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.     

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.     

Quantitative Proteome Analysis of Temporally Resolved Phagosomes Following Uptake Via Key Phagocytic Receptors

Macrophages operate at the forefront of innate immunity and their discrimination of foreign versus “self” particles is critical for a number of responses including efficient pathogen killing, antigen presentation, and cytokine induction. In order to efficiently destroy the particles and detect potential threats, macrophages express an array of receptors to sense and phagocytose prey particles. In this study, we accurately quantified a proteomic time-course of isolated phagosomes from murine bone marrow-derived macrophages induced by particles conjugated to seven different ligands representing pathogen-associated molecular patterns, immune opsonins or apoptotic cell markers. We identified a clear functional differentiation over the three timepoints and detected subtle differences between certain ligand-phagosomes, indicating that triggering of receptors through a single ligand type has mild, but distinct, effects on phagosome proteome and function. Moreover, our data shows that uptake of phosphatidylserine-coated beads induces an active repression of NF-κB immune responses upon Toll-like receptor (TLR)-activation by recruitment of anti-inflammatory regulators to the phagosome. This data shows for the first time a systematic time-course analysis of bone marrow-derived macrophages phagosomes and how phagosome fate is regulated by the receptors triggered for phagocytosis.Macrophages exist in many different tissue subsets, are extremely plastic in response to cytokines and pathogen-associated molecular patterns and perform a wide range of biological functions (1, 2). One of the most important functions of macrophages is phagocytosis, defined as the active uptake of large particles (>0.5 μm) by cells (3). Phagocytosis is an important cellular mechanism for almost all eukaryotes, highly conserved in evolution (4), and, in mammals, is a key part of the innate immune response to invading microorganisms. Moreover, during homeostasis and development, macrophages phagocytose apoptotic cells and cell debris to recycle cellular building blocks (5, 6). Phagocytosis is induced through the binding of particles as diverse as microbes, apoptotic cells, or even inert beads to cell surface receptors. After internalization, newly formed phagosomes engage in a maturation process that involves fusion with various organelles, including endosomes and ultimately lysosomes (7, 8). This leads to the formation of phagolysosomes that degrade the foreign matter. Antigens from the particle are presented via MHC class I and II molecules, bridging innate and adaptive immunity.In order to effectively phagocytose the diverse types of particulates they can encounter, macrophages express a vast array of receptors to sense and respond to the different ligands; however, only a small subset are solely sufficient to trigger phagocytosis (9). The classic phagocytic receptors are the Fc receptor, which internalizes immunoglobulin-bound particles (10), and the complement receptors, which binds to complement-opsonized particles (11). Other well characterized ligands for phagocytic receptors include mannan, a polysaccharide common in bacterial membranes and fungal cell walls (12), that activates mannose receptors (13, 14); lipopolysaccharide (LPS)¹, a glycolipid that constitutes the major portion of the outermost membrane of Gram-negative bacteria, that triggers CD14 as well as scavenger receptors and toll-like receptors (15–20); and phosphatidylserine (PS), a lipid normally restricted to the inner leaflet of eukaryotic plasma membranes, but exposed in the outer leaflet during apoptosis. PS provides an “eat me” signal for macrophage clearance (21, 22) and triggers a range of receptors including TIM-4, BAI1, and Stabilin-2 (23–27). Similarly, calreticulin, an endoplasmic reticulum protein that is also transported to the plasma membrane serves as a apoptotic signal has been proposed as a phagocytic ligand triggering the phagocytic receptor low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein (LRP) (28–30).Although it is established that phagosome function is affected by various activation states, including rate of maturation, degradative capacity, and antigen cross-presentation capabilities (31–33), controversy exists around whether phagosome activity can be controlled directly, without prior activation, by receptor engagement at the phagosome level during biogenesis (34–38). Here, we dissect the role that individual ligands play in controlling downstream phagosome maturation using a reductionist strategy of ligating single ligands to microparticles and analyzing resulting phagosomes by quantitative proteomics and fluorescent phagosome functional assays.     

