-induced endocytosis (23–25).Lysosomal trafficking of DOR, in contrast, is not prevented by mutation of cytoplasmic lysine residues (26) and can be regulated by ubiquitination-independent protein interaction(s) (27, 28). Nevertheless, both wild type and lysyl-mutant DORs traffic to lysosomes via a similar pathway as ubiquitin-dependent membrane cargo and require both HRS and active VPS4 to do so (29). These observations indicate that DOR engages the same core endocytic mechanism utilized by ubiquitination-directed membrane cargo but leave unresolved whether ubiquitination of DOR plays any role in this important cellular mechanism of receptor down-regulation.There is no doubt that DOR can undergo significant ubiquitination in mammalian cells, including HEK293 cells (30–32), where lysosomal trafficking of lysyl-mutant receptors was first observed (26). Ubiquitination was shown previously to promote proteolysis of DOR by proteasomes and to function in degrading misfolded receptors from the biosynthetic pathway (30, 31). A specific role of ubiquitination in promoting proteasome- but not lysosome-mediated proteolysis of DOR has been emphasized (32) and proposed to contribute to proteolytic down-regulation of receptors also from the plasma membrane (33).To our knowledge, no previous studies have determined if DOR ubiquitination plays any role in controlling receptor proteolysis mediated by lysosomes, although this represents a predominant pathway by which receptors undergo rapid down-regulation following ligand-induced endocytosis in a number of cell types, including HEK293 cells (8). In the present study, we have taken two approaches to addressing this fundamental question. First, we have investigated in greater detail the effects of lysyl-mutation on DOR ubiquitination and trafficking. Second, we have independently investigated the role of ubiquitination in controlling lysosomal proteolysis of wild type DOR. Our results clearly establish the ability of DOR to traffic efficiently to lysosomes in the absence of any detectable ubiquitination. Further, they identify a distinct and unanticipated function of AIP4-dependent ubiquitination in regulating the later proteolytic processing of receptors and show that this distinct ubiquitin-dependent regulatory mechanism operates effectively downstream of the sorting decision that commits internalized receptors for delivery to lysosomes.     

Loop 2 Structure in Glycine and GABAA Receptors Plays a Key Role in Determining Ethanol Sensitivity

