Crucial Positively Charged Residues for Ligand Activation of the GPR35 Receptor

GPR35 is a G protein-coupled receptor expressed in the immune, gastrointestinal, and nervous systems in gastric carcinomas and is implicated in heart failure and pain perception. We investigated residues in GPR35 responsible for ligand activation and the receptor structure in the active state. GPR35 contains numerous positively charged amino acids that face into the binding pocket that cluster in two distinct receptor regions, TMH3-4-5-6 and TMH1-2-7. Computer modeling implicated TMH3-4-5-6 for activation by the GPR35 agonists zaprinast and pamoic acid. Mutation results for the TMH1-2-7 region of GPR35 showed no change in ligand efficacies at the K1.32A, R2.65A, R7.33A, and K7.40A mutants. However, mutation of arginine residues in the TMH3-4-5-6 region (R4.60, R6.58, R3.36, R(164), and R(167) in the EC2 loop) had effects on signaling for one or both agonists tested. R4.60A resulted in a total ablation of agonist-induced activation in both the β-arrestin trafficking and ERK1/2 activation assays. R6.58A increased the potency of zaprinast 30-fold in the pERK assay. The R(167)A mutant decreased the potency of pamoic acid in the β-arrestin trafficking assay. The R(164)A and R(164)L mutants decreased potencies of both agonists. Similar trends for R6.58A and R(167)A were observed in calcium responses. Computer modeling showed that the R6.58A mutant has additional interactions with zaprinast. R3.36A did not express on the cell surface but was trapped in the cytoplasm. The lack of surface expression of R3.36A was rescued by a GPR35 antagonist, CID2745687. These results clearly show that R4.60, R(164), R(167), and R6.58 play crucial roles in the agonist initiated activation of GPR35.     

Identification by site-directed mutagenesis of residues involved in ligand recognition and activation of the human A3 adenosine receptor

Ligand recognition has been extensively explored in G protein-coupled A(1), A(2A), and A(2B) adenosine receptors but not in the A(3) receptor, which is cerebroprotective and cardioprotective. We mutated several residues of the human A(3) adenosine receptor within transmembrane domains 3 and 6 and the second extracellular loop, which have been predicted by previous molecular modeling to be involved in the ligand recognition, including His(95), Trp(243), Leu(244), Ser(247), Asn(250), and Lys(152). The N250A mutant receptor lost the ability to bind both radiolabeled agonist and antagonist. The H95A mutation significantly reduced affinity of both agonists and antagonists. In contrast, the K152A (EL2), W243A (6.48), and W243F (6.48) mutations did not significantly affect the agonist binding but decreased antagonist affinity by approximately 3-38-fold, suggesting that these residues were critical for the high affinity of A(3) adenosine receptor antagonists. Activation of phospholipase C by wild type (WT) and mutant receptors was measured. The A(3) agonist 2-chloro-N(6)-(3-iodobenzyl)-5'-N-methylcarbamoyladenosine stimulated phosphoinositide turnover in the WT but failed to evoke a response in cells expressing W243A and W243F mutant receptors, in which agonist binding was less sensitive to guanosine 5'-gamma-thiotriphosphate than in WT. Thus, although not important for agonist binding, Trp(243) was critical for receptor activation. The results were interpreted using a rhodopsin-based model of ligand-A(3) receptor interactions.     

Agonist-induced conformational changes in bovine rhodopsin: insight into activation of G-protein-coupled receptors

