β‐arrestin1 phosphorylation by GRK5 regulates G protein‐independent 5‐HT4 receptor signalling

G protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) have been found to trigger G protein‐independent signalling. However, the regulation of G protein‐independent pathways, especially their desensitization, is poorly characterized. Here, we show that the G protein‐independent 5‐HT₄ receptor (5‐HT₄R)‐operated Src/ERK (extracellular signal‐regulated kinase) pathway, but not the G_s pathway, is inhibited by GPCR kinase 5 (GRK5), physically associated with the proximal region of receptor’ C‐terminus in both human embryonic kidney (HEK)‐293 cells and colliculi neurons. This inhibition required two sequences of events: the association of β–arrestin1 to a phosphorylated serine/threonine cluster located within the receptor C‐t domain and the phosphorylation, by GRK5, of β–arrestin1 (at Ser⁴¹²) bound to the receptor. Phosphorylated β‐arrestin1 in turn prevented activation of Src constitutively bound to 5‐HT₄Rs, a necessary step in receptor‐stimulated ERK signalling. This is the first demonstration that β‐arrestin1 phosphorylation by GRK5 regulates G protein‐independent signalling.     

Structural biology of G protein‐coupled receptor signaling complexes

G protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) constitute the largest family of cell surface receptors that mediate numerous cell signaling pathways, and are targets of more than one‐third of clinical drugs. Thanks to the advancement of novel structural biology technologies, high‐resolution structures of GPCRs in complex with their signaling transducers, including G‐protein and arrestin, have been determined. These 3D complex structures have significantly improved our understanding of the molecular mechanism of GPCR signaling and provided a structural basis for signaling‐biased drug discovery targeting GPCRs. Here we summarize structural studies of GPCR signaling complexes with G protein and arrestin using rhodopsin as a model system, and highlight the key features of GPCR conformational states in biased signaling including the sequence motifs of receptor TM6 that determine selective coupling of G proteins, and the phosphorylation codes of GPCRs for arrestin recruitment. We envision the future of GPCR structural biology not only to solve more high‐resolution complex structures but also to show stepwise GPCR signaling complex assembly and disassembly and dynamic process of GPCR signal transduction.     

Profiling two indole‐2‐carboxamides for allosteric modulation of the CB1 receptor

Allosteric modulation of G‐protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) represents a novel approach for fine‐tuning GPCR functions. The cannabinoid CB1 receptor, a GPCR associated with the CNS, has been implicated in the treatment of drug addiction, pain, and appetite disorders. We report here the synthesis and pharmacological characterization of two indole‐2‐carboxamides:5‐chloro‐3‐ethyl‐1‐methyl‐N‐(4‐(piperidin‐1‐yl)phenethyl)‐1H‐indole‐2‐carboxamide (ICAM‐a) and 5‐chloro‐3‐pentyl‐N‐(4‐(piperidin‐1‐yl)phenethyl)‐1H‐indole‐2‐carboxamide (ICAM‐b). Although both ICAM‐a and ICAM‐b enhanced CP55, 940 binding, ICAM‐b exhibited the strongest positive cooperativity thus far demonstrated for enhancing agonist binding to the CB1 receptor. Although it displayed negative modulatory effects on G‐protein coupling to CB1, ICAM‐b induced β‐arrestin‐mediated downstream activation of extracellular signal‐regulated kinase (ERK) signaling. These results indicate that this compound represents a novel class of CB1 ligands that produce biased signaling via CB1.     

Sub‐picomolar relaxin signalling by a pre‐assembled RXFP1, AKAP79, AC2, β‐arrestin 2, PDE4D3 complex

Biochemical studies suggest that G‐protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) achieve exquisite signalling specificity by forming selective complexes, termed signalosomes. Here, using cAMP biosensors in single cells, we uncover a pre‐assembled, constitutively active GPCR signalosome, that couples the relaxin receptor, relaxin family peptide receptor 1 (RXFP1), to cAMP following receptor stimulation with sub‐picomolar concentrations of peptide. The physiological effects of relaxin, a pleiotropic hormone with therapeutic potential in cancer metastasis and heart failure, are generally attributed to local production of the peptide, that occur in response to sub‐micromolar concentrations. The highly sensitive signalosome identified here provides a regulatory mechanism for the extremely low levels of relaxin that circulate. The signalosome includes requisite Gα_s, Gβγ and adenylyl cyclase 2 (AC2); AC2 is functionally coupled to RXFP1 through AKAP79 binding to helix 8 of the receptor; activation of AC2 is tonically opposed by protein kinase A (PKA)‐activated PDE4D3, scaffolded through a β‐arrestin 2 interaction with Ser⁷⁰⁴ of the receptor C‐terminus. This elaborate, pre‐assembled, ligand‐independent GPCR signalosome represents a new paradigm in GPCR signalling and provides a mechanism for the distal actions of low circulating levels of relaxin.     