The present study tests the hypothesis that the structure of extracellular domain Loop 2 can markedly affect ethanol sensitivity in glycine receptors (GlyRs) and γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptors (GABA_ARs). To test this, we mutated Loop 2 in the α1 subunit of GlyRs and in the γ subunit of α1β2γ2GABA_ARs and measured the sensitivity of wild type and mutant receptors expressed in Xenopus oocytes to agonist, ethanol, and other agents using two-electrode voltage clamp. Replacing Loop 2 of α1GlyR subunits with Loop 2 from the δGABA_AR (δL2), but not the γGABA_AR subunit, reduced ethanol threshold and increased the degree of ethanol potentiation without altering general receptor function. Similarly, replacing Loop 2 of the γ subunit of GABA_ARs with δL2 shifted the ethanol threshold from 50 mm in WT to 1 mm in the GABA_A γ-δL2 mutant. These findings indicate that the structure of Loop 2 can profoundly affect ethanol sensitivity in GlyRs and GABA_ARs. The δL2 mutations did not affect GlyR or GABA_AR sensitivity, respectively, to Zn²⁺ or diazepam, which suggests that these δL2-induced changes in ethanol sensitivity do not extend to all allosteric modulators and may be specific for ethanol or ethanol-like agents. To explore molecular mechanisms underlying these results, we threaded the WT and δL2 GlyR sequences onto the x-ray structure of the bacterial Gloeobacter violaceus pentameric ligand-gated ion channel homologue (GLIC). In addition to being the first GlyR model threaded on GLIC, the juxtaposition of the two structures led to a possible mechanistic explanation for the effects of ethanol on GlyR-based on changes in Loop 2 structure.Alcohol abuse and dependence are significant problems in our society, with ∼14 million people in the United States being affected (1, 2). Alcohol causes over 100,000 deaths in the United States, and alcohol-related issues are estimated to cost nearly 200 billion dollars annually (2). To address this, considerable attention has focused on the development of medications to prevent and treat alcohol-related problems (3–5). The development of such medications would be aided by a clear understanding of the molecular structures on which ethanol acts and how these structures influence receptor sensitivity to ethanol.Ligand-gated ion channels (LGICs)² have received substantial attention as putative sites of ethanol action that cause its behavioral effects (6–12). Research in this area has focused on investigating the effects of ethanol on two large superfamilies of LGICs: 1) the Cys-loop superfamily of LGICs (13, 14), whose members include nicotinic acetylcholine, 5-hydroxytryptamine₃, γ-aminobutyric acid type A (GABA_A), γ-aminobutyric acid type C, and glycine receptors (GlyRs) (10, 11, 15–20) and 2) the glutamate superfamily, including N-methyl d-aspartate, α-amino-3-hydroxyisoxazolepropionic acid, and kainate receptors (21, 22). Recent studies have also begun investigating ethanol action in the ATP-gated P2X superfamily of LGICs (23–25).A series of studies that employed chimeric and mutagenic strategies combined with sulfhydryl-specific labeling identified key regions within Cys-loop receptors that appear to be initial targets for ethanol action that also can determine the sensitivity of the receptors to ethanol (7–12, 18, 19, 26–30). This work provides several lines of evidence that position 267 and possibly other sites in the transmembrane (TM) domain of GlyRs and homologous sites in GABA_ARs are targets for ethanol action and that mutations at these sites can influence ethanol sensitivity (8, 9, 26, 31).Growing evidence from GlyRs indicates that ethanol also acts on the extracellular domain. The initial findings came from studies demonstrating that α1GlyRs are more sensitive to ethanol than are α2GlyRs despite the high (∼78%) sequence homology between α1GlyRs and α2GlyRs (32). Further work found that an alanine to serine exchange at position 52 (A52S) in Loop 2 can eliminate the difference in ethanol sensitivity between α1GlyRs and α2GlyRs (18, 20, 33). These studies also demonstrated that mutations at position 52 in α1GlyRS and the homologous position 59 in α2GlyRs controlled the sensitivity of these receptors to a novel mechanistic ethanol antagonist (20). Collectively, these studies suggest that there are multiple sites of ethanol action in α1GlyRs, with one site located in the TM domain (e.g. position 267) and another in the extracellular domain (e.g. position 52).Subsequent studies revealed that the polarity of the residue at position 52 plays a key role in determining the sensitivity of GlyRs to ethanol (20). The findings with polarity in the extracellular domain contrast with the findings at position 267 in the TM domain, where molecular volume, but not polarity, significantly affected ethanol sensitivity (9). Taken together, these findings indicate that the physical-chemical parameters of residues at positions in the extracellular and TM domains that modulate ethanol effects and/or initiate ethanol action in GlyRs are not uniform. Thus, knowledge regarding the physical-chemical properties that control agonist and ethanol sensitivity is key for understanding the relationship between the structure and the actions of ethanol in LGICs (19, 31, 34–40).GlyRs and GABA_ARs, which differ significantly in their sensitivities to ethanol, offer a potential method for identifying the structures that control ethanol sensitivity. For example, α1GlyRs do not reliably respond to ethanol concentrations less than 10 mm (32, 33, 41). Similarly, γ subunit-containing GABA_ARs (e.g. α1β2γ2), the most predominantly expressed GABA_ARs in the central nervous system, are insensitive to ethanol concentrations less than 50 mm (42, 43). In contrast, δ subunit-containing GABA_ARs (e.g. α4β3δ) have been shown to be sensitive to ethanol concentrations as low as 1–3 mm (44–51). Sequence alignment of α1GlyR, γGABA_AR, and δGABA_AR revealed differences between the Loop 2 regions of these receptor subunits. Since prior studies found that mutations of Loop 2 residues can affect ethanol sensitivity (19, 20, 39), the non-conserved residues in Loop 2 of GlyR and GABA_AR subunits could provide the physical-chemical and structural bases underlying the differences in ethanol sensitivity between these receptors.The present study tested the hypothesis that the structure of Loop 2 can markedly affect the ethanol sensitivity of GlyRs and GABA_ARs. To accomplish this, we performed multiple mutations that replaced the Loop 2 region of the α1 subunit in α1GlyRs and the Loop 2 region of the γ subunit of α1β2γ2 GABA_ARs with corresponding non-conserved residues from the δ subunit of GABA_AR and tested the sensitivity of these receptors to ethanol. As predicted, replacing Loop 2 of WT α1GlyRs with the homologous residues from the δGABA_AR subunit (δL2), but not the γGABA_AR subunit (γL2), markedly increased the sensitivity of the receptor to ethanol. Similarly, replacing the non-conserved residues of the γ subunit of α1β2γ2 GABA_ARs with δL2 also markedly increased ethanol sensitivity of GABA_ARs. These findings support the hypothesis and suggest that Loop 2 may play a role in controlling ethanol sensitivity across the Cys-loop superfamily of receptors. The findings also provide the basis for suggesting structure-function relationships in a new molecular model of the GlyR based on the bacterial Gloeobacter violaceus pentameric LGIC homologue (GLIC).     

Biochemical Large-Scale Interaction Analysis of Murine Olfactory Receptors and Associated Signaling Proteins with Post-Synaptic Density 95, Drosophila Discs Large,Zona-Occludens 1 (PDZ) Domains