Activation of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) is initiated by conformational changes in the transmembrane (TM) helices and the intra- and extracellular loops induced by ligand binding. Understanding the conformational changes in GPCRs leading to activation is imperative in deciphering the role of these receptors in the pathology of diseases. Since the crystal structures of activated GPCRs are not yet available, computational methods and biophysical techniques have been used to predict the structures of GPCR active states. We have recently applied the computational method LITiCon to understand the ligand-induced conformational changes in β₂-adrenergic receptor by ligands of varied efficacies. Here we report a study of the conformational changes associated with the activation of bovine rhodopsin for which the crystal structure of the inactive state is known. Starting from the inactive (dark) state, we have predicted the TM conformational changes that are induced by the isomerization of 11-cis retinal to all-trans retinal leading to the fully activated state, metarhodopsin II. The predicted active state of rhodopsin satisfies all of the 30 known experimental distance constraints. The predicted model also correlates well with the experimentally observed conformational switches in rhodopsin and other class A GPCRs, namely, the breaking of the ionic lock between R135^3.50 at the intracellular end of TM3 (part of the DRY motif) and E247^6.30 on TM6, and the rotamer toggle switch on W265^6.48 on TM6. We observe that the toggling of the W265^6.48 rotamer modulates the bend angle of TM6 around the conserved proline. The rotamer toggling is facilitated by the formation of a water wire connecting S298^7.45, W265^6.48 and H211^5.46. As a result, the intracellular ends of TMs 5 and 6 move outward from the protein core, causing large conformational changes at the cytoplasmic interface. The predicted outward movements of TM5 and TM6 are in agreement with the recently published crystal structure of opsin, which is proposed to be close to the active-state structure. In the predicted active state, several residues in the intracellular loops, such as R69, V139^3.54, T229, Q237, Q239, S240, T243 and V250^6.33, become more water exposed compared to the inactive state. These residues may be involved in mediating the conformational signal from the receptor to the G protein. From mutagenesis studies, some of these residues, such as V139^3.54, T229 and V250^6.33, are already implicated in G-protein activation. The predicted active state also leads to the formation of new stabilizing interhelical hydrogen-bond contacts, such as those between W265^6.48 and H211^5.46 and E122^3.37 and C167^4.56. These hydrogen-bond contacts serve as potential conformational switches offering new opportunities for future experimental investigations. The calculated retinal binding energy surface shows that binding of an agonist makes the receptor dynamic and flexible and accessible to many conformations, while binding of an inverse agonist traps the receptor in the inactive state and makes the other conformations inaccessible.     

Generation of an agonistic binding site for blockers of the M(3) muscarinic acetylcholine receptor

GPCRs (G-protein-coupled receptors) exist in a spontaneous equilibrium between active and inactive conformations that are stabilized by agonists and inverse agonists respectively. Because ligand binding of agonists and inverse agonists often occurs in a competitive manner, one can assume an overlap between both binding sites. Only a few studies report mutations in GPCRs that convert receptor blockers into agonists by unknown mechanisms. Taking advantage of a genetically modified yeast strain, we screened libraries of mutant M(3)Rs {M(3) mAChRs [muscarinic ACh (acetylcholine) receptors)]} and identified 13 mutants which could be activated by atropine (EC50 0.3-10 microM), an inverse agonist on wild-type M(3)R. Many of the mutations sensitizing M(3)R to atropine activation were located at the junction of intracellular loop 3 and helix 6, a region known to be involved in G-protein coupling. In addition to atropine, the pharmacological switch was found for other M(3)R blockers such as scopolamine, pirenzepine and oxybutynine. However, atropine functions as an agonist on the mutant M(3)R only when expressed in yeast, but not in mammalian COS-7 cells, although high-affinity ligand binding was comparable in both expression systems. Interestingly, we found that atropine still blocks carbachol-induced activation of the M(3)R mutants in the yeast expression system by binding at the high-affinity-binding site (Ki approximately 10 nM). Our results indicate that blocker-to-agonist converting mutations enable atropine to function as both agonist and antagonist by interaction with two functionally distinct binding sites.     

