Ligand-specific Receptor Conformations Research Articles

Agonist-Specific Conformations of the M2 Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptor Assessed by Molecular Dynamics.

Binding of muscarinic ligands, both antagonists and agonists, and their effects on the conformation of the M2 acetylcholine receptor were modeled in silico and compared to experimental data. After docking of antagonists to the M2 receptor in an inactive conformation (3UON, 5ZK3, 5ZKB, or 5ZKB) and agonists in an active conformation (4MQS), 100 ns of conventional molecular dynamics (MD) followed by 500 ns of accelerated MD was run. Conventional MD revealed ligand-specific interactions with the receptor. Antagonists stabilized the receptor in an inactive conformation during accelerated MD. The receptor in complex with various agonists attained different conformations specific to individual agonists. The magnitude of the TM6 movement correlated with agonist efficacy at the non-preferential Gs pathway. The shape of the intracellular opening where the receptor interacts with a G-protein was different for the classical agonist carbachol, super-agonist iperoxo, and Gi/o-biased partial agonists JR-6 and JR-7, being compatible with experimentally observed agonist bias at the G-protein level. Moreover, a wash-resistant binding of the unique agonist xanomeline associated with interactions with membrane lipids was formed during accelerated MD. Thus, accelerated MD is suitable for modeling of ligand-specific receptor binding and receptor conformations that is essential for the design of experiments aimed at identification of the secondary binding sites and understanding molecular mechanisms underlying receptor activation.

Ligand-specific conformational transitions and intracellular transport are required for atypical chemokine receptor 3–mediated chemokine scavenging

The atypical chemokine receptor ACKR3 contributes to chemotaxis by binding, internalizing, and degrading the chemokines CXCL11 and CXCL12 to shape and terminate chemotactic gradients during development and immune responses. Although unable to trigger G protein activation, both ligands activate G protein–independent ACKR3 responses and prompt arrestin recruitment. This offers a model to specifically study ligand-specific receptor conformations leading to G protein–independent signaling and to functional parameters such as receptor transport and chemokine degradation. We here show chemokine specificity in arrestin recruitment, by different effects of single amino acid substitutions in ACKR3 on arrestin in response to CXCL12 or CXCL11. Chemokine specificity in receptor transport was also observed, as CXCL11 induced faster receptor internalization, slower recycling, and longer intracellular sojourn of ACKR3 than CXCL12. Internalization and recycling rates of the ACKR3 R1423.50A substitution in response to each chemokine were similar; however, ACKR3 R1423.50A degraded only CXCL12 and not CXCL11. This suggests that ligand-specific intracellular receptor transport is required for chemokine degradation. Remarkably, the failure of ACKR3 R1423.50A to degrade CXCL11 was not caused by the lack of arrestin recruitment; rather, arrestin was entirely dispensable for scavenging of either chemokine. This suggests the involvement of another, yet unidentified, ACKR3 effector in scavenging. In summary, our study correlates ACKR3 ligand-specific conformational transitions with chemokine-dependent receptor transport dynamics and points toward unexpected ligand specificity in the mechanisms of chemokine degradation.

Conformationally selective RNA aptamers allosterically modulate the β2-adrenoceptor.

G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) ligands function by stabilizing multiple, functionally distinct receptor conformations. This property underlies how “biased agonists” activate specific subsets of a given receptor’s signaling profile. However, stabilization of distinct active GPCR conformations to enable structural characterization of mechanisms underlying GPCR activation remains difficult. These challenges have accentuated the need for receptor tools that allosterically stabilize and regulate receptor function via unique, previously unappreciated mechanisms. Here, utilizing a highly diverse RNA library combined with advanced selection strategies involving state-of-the-art next-generation sequencing and bioinformatics analyses, we identify RNA aptamers that bind a prototypical GPCR, β2-adrenoceptor (β2AR). Using biochemical, pharmacological, and biophysical approaches, we demonstrate that these aptamers bind with nanomolar affinity at defined surfaces of the receptor, allosterically stabilizing active, inactive, and ligand-specific receptor conformations. The discovery of RNA aptamers as allosteric GPCR modulators significantly expands the diversity of ligands available to study the structural and functional regulation of GPCRs.