Analysis of Free Energy Signals Arising from Nucleotide Hybridization Between rRNA and mRNA Sequences during Translation in Eubacteria

A decoding algorithm is tested that mechanistically models the progressive alignments that arise as the mRNA moves past the rRNA tail during translation elongation. Each of these alignments provides an opportunity for hybridization between the single-stranded, -terminal nucleotides of the 16S rRNA and the spatially accessible window of mRNA sequence, from which a free energy value can be calculated. Using this algorithm we show that a periodic, energetic pattern of frequency 1/3 is revealed. This periodic signal exists in the majority of coding regions of eubacterial genes, but not in the non-coding regions encoding the 16S and 23S rRNAs. Signal analysis reveals that the population of coding regions of each bacterial species has a mean phase that is correlated in a statistically significant way with species () content. These results suggest that the periodic signal could function as a synchronization signal for the maintenance of reading frame and that codon usage provides a mechanism for manipulation of signal phase.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]     

Infection of Glial Cells by the Human Polyomavirus JC Is Mediated by an N-Linked Glycoprotein Containing Terminal α(2-6)-Linked Sialic Acids

The human JC polyomavirus (JCV) is the etiologic agent of the fatal central nervous system (CNS) demyelinating disease progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). PML typically occurs in immunosuppressed patients and is the direct result of JCV infection of oligodendrocytes. The initial event in infection of cells by JCV is attachment of the virus to receptors present on the surface of a susceptible cell. Our laboratory has been studying this critical event in the life cycle of JCV, and we have found that JCV binds to a limited number of cell surface receptors on human glial cells that are not shared by the related polyomavirus simian virus 40 (C. K. Liu, A. P. Hope, and W. J. Atwood, J. Neurovirol. 4:49–58, 1998). To further characterize specific JCV receptors on human glial cells, we tested specific neuraminidases, proteases, and phospholipases for the ability to inhibit JCV binding to and infection of glial cells. Several of the enzymes tested were capable of inhibiting virus binding to cells, but only neuraminidase was capable of inhibiting infection. The ability of neuraminidase to inhibit infection correlated with its ability to remove both α(2-3)- and α(2-6)-linked sialic acids from glial cells. A recombinant neuraminidase that specifically removes the α(2-3) linkage of sialic acid had no effect on virus binding or infection. A competition assay between virus and sialic acid-specific lectins that recognize either the α(2-3) or the α(2-6) linkage revealed that JCV preferentially interacts with α(2-6)-linked sialic acids on glial cells. Treatment of glial cells with tunicamycin, but not with benzyl N-acetyl-α-d-galactosaminide, inhibited infection by JCV, indicating that the sialylated JCV receptor is an N-linked glycoprotein. As sialic acid containing glycoproteins play a fundamental role in mediating many virus-cell and cell-cell recognition processes, it will be of interest to determine what role these receptors play in the pathogenesis of PML.Approximately 70% of the human population worldwide is seropositive for JC virus (JCV). Like other polyomaviruses, JCV establishes a lifelong latent or persistent infection in its natural host (40, 49, 50, 68, 72). Reactivation of JCV in the setting of an underlying immunosuppressive illness, such as AIDS, is thought to lead to virus dissemination to the central nervous system (CNS) and subsequent infection of oligodendrocytes (37, 40, 66, 68). Reactivation of latent JCV genomes already present in the CNS has also been postulated to contribute to the development of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) following immunosuppression (19, 48, 55, 70, 75). Approximately 4 to 6% of AIDS patients will develop PML during the course of their illness (10). In the CNS, JCV specifically infects oligodendrocytes and astrocytes. Outside the CNS, JCV