Ligand-stabilized conformational states of human beta(2) adrenergic receptor: insight into G-protein-coupled receptor activation

G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are known to exist in dynamic equilibrium between inactive- and several active-state conformations, even in the absence of a ligand. Recent experimental studies on the β₂ adrenergic receptor (β₂AR) indicate that structurally different ligands with varying efficacies trigger distinct conformational changes and stabilize different receptor conformations. We have developed a computational method to study the ligand-induced rotational orientation changes in the transmembrane helices of GPCRs. This method involves a systematic spanning of the rotational orientation of the transmembrane helices (TMs) that are in the vicinity of the ligand for predicting the helical rotations that occur on ligand binding. The predicted ligand-stabilized receptor conformations are characterized by a simultaneous lowering of the ligand binding energy and a significant gain in interhelical and receptor-ligand hydrogen bonds. Using the β₂AR as a model, we show that the receptor conformational state depends on the structure and efficacy of the ligand for a given signaling pathway. We have studied the ligand-stabilized receptor conformations of five different ligands, a full agonist, norepinephrine; a partial agonist, salbutamol; a weak partial agonist, dopamine; a very weak agonist, catechol; and an inverse agonist, ICI-115881. The predicted ligand-stabilized receptor models correlate well with the experimentally observed conformational switches in β₂AR, namely, the breaking of the ionic lock between R131^3.50 at the intracellular end of TM3 (part of the DRY motif) and E268^6.30 on TM6, and the rotamer toggle switch on W286^6.48 on TM6. In agreement with trp-bimane quenching experiments, we found that norepinephrine and dopamine break the ionic lock and engage the rotamer toggle switch, whereas salbutamol, a noncatechol partial agonist only breaks the ionic lock, and the weak agonist catechol only engages the rotamer toggle switch. Norepinephrine and dopamine occupy the same binding region, between TM3, TM5, and TM6, whereas the binding site of salbutamol is shifted toward TM4. Catechol binds deeper into the protein cavity compared to the other ligands, making contact with TM5 and TM6. A part of the catechol binding site overlaps with those of dopamine and norepinephrine but not with that of salbutamol. Virtual ligand screening on 10,060 ligands on the norepinephrine-stabilized receptor conformation shows an enrichment of 38% compared to ligand unbound receptor conformation. These results show that ligand-induced conformational changes are important for developing functionally specific drugs that will stabilize a particular receptor conformation. These studies represent the first step toward a more universally applicable computational method for studying ligand efficacy and GPCR activation.     

Agonist dynamics and conformational selection during microsecond simulations of the A(2A) adenosine receptor

The G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are a ubiquitous family of signaling proteins of exceptional pharmacological importance. The recent publication of structures of several GPCRs cocrystallized with ligands of differing activity offers a unique opportunity to gain insight into their function. To that end, we performed microsecond-timescale simulations of the A(2A) adenosine receptor bound to either of two agonists, adenosine or UK432097. Our data suggest that adenosine is highly dynamic when bound to A(2A), in stark contrast to the case with UK432097. Remarkably, adenosine finds an alternate binding pose in which the ligand is inverted relative to the crystal structure, forming relatively stable interactions with helices I and II. Our observations suggest new experimental tests to validate our predictions and deepen our understanding of GPCR signaling. Overall, our data suggest an intriguing hypothesis: that the 100- to 1000-fold greater efficacy of UK432097 relative to adenosine arises because UK432097 stabilizes a much tighter neighborhood of active conformations, which manifests as a greater likelihood of G-protein activation per unit time.     

Plasticity of the ligand binding pocket in the bitter taste receptor T2R7

Bitter taste receptors (T2Rs) are a group of 25 G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) in humans. The cognate agonists and the mechanism of ligand binding to the majority of the T2Rs remain unknown. Here we report the first structure-function analysis of T2R7 and study the ability of this receptor to bind to different agonists by site-directed mutagenesis. Screening of ligands for T2R7 in calcium based assays lead to the identification of novel compounds that activate this receptor. Quinine, diphenidol, dextromethorphan and diphenhydramine showed substantial activation of T2R7. Interestingly, these bitter compounds showed different pharmacological characteristics. To investigate the structural features in T2R7 that might contribute to the observed differences in agonist specificities, molecular model guided ligand docking and site-directed mutagenesis was pursued. Amino acids D65, D86, W89, N167, T169, W170, S181, T255 and E271 in the ligand-binding pocket were replaced and the mutants characterized pharmacologically. Our results suggest D86, S181 and W170 present on the extracellular side of transmembrane 3 (TM3), TM5 and in extracellular loop 2 (ECL2) are essential for agonist binding in T2R7. Mutations of these amino acids lead to loss-of-function. We also identified gain-of-function residues that are agonist specific. These results suggest that agonists bind at an extracellular site rather than deep within the TM core involving residues present in both ECL2 and TM helices in T2R7. Similar to majority of the Class A GPCRs, ECL2 in T2R7 plays a significant role in agonist binding and activation.     