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) constitute the largest family among mammalian membrane proteins and are capable of initiating numerous essential signaling cascades. Various GPCR-mediated pathways are organized into protein microdomains that can be orchestrated and regulated through scaffolding proteins, such as PSD-95/discs-large/ZO1 (PDZ) domain proteins. However, detailed binding characteristics of PDZ–GPCR interactions remain elusive because these interactions seem to be more complex than previously thought. To address this issue, we analyzed binding modalities using our established model system. This system includes the 13 individual PDZ domains of the multiple PDZ domain protein 1 (MUPP1; the largest PDZ protein), a broad range of murine olfactory receptors (a multifaceted gene cluster within the family of GPCRs), and associated olfactory signaling proteins. These proteins were analyzed in a large-scale peptide microarray approach and continuative interaction studies. As a result, we demonstrate that canonical binding motifs were not overrepresented among the interaction partners of MUPP1. Furthermore, C-terminal phosphorylation and distinct amino acid replacements abolished PDZ binding promiscuity. In addition to the described in vitro experiments, we identified new interaction partners within the murine olfactory epithelium using pull-down-based interactomics and could verify the partners through co-immunoprecipitation. In summary, the present study provides important insight into the complexity of the binding characteristics of PDZ–GPCR interactions based on olfactory signaling proteins, which could identify novel clinical targets for GPCR-associated diseases in the future.PDZ domain proteins comprise one of the largest families among interaction domain scaffolding proteins and are highly abundant in various multicellular eukaryotic species. These proteins fulfill important physiological functions in a broad range of different tissues and cells as they orchestrate complex protein networks. Among putative PDZ interaction partners, one important protein family is the group of GPCRs¹, constituting the largest family of membrane proteins in mammals (1). Here, signal efficiency, speed, desensitization, and internalization can be modulated by PDZ proteins (2–5). Olfactory receptors (ORs) represent a multigene family within this group of seven-transmembrane domain proteins and encompass 2% of the mammalian genome (6). Belonging to class I GPCRs, ORs share many general features of this receptor family, making them an interesting target for interactions involving PDZ proteins. Until recently, an organizing complex builder, such as the inactivation no afterpotential D (InaD) protein in the visual system of Drosophila melanogaster (7, 8), could not be clearly identified for olfactory signaling.The multiple PDZ domain protein 1, with 13 individual PDZ domains, represents the largest of the described PDZ proteins to date (9) and interacts with different GPCRs (10–12). One well-described example is its interaction with GABA_B receptors, leading to enhanced receptor stability at the plasma membrane and prolonged signaling duration (2). In previous studies, we demonstrated that PDZ domains 1 + 2 can interact with a selected subset of ORs (13). Furthermore, we showed that MUPP1 binds to a specific OR and that most of the described proteins are involved in mammalian olfactory signal transduction in the native system, making MUPP1 a promising candidate for orchestrating the olfactory system (14).Many PDZ–ligand interactions depend on classical binding motifs at the ligand''s C-terminal end, thereby building weak transient protein complexes (15, 16). However, an increasing number of PDZ interactions have emerged that seem to provide more complex binding modalities, differing from the canonical interactions (17, 18). Ligand binding seems not to be exclusively restricted to C-terminal sites, and PDZ domains cannot be distinctly classified but are evenly distributed throughout a selective space (17, 19–21). Therefore, it is of great interest to analyze OR–PDZ interactions to characterize the putative binding requirements and to further investigate the role of MUPP1 in olfactory signaling.In the present study, we characterized the binding modalities between the 13 individual PDZ domains of MUPP1 and a broad range of murine olfactory receptors in a large-scale approach, indicating that classical binding motifs were not overrepresented among the evaluated binding partners. In addition, we identified new binding partners from the murine olfactory epithelium using pull-down-based interactomics.     

An Endoplasmic Reticulum Retention Signal Located in the Extracellular Amino-terminal Domain of the NR2A Subunit of N-Methyl-d-aspartate Receptors

N-Methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptors play critical roles in complex brain functions as well as pathogenesis of neurodegenerative diseases. There are many NMDA isoforms and subunit types that, together with subtype-specific assembly, give rise to significant functional heterogeneity of NMDA receptors. Conventional NMDA receptors are obligatory heterotetramers composed of two glycine-binding NR1 subunits and two glutamate-binding NR2 subunits. When individually expressed in heterogeneous cells, most of the NR1 splice variants and the NR2 subunits remain in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and do not form homomeric channels. The mechanisms underlying NMDA receptor trafficking and functional expression remain uncertain. Using truncated and chimeric NMDA receptor subunits expressed in heterogeneous cells and hippocampal neurons, together with immunostaining, biochemical, and functional analyses, we found that the NR2A amino-terminal domain (ATD) contains an ER retention signal, which can be specifically masked by the NR1a ATD. Interestingly, no such signal was found in the ATD of the NR2B subunit. We further identified the A2 segment of the NR2A ATD to be the primary determinant of ER retention. These findings indicate that NR2A-containing NMDA receptors may undergo a different ER quality control process from NR2B-containing NMDA receptors.Ionotropic glutamate receptors (iGluRs)² mediate most of the excitatory neurotransmission in the central nervous system. They play key roles in complex brain functions as well as in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative diseases. Based on pharmacological properties and sequence similarities, iGluRs can be grouped into three major subtypes: GluR1 to -4 subunits form α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionate (AMPA) receptors, GluR5 to -7 and KA1 and -2 subunits make up kainate receptors, and NR1 together with NR2A to -D subunits comprise the NMDA receptors (1). All iGluR subunits share a unique membrane topology with a large extracellular NH₂-terminal domain, three transmembrane segments (TM1 (transmembrane domain 1), TM3, and TM4), a P-loop region, and a cytoplasmic COOH terminus (2, 3). Based on the sequence homology to bacterial periplasmic binding proteins, the NH₂-terminal domain of iGluRs can be divided into two domains in tandem: the amino-terminal domain (ATD), which includes the first 400 or so amino acids (4), and the following S1 domain preceding TM1, which forms the ligand-binding domain together with the extracellular loop between TM3 and TM4 (S2 domain) (5, 6).Among iGluRs, NMDA receptors are special in that conventional NMDA receptors are obligatory tetrameric membrane proteins composed of two glycine-binding NR1 and two glutamate-binding NR2 subunits. The NR1 subunit is essential for the formation of functional NMDA receptor channel, whereas the NR2 subunit modifies channel properties, such as current kinetics and channel conductance (1). The major NR1 splice variant and the NR2 subunits are retained in the ER when expressed alone in heterogeneous cells. Only when expressed together do they form functional receptors on the cell surface (7–9). In the last decade, enormous progress has been made in understanding the phenomenology and mechanisms of functional plasticity of NMDA receptors. However, much less is known about the mechanisms underlying the ER retention of NMDA receptor subunits. Previous studies focused on the COOH terminus have shown that the NR1a subunit contains an ER retention signal, RRR, in the C1 cassette, whereas a motif, HLFY, found in the NR2B subunit immediately following the TM4 (10) or, at least, the presence of any two amino acid residues after NR2 TM4 (11) is required for the export of NR1-NR2 complexes from the ER. Recently, novel ER retention signals were identified in the TM3 of both NR1 and NR2B subunits. In addition, TM3 of both NR1 and NR2B and TM4 of NR1 are necessary for masking ER retention signals found in TM3 (12).In the present study, we focused on the functional role of the ATD in the surface expression of NMDA receptors. Interestingly, we found an ER retention signal located in the ATD of the NR2A subunit but not in the corresponding domain of the NR2B. It is suggested that NR2A-containing NMDA receptors may undergo an ER quality control process different from that of NR2B-containing NMDA receptors.     

