Neuronal control of lipid metabolism by STR‐2 G protein‐coupled receptor promotes longevity in Caenorhabditis elegans

The G protein‐coupled receptor (GPCR) encoding family of genes constitutes more than 6% of genes in Caenorhabditis elegans genome. GPCRs control behavior, innate immunity, chemotaxis, and food search behavior. Here, we show that C. elegans longevity is regulated by a chemosensory GPCR STR‐2, expressed in AWC and ASI amphid sensory neurons. STR‐2 function is required at temperatures of 20°C and higher on standard Escherichia coli OP50 diet. Under these conditions, this neuronal receptor also controls health span parameters and lipid droplet (LD) homeostasis in the intestine. We show that STR‐2 regulates expression of delta‐9 desaturases, fat‐5, fat‐6 and fat‐7, and of diacylglycerol acyltransferase dgat‐2. Rescue of the STR‐2 function in either AWC and ASI, or ASI sensory neurons alone, restores expression of fat‐5, dgat‐2 and restores LD stores and longevity. Rescue of stored fat levels of GPCR mutant animals to wild‐type levels, with low concentration of glucose, rescues its lifespan phenotype. In all, we show that neuronal STR‐2 GPCR facilitates control of neutral lipid levels and longevity in C. elegans.     

Signaling through G protein coupled receptors

Heterotrimeric G proteins (Gα, Gβ/Gγ subunits) constitute one of the most important components of cell signaling cascade. G Protein Coupled Receptors (GPCRs) perceive many extracellular signals and transduce them to heterotrimeric G proteins, which further transduce these signals intracellular to appropriate downstream effectors and thereby play an important role in various signaling pathways. GPCRs exist as a superfamily of integral membrane protein receptors that contain seven transmembrane α-helical regions, which bind to a wide range of ligands. Upon activation by a ligand, the GPCR undergoes a conformational change and then activate the G proteins by promoting the exchange of GDP/GTP associated with the Gα subunit. This leads to the dissociation of Gβ/Gγ dimer from Gα. Both these moieties then become free to act upon their downstream effectors and thereby initiate unique intracellular signaling responses. After the signal propagation, the GTP of Gα-GTP is hydrolyzed to GDP and Gα becomes inactive (Gα-GDP), which leads to its re-association with the Gβ/Gγ dimer to form the inactive heterotrimeric complex. The GPCR can also transduce the signal through G protein independent pathway. GPCRs also regulate cell cycle progression. Till to date thousands of GPCRs are known from animal kingdom with little homology among them, but only single GPCR has been identified in plant system. The Arabidopsis GPCR was reported to be cell cycle regulated and also involved in ABA and in stress signaling. Here I have described a general mechanism of signal transduction through GPCR/G proteins, structure of GPCRs, family of GPCRs and plant GPCR and its role.Key words: heterotrimeric G proteins, GPCRs, seven-transmembrane receptors, signal transduction, stress signaling     

Molecular basis for dramatic changes in cannabinoid CB1 G protein‐coupled receptor activation upon single and double point mutations

There is considerable interest in determining the activation mechanism of G protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs), one of the most important types of proteins for intercellular signaling. Recently, it was demonstrated for the cannabinoid CB1 GPCR, that a single mutation T210A could make CB1 completely inactive whereas T210I makes it essentially constitutively active. To obtain an understanding of this dramatic dependence of activity on mutation, we used first‐principles‐based methods to predict the ensemble of low‐energy seven‐helix conformations for the wild‐type (WT) and mutants (T210A and T210I). We find that the transmembrane (TM) helix packings depend markedly on these mutations, leading for T210A to both TM3+TM6 and TM2+TM6 salt‐bridge couplings in the cytoplasmic face that explains the inactivity of this mutant. In contrast T210I has no such couplings across the receptor explaining the ease in activating this mutant. WT has just the TM3+TM6 coupling, known to be broken upon GPCR activation. To test this hypothesis on activity, we predicted double mutants that would convert the inactive mutant to normal activity and then confirmed this experimentally. This CB1 activation mechanism, or one similar to it, is expected to play a role in other constitutively active GPCRs as well.     