Structural insights into agonist-induced activation of G-protein-coupled receptors

Recent years have seen tremendous breakthroughs in structure determination of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). In 2011, two agonist-bound active-state structures of rhodopsin have been published. Together with structures of several rhodopsin activation intermediates and a wealth of biochemical and spectroscopic information, they provide a unique structural framework on which to understand GPCR activation. Here we use this framework to compare the recent crystal structures of the agonist-bound active states of the β(2) adrenergic receptor (β(2)AR) and the A(2A) adenosine receptor (A(2A)AR). While activation of these three GPCRs results in rearrangements of TM5 and TM6, the extent of this conformational change varies considerably. Displacements of the cytoplasmic side of TM6 ranges between 3 and 8? depending on whether selective stabilizers of the active conformation are used (i.e. a G-protein peptide in the case of rhodopsin or a conformationally selective nanobody in the case of the β(2)AR) or not (A(2A)AR). The agonist-induced conformational changes in the ligand-binding pocket are largely receptor specific due to the different chemical nature of the agonists. However, several similarities can be observed, including a relocation of conserved residues W6.48 and F6.44 towards L5.51 and P5.50, and of I/L3.40 away from P5.50. This transmission switch links agonist binding to the movement of TM5 and TM6 through the rearrangement of the TM3-TM5-TM6 interface, and possibly constitutes a common theme of GPCR activation.     

Modeling of ligand binding to G protein coupled receptors: cannabinoid CB1, CB2 and adrenergic β2AR

Cannabinoid and adrenergic receptors belong to the class A (similar to rhodopsin) G protein coupled receptors. Docking of agonists and antagonists to CB₁ and CB₂ cannabinoid receptors revealed the importance of a centrally located rotamer toggle switch and its possible participation in the mechanism of agonist/antagonist recognition. The switch is composed of two residues, F3.36 and W6.48, located on opposite transmembrane helices TM3 and TM6 in the central part of the membranous domain of cannabinoid receptors. The CB₁ and CB₂ receptor models were constructed based on the adenosine A_2A receptor template. The two best scored conformations of each receptor were used for the docking procedure. In all poses (ligand-receptor conformations) characterized by the lowest ligand-receptor intermolecular energy and free energy of binding the ligand type matched the state of the rotamer toggle switch: antagonists maintained an inactive state of the switch, whereas agonists changed it. In case of agonists of β₂AR, the (R,R) and (S,S) stereoisomers of fenoterol, the molecular dynamics simulations provided evidence of different binding modes while preserving the same average position of ligands in the binding site. The (S,S) isomer was much more labile in the binding site and only one stable hydrogen bond was created. Such dynamical binding modes may also be valid for ligands of cannabinoid receptors because of the hydrophobic nature of their ligand-receptor interactions. However, only very long molecular dynamics simulations could verify the validity of such binding modes and how they affect the process of activation.     

Comparison of the amino acid residues in the sixth transmembrane domains accessible in the binding-site crevices of mu, delta, and kappa opioid receptors.