Lipid Protein Interactions Couple Protonation to Conformation in a Conserved Cytosolic Domain of G Protein-coupled Receptors

The visual photoreceptor rhodopsin is a prototypical class I (rhodopsin-like) G protein-coupled receptor. Photoisomerization of the covalently bound ligand 11-cis-retinal leads to restructuring of the cytosolic face of rhodopsin. The ensuing protonation of Glu-134 in the class-conserved D(E)RY motif at the C-terminal end of transmembrane helix-3 promotes the formation of the G protein-activating state. Using transmembrane segments derived from helix-3 of bovine rhodopsin, we show that lipid protein interactions play a key role in this cytosolic “proton switch.” Infrared and fluorescence spectroscopic pK_a determinations reveal that the D(E)RY motif is an autonomous functional module coupling side chain neutralization to conformation and helix positioning as evidenced by side chain to lipid headgroup Foerster resonance energy transfer. The free enthalpies of helix stabilization and hydrophobic burial of the neutral carboxyl shift the side chain pK_a into the range typical of Glu-134 in photoactivated rhodopsin. The lipid-mediated coupling mechanism is independent of interhelical contacts allowing its conservation without interference with the diversity of ligand-specific interactions in class I G protein-coupled receptors.G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs)² are hepta-helical membrane proteins that couple a large variety of extracellular signals to cell-specific responses via activation of G proteins. In the visual photoreceptor rhodopsin, a prototypical class I GPCR (1, 2), molecular activation processes can be monitored in real time by spectroscopic assays and analyzed in the context of several crystal structures (3–8). The primary signal for rhodopsin is the 11-cis to all-trans photoisomerization of retinal covalently bound to the apoprotein opsin through a protonated Schiff base to Lys²⁹⁶. Current models converge toward a picture in which “microdomains” act as conformational switches that are coupled to different degrees to the primary activation process. Two activating “proton switches” have been identified (9) as follows: breakage of an intramolecular salt bridge (10) by transfer of the Schiff base proton to its counter ion Glu-113 (11) is followed by movement of helix-6 (H6) (12, 13) in the metarhodopsin II_a (MII_a) to MII_b transition. The MII_b state takes up a proton at Glu-134 (14) in the class-conserved D(E)RY motif at the C-terminal end of helix-3 (H3) leading to the MII_bH⁺ intermediate (15, 16), which activates transducin (G_t), the G protein of the photoreceptor cell. Glu-134 regulates the pH sensitivity of receptor signaling (17) in membranes as reviewed previously (18), and in complex with G_t the protonated state of the carboxyl group becomes stabilized (19). This charge alteration is linked to the release of an “ionic lock,” originally described for the β₂-adrenergic receptor (20), which also in rhodopsin stabilizes the inactive state (16) through interactions between the cytosolic ends of H3 and H6 (21).In the absence of a lipidic bilayer, proton uptake and H6 movement become uncoupled (15). Lipidic composition affects MII formation, rhodopsin structure, and oligomerization (22–24) and differs at the rhodopsin membrane interface from the bulk lipidic phase (25). Likewise, MII formation specifically affects lipid structure (26). Although of fundamental importance for GPCR activation, the potential implication of lipid protein interactions in “proton switching” is not clear. A functional role of Glu-134 in lipid interactions has been originally derived from IR spectra where E134Q replacement abolished changes of lipid headgroup vibrations in the MIIG_t complex (19). Computational approaches emphasized the “strategic” location of the D(E)RY motif (27), and the Glu-134 carboxyl pK_a may critically depend on the lipid protein interface (28). However, the implications for proton switching are not evident, and the theoretical interest is contrasted by the lack of experimental data addressing the effect of the lipidic phase on side chain protonation, secondary structure, and membrane topology of the D(E)RY motif.We have studied the coupling between conformation and protonation in single transmembrane segments derived from H3 of bovine rhodopsin. We have assessed the “modular” function of the D(E)RY motif by determining parameters not evident from the crystal structures, i.e. the pK_a of the conserved carboxyl, its linkage to helical structure, and the effect of protonation on side chain to lipid headgroup distance. We show that the D(E)RY motif encodes an autonomous “proton switch” controlling side chain exposure and helix formation in the low dielectric of a lipidic phase. The data ascribe a functional role to lipid protein interactions that couple the chemical potential of protons to an activity-promoting GPCR conformation in a ligand-independent manner.     