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.     

Endo‐lysosomal sorting of G‐protein‐coupled receptors by ubiquitin: Diverse pathways for G‐protein‐coupled receptor destruction and beyond

Ubiquitin is covalently attached to substrate proteins in the form of a single ubiquitin moiety or polyubiquitin chains and has been generally linked to protein degradation, however, distinct types of ubiquitin linkages are also used to control other critical cellular processes like cell signaling. Over forty mammalian G protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) have been reported to be ubiquitinated, but despite the diverse and rich complexity of GPCR signaling, ubiquitin has been largely ascribed to receptor degradation. Indeed, GPCR ubiquitination targets the receptors for degradation by lysosome, which is mediated by the Endosomal Sorting Complexes Required for Transport (ESCRT) machinery, and the proteasome. This has led to the view that ubiquitin and ESCRTs primarily function as the signal to target GPCRs for destruction. Contrary to this conventional view, studies indicate that ubiquitination of certain GPCRs and canonical ubiquitin‐binding ESCRTs are not required for receptor degradation and revealed that diverse and complex pathways exist to regulate endo‐lysosomal sorting of GPCRs. In other studies, GPCR ubiquitination has been shown to drive signaling and not receptor degradation and further revealed novel insight into the mechanisms by which GPCRs trigger the activity of the ubiquitination machinery. Here, we discuss the diverse pathways by which ubiquitin controls GPCR endo‐lysosomal sorting and beyond.      

Conformational Changes of G Protein‐Coupled Receptors During Their Activation by Agonist Binding

Abstract

The superfamily of G protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) is the largest and most diverse group of transmembrane proteins involved in signal transduction. Many of the over 1000 human GPCRs represent important pharmaceutical targets. However, despite high interest in this receptor family, no high‐resolution structure of a human GPCR has been resolved yet. This is mainly due to difficulties in obtaining large quantities of pure and active protein. Until now, only a high‐resolution x‐ray structure of an inactive state of bovine rhodopsin is available. Since no structure of an active state has been solved, information of the GPCR activation process can be gained only by biophysical techniques. In this review, we first describe what is known about the ground state of GPCRs to then address questions about the nature of the conformational changes taking place during receptor activation and the mechanism controlling the transition from the resting to the active state. Finally, we will also address the question to what extent information about the three‐dimensional GPCR structure can be included into pharmaceutical drug design programs.     

A rapid fluorogenic GPCR–β‐arrestin interaction assay

Detection of protein–protein interactions involved in signal transduction in live cells and organisms has a variety of important applications. We report a fluorogenic assay for G protein‐coupled receptor (GPCR)–β‐arrestin interaction that is genetically encoded, generalizes to multiple GPCRs, and features high signal‐to‐noise because fluorescence is absent until its components interact upon GPCR activation. Fluorescence after protease‐activated receptor‐1 activation developed in minutes and required specific serine–threonine residues in the receptor carboxyl tail, consistent with a classical G protein‐coupled receptor kinase dependent β‐arrestin recruitment mechanism. This assay provides a useful complement to other in vivo assays of GPCR activation.     

Evidence of the importance of the first intracellular loop of prokineticin receptor 2 in receptor function

Prokineticin receptors (PROKR) are G protein-coupled receptors (GPCR) that regulate diverse biological processes, including olfactory bulb neurogenesis and GnRH neuronal migration. Mutations in PROKR2 have been described in patients with varying degrees of GnRH deficiency and are located in diverse functional domains of the receptor. Our goal was to determine whether variants in the first intracellular loop (ICL1) of PROKR2 (R80C, R85C, and R85H) identified in patients with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism interfere with receptor function and to elucidate the mechanisms of these effects. Because of structural homology among GPCR, clarification of the role of ICL1 in PROKR2 activity may contribute to a better understanding of this domain across other GPCR. The effects of the ICL1 PROKR2 mutations on activation of signal transduction pathways, ligand binding, and receptor expression were evaluated. Our results indicated that the R85C and R85H PROKR2 mutations interfere only modestly with receptor function, whereas the R80C PROKR2 mutation leads to a marked reduction in receptor activity. Cotransfection of wild-type (WT) and R80C PROKR2 showed that the R80C mutant could exert a dominant negative effect on WT PROKR2 in vitro by interfering with WT receptor expression. In summary, we have shown the importance of Arg80 in ICL1 for PROKR2 expression and demonstrate that R80C PROKR2 exerts a dominant negative effect on WT PROKR2.     