genomes have been identified in the urogenital system, in the lymphoid system, and in B lymphocytes (2, 17, 18, 30, 47, 59). In vitro, JCV infects human glial cells and, to a limited extent, human B lymphocytes (3, 4, 39, 41, 42). Recently, JCV infection of tonsillar stromal cells and CD34⁺ B-cell precursors has been described (47). These observations have led to the suggestion that JCV may persist in a lymphoid compartment and that B cells may play a role in trafficking of JCV to the CNS (4, 30, 47).Virus-receptor interactions play a major role in determining virus tropism and tissue-specific pathology associated with virus infection. Viruses that have a very narrow host range and tissue tropism, such as JCV, are often shown to interact with high affinity to a limited number of specific receptors present on susceptible cells (26, 44). In some instances, virus tropism is strictly determined by the presence of specific receptors that mediate binding and entry (7, 16, 27, 35, 46, 53, 56, 67, 73, 74, 76). In other instances, however, successful entry into a cell is necessary but not sufficient for virus growth (5, 8, 45, 57). In these cases, additional permissive factors that interact with viral regulatory elements are required.The receptor binding characteristics of several polyomaviruses have been described. The mouse polyomavirus (PyV) receptor is an N-linked glycoprotein containing terminal α(2-3)-linked sialic acid (12–14, 22, 28). Both the large and small plaque strains of PyV recognize α(2-3)-linked sialic acid. The small-plaque strain also recognizes a branched disialyl structure containing α(2-3)- and α(2-6)-linked sialic acids. Neither strain recognizes straight-chain α(2-6)-linked sialic acid. The ability of the large- and small-plaque strains of PyV to differentially recognize these sialic acid structures has been precisely mapped to a single amino acid in the major virus capsid protein VP1 (21). The large-plaque strains all contain a glycine at amino acid position 92 in VP1, and the small-plaque strains all contain a negatively charged glutamic acid at this position (21). In addition to forming small or large plaques, these strains also differ in the ability to induce tumors in mice (20). This finding suggests that receptor recognition plays an important role in the pathogenesis of PyV.The cell surface receptor for lymphotropic papovavirus (LPV) is an O-linked glycoprotein containing terminal α(2-6)-linked sialic acid (26, 33, 34). Infection with LPV is restricted to a subset of human B-cell lines, and recognition of specific receptors is a major determinant of the tropism of LPV for these cells (26).Unlike the other members of the polyomavirus family, infection of cells by simian virus 40 (SV40) is independent of cell surface sialic acids. Instead, SV40 infection is mediated by major histocompatibility complex (MHC)-encoded class I proteins (5, 11). MHC class I proteins also play a role in mediating the association of SV40 with caveolae, a prerequisite for successful targeting of the SV40 genome to the nucleus of a cell (1, 63). Not surprisingly, SV40 has been shown not to compete with the sialic acid-dependent polyomaviruses for binding to host cells (15, 26, 38, 58).Very little is known about the early steps of JCV binding to and infection of glial cells. Like other members of the polyomavirus family, JCV is known to interact with cell surface sialic acids (51, 52). A role for sialic acids in mediating infection of glial cells has not been described. It is also not known whether the sialic acid is linked to a glycoprotein or a glycolipid. In a previous report, we demonstrated that JCV bound to a limited number of cell surface receptors on SVG cells that were not shared by the related polyomavirus SV40 (38). In this report, we demonstrate that virus binding to and infection of SVG cells is dependent on an N-linked glycoprotein containing terminal α(2-3)- and α(2-6)-linked sialic acids. Competitive binding assays with sialic acid-specific lectins suggest that the virus preferentially interacts with α(2-6)-linked sialic acids. We are currently evaluating the role of this receptor in determining the tropism of JCV for glial cells and B cells.     