Interactions between Calmodulin, Adenosine A2A, and Dopamine D2 Receptors

The Ca²⁺-binding protein calmodulin (CaM) has been shown to bind directly to cytoplasmic domains of some G protein-coupled receptors, including the dopamine D₂ receptor. CaM binds to the N-terminal portion of the long third intracellular loop of the D₂ receptor, within an Arg-rich epitope that is also involved in the binding to G_i/o proteins and to the adenosine A_2A receptor, with the formation of A_2A-D₂ receptor heteromers. In the present work, by using proteomics and bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) techniques, we provide evidence for the binding of CaM to the A_2A receptor. By using BRET and sequential resonance energy transfer techniques, evidence was obtained for CaM-A_2A-D₂ receptor oligomerization. BRET competition experiments indicated that, in the A_2A-D₂ receptor heteromer, CaM binds preferentially to a proximal C terminus epitope of the A_2A receptor. Furthermore, Ca²⁺ was found to induce conformational changes in the CaM-A_2A-D₂ receptor oligomer and to selectively modulate A_2A and D₂ receptor-mediated MAPK signaling in the A_2A-D₂ receptor heteromer. These results may have implications for basal ganglia disorders, since A_2A-D₂ receptor heteromers are being considered as a target for anti-parkinsonian agents.G-protein-coupled receptors are able to form homo- and hetero-oligomers with unique biochemical and functional characteristics (1–7), and they are easily detected in vitro by using biophysical techniques (8–10). Heteromers of adenosine A_2A and dopamine D₂ receptors were one of the first G-protein-coupled receptor heteromers to be described (11). A close physical interaction between both receptors was shown using co-immunoprecipitation and co-localization assays (11) and fluorescence and bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (FRET² or BRET) techniques (12–14). At the biochemical level, two types of antagonistic A_2A-D₂ receptor interactions have been discovered that may explain the A_2A-D₂ receptor interactions described both at the neuronal and behavioral level (11, 15–18). First, by means of an allosteric interaction in the receptor heteromer, stimulation of A_2A receptor decreases the affinity of D₂ receptor for their agonists (12). Second, the stimulation of the G_i/o-protein-coupled D₂ receptor inhibits the cAMP accumulation induced by the stimulation of the G_s/olf-protein-coupled A_2A receptor (11, 17, 18). In view of the well known role of dopamine in Parkinson disease, schizophrenia, and drug addiction, it has been suggested that the A_2A-D₂ receptor interactions in the central nervous system may provide new therapeutic approaches to combat these disorders (16, 19).An epitope-epitope electrostatic interaction between an Arg-rich epitope of the N terminus of the third intracellular loop (3IL) of the D₂ receptor and an epitope containing a phosphorylated Ser localized in the distal part of the C terminus of the A_2A receptor is involved in A_2A-D₂ receptor heteromer interface (14, 20, 21). The same Arg-rich epitope of the D₂ receptor is able to interact with CaM (22–25). In the absence of phosphorylated residues, adjacent aspartates or glutamates, which are abundant in CaM, may also form non-covalent complexes with Arg-rich epitopes (26). Therefore, CaM can potentially convey a Ca²⁺ signal to the D₂ receptor through direct binding to the 3IL of the D₂ receptor (22). Mass spectrometry data have shown that bovine CaM can form multiple non-covalent complexes with an Arg-rich peptide corresponding to the N-terminal region of the 3IL of the D₂ receptor (VLRRRRKRVN) (24) as well as a peptide from the proximal C terminus of the A_2A receptor (24). This epitope, whose sequence is ²⁹¹RIREFRQTFR³⁰⁰ in the human A_2A receptor, also contains several Arg residues. Since the suspected interaction between the A_2A receptor and CaM was awaiting confirmation by assays using complete proteins, the present study was undertaken to demonstrate the existence of interactions between the A_2A receptor and CaM both in a recombinant protein expression cell system and in the brain. A proteomics approach was used for the discovery of protein-protein interactions between the A_2A receptor and CaM in rat brain, whereas BRET in transfected cells demonstrated a direct interaction between CaM and this receptor. Furthermore, by using BRET and sequential resonance energy transfer (SRET) techniques and analyzing MAPK signaling in transfected cells, evidence was obtained for CaM-A_2A-D₂ receptor oligomerization and a selective Ca²⁺-mediated modulation of A_2A and D₂ receptor function in the A_2A-D₂ receptor heteromer.     

Activation of an Olfactory Receptor Inhibits Proliferation of Prostate Cancer Cells

Olfactory receptors (ORs) are expressed not only in the sensory neurons of the olfactory epithelium, where they detect volatile substances, but also in various other tissues where their potential functions are largely unknown. Here, we report the physiological characterization of human OR51E2, also named prostate-specific G-protein-coupled receptor (PSGR) due to its reported up-regulation in prostate cancer. We identified androstenone derivatives as ligands for the recombinant receptor. PSGR can also be activated with the odorant β-ionone. Activation of the endogenous receptor in prostate cancer cells by the identified ligands evoked an intracellular Ca²⁺ increase. Exposure to β-ionone resulted in the activation of members of the MAPK family and inhibition of cell proliferation. Our data give support to the hypothesis that because PSGR signaling could reduce growth of prostate cancer cells, specific receptor ligands might therefore be potential candidates for prostate cancer treatment.Excessive signaling by G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs)³ such as endothelin A receptor (1), bradykinin 1 receptor (2), follicle-stimulating hormone receptor (3), and thrombin receptor (4, 5) is known to occur in prostate cancers due to strong overexpression of the respective receptors. Activation of some of these GPCRs results in androgen-independent androgen receptor activation, thus promoting the transition of prostate cancer cells from an androgen-dependent to an androgen-independent state (6, 7).The prostate-specific G-protein-coupled receptor (PSGR) is a class A GPCR that was initially identified as a prostate-specific tumor biomarker (8–10). It is specifically expressed in prostate epithelial cells, and its expression increases significantly in human prostate intraepithelial neoplasia and prostate tumors, suggesting that PSGR may play an important role in early prostate cancer development and progression (9, 11). Although expression of the human PSGR was found to be prostate-specific (10, 12), mRNA can also be detected in the olfactory zone and the medulla oblongata of the human brain (12). Human PSGR shares 93% amino acid homology to the respective mouse and rat homologues, which are also expressed in the brain (12). Interestingly, PSGR has numerous sequence motifs in common with the large superfamily of olfactory receptors (ORs), which build the largest class of human GPCRs and allow the recognition of a wide range of structurally diverse molecules in the nasal epithelium (13–15). Recently, also the steroid hormones androstenone and androstadienone were identified as OR ligands (16). In addition to their role in the sensory neurons of the nose, ORs have been found in different tissues throughout the body (17, 18). Their function(s) in these extranasal locations are questionable except for in a few cases where functional studies have been performed in spermatozoa (19, 20) and in enterochromaffin cells of the gastrointestinal tract (21).Here, we report the identification of steroid ligands of heterologously expressed PSGR and investigate the functional relevance of PSGR expression in prostate tissue. Steroid hormones elicited rapid Ca²⁺ responses in the LNCaP prostate cancer cell line and in primary human prostate epithelial cells. Moreover, activated PSGR causes phosphorylation of p38 and stress-activated protein kinase/c-Jun NH₂-terminal kinase (SAPK/JNK) mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs), resulting in reduced proliferation rates in prostate cancer cells.     

