Dong, Maoqing

Dysfunction of the type 1 cholecystokinin (CCK) receptor (CCK1R) as a result of increased gallbladder muscularis membrane cholesterol has been implicated in the pathogenesis of cholesterol gallstones. Administration of ursodeoxycholic acid, which is structurally related to cholesterol, has been shown to have beneficial effects on gallstone formation. Our aims were to explore the possible direct effects and mechanism of action of bile acids on CCK receptor function. We studied the effects of structurally related hydrophobic chenodeoxycholic acid and hydrophilic ursodeoxycholic acid in vitro on CCK receptor function in the setting of normal and elevated membrane cholesterol. We also examined their effects on a cholesterol-insensitive CCK1R mutant (Y140A) disrupting a key site of cholesterol action. The results show that, similar to the impact of cholesterol on CCK receptors, bile acid effects were limited to CCK1R, with no effects on CCK2R. Chenodeoxycholic acid had a negative impact on CCK1R function, while ursodeoxycholic acid had no effect on CCK1R function in normal membranes but was protective against the negative impact of elevated cholesterol on this receptor. The cholesterol-insensitive CCK1R mutant Y140A was resistant to effects of both bile acids. These data suggest that bile acids compete with the action of cholesterol on CCK1R, probably by interacting at the same site, although the conformational impact of each bile acid appears to be different, with ursodeoxycholic acid capable of correcting the abnormal conformation of CCK1R in a high-cholesterol environment. This mechanism may contribute to the beneficial effect of ursodeoxycholic acid in reducing cholesterol gallstone formation.

Class B guanine nucleotide‐binding protein GPCRs share heptahelical topology and signalling via coupling with heterotrimeric G proteins typical of the entire superfamily of GPCRs. However, they also exhibit substantial structural differences from the more extensively studied class A GPCRs. Even their helical bundle region, most conserved across the superfamily, is predicted to differ from that of class A GPCRs. Much is now known about the conserved structure of the amino‐terminal domain of class B GPCRs, coming from isolated NMR and crystal structures, but the orientation of that domain relative to the helical bundle is unknown, and even less is understood about the conformations of the juxtamembranous amino‐terminal tail or of the extracellular loops linking the transmembrane segments. We now review what is known about the structure and function of these regions of class B GPCRs. This comes from indirect analysis of structure–function relationships elucidated by mutagenesis and/or ligand modification and from the more direct analysis of spatial approximation coming from photoaffinity labelling and cysteine trapping studies. Also reviewed are the limited studies of structure of some of these regions. No dominant theme was recognized for the structures or functional roles of distinct regions of these juxtamembranous portions of the class B GPCRs. Therefore, it is likely that a variety of molecular strategies can be engaged for docking of agonist ligands and for initiation of conformational changes in these receptors that would be expected to converge to a common molecular mechanism for activation of intracellular signalling cascades.Linked ArticlesThis article is part of a themed section on Molecular Pharmacology of GPCRs. To view the other articles in this section visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bph.2014.171.issue‐5

Class B GPCRs (G-protein-coupled receptors) share heptahelical topology and G-protein binding with other superfamily members, yet have unique structures and modes of activation. Natural ligands for these receptors are moderate-length peptides with C-terminal α-helices. NMR and crystal structures of the peptide-bound disulfide-bonded receptor N-terminal domains demonstrate that these helices occupy a conserved groove; however, the details of this interaction vary from one receptor to another. In this review, we focus on the prototypic secretin receptor and use extensive intrinsic photoaffinity labelling, structure–activity series, alanine-replacement mutagenesis and fluorescence analysis to define the molecular basis for this interaction. Additionally, experimental validation of predictions coming from in silico molecular modelling has provided a basis for enhancement of binding affinity. Such insights will be useful in the rational development of drugs acting at this important group of targets.

The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) is a family B G protein-coupled receptor and an important drug target for the treatment of type II diabetes, with activation of pancreatic GLP-1Rs eliciting glucose-dependent insulin secretion. Currently, approved therapeutics acting at this receptor are peptide based, and there is substantial interest in small molecule modulators for the GLP-1R. Using a variety of resonance energy transfer techniques, we demonstrate that the GLP-1R forms homodimers and that transmembrane helix 4 (TM4) provides the primary dimerization interface. We show that disruption of dimerization using a TM4 peptide, a minigene construct encoding TM4, or by mutation of TM4, eliminates G protein-dependent high-affinity binding to GLP-1(7-36)NH 2 but has selective effects on receptor signaling. There was <10-fold decrease in potency in cAMP accumulation or ERK1/2 phosphorylation assays but marked loss of intracellular calcium mobilization by peptide agonists. In contrast, there was near-complete abrogation of the cAMP response to an allosteric agonist, compound 2, but preservation of ERK phosphorylation. Collectively, this indicates that GLP-1R dimerization is important for control of signal bias. Furthermore, we reveal that two small molecule ligands are unaltered in their ability to allosterically modulate signaling from peptide ligands, demonstrating that these modulators act in cis within a single receptor protomer, and this has important implications for small molecule drug design.