Competing G protein‐coupled receptor kinases balance G protein and β‐arrestin signaling

Seven‐transmembrane receptors (7TMRs) are involved in nearly all aspects of chemical communications and represent major drug targets. 7TMRs transmit their signals not only via heterotrimeric G proteins but also through β‐arrestins, whose recruitment to the activated receptor is regulated by G protein‐coupled receptor kinases (GRKs). In this paper, we combined experimental approaches with computational modeling to decipher the molecular mechanisms as well as the hidden dynamics governing extracellular signal‐regulated kinase (ERK) activation by the angiotensin II type 1A receptor (AT_1AR) in human embryonic kidney (HEK)293 cells. We built an abstracted ordinary differential equations (ODE)‐based model that captured the available knowledge and experimental data. We inferred the unknown parameters by simultaneously fitting experimental data generated in both control and perturbed conditions. We demonstrate that, in addition to its well‐established function in the desensitization of G‐protein activation, GRK2 exerts a strong negative effect on β‐arrestin‐dependent signaling through its competition with GRK5 and 6 for receptor phosphorylation. Importantly, we experimentally confirmed the validity of this novel GRK2‐dependent mechanism in both primary vascular smooth muscle cells naturally expressing the AT_1AR, and HEK293 cells expressing other 7TMRs.     

Kappa opioids promote the proliferation of astrocytes via Gβγ and β‐arrestin 2‐dependent MAPK‐mediated pathways

GTP binding regulatory protein (G protein)‐coupled receptors can activate MAPK pathways via G protein‐dependent and ‐independent mechanisms. However, the physiological outcomes correlated with the cellular signaling events are not as well characterized. In this study, we examine the involvement of G protein and β‐arrestin 2 pathways in kappa opioid receptor‐induced, extracellular signal‐regulated kinase 1/2 (ERK1/2)‐mediated proliferation of both immortalized and primary astrocyte cultures. As different agonists induce different cellular signaling pathways, we tested the prototypic kappa agonist, U69593 as well as the structurally distinct, non‐nitrogenous agonist, C(2)‐methoxymethyl salvinorin B (MOM‐Sal‐B). In immortalized astrocytes, U69593, activated ERK1/2 by a rapid (min) initial stimulation that was sustained over 2 h and increased proliferation. Sequestration of activated Gβγ subunits attenuated U69593 stimulation of ERK1/2 and suppressed proliferation in these cells. Furthermore, small interfering RNA silencing of β‐arrestin 2 diminished sustained ERK activation induced by U69593. In contrast, MOM‐Sal‐B induced only the early phase of ERK1/2 phosphorylation and did not affect proliferation of immortalized astrocytes. In primary astrocytes, U69593 produced the same effects as seen in immortalized astrocytes. MOM‐Sal‐B elicited sustained ERK1/2 activation which was correlated with increased primary astrocyte proliferation. Proliferative actions of both agonists were abolished by either inhibition of ERK1/2, Gβγ subunits or β‐arrestin 2, suggesting that both G protein‐dependent and ‐independent ERK pathways are required for this outcome.     