The repertoire of G protein-coupled receptors in the sea squirt <Emphasis Type="Italic">Ciona intestinalis</Emphasis>

Background  

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) constitute a large family of integral transmembrane receptor proteins that play a central role in signal transduction in eukaryotes. The genome of the protochordate Ciona intestinalis has a compact size with an ancestral complement of many diversified gene families of vertebrates and is a good model system for studying protochordate to vertebrate diversification. An analysis of the Ciona repertoire of GPCRs from a comparative genomic perspective provides insight into the evolutionary origins of the GPCR signalling system in vertebrates.     

A beta-arrestin binding determinant common to the second intracellular loops of rhodopsin family G protein-coupled receptors

beta-Arrestins have been shown to inhibit competitively G protein-dependent signaling and to mediate endocytosis for many of the hundreds of nonvisual rhodopsin family G protein-coupled receptors (GPCR). An open question of fundamental importance concerning the regulation of signal transduction of several hundred rhodopsin-like GPCRs is how these receptors of limited sequence homology, when considered in toto, can all recruit and activate the two highly conserved beta-arrestin proteins as part of their signaling/desensitization process. Although the serine and threonine residues that form GPCR kinase phosphorylation sites are common beta-arrestin-associated receptor determinants regulating receptor desensitization and internalization, the agonist-activated conformation of a GPCR probably reveals the most fundamental determinant mediating the GPCR and arrestin interaction. Here we identified a beta-arrestin binding determinant common to the rhodopsin family GPCRs formed from the proximal 10 residues of the second intracellular loop. We demonstrated by both gain and loss of function studies for the serotonin 2C, beta2-adrenergic, alpha2a)adrenergic, and neuropeptide Y type 2 receptors that the highly conserved amino acids, proline and alanine, naturally occurring in rhodopsin family receptors six residues distal to the highly conserved second loop DRY motif regulate beta-arrestin binding and beta-arrestin-mediated internalization. In particular, as demonstrated for the beta2 AR, this occurs independently of changes in GPCR kinase phosphorylation. These results suggest that a GPCR conformation directed by the second intracellular loop, likely using the loop itself as a binding patch, may function as a switch for transitioning beta-arrestin from its inactive form to its active receptor-binding state.     

A lipoprotein modulates activity of the MtrAB two‐component system to provide intrinsic multidrug resistance,cytokinetic control and cell wall homeostasis in Mycobacterium

The MtrAB signal transduction system, which participates in multiple cellular processes related to growth and cell wall homeostasis, is the only two‐component system known to be essential in Mycobacterium. In a screen for antibiotic resistance determinants in Mycobacterium smegmatis, we identified a multidrug‐sensitive mutant with a transposon insertion in lpqB, the gene located immediately downstream of mtrA–mtrB. The lpqB mutant exhibited increased cell–cell aggregation and severe defects in surface motility and biofilm growth. lpqB cells displayed hyphal growth and polyploidism, reminiscent of the morphology of Streptomyces, a related group of filamentous Actinobacteria. Heterologous expression of M. tuberculosis LpqB restored wild‐type characteristics to the lpqB mutant. LpqB interacts with the extracellular domain of MtrB, and influences MtrA phosphorylation and promoter activity of dnaA, an MtrA‐regulated gene that affects cell division. Furthermore, in trans expression of the non‐phosphorylated, inactive form of MtrA in wild‐type M. smegmatis resulted in phenotypes similar to those of lpqB deletion, whereas expression of the constitutively active form of MtrA restored wild‐type characteristics to the lpqB mutant. These results support a model in which LpqB, MtrB and MtrA form a three‐component system that co‐ordinates cytokinetic and cell wall homeostatic processes.     