We have mapped the residues in the sixth transmembrane domains (TMs 6) of the mu, delta, and kappa opioid receptors that are accessible in the binding-site crevices by the substituted cysteine accessibility method (SCAM). We previously showed that ligand binding to the C7.38S mutants of the mu and kappa receptors and the wild-type delta receptor was relatively insensitive to methanethiosulfonate ethylammonium (MTSEA), a positively charged sulfhydryl-specific reagent. These MTSEA-insensitive constructs were used as the templates, and 22 consecutive residues in TM6 (excluding C6.47) of each receptor were mutated to cysteine, 1 at a time. Most mutants retained binding affinities for [3H]diprenorphine, a nonselective opioid antagonist, similar to that of the template receptors. Treatment with MTSEA significantly inhibited [3H]diprenorphine binding to 11 of 22 mutants of the rat mu receptor and 9 of 22 mutants of the human delta receptor and 10 of 22 mutants of the human kappa receptor. Naloxone or diprenorphine protected all sensitive mutants, except the A6.42(287)C mu mutant. Thus, V6.40, F6.44, W6.48, I6.51, Y6.54, V6.55, I6.56, I6.57, K6.58, and A6.59 of the mu receptor; F6.44, I6.51, F6.54, V6.55, I6.56, V6.57, W6.58, T6.59, and L6.60 of the delta receptor; and F6.44, W6.48, I6.51, F6.54, I6.55, L6.56, V6.57, E6.58, A6.59, and L6.60 of the kappa receptor are on the water-accessible surface of the binding-site crevices. The accessibility patterns of residues in the TMs 6 of the mu, delta, and kappa opioid receptors are consistent with the notion that the TMs 6 are in alpha-helical conformations with a narrow strip of accessibility on the intracellular side of 6.54 and a wider area of accessibility on the extracellular side of 6.54, likely due to a proline kink at 6.50 that bends the helix in toward the binding pocket and enables considerable motion in this region. The wider exposure of residues 6.55-6.60 to the binding-site crevice, combined with the divergent amino acid sequences, is consistent with the inferred role of residues in this region in determining ligand binding selectivity. The conservation of the accessibility pattern on the cytoplasmic side of 6.54 suggests that this region may be important for receptor activation. This accessibility pattern is similar to that of the D2 dopamine receptor, the only other GPCR in which TM6 has been mapped by SCAM. That opioid receptors and the remotely related D2 dopamine receptor have similar accessibility patterns in TM6 suggest that these segments of GPCRs in the rhodopsin-like subfamily not only share secondary structure but also are packed similarly into the transmembrane bundle and thus have similar tertiary structure.     

Three "hotspots" important for adenosine A(2B) receptor activation: a mutational analysis of transmembrane domains 4 and 5 and the second extracellular loop

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are a major drug target and can be activated by a range of stimuli, from photons to proteins. Despite the progress made in the last decade in molecular and structural biology, their exact activation mechanism is still unknown. Here we describe new insights in specific regions essential in adenosine A_2B receptor activation (A_2BR), a typical class A GPCR. We applied unbiased random mutagenesis on the middle part of the human adenosine A_2BR, consisting of transmembrane domains 4 and 5 (TM4 and TM5) linked by extracellular loop 2 (EL2), and subsequently screened in a medium-throughput manner for gain-of-function and constitutively active mutants. For that purpose, we used a genetically engineered yeast strain (Saccharomyces cerevisiae MMY24) with growth as a read-out parameter. From the random mutagenesis screen, 12 different mutant receptors were identified that form three distinct clusters; at the top of TM4, in a cysteine-rich region in EL2, and at the intracellular side of TM5. All mutant receptors show a vast increase in agonist potency and most also displayed a significant increase in constitutive activity. None of these residues are supposedly involved in ligand binding directly. As a consequence, it appears that disrupting the relatively “silent” configuration of the wild-type receptor in each of the three clusters readily causes spontaneous receptor activity.     