An improved bioluminescence‐based signaling assay for odor sensing with a yeast expressing a chimeric olfactory receptor

The goal of this work was to improve the bioluminescence‐based signaling assay system to create a practical application of a biomimetic odor sensor using an engineered yeast‐expressing olfactory receptors (ORs). Using the yeast endogenous pheromone receptor (Ste2p) as a model GPCR, we determined the suitable promoters for the firefly luciferase (luc) reporter and GPCR genes. Additionally, we deleted some genes to further improve the sensitivity of the luc reporter assay. By replacing the endogenous yeast G‐protein α‐subunit (Gpa1p) with the olfactory‐specific Gα_olf, the optimized yeast strain successfully transduced signal through both OR and yeast Ste2p. Our results will assist the development of a bioluminescence‐based odor‐sensing system using OR‐expressing yeast. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2012; 109: 3143–3151. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

β‐arrestin‐1 mediates the TCR‐triggered re‐routing of distal receptors to the immunological synapse by a PKC‐mediated mechanism

T‐cell receptors (TCR) recognize their antigen ligand at the interface between T cells and antigen‐presenting cells, known as the immunological synapse (IS). The IS provides a means of sustaining the TCR signal which requires the continual supply of new TCRs. These are endocytosed and redirected from distal membrane locations to the IS. In our search for novel cytoplasmic effectors, we have identified β‐arrestin‐1 as a ligand of non‐phosphorylated resting TCRs. Using dominant‐negative and knockdown approaches we demonstrate that β‐arrestin‐1 is required for the internalization and downregulation of non‐engaged bystander TCRs. Furthermore, TCR triggering provokes the β‐arrestin‐1‐mediated downregulation of the G‐protein coupled chemokine receptor CXCR4, but not of other control receptors. We demonstrate that β‐arrestin‐1 recruitment to the TCR, and bystander TCR and CXCR4 downregulation, are mechanistically mediated by the TCR‐triggered PKC‐mediated phosphorylation of β‐arrestin‐1 at Ser163. This mechanism allows the first triggered TCRs to deliver a stop migration signal, and to promote the internalization of distal TCRs and CXCR4 and their translocation to the IS. This receptor crosstalk mechanism is critical to sustain the TCR signal.     

Engineering a G protein‐coupled receptor for structural studies: Stabilization of the BLT1 receptor ground state

Structural characterization of membrane proteins is hampered by their instability in detergent solutions. We modified here a G protein‐coupled receptor, the BLT1 receptor of leukotriene B₄, to stabilize it in vitro. For this, we introduced a metal‐binding site connecting the third and sixth transmembrane domains of the receptor. This modification was intended to restrain the activation‐associated relative movement of these helices that results in a less stable packing in the isolated receptor. The modified receptor binds its agonist with low‐affinity and can no longer trigger G protein activation, indicating that it is stabilized in its ground state conformation. Of importance, the modified BLT1 receptor displays an increased temperature‐, detergent‐, and time‐dependent stability compared with the wild‐type receptor. These data indicate that stabilizing the ground state of this GPCR by limiting the activation‐associated movements of the transmembrane helices is a way to increase its stability in detergent solutions; this could represent a forward step on the way of its crystallization.     

Yeast GPCR signaling reflects the fraction of occupied receptors,not the number

According to receptor theory, the effect of a ligand depends on the amount of agonist–receptor complex. Therefore, changes in receptor abundance should have quantitative effects. However, the response to pheromone in Saccharomyces cerevisiae is robust (unaltered) to increases or reductions in the abundance of the G‐protein‐coupled receptor (GPCR), Ste2, responding instead to the fraction of occupied receptor. We found experimentally that this robustness originates during G‐protein activation. We developed a complete mathematical model of this step, which suggested the ability to compute fractional occupancy depends on the physical interaction between the inhibitory regulator of G‐protein signaling (RGS), Sst2, and the receptor. Accordingly, replacing Sst2 by the heterologous hsRGS4, incapable of interacting with the receptor, abolished robustness. Conversely, forcing hsRGS4:Ste2 interaction restored robustness. Taken together with other results of our work, we conclude that this GPCR pathway computes fractional occupancy because ligand‐bound GPCR–RGS complexes stimulate signaling while unoccupied complexes actively inhibit it. In eukaryotes, many RGSs bind to specific GPCRs, suggesting these complexes with opposing activities also detect fraction occupancy by a ratiometric measurement. Such complexes operate as push‐pull devices, which we have recently described.     