Recruitment ofβ-Arrestin 1 and 2 to theβ2-Adrenoceptor: Analysis of 65 Ligands

Beyond canonical signaling via Gαs and cAMP, the concept of functional selectivity at β2-adrenoceptors (β2ARs) describes the ability of adrenergic drugs to stabilize ligand-specific receptor conformations to initiate further signaling cascades comprising additional G-protein classes or β-arrestins (βarr). A set of 65 adrenergic ligands including 40 agonists and 25 antagonists in either racemic or enantiopure forms was used for βarr recruitment experiments based on a split-luciferase assay in a cellular system expressing β2AR. Many agonists showed only (weak) partial agonism regarding βarr recruitment. Potencies and/or efficacies increased depending on the number of chirality centers in (R) configuration; no (S)-configured distomer was more effective at inducing βarr recruitment other than the eutomer. βarr2 was recruited more effectively than βarr1. The analysis of antagonists revealed no significant effects on βarr recruitment. Several agonists showed preference for activation of Gαs GTPase relative to βarr recruitment, and no βarr-biased ligand was identified. 1) agonists show strong bias for Gαs activation relative to βarr recruitment; 2) agonists recruit βarr1 and βarr2 with subtle differences; and 3) there is no evidence for βarr recruitment by antagonists.

Functional selectivity of G-protein-coupled receptors: From recombinant systems to native human cells

In the mid 1990s, it was assumed that a two-state model, postulating an inactive (R) state and an active (R*) state provides the molecular basis for GPCR activation. However, it became clear that this model could not accommodate many experimental observations. Accordingly, the two-state model was superseded by a multi-state model according to which any given ligand stabilizes a unique receptor conformation with distinct capabilities of activating down-stream G-proteins and β-arrestin. Much of this research was conducted with the β2-adrenoceptor in recombinant systems. At the molecular level, there is now no doubt anymore that ligand-specific receptor conformations, also referred to as functional selectivity, exist. This concept holds great potential for drug discovery in terms of developing drugs with higher selectivity for specific cells and/or cell functions and fewer side effects. A major challenge is the analysis for functional selectivity in native cells. Here, I discuss our current knowledge on functional selectivity of three representative GPCRs, the β2-adrenoceptor and the histamine H2- and H4-receptors, in recombinant systems and native human cells. Studies with human neutrophils and eosinophils support the concept of functional selectivity. A major strategy for the analysis of functional selectivity in native cells is to generate complete concentration/response curves with a large set of structurally diverse ligands for multiple parameters. Next, correlations of potencies and efficacies are analyzed, and deviations of the correlations from linearity are indicative for functional selectivity. Additionally, pharmacological inhibitors are used to dissect cell functions from each other.

Dissociations in the effects of β2-adrenergic receptor agonists on cAMP formation and superoxide production in human neutrophils: support for the concept of functional selectivity.

In neutrophils, activation of the β2-adrenergic receptor (β2AR), a Gs-coupled receptor, inhibits inflammatory responses, which could be therapeutically exploited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of various β2AR ligands on adenosine-3′,5′-cyclic monophosphate (cAMP) accumulation and N-formyl-L-methionyl-L-leucyl-L-phenylalanine (fMLP)-induced superoxide anion (O2 •−) production in human neutrophils and to probe the concept of ligand-specific receptor conformations (also referred to as functional selectivity or biased signaling) in a native cell system. This is an important question because so far, evidence for functional selectivity has been predominantly obtained with recombinant systems, due to the inherent difficulties to genetically manipulate human native cells. cAMP concentration was determined by HPLC/tandem mass spectrometry, and O2 •− formation was assessed by superoxide dismutase-inhibitable reduction of ferricytochrome c. β2AR agonists were generally more potent in inhibiting fMLP-induced O2 •− production than in stimulating cAMP accumulation. (−)-Ephedrine and dichloroisoproterenol were devoid of any agonistic activity in the cAMP assay, but partially inhibited fMLP-induced O2 •− production. Moreover, (−)-adrenaline was equi-efficacious in both assays whereas the efficacy of salbutamol was more than two-fold higher in the O2 •− assay. Functional selectivity was visualized by deviations of ligand potencies and efficacies from linear correlations for various parameters. We obtained no evidence for involvement of protein kinase A in the inhibition of fMLP-induced O2 •− production after β2AR-stimulation although cAMP-increasing substances inhibited O2 •− production. Taken together, our data corroborate the concept of ligand-specific receptor conformations with unique signaling capabilities in native human cells and suggest that the β2AR inhibits O2 •− production in a cAMP-independent manner.