Homology model of the CB1 cannabinoid receptor: sites critical for nonclassical cannabinoid agonist interaction

Association of cannabimimetic compounds such as cannabinoids, aminoalkylindoles (AAIs), and arachidonylethanolamide (anandamide) with the brain cannabinoid (CB(1)) receptor activates G-proteins and relays signals to regulate neuronal functions. A CB(1) receptor homology model was constructed using the published x-ray crystal structure of bovine rhodopsin (Palczewski et al., Science, 2000, Vol. 289, pp. 739-745) in the conformation most likely to represent the "high-affinity" state for agonist binding to G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs). A molecular docking approach that combined Monte Carlo and molecular dynamics simulations was used to identify the putative binding conformations of nonclassical cannabinoid agonists, including AC-bicyclic CP47497 and CP55940, and ACD-tricyclic CP55244. Placement of these ligands was based upon the assumption of a critical hydrogen bond between the A-ring OH and the side chain N of Lys192 in transmembrane helix 3. We evaluated two alternative binding conformations, C3-in and C3-out, denoting the directionality of the ligand C3 side chain within the receptor with respect to the inside or the outside of the cell. Assuming both the C3-in or C3-out conformation, the calculated ligand-receptor binding energy (DeltaE(bind)) was correlated with the experimentally observed binding affinity (K(i)) for a series of nonclassical cannabinoid agonists. The C3-in conformation was marginally better than the alternative C3-out conformation in predicting the rank order of the tested nonclassical cannabinoid analogs. Adopting the C3-in conformation due to the greater number of receptor interactions with known pharmacophoric elements of the ligand, key residues were identified comprising the presumed hydrophobic pocket that interacts with the C3 side chain of cannabinoid agonists. Key hydrogen bonds would form between both K3.28(192) and E(258) and the A-ring OH, and between Q(261) and the C-ring C-12 hydroxypropyl. In summary, the present study represents one of the first attempts to construct a homology model of the CB(1) cannabinoid receptor based upon the published bovine rhodopsin x-ray crystal structure and to elucidate the putative ligand binding site for nonclassical cannabinoid agonists. We postulated sites of the CB(1) receptor critical for the ligand interaction, including the hydrophobic pocket interacting with the key pharmacophoric moiety, the C3 side chain. More work is needed to delineate between two alternative (and possibly other) binding conformations of the nonclassical cannabinoid ligands within the CB(1) receptor. The present study provides a consistent framework for further investigation of the CB(1) receptor-ligand interaction and for the study of CB(1) receptor activation.     

Internalization and desensitization of adenosine receptors

Until now, more than 800 distinct G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) have been identified in the human genome. The four subtypes of the adenosine receptor (A(1), A(2A), A(2B) and A(3) receptor) belong to this large family of GPCRs that represent the most widely targeted pharmacological protein class. Since adenosine receptors are widespread throughout the body and involved in a variety of physiological processes and diseases, there is great interest in understanding how the different subtypes are regulated, as a basis for designing therapeutic drugs that either avoid or make use of this regulation. The major GPCR regulatory pathway involves phosphorylation of activated receptors by G protein-coupled receptor kinases (GRKs), a process that is followed by binding of arrestin proteins. This prevents receptors from activating downstream heterotrimeric G protein pathways, but at the same time allows activation of arrestin-dependent signalling pathways. Upon agonist treatment, adenosine receptor subtypes are differently regulated. For instance, the A(1)Rs are not (readily) phosphorylated and internalize slowly, showing a typical half-life of several hours, whereas the A(2A)R and A(2B)R undergo much faster downregulation, usually shorter than 1 h. The A(3)R is subject to even faster downregulation, often a matter of minutes. The fast desensitization of the A(3)R after agonist exposure may be therapeutically equivalent to antagonist occupancy of the receptor. This review describes the process of desensitization and internalization of the different adenosine subtypes in cell systems, tissues and in vivo studies. In addition, molecular mechanisms involved in adenosine receptor desensitization are discussed.     

Activation of the cannabinoid CB1 receptor may involve a W6 48/F3 36 rotamer toggle switch.