Regulation of G‐Protein Coupled Receptor Traffic by an Evolutionary Conserved Hydrophobic Signal

Plasma membrane (PM) expression of G‐protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) is required for activation by extracellular ligands; however, mechanisms that regulate PM expression of GPCRs are poorly understood. For some GPCRs, such as alpha2c‐adrenergic receptors (α_2c‐ARs), heterologous expression in non‐native cells results in limited PM expression and extensive endoplasmic reticulum (ER) retention. Recently, ER export/retentions signals have been proposed to regulate cellular trafficking of several GPCRs. By utilizing a chimeric α_2a/α_2c‐AR strategy, we identified an evolutionary conserved hydrophobic sequence (ALAAALAAAAA) in the extracellular amino terminal region that is responsible in part for α_2c‐AR subtype‐specific trafficking. To our knowledge, this is the first luminal ER retention signal reported for a GPCR. Removal or disruption of the ER retention signal dramatically increased PM expression and decreased ER retention. Conversely, transplantation of this hydrophobic sequence into α_2a‐ARs reduced their PM expression and increased ER retention. This evolutionary conserved hydrophobic trafficking signal within α_2c‐ARs serves as a regulator of GPCR trafficking.     

The melanosomal/lysosomal protein OA1 has properties of a G protein‐coupled receptor

The protein product of the ocular albinism type 1 gene, named OA1, is a pigment cell‐specific integral membrane glycoprotein, localized to melanosomes and lysosomes and possibly implicated in melanosome biogenesis. Although its function remains unknown, we previously showed that OA1 shares structural similarities with G protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs). To ascertain the molecular function of OA1 and in particular its nature as a GPCR, we adopted a heterologous expression strategy commonly exploited to demonstrate GPCR‐mediated signaling in mammalian cells. Here we show that when expressed in COS7 cells OA1 displays a considerable and spontaneous capacity to activate heterotrimeric G proteins and the associated signaling cascade. In contrast, OA1 mutants carrying either a missense mutation or a small deletion in the third cytosolic loop lack this ability. Furthermore, OA1 is phosphorylated and interacts with arrestins, well‐established multifunctional adaptors of conformationally active GPCRs. In fact, OA1 colocalizes and coprecipitates with arrestins, which downregulate the signaling of OA1 by specifically reducing its expression levels. These findings indicate that heterologously expressed OA1 exhibits two fundamental properties of GPCRs, being capable to activate heterotrimeric G proteins and to functionally associate with arrestins, and provide proof of principle that OA1 can actually function as a canonical GPCR in mammalian cells.     

New approaches towards the understanding of integral membrane proteins: A structural perspective on G protein‐coupled receptors

Three‐dimensional structure determination of integral membrane proteins has advanced in unprecedented detail our understanding of mechanistic events of how ion channels, transporters, receptors, and enzymes function. This exciting progress required a tremendous amount of methods development, as exemplified here with G protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs): Optimizing the production of GPCRs in recombinant hosts; increasing the probability of crystal formation using high‐affinity ligands, nanobodies, and minimal G proteins for co‐crystallization, thus stabilizing receptors into one conformation; using the T4 lysozyme technology and other fusion partners to promote crystal contacts; advancing crystallization methods including the development of novel detergents, and miniaturization and automation of the lipidic cubic phase crystallization method; the concept of conformational thermostabilization of GPCRs; and developing microfocus X‐ray synchrotron technologies to analyze small GPCR crystals. However, despite immense progress to explain how GPCRs function, many receptors pose intractable hurdles to structure determination at this time. Three emerging methods, serial femtosecond crystallography, micro electron diffraction, and single particle electron cryo‐microscopy, hold promise to overcome current limitations in structural membrane biology.     

Signal transmission via G protein-coupled receptors in the light of rhodopsin structure determination

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) transducing diverse external signals to cells via activation of heterotrimeric GTP-binding (G) proteins, estimated to mediate actions of 60% of drugs, had been resistant to structure determination until summer 2000. The first atomic-resolution experimental structure of a GPCR, that of dark (inactive) rhodopsin, thus provides a trustworthy 3D prototype for antagonist-bound forms of this huge family of proteins. In this work, our former theoretical GPCR models are evaluated against the new experimental template. Subsequently, a working hypothesis regarding the signal transduction mechanism by GPCRs is presented.     