Evidence for ligand-specific conformations of the histamine H2-receptor in human eosinophils and neutrophils

The histamine H2-receptor (H2R) couples to GS-proteins and induces adenylyl cyclase-mediated cAMP accumulation. In human neutrophils and eosinophils, the H2R reduces chemotactic peptide-stimulated superoxide anion (O2−) formation. However, pharmacological characterization of the H2R in these cells is far from being complete. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive profiling of the H2R in neutrophils and eosinophils. Histamine inhibited O2− formation in human neutrophils more effectively than in eosinophils. H2R agonists mimicked the effects of histamine and H2R antagonists blocked the effects of histamine. We noticed multiple discrepancies in the potencies and efficacies of H2R agonists with respect to cAMP accumulation and inhibition of O2− formation in both cell types. There were also differences in the antagonist profiles between cAMP accumulation and inhibition of O2− formation in neutrophils. Moreover, the pharmacological profile of the recombinant H2R did not match the H2R profile in native cells. The H2R sequence identified in human neutrophils corresponds to the published H2R sequence, excluding the exclusive expression of a new H2R isoform as explanation for the differences. Very likely, the differences between ligands are explained by the existence of ligand-specific receptor conformations with unique affinities, potencies and efficacies. Thus, our data provide evidence for the notion that the concept of ligand-specific receptor conformations can be extended from recombinant systems to native cells.

Incomplete activation of human eosinophils via the histamine H4-receptor: Evidence for ligand-specific receptor conformations

Eosinophils play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of allergic diseases. Histamine activates eosinophils via the H4-receptor (H4R). However, pharmacological analysis of the H4R in eosinophils is still incomplete, and cell purity is a problem. The H4R antagonist 1-[(5-chloro-1H-indol-2-yl)carbonyl]-4-methylpiperazine (JNJ7777120) has recently been reported to exhibit paradoxical stimulatory effects in some systems. Therefore, the first aim of our study was to pharmacologically re-examine HxR subtypes on human eosinophils using a highly purified preparation (97±2%). The second aim was to compare the effects of histamine with those induced by well-known activators of eosinophil functions, i.e. eotaxin-1 and formyl peptides. Histamine and the H4R-selective agonist 2-cyano-1-[4-(1H-imidazol-4-yl)butyl]-3-[(2-phenylthio)ethyl]guanidine (UR-PI376) increased intracellular calcium concentration ([Ca2+]i) and activated chemotaxis. JNJ7777120 per se exhibited no stimulatory effects but inhibited stimulation by histamine and UR-PI376. Blockade of the H2R by famotidine enhanced histamine-induced chemotaxis but not rises in [Ca2+]i. Compared to eotaxin and formyl peptides, the effect of histamine on eosinophil chemotaxis was only small. Formyl peptides but not histamine activated reactive oxygen species formation and release of eosinophil peroxidase. In conclusion, histamine is only an incomplete eosinophil activator with the H2R blunting the small chemotactic response to H4R activation. We also noted several differences in potencies of histamine, UR-PI376 and JNJ7777120 in calcium and chemotaxis assays and when compared to results in the literature. This indicates functional selectivity of H4R ligands, thus ligand-specific stabilization of distinct receptor conformations, inducing distinct biological responses.