Elastic network normal mode dynamics reveal the GPCR activation mechanism

G‐protein‐coupled receptors (GPCR) are a family of membrane‐embedded metabotropic receptors which translate extracellular ligand binding into an intracellular response. Here, we calculate the motion of several GPCR family members such as the M2 and M3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptors, the A_2A adenosine receptor, the β₂‐adrenergic receptor, and the CXCR4 chemokine receptor using elastic network normal modes. The normal modes reveal a dilation and a contraction of the GPCR vestibule associated with ligand passage, and activation, respectively. Contraction of the vestibule on the extracellular side is correlated with cavity formation of the G‐protein binding pocket on the intracellular side, which initiates intracellular signaling. Interestingly, the normal modes of rhodopsin do not correlate well with the motion of other GPCR family members. Electrostatic potential calculation of the GPCRs reveal a negatively charged field around the ligand binding site acting as a siphon to draw‐in positively charged ligands on the membrane surface. Altogether, these results expose the GPCR activation mechanism and show how conformational changes on the cell surface side of the receptor are allosterically translated into structural changes on the inside. Proteins 2014; 82:579–586. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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

We reconstituted D2 like dopamine receptor (D2R) and the delta opioid receptor (DOR) coupling to G‐protein gated inwardly rectifying potassium channels (K_ir3) and directly compared the effects of co‐expression of G‐protein coupled receptor kinase (GRK) and arrestin on agonist‐dependent desensitization of the receptor response. We found, as described previously, that co‐expression of a GRK and an arrestin synergistically increased the rate of agonist‐dependent desensitization of DOR. In contrast, only arrestin expression was required to produce desensitization of D2R responses. Furthermore, arrestin‐dependent GRK‐independent desensitization of D2R‐K_ir3 coupling could be transferred to DOR by substituting the third cytoplasmic loop of DOR with that of D2R. The arrestin‐dependent GRK‐independent desensitization of D2R desensitization was inhibited by staurosporine treatment, and blocked by alanine substitution of putative protein kinase C phosphorylation sites in the third cytoplasmic loop of D2R. Finally, the D2R construct in which putative protein kinase C phosphorylation sites were mutated did not undergo significant agonist‐dependent desensitization even after GRK co‐expression, suggesting that GRK phosphorylation of D2R does not play an important role in uncoupling of the receptor.

     

Modulation of methuselah expression targeted to Drosophila insulin‐producing cells extends life and enhances oxidative stress resistance

Ubiquitously reduced signaling via Methuselah (MTH), a G‐protein‐coupled receptor (GPCR) required for neurosecretion, has previously been reported to extend life and enhance stress resistance in flies. Whether these effects are due to reduced MTH signalling in specific tissues remains unknown. We determined that reduced expression of mth targeted to the insulin‐producing cells (IPCs) of the fly brain was sufficient to extend life and enhance oxidative stress resistance. Paradoxically, we discovered that overexpression of mth targeted to the same cells has similar phenotypic effects to reduced expression due to MTH's interaction with β‐arrestin, which uncouples GPCRs from their G‐proteins. We confirmed the functional relationship between MTH and β‐arrestin by finding that IPC‐targeted overexpression of β‐arrestin alone mimics the longevity phenotype of reduced MTH signaling. As reduced MTH signaling also inhibits insulin secretion from the IPCs, the most parsimonious mechanistic explanation of its longevity and stress‐resistance enhancement might be through reduced insulin/IGF signaling (IIS). However, examination of phenotypic features of long‐lived IPC‐mth modulated flies as well as several downstream IIS targets implicates enhanced activity of the JNK stress‐resistance pathway more directly than insulin signaling in the longevity and stress‐resistance phenotypes.     

The V2 vasopressin receptor stimulates ERK1/2 activity independently of heterotrimeric G protein signalling

The V2 vasopressin receptor (V2R) activates the mitogen activated protein kinases (MAPK) ERK1/2 through a mechanism involving the scaffolding protein beta arrestin. Here we report that this activating pathway is independent of G alpha s, G alpha i, G alpha q or G betagamma and that the V2R-mediated activation of G alpha s inhibits ERK1/2 activity in a cAMP/PKA-dependent manner. In the HEK293 cells studied, the beta arrestin-promoted activation was found to dominate over the PKA-mediated inhibition of the pathway, leading to a strong vasopressin-stimulated ERK1/2 activation. Despite the strong MAPK activation and in contrast with other GPCR, V2R did not induce any significant increase in DNA synthesis, consistent with the notion that the stable interaction between V2R and beta arrestin prevents signal propagation to the nucleus. Beta arrestin was found to be essential for the ERK1/2 activation, indicating that the recruitment of the scaffolding protein is necessary and sufficient to initiate the signal in the absence of any other stimulatory cues. Based on the use of selective pharmacological inhibitors, dominant negative mutants and siRNA, we conclude that the beta arrestin-dependent activation of ERK1/2 by the V2R involves c-Src and a metalloproteinase-dependent trans-activation event. These findings demonstrate that beta arrestin is a genuine signalling initiator that can, on its own, engage a MAPK activation machinery upon stimulation of a GPCR by its natural ligand.     