While it is evident that the carboxyl‐terminal region of natural peptide ligands bind to the amino‐terminal domain of class B GPCRs, how their biologically critical amino‐terminal regions dock to the receptor is unclear. We utilize cysteine trapping to systematically explore spatial approximations among residues in the first five positions of secretin and in every position within the receptor extracellular loops (ECLs). Only Cys 2 and Cys 5 secretin analogues exhibited full activity and retained moderate binding affinity (IC 50 : 92±4 and 83±1 nM, respectively). When these peptides probed 61 human secretin receptor cysteine‐replacement mutants, a broad network of receptor residues could form disulfide bonds consistent with a dynamic ligand‐receptor interface. Two distinct patterns of disulfide bond formation were observed: Cys 2 predominantly labeled residues in the amino terminus of ECL2 and ECL3 (relative labeling intensity: Ser 340 , 94±7%; Pro 341 , 84±9%; Phe 258 , 73±5%; Trp 274 62±8%), and Cys 5 labeled those in the carboxyl terminus of ECL2 and ECL3 (Gln 348 , 100%; Ile 347 , 73±12%; Glu 342 , 59±10%; Phe 351 , 58±11%). These constraints were utilized in molecular modeling, providing improved understanding of the structure of the transmembrane bundle and interconnecting loops, the orientation between receptor domains, and the molecular basis of ligand docking. Key spatial approximations between peptide and receptor predicted by this model (H 1 ‐W 274 , D 3 ‐N 268 , G 4 ‐F 258 ) were supported by mutagenesis and residue‐residue complementation studies.—Dong, M., Xu, X., Ball, A. M., Makhoul, J. A., Lam, P. C.‐H., Pinon, D. I., Orry, A., Sexton, P. M., Abagyan, R., Miller, L. J. Mapping spatial approximations between the amino terminus of secretin and each of the extracellular loops of its receptor using cysteine trapping. FASEB J. 26, 5092–5105 (2012). www.fasebj.org

Background and PurposeAlternative splicing expands proteome diversity toGPCRs. Distinct receptor variants have been identified for a secretin familyGPCR, the calcitonin receptor (CTR). The possible functional contributions of these receptor variants are further altered by their potential interactions with receptor activity‐modifying proteins (RAMPs). One variant of the humanCTRlacks the first 47 residues at itsNterminus [Δ(1–47)hCT(a)]. However, very little is known about the pharmacology of this variant or its ability to interact withRAMPsto form amylin receptors.Experimental ApproachΔ(1–47)hCT(a)was characterized both with and withoutRAMPsinCos7and/orHEK293Scells. The receptor expression (ELISAassays) and function (cAMPandpERK1/2 assays) for up to six agonists and two antagonists were determined.Key ResultsDespite lacking 47 residues at theNterminus, Δ(1–47)hCT(a)was still able to express at the cell surface, but displayed a generalized reduction in peptide potency. Δ(1–47)hCT(a)retained its ability to interact withRAMP1and formed a functional amylin receptor; this also appeared to be the case withRAMP3. On the other hand, its interaction withRAMP2and resultant amylin receptor was reduced to a greater extent.Conclusions and ImplicationsΔ(1–47)hCT(a)acts as a functional receptor at the cell surface. It exhibits altered receptor function, depending on whether it associates with aRAMPand whichRAMPit interacts with. Therefore, the presence of this variant in tissues will potentially contribute to altered peptide binding and signalling, depending on theRAMPdistribution in tissues.

The secretin receptor is a prototypic class B G protein-coupled receptor that is activated by binding of its natural peptide ligand. The signaling effects of this receptor are mediated by coupling with Gs, which activates cAMP production, and Gq, which activates intracellular calcium mobilization. We have explored the molecular basis for the coupling of each of these G proteins to this receptor using systematic site-directed mutagenesis of key residues within each of the intracellular loop regions, and studying ligand binding and secretin-stimulated cAMP and calcium responses. Mutation of a conserved histidine in the first intracellular loop (H157A and H157R) markedly reduced cell surface expression, resulting in marked reduction in cAMP and elimination of measurable calcium responses. Mutation of an arginine (R153A) in the first intracellular loop reduced calcium, but not cAMP responses. Mutation of a dibasic motif in the second intracellular loop (R231A/K232A) had no significant effects on any measured responses. Mutations in the third intracellular loop involving adjacent lysine and leucine residues (K302A/L303A) or two arginine residues separated by a leucine and an alanine (R318A/R321A) significantly reduced cAMP responses, while the latter also reduced calcium responses. Additive effects were elicited by combining the effective mutations, while combining all the effective mutations resulted in a construct that continued to bind secretin normally, but that elicited no significant cAMP or calcium responses. These data suggest that, while some receptor determinants are clearly shared, there are also distinct determinants for coupling with each of these G proteins.