The cannabinoid CB1 receptor, a member of the Rhodopsin (Rho) family of G protein coupled receptors (GPCRs), exhibits high levels of constitutive activity. In contrast, Rho exhibits an exquisite lack of constitutive activity. In Rho, W6.48(265) on transmembrane helix 6 (TMH6) is flanked by aromatic residues at positions i-4 (F6.44) and i + 3 (Y6.51), while in CB1 the residues i-4 and i + 3 to W6.48 are leucines (L6.44 and L6.51). Based upon spectroscopic evidence, W6.48 has been proposed to undergo a rotamer switch (chi1 g+ -->trans) upon activation of Rho. In the work reported here, the biased Monte Carlo method, Conformational Memories (CM) was used to test the hypothesis that the high constitutive activity exhibited by CB1 may be due, in part, to the lack of aromatic residues i-4 and i + 3 from W6.48. In this work, the W6.48 rotamer shift (chi1 g+ -->trans) was used as the criterion for activation. Conformational Memories (CM) calculations on WT CB1 TMH6 and L6.44F and L6.51Y mutant TMH6s revealed that an aromatic residue at 6.44 tends to disfavor the W6.48 chi1 g+ -->trans transition and an aromatic residue at 6.51 would require a concomitant movement of the Y6.51 chi1 from trans-->g+ when the W6.48 chi1 undergoes a g+ -->trans shift. In contrast, CM calculations on WT CB1 TMH6 revealed that the presence of leucines at 6.44 and 6.51 provide W6.48 with greater conformational mobility, with a W6.48 transchi1 preferred. Conformational Memories calculations also revealed that the W6.48 chi1 g+ -->trans transition in WT CB1 TMH6 is correlated with the degree of kinking in TMH6. The average proline kink angles for TMH6 were higher for helices with a W6.48 g+ chi1 than for those with a W6.48 transchi1. These results are consistent with experimental evidence that TMH6 straightens during activation. Transmembrane helix (TMH) bundle models of the inactive (R) and active (R*) states of CB1 were then probed for interactions that may constrain W6.48 in the inactive state of CB1. These studies revealed that F3.36 (transchi1) helps to constrain W6.48 in a g+ chi1 in the inactive (R) state of CB1. In the R* state, these studies suggest that F3.36 must assume a g+ chi1 in order to allow W6.48 to shift to a transchi1. These results suggest that the W6.48/F3.36 interaction may act as the 'toggle switch' for CB1 activation, with W6.48 chi1 g+/F3.36 chi1 trans representing the inactive (R) and W6.48 chi1 trans/F3.36 chi1 g+ representing the active (R*) state of CB1.     

A2B adenosine receptor agonists: synthesis and biological evaluation of 2-phenylhydroxypropynyl adenosine and NECA derivatives

In the search for agonists for the elusive A2B adenosine receptor subtypes, 2-phenylhydroxypropynyl-5'-N-methylcarboxamido adenosine (PHPMECA, 14), 2-phenylhydroxypropynyl-5'-N-propylcarboxamido adenosine (PHPPECA, 15), and N6-ethyl-2-phenylhydroxypropynyl-5'-N-ethylcarboxamidoadenosine (19) were synthesized on the basis that introduction of alkynyl chains in 2-position of adenosine derivatives resulted in reasonably good A2B potency compared to NECA [see N6-ethyl-2-phenylhydroxypropynyl adenosine (5) EC50 = 1,700 nM and 2-phenylhydroxypropynyl-5'-N-ethylcarboxamido adenosine (PHPNECA, 8) EC50 = 1,100 nM, respectively]. Radioligand binding studies and adenylyl cyclase assays, performed with recently cloned human A1, A2A, A2B, and A3 adenosine receptors, showed that these modifications produced a decrease in potency at A2B receptor, as well as a general reduction in affinity at the other receptor subtypes. On the other hand, the contemporary presence of an ethyl substituent in N6-position and of a 4'-ethylcarboxamido group in the same compounds led to (R,S)-N6-ethyl-2-phenylhydroxypropynyl-5'-N-ethylcarboxamidoadenosine and (S)-N6-ethyl-2-phenylhydroxypropynyl-5'-N-ethylcarboxamidoadenosine, which did not show the expected increase in potency at A2B subtype. Hence, (S)-2-phenylhydroxypropynyl-5'-N-ethylcarboxamidoadenosine [(S)-PHPNECA] with EC50 A2B = 220 nM remains the most potent agonist at A2B receptor reported so far.     