β‐arrestin2/miR‐155/GSK3β regulates transition of 5′‐azacytizine‐induced Sca‐1‐positive cells to cardiomyocytes

Stem‐cell antigen 1–positive (Sca‐1+) cardiac stem cells (CSCs), a vital kind of CSCs in humans, promote cardiac repair in vivo and can differentiate to cardiomyocytes with 5′‐azacytizine treatment in vitro. However, the underlying molecular mechanisms are unknown. β‐arrestin2 is an important scaffold protein and highly expressed in the heart. To explore the function of β‐arrestin2 in Sca‐1+ CSC differentiation, we used β‐arrestin2–knockout mice and overexpression strategies. Real‐time PCR revealed that β‐arrestin2 promoted 5′‐azacytizine‐induced Sca‐1+ CSC differentiation in vitro. Because the microRNA 155 (miR‐155) may regulate β‐arrestin2 expression, we detected its role and relationship with β‐arrestin2 and glycogen synthase kinase 3 (GSK3β), another probable target of miR‐155. Real‐time PCR revealed that miR‐155, inhibited by β‐arrestin2, impaired 5′‐azacytizine‐induced Sca‐1+ CSC differentiation. On luciferase report assay, miR‐155 could inhibit the activity of β‐arrestin2 and GSK3β, which suggests a loop pathway between miR‐155 and β‐arrestin2. Furthermore, β‐arrestin2‐knockout inhibited the activity of GSK3β. Akt, the upstream inhibitor of GSK3β, was inhibited in β‐arrestin2‐Knockout mice, so the activity of GSK3β was regulated by β‐arrestin2 not Akt. We transplanted Sca‐1+ CSCs from β‐arrestin2‐knockout mice to mice with myocardial infarction and found similar protective functions as in wild‐type mice but impaired arterial elastance. Furthermore, low level of β‐arrestin2 agreed with decreased phosphorylation of AKT and increased phophorylation of GSK3β, similar to in vitro findings. The β‐arrestin2/miR‐155/GSK3β pathway may be a new mechanism with implications for treatment of heart disease.     

Protein kinase A‐mediated phosphorylation of naked cuticle homolog 2 stimulates cell‐surface delivery of transforming growth factor‐α for epidermal growth factor receptor transactivation

The classic mode of G protein‐coupled receptor (GPCR)‐mediated transactivation of the receptor tyrosine kinase epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) transactivation occurs via matrix metalloprotease (MMP)‐mediated cleavage of plasma membrane‐anchored EGFR ligands. Herein, we show that the Gαs‐activating GPCR ligands vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) and prostaglandin E₂ (PGE₂) transactivate EGFR through increased cell‐surface delivery of the EGFR ligand transforming growth factor‐α (TGFα) in polarizing madin‐darby canine kidney (MDCK) and Caco‐2 cells. This is achieved by PKA‐mediated phosphorylation of naked cuticle homolog 2 (NKD2), previously shown to bind TGFα and direct delivery of TGFα‐containing vesicles to the basolateral surface of polarized epithelial cells. VIP and PGE₂ rapidly activate protein kinase A (PKA) that then phosphorylates NKD2 at Ser‐223, a process that is facilitated by the molecular scaffold A‐kinase anchoring protein 12 (AKAP12). This phosphorylation stabilized NKD2, ensuring efficient cell‐surface delivery of TGFα and increased EGFR activation. Thus, GPCR‐triggered, PKA/AKAP12/NKD2‐regulated targeting of TGFα to the cell surface represents a new mode of EGFR transactivation that occurs proximal to ligand cleavage by MMPs.      