Dominant-Negative Mutations in the G-Protein-Coupled α-Factor Receptor Map to the Extracellular Ends of the Transmembrane Segments

G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) transduce the signals for a wide range of hormonal and sensory stimuli by activating a heterotrimeric guanine nucleotide-binding protein (G protein). The analysis of loss-of-function and constitutively active receptor mutants has helped to reveal the functional properties of GPCRs and their role in human diseases. Here we describe the identification of a new class of mutants, dominant-negative mutants, for the yeast G-protein-coupled α-factor receptor (Ste2p). Sixteen dominant-negative receptor mutants were isolated based on their ability to inhibit the response to mating pheromone in cells that also express wild-type receptors. Detailed analysis of two of the strongest mutant receptors showed that, unlike other GPCR interfering mutants, they were properly localized at the plasma membrane and did not alter the stability or localization of wild-type receptors. Furthermore, their dominant-negative effect was inversely proportional to the relative amount of wild-type receptors and was reversed by overexpressing the G-protein subunits, suggesting that these mutants compete with the wild-type receptors for the G protein. Interestingly, the dominant-negative mutations are all located at the extracellular ends of the transmembrane segments, defining a novel region of the receptor that is important for receptor signaling. Altogether, our results identify residues of the α-factor receptor specifically involved in ligand binding and receptor activation and define a new mechanism by which GPCRs can be inactivated that has important implications for the evaluation of receptor mutations in other G-protein-coupled receptors.G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) comprise a large family of receptors that are found in a wide range of eukaryotic organisms from yeasts to humans (4, 10). These receptors respond to diverse stimuli including hormones, neurotransmitters, and other chemical messengers (48). GPCRs transduce their signal by stimulating the α subunit of a heterotrimeric guanine nucleotide binding protein (G protein) to bind GTP (4, 16). This releases the α subunit from the βγ subunits, and then either the α subunit or the βγ subunits go on to promote signaling depending on the specific pathway (28).GPCRs are structurally similar in that they contain seven transmembrane domains (TMDs) connected by intracellular and extracellular loops. Although many techniques have been applied to study receptor function, much of our knowledge on the mechanisms of GPCR activation comes from the characterization of mutant receptors. Loss-of-function and supersensitive mutants have helped to identify receptor regions needed for ligand binding, G-protein activation, and down-regulation of signaling (4, 49). Furthermore, the study of constitutively active receptor mutations has played a key role in the development of current models for receptor activation (26). Naturally occurring GPCR mutations have also been implicated in a number of human diseases (8, 25, 42). Interestingly, the analysis of different mutant receptors indicates that GPCRs utilize common structural domains for similar functions. In particular, the third intracellular loop has an essential role in G-protein activation in a wide range of GPCRs.The genetic approaches possible in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae have been used to examine the relationship between structure and function of the G-protein-coupled mating pheromone receptors. The α-factor and a-factor pheromones induce conjugation in yeast by binding to receptors with seven TMDs that activate a G-protein signal pathway that is highly conserved with mammalian signaling pathways (24). In fact, some human GPCRs can activate the pheromone signal pathway when they are expressed in yeast (19, 29). The analysis of loss-of-function, supersensitive, and constitutively active α-factor receptor mutants has begun to reveal the mechanisms for activation and regulation of this receptor. For example, the analysis of constitutively active mutants indicates that movement in the transmembrane segments plays a key role in α-factor receptor activation (22). Constitutive mutations and loss-of-function mutations implicate the third intracellular loop in G-protein activation (7, 34, 44). Mutagenesis studies also indicate that the cytoplasmic C terminus is not needed for G-protein activation but is involved in down-regulation of receptors by endocytosis (17) and desensitization of receptors by phosphorylation (6). In addition, studies with chimeric receptors suggest that the specificity for α-factor binding is determined by discontinuous segments of the α-factor receptor that include the transmembrane and extracellular regions (36, 37). Although some of the important domains of the α-factor receptor have been identified in these studies, the molecular mechanism of receptor signaling remains to be determined.Dominant-negative (DN) mutants represent an important class of mutation in which a mutant receptor interferes with the function of the wild-type (WT) version of the receptor. Since the inhibitory phenotype in DN mutants implies loss of some but not all functions of the protein, these mutants have been used to great advantage in other receptor systems. For example, in the case of receptor tyrosine kinases, DN mutants have been used to assign particular functions to specific structural features or to study the effects of blocking receptor signaling (18). In view of the large number of mutations reported for GPCRs, it is intriguing that there are few examples of dominant GPCR mutations (42, 43). Furthermore, in cases where it has been examined, dominant mutations in GPCRs seem to affect primarily the targeting of receptors to the plasma membrane and not directly the function of the WT receptors. Therefore, we sought to determine if the analysis of DN mutants could be applied to GPCRs by taking advantage of the genetic accessibility of the yeast S. cerevisiae. In this report, we describe the identification of DN mutations in the α-factor pheromone receptor. Interestingly, our results indicate that these DN mutants interfere with the activity of the WT receptors by competing for the G protein. In addition, these mutations identify a new domain on the extracellular side of the TMDs that is important for receptor function.     