Ligand-specific Conformational Changes in the ��1 Glycine Receptor Ligand-binding Domain

Understanding the activation mechanism of Cys loop ion channel receptors is key to understanding their physiological and pharmacological properties under normal and pathological conditions. The ligand-binding domains of these receptors comprise inner and outer β-sheets and structural studies indicate that channel opening is accompanied by conformational rearrangements in both β-sheets. In an attempt to resolve ligand-dependent movements in the ligand-binding domain, we employed voltage-clamp fluorometry on α1 glycine receptors to compare changes mediated by the agonist, glycine, and by the antagonist, strychnine. Voltage-clamp fluorometry involves labeling introduced cysteines with environmentally sensitive fluorophores and inferring structural rearrangements from ligand-induced fluorescence changes. In the inner β-sheet, we labeled residues in loop 2 and in binding domain loops D and E. At each position, strychnine and glycine induced distinct maximal fluorescence responses. The pre-M1 domain responded similarly; at each of four labeled positions glycine produced a strong fluorescence signal, whereas strychnine did not. This suggests that glycine induces conformational changes in the inner β-sheet and pre-M1 domain that may be important for activation, desensitization, or both. In contrast, most labeled residues in loops C and F yielded fluorescence changes identical in magnitude for glycine and strychnine. A notable exception was H201C in loop C. This labeled residue responded differently to glycine and strychnine, thus underlining the importance of loop C in ligand discrimination. These results provide an important step toward mapping the domains crucial for ligand discrimination in the ligand-binding domain of glycine receptors and possibly other Cys loop receptors.Glycine receptor (GlyR)3 chloride channels are pentameric Cys loop receptors that mediate fast synaptic transmission in the nervous system (1, 2). This family also includes nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs), γ-aminobutyric acid type A and type C receptors, and serotonin type 3 receptors. Individual subunits comprise a large ligand-binding domain (LBD) and a transmembrane domain consisting of four α-helices (M1–M4). The LBD consists of a 10-strand β-sandwich made of an inner β-sheet with six strands and an outer β-sheet with four strands (3). The ligand-binding site is situated at the interface of adjacent subunits and is formed by loops A–C from one subunit and loops D–F from the neighboring subunit (3).The activation mechanism of Cys loop receptors is currently the subject of intense investigation because it is key to understanding receptor function under normal and pathological conditions (4, 5). Based on structural analysis of Torpedo nAChRs, Unwin and colleagues (6, 7) originally proposed that agonist binding induced the inner β-sheet to rotate, whereas the outer β-sheet tilted slightly upwards with loop C clasping around the agonist. These movements were thought to be transmitted to the transmembrane domain via a differential movement of loop 2 (β1-β2) and loop 7 (β6-β7) (both part of the inner β-sheet) and the pre-M1 domain (which is linked via a β-strand to the loop C in the outer sheet). The idea of large loop C movements accompanying agonist binding is supported by structural and functional data (3, 8–13). However, a direct link between loop C movements and channel gating has proved more difficult to establish. Although computational modeling studies have suggested that this loop may be a major component of the channel opening mechanism (14–18), experimental support for this model is not definitive. Similarly, loop F is also thought to move upon ligand binding, although there is as yet no consensus as to whether these changes represent local or global conformational changes (11, 19–21). Recently, a comparison of crystal structures of bacterial Cys loop receptors in the closed and open states revealed that although both the inner and outer β-sheets exhibit different conformations in closed and open states, the pre-M1 domain remains virtually stationary (22, 23). It is therefore relevant to question whether loop C, loop F, and pre-M1 movements are essential for Cys loop receptor activation.Strychnine is a classical competitive antagonist of GlyRs (24, 25), and to date there is no evidence that it can produce LBD structural changes. In this study we use voltage-clamp fluorometry (VCF) to compare glycine- and strychnine-induced conformational changes in the GlyR loops 2, C, D, E, and F and the pre-M1 domain in an attempt to determine whether they signal ligand-binding events, local conformational changes, or conformational changes associated with receptor activation.In a typical VCF experiment, a domain of interest is labeled with an environmentally sensitive fluorophore, and current and fluorescence are monitored simultaneously during ligand application. VCF is ideally suited for identifying ligand-specific conformational changes because it can report on electrophysiologically silent conformational changes (26), such as those induced by antagonists. Indeed, VCF has recently provided valuable insights into the conformational rearrangements of various Cys loop receptors (19, 21, 27–33).