The Effects of Ribavirin on the GTP Level and the VIP Receptor Dynamic of Human IGR39 Cells

The discovery that arrestins can function as ligand-regulated signaling scaffolds has revealed a previously unappreciated level of complexity in G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signal transduction. Because arrestin-bound GPCRs are uncoupled from G proteins, arrestin binding can be viewed as switching receptors between two temporally and spatially distinct signaling modes. Recent work has established two factors that underscore this duality of GPCR signaling and suggest it may ultimately have therapeutic significance. The first is that signaling by receptor-arrestin “signalsomes” does not require heterotrimeric G protein activation. The second is that arrestin-dependent signals can be initiated by pathway-specific “biased agonists,” creating the potential for drugs that selectively modulate different aspects of GPCR function. Currently, however, little is known about the physiological relevance of G protein-independent signals at the cellular or whole animal levels, and additional work is needed to determine whether arrestin pathway-selective drugs will find clinical application.     

Emerging structural biology of lipid G protein‐coupled receptors

The first crystal structure of a G protein‐coupled receptor (GPCR) was that of the bovine rhodopsin, solved in 2000, and is a light receptor within retina rode cells that enables vision by transducing a conformational signal from the light‐induced isomerization of retinal covalently bound to the receptor. More than 7 years after this initial discovery and following more than 20 years of technological developments in GPCR expression, stabilization, and crystallography, the high‐resolution structure of the adrenaline binding β₂‐adrenergic receptor, a ligand diffusible receptor, was discovered. Since then, high‐resolution structures of more than 53 unique GPCRs have been determined leading to a significant improvement in our understanding of the basic mechanisms of ligand‐binding and ligand‐mediated receptor activation that revolutionized the field of structural molecular pharmacology of GPCRs. Recently, several structures of eight unique lipid‐binding receptors, one of the most difficult GPCR families to study, have been reported. This review presents the outstanding structural and pharmacological features that have emerged from these new lipid receptor structures. The impact of these findings goes beyond mechanistic insights, providing evidence of the fundamental role of GPCRs in the physiological integration of the lipid signaling system, and highlighting the importance of sustained research into the structural biology of GPCRs for the development of new therapeutics targeting lipid receptors.     

Heptahelical terpsichory. Who calls the tune?

The discovery that arrestins can function as ligand-regulated signaling scaffolds has revealed a previously unappreciated level of complexity in G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signal transduction. Because arrestin-bound GPCRs are uncoupled from G proteins, arrestin binding can be viewed as switching receptors between two temporally and spatially distinct signaling modes. Recent work has established two factors that underscore this duality of GPCR signaling and suggest it may ultimately have therapeutic significance. The first is that signaling by receptor-arrestin "signalsomes" does not require heterotrimeric G protein activation. The second is that arrestin-dependent signals can be initiated by pathway-specific "biased agonists," creating the potential for drugs that selectively modulate different aspects of GPCR function. Currently, however, little is known about the physiological relevance of G protein-independent signals at the cellular or whole animal levels, and additional work is needed to determine whether arrestin pathway-selective drugs will find clinical application.     

Phosphorylation modulates the affinity of light-activated rhodopsin for G protein and arrestin

Reduced effector activity and binding of arrestin are widely accepted consequences of GPCR phosphorylation. However, the effect of receptor multiphosphorylation on G protein activation and arrestin binding parameters has not previously been quantitatively examined. We have found receptor phosphorylation to alter both G protein and arrestin binding constants for light-activated rhodopsin in proportion to phosphorylation stoichiometry. Rod disk membranes containing different average receptor phosphorylation stoichiometries were combined with G protein or arrestin, and titrated with a series of brief light flashes. Binding of G(t) or arrestin to activated rhodopsin augmented the 390 nm MII optical absorption signal by stabilizing MII as MII.G or MII.Arr. The concentration of active arrestin or G(t) and the binding constant of each to MII were determined using a nonlinear least-squares (Simplex) reaction model analysis of the titration data. The binding affinity of phosphorylated MII for G(t) decreased while that for arrestin increased with each added phosphate. G(t) binds more tightly to MII at phosphorylation levels less than or equal to two phosphates per rhodopsin; at higher phosphorylation levels, arrestin binding is favored. However, arrestin was found to bind much more slowly than G(t) at all phosphorylation levels, perhaps allowing time for phosphorylation to gradually reduce receptor-G protein interaction before arrestin capping of rhodopsin. Sensitivity of the binding constants to ionic strength suggests that a strong membrane electrostatic component is involved in both the reduction of G(t) binding and the increase of arrestin binding with increasing rhodopsin phosphorylation.