Phosphorylation-independent Regulation of Metabotropic Glutamate Receptor 5 Desensitization and Internalization by G Protein-coupled Receptor Kinase 2 in Neurons

The uncoupling of metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs) from heterotrimeric G proteins represents an essential feedback mechanism that protects neurons against receptor overstimulation that may ultimately result in damage. The desensitization of mGluR signaling is mediated by both second messenger-dependent protein kinases and G protein-coupled receptor kinases (GRKs). Unlike mGluR1, the attenuation of mGluR5 signaling in HEK 293 cells is reported to be mediated by a phosphorylation-dependent mechanism. However, the mechanisms regulating mGluR5 signaling and endocytosis in neurons have not been investigated. Here we show that a 2-fold overexpression of GRK2 leads to the attenuation of endogenous mGluR5-mediated inositol phosphate (InsP) formation in striatal neurons and siRNA knockdown of GRK2 expression leads to enhanced mGluR5-mediated InsP formation. Expression of a catalytically inactive GRK2-K220R mutant also effectively attenuates mGluR5 signaling, but the expression of a GRK2-D110A mutant devoid in Gα_q/11 binding increases mGluR5 signaling in response to agonist stimulation. Taken together, these results indicate that the attenuation of mGluR5 responses in striatal neurons is phosphorylation-independent. In addition, we find that mGluR5 does not internalize in response to agonist treatment in striatal neuron, but is efficiently internalized in cortical neurons that have higher levels of endogenous GRK2 protein expression. When overexpressed in striatal neurons, GRK2 promotes agonist-stimulated mGluR5 internalization. Moreover, GRK2-mediated promotion of mGluR5 endocytosis does not require GRK2 catalytic activity. Thus, we provide evidence that GRK2 mediates phosphorylation-independent mGluR5 desensitization and internalization in neurons.Glutamate is the major excitatory neurotransmitter in the mammalian brain and functions to activate two distinct classes of receptors (ionotropic and metabotropic) to regulate a variety of physiological functions (1–3). Ionotropic glutamate receptors, such as NMDA, AMPA, and kainate receptors, are ligand-gated ion channels, whereas metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs)⁵ are members of the G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) superfamily (4–7). mGluRs modulate synaptic activity via the activation of heterotrimeric G proteins that are coupled to a variety of second messenger cascades. Group I mGluRs (mGluR1 and mGluR5) are coupled to the activation of Gα_q/11 proteins, which stimulate the activation of phospholipase Cβ1 resulting in diacylglycerol (DAG) and inositol-1,4,5-trisphosphate (IP₃) formation, release of Ca²⁺ from intracellular stores and subsequent activation of protein kinase C.The attenuation of GPCR signaling is mediated in part by G protein-coupled receptor kinases (GRKs), which phosphorylate GPCRs to promote the binding of β-arrestin proteins that uncouple GPCRs from heterotrimeric G proteins (8–10). GRK2 has been demonstrated to contribute to the phosphorylation and desensitization of both mGluR1 and mGluR5 in human embryonic kidney (HEK 293) cells (11–17). GRK4 is also implicated in mediating the desensitization of mGluR1 signaling in cerebellar Purkinje cells, but does not contribute to the desensitization of mGluR5 (14, 15). In addition, GRK4 plays a major role in mGluR1 internalization (13, 14). A role for GRK2 in promoting mGluR1 internalization is less clear as different laboratories have obtained discordant results (11, 14, 15, 16). However, the only study examining the role of GRK2 in regulating mGluR1 endocytosis in a native system reported that GRK2 knockdown had no effect upon mGluR1 internalization in cerebellar Purkinje cells (14).GRK2 is composed of three functional domains: an N-terminal regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) homology (RH) domain, a central catalytic domain, and a C-terminal G_βγ binding pleckstrin homology domain (18). In HEK 293 cells, mGluR1 desensitization is not dependent on GRK2 catalytic activity. Rather the GRK2 RH domain interacts with both the second intracellular loop domain of mGluR1 and the α-subunit of Gα_q/11 and attenuates second messenger responses by disrupting the mGluR1/Gα_q/11 signaling complexes (12, 19–21). Although the molecular mechanism underlying GRK2-mediated attenuation of mGluR1 signaling is relatively well established in HEK 293 cells, the role of GRK2 in regulating the desensitization of mGluRs in neurons remains to be determined. Moreover, it is not known whether GRK2-dependent attenuation of mGluR5 signaling is mediated by the same phosphorylation-independent mechanism that has been described for mGluR1. In a previous study, GRK2-mediated mGluR5 desensitization was reported to be phosphorylation-dependent, based on the observation that the overexpression of a catalytically inactive GRK2 (K220R) did not attenuate mGluR5 signaling (15). In the present study, we examined whether a 2-fold overexpression of GRK2 in primary mouse striatal neurons to match GRK2 expression levels found in the cortex results in increased agonist-stimulated desensitization and internalization of endogenous mGluR5. We report here that GRK2 mediates phosphorylation-independent mGluR5 desensitization and internalization. Furthermore, GRK2 knockdown causes an increase in mGluR5 signaling, demonstrating that endogenous GRK2 plays a role in mGluR5 desensitization.     