A 5-HT4 receptor transmembrane network implicated in the activity of inverse agonists but not agonists

Activation of G protein-coupled receptors is thought to involve disruption of intramolecular interactions that stabilize their inactive conformation. Such disruptions are induced by agonists or by constitutively active mutations. In the present study, novel potent inverse agonists are described to inhibit the constitutive activity of 5-HT(4) receptors. Using these compounds and specific receptor mutations, we investigated the mechanisms by which inverse agonists may reverse the disruption of intramolecular interactions that causes constitutive activation. Two mutations (D100(3.32)A in transmembrane domain (TMD)-III and F275(6.51)A in TMD-VI) were found to completely block inverse agonist effects without impairing their binding properties nor the molecular activation switches induced by agonists. Based on the rhodopsin model, we propose that these mutated receptors are in equilibrium between two states R and R* but are unable to reach a third "silent" state stabilized by inverse agonists. We also found another mutation in TMD-VI (W272(6.48)A) that stabilized this silent state. This mutant remained fully activated by agonists. Molecular modeling indicated that Asp-100, Phe-275, and Trp-272 might constitute a network required for stabilization of the silent state by the described inverse agonists. However, this network is not necessary for agonist activity.     

Adenosine A3 receptor is involved in ADP-induced microglial process extension and migration

The extension of microglial processes toward injured sites in the brain is triggered by the stimulation of the purinergic receptor P2Y(12) by extracellular ATP. We recently showed that P2Y(12) stimulation by ATP induces microglial process extension in collagen gels. In the present study, we found that a P2Y(12) agonist, 2-methylthio-ADP (2MeSADP), failed to induce the process extension of microglia in collagen gels and that co-stimulation with adenosine, a phosphohydrolytic derivative of ATP, and 2MeSADP restored the chemotactic process extension. An adenosine A3 receptor (A3R)-selective agonist restored the chemotactic process extension, but other receptor subtype agonists did not. The removal of adenosine by adenosine deaminase and the blocking of A3R by an A3R-selective antagonist inhibited ADP-induced process extension. The A3R antagonist inhibited ADP-induced microglial migration, and an A3R agonist promoted 2MeSADP-stimulated migration. ADP and the A3R agonist activated Jun N-terminal kinase in microglia, and a Jun N-terminal kinase inhibitor inhibited the ADP-induced process extension. An RT-PCR analysis showed that A1R and A3R were expressed by microglia sorted from adult rat brains and that the A2AR expression level was very low. These results suggested that A3R signaling may be involved in the ADP-induced process extension and migration of microglia.     

Functional expression of single-chain heterodimeric G-protein-coupled receptors for adenosine and dopamine

The direct homo- and heteromeric association between G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), adenosine A2A receptor (A(2A)R) and dopamine D2 receptor (D2R), occurs although little is known about the selectivity of their formation (A(2A)R/A(2A)R vs. A(2A)R/D2R). In order to stimulate the heteromerization of A(2A)R and D2R, we have designed a single-polypeptide-chain heterodimeric A(2A)R/D2R complex by fusing the C-terminus of the A(2A)R via transmembrane (TM) of a type II TM protein with the N-terminus of D2R in tandem. This was successfully expressed on the cell surface as a full-length protein with specific binding to the respective ligands and functional coupling to G-proteins comparable to wild-type receptors, suggesting the possible creation of physiologically relevant heteromeric A(2A)R/D2R. This expression system would be useful to exclusively clarify the properties of heteromeric GPCRs irrespective of homomeric receptors.