The two‐component systems PrrBA and NtrYX co‐ordinately regulate the adaptation of Brucella abortus to an oxygen‐limited environment

Brucella is the causative agent of the zoonotic disease brucellosis, which is endemic in many parts of the world. The success of Brucella as pathogen relies in its ability to adapt to the harsh environmental conditions found in mammalian hosts. One of its main adaptations is the induction of the expression of different genes involved in respiration at low oxygen tension. In this report we describe a regulatory network involved in this adaptation. We show that Brucella abortus PrrBA is a functional two‐component signal transduction system that responds to the redox status and acts as a global regulator controlling the expression of the regulatory proteins NtrY, FnrN and NnrA, which are involved in the adaptation to survive at low oxygen tension. We also show that the two‐component systems PrrBA and NtrYX co‐ordinately regulate the expression of denitrification and high‐affinity cytochrome oxidase genes. Strikingly, a double mutant strain in the prrB and ntrY genes is severely impaired in growth and virulence, while the ntrY and prrB single mutant strains are similar to wild‐type B. abortus. The proposed regulatory network may contribute to understand the mechanisms used by Brucella for a successful adaptation to its replicative niche inside mammalian cells.     

Secretome analysis of Anabaena sp. PCC 7120 and the involvement of the TolC‐homologue HgdD in protein secretion

Secretion of proteins is a central strategy of bacteria to influence and respond to their environment. Until now, there has been very few discoveries regarding the cyanobacterial secrotome or the secretion machineries involved. For a mutant of the outer membrane channel TolC‐homologue HgdD of Anabaena sp. PCC 7120, a filamentous and heterocyst‐forming cyanobacterium, an altered secretome profile was reported. To define the role of HgdD in protein secretion, we have developed a method to isolate extracellular proteins of Anabaena sp. PCC 7120 wild type and an hgdD loss‐of‐function mutant. We identified 51 proteins of which the majority is predicted to have an extracellular secretion signal, while few seem to be localized in the periplasmic space. Eight proteins were exclusively identified in the secretome of wild‐type cells, which coincides with the distribution of type I secretion signal. We selected three candidates and generated hemagglutinin‐tagged fusion proteins which could be exclusively detected in the extracellular protein fraction. However, these proteins are not secreted in the hgdD‐mutant background, where they are rapidly degraded. This confirms a direct function of HgdD in protein secretion and points to the existence of a quality control mechanism at least for proteins secreted in an HgdD‐dependent pathway.     

Optimized small‐molecule pull‐downs define MLBP1 as an acyl‐lipid‐binding protein

Abscisic acid (ABA) receptors belong to the START domain superfamily, which encompasses ligand‐binding proteins present in all kingdoms of life. START domain proteins contain a central binding pocket that, depending on the protein, can couple ligand binding to catalytic, transport or signaling functions. In Arabidopsis, the best characterized START domain proteins are the 14 PYR/PYL/RCAR ABA receptors, while the other members of the superfamily do not have assigned ligands. To address this, we used affinity purification of biotinylated proteins expressed transiently in Nicotiana benthamiana coupled to untargeted LC‐MS to identify candidate binding ligands. We optimized this method using ABA–PYL interactions and show that ABA co‐purifies with wild‐type PYL5 but not a binding site mutant. The K_d of PYL5 for ABA is 1.1 μm , which suggests that the method has sufficient sensitivity for many ligand–protein interactions. Using this method, we surveyed a set of 37 START domain‐related proteins, which resulted in the identification of ligands that co‐purified with MLBP1 (At4G01883) or MLP165 (At1G35260). Metabolite identification and the use of authentic standards revealed that MLBP1 binds to monolinolenin, which we confirmed using recombinant MLBP1. Monolinolenin also co‐purified with MLBP1 purified from transgenic Arabidopsis, demonstrating that the interaction occurs in a native context. Thus, deployment of this relatively simple method allowed us to define a protein–metabolite interaction and better understand protein–ligand interactions in plants.