Heparan Sulfate Proteoglycans Are Receptors for the Cell-surface Trafficking and Biological Activity of Transglutaminase-2

Transglutaminase type 2 (TG2) is both a protein cross-linking enzyme and a cell adhesion molecule with an elusive unconventional secretion pathway. In normal conditions, TG2-mediated modification of the extracellular matrix modulates cell motility, proliferation and tissue repair, but under continuous cell insult, higher expression and elevated extracellular trafficking of TG2 contribute to the pathogenesis of tissue scarring. In search of TG2 ligands that could contribute to its regulation, we characterized the affinity of TG2 for heparan sulfate (HS) and heparin, an analogue of the chains of HS proteoglycans (HSPGs). By using heparin/HS solid-binding assays and surface plasmon resonance we showed that purified TG2 has high affinity for heparin/HS, comparable to that for fibronectin, and that cell-surface TG2 interacts with heparin/HS. We demonstrated that cell-surface TG2 directly associates with the HS chains of syndecan-4 without the mediation of fibronectin, which has affinity for both syndecan-4 and TG2. Functional inhibition of the cell-surface HS chains of wild-type and syndecan-4-null fibroblasts revealed that the extracellular cross-linking activity of TG2 depends on the HS of HSPG and that syndecan-4 plays a major but not exclusive role. We found that heparin binding did not alter TG2 activity per se. Conversely, fibroblasts deprived of syndecan-4 were unable to effectively externalize TG2, resulting in its cytosolic accumulation. We propose that the membrane trafficking of TG2, and hence its extracellular activity, is linked to TG2 binding to cell-surface HSPG.Transglutaminase type 2 (TG2,² EC 2.3.2.13) is the most widespread member of a large family of enzymes that catalyze the Ca²⁺-dependent post-translational modification of proteins leading to intra- or intermolecular Nϵ(γ-glutamyl)lysine bonds (1, 2). Unlike other family members, TG2 is uniquely exported through a yet to be elucidated non-conventional pathway. Once secreted, TG2 finds in the extracellular compartment the ideal conditions of high Ca²⁺ and low GTP concentration for the activation of its intrinsic transamidation activity (cross-linking) (2, 3). Intracellularly, GTP binding suppresses the Ca²⁺-dependent cross-linking activity and determines the additional GTPase activity of TG2 (4, 5), which is responsible for signal transduction (6). Once externalized, TG2 remains tightly bound to the cell surface and to the extracellular matrix (ECM) (7, 8), and it is rarely found free in the conditioned medium, unless overexpressed by cell transfection (9).Extracellular TG2 activity is involved in the cross-linking of the ECM, conferring resistance to matrix metalloproteinase and promoting cell-matrix interactions via cross-linking of fibronectin (FN) and collagen (1, 7, 11, 12). TG2 has an additional non-enzymatic role in the matrix as an integrin-β₁ co-receptor (8) by supporting RGD-independent cell adhesion to FN (8, 13, 14).Extracellular cross-linking and TG2-mediated adhesion facilitate the repair process in many tissue compartments (1, 2, 15, 16). On the other hand, uncontrolled cross-linking as a consequence of chronic cell insult and secretion of TG2 has been implicated in a number of pathological conditions, including kidney, liver, and pulmonary fibrosis (17–20).Understanding how TG2 is exported and targeted to the cell surface is critical for limiting its cellular secretion and extracellular action. Although a key trigger for TG2 export is cell stress (2, 21, 22), TG2 is not unspecifically released, because extracellular trafficking occurs in the absence of leakage of intracellular components and cells remain viable (23). We know that TG2 requires the tertiary structure of its active site region to be secreted (9); moreover, TG2 is acetylated on the N terminus (24), a process reported to affect membrane targeting of non-conventional secreted proteins (25). Two main binding partners for TG2, FN and integrin-β1, have both been attributed a possible role in the transport of TG2 to the cell surface (8, 26). FN was shown to co-localize with TG2 once released (26), and integrin-β1 to co-associate with TG2 in cells induced to differentiate (8).TG2 has also long been known to have some affinity for heparin (27, 28), a highly sulfated analogue of heparan sulfate (HS) glycosaminoglycan chains, which are abundant constituents of the cell surface/ECM. HS chains are linear polysaccharides consisting of alternating N-acetylated or N-sulfated glucosamine units (GlcNAc or GlcNS), and uronic acids (glucuronic acid GlcA or iduronic acid IdoA residues) (29), which only exist covalently bound to the core protein of cell-surface proteoglycans (syndecans and glypicans) and secreted proteoglycans (29). Heparin binding is a property common to many ECM proteins (29), but the level of affinity has never been established for TG2, which makes it difficult to estimate the real biological significance of this interaction. Heparan sulfate proteoglycans (HSPG) bind ECM ligands through the HS chains, influencing their biological activity, trafficking, and secretion. Among the HSPG subfamilies, the syndecans act as co-receptors for both ECM components and soluble ligands (30), and syndecan-4 has overlapping roles with extracellular TG2 in wound healing and fibrosis (31, 32). In this study, we show that TG2 has a surprisingly high affinity for heparin and HS, raising the hypothesis that HSPG are involved in its biological activity. We demonstrate that HSPGs are essential for the transamidating activity of TG2 at the cell surface and that syndecan-4 acts as a receptor for TG2, which is involved in the trafficking and cell-surface localization, and thus activity of TG2.