Interactions of recombinant human histamine H1, H2, H3, and H4 receptors with 34 antidepressants and antipsychotics

Antidepressants and antipsychotics affect multiple molecular targets. Consequently, these drugs exhibit not only unique profiles of therapeutic effects but also several undesired effects. Histamine receptors (H₁R, H₂R, H₃R, and H₄R) belong to the large family of G protein-coupled receptors and are very important drug targets. All four H(x)R subtypes are expressed in the CNS. Interactions of lipophilic, blood-brain barrier-penetrating drugs with H(x)Rs could contribute to therapeutic and unwanted effects. Therefore, we investigated potencies H(x)R as well as potencies and (inverse) agonistic efficacies of 34 antidepressants and antipsychotics at HxRs in functional assays. We expressed human H(x)Rs in Sf9 insect cells and conducted radioligand competition binding experiments and functional steady-state GTPase assays. Ligand affinities and potencies were compared with literature data and related to therapeutic reference ranges. Almost all antidepressants and antipsychotics displayed high binding affinities to H₁R and behaved as antagonists. The atypical antidepressant trimipramine behaved as a high-affinity/high-potency H₂R antagonist (pK(i), 7.39; pK(B), 7.36; pA₂, 7.55). Docking to an H₂R model suggested a probable binding mode. The affinity of antidepressants and antipsychotics for H₃R was low. The atypical antipsychotic clozapine, known to induce agranulocytosis, exhibited partial H₄R agonism for which docking experiments provided a molecular basis. Clozapine also exhibited H₂R antagonism. We observed dissociations between pK(i) and pK (B) values as well as between pK(i) and pIC₅₀ values for H(x)Rs. Antidepressants and antipsychotics interact differentially with H(x)Rs. The concept of functional selectivity (also referred to as ligand-specific receptor conformations or biased signaling) explains dissociations between pK(i) and pK(B) values as well as differences between pK(i) and pIC₅₀ values. The H₁R antagonism of numerous antidepressants and antipsychotics is very pronounced. The H₂R antagonism of trimipramine and partial H₄R agonism of clozapine may be clinically relevant. We also discuss the possible role of the H₂R antagonism of clozapine for neutropenia/agranulocytosis induced by this compound. Finally, we discuss the methodological, conceptual, and clinical limitations of our study.

Impact of fusion to Gαi2 and co-expression with RGS proteins on pharmacological properties of human cannabinoid receptors CB1R and CB2R

G protein coupled receptor (GPCR)-Gα fusion proteins are often employed to investigate receptor/G protein interaction. In this study, the impact of Gα fusion proteins on pharmacology of CBRs, both mediating signals through Gα(i) proteins, were investigated. Gα(i2) was fused to the C-terminus of the CBRs or co-expressed with non-fused Gα(i2) in Sf9 cells, always together with Gβ₁γ₂. Furthermore, the impact of RGS proteins on CBR signaling in combination with the CBR fusion approach was examined, using RGS4 and RGS19 as paradigms. CBR ligands were characterized in the steady-state GTPase assay and pharmacological properties of ligands in the different test systems were correlated. Fusion of CBRs to Gα(i2) enhanced the maximal stimulatory effects of ligands compared to the co-expression system, especially for CB₂R. RGS4, but not RGS19, behaved as a GTPase-activating protein at CBRs in the Gα(i2) co-expression and fusion system. Fusion of GPCR, most prominently CB₂R, to Gα(i2) , and co-expression with RGS4 altered the pharmacological properties of ligands. Our data suggest that fusion of CB₂R to Gα(i2) and co-expression with RGS4 impedes with conformational changes. Moreover, our results support the concept of ligand-specific receptor conformations. Finally, this paper describes the most sensitive CBR test system currently available.

Paradoxical Stimulatory Effects of the “Standard” Histamine H4-Receptor Antagonist JNJ7777120: the H4 Receptor Joins the Club of 7 Transmembrane Domain Receptors Exhibiting Functional Selectivity

The histamine H(4) receptor (H(4)R) is expressed in several cell types of the immune system and is assumed to play an important pro-inflammatory role in various diseases, including bronchial asthma, atopic dermatitis, and pruritus. Accordingly, H(4)R antagonists have been suggested to provide valuable drugs for the treatment of these diseases. Over the past decade, the indole derivative 1-[(5-chloro-1H-indol-2-yl)carbonyl]-4-methylpiperazine (JNJ7777120) has become the "standard" H(4)R antagonist and has been extensively used to assess the pathophysiological role of the H(4)R. However, the situation has now become more complicated by recent data (p. 749 and Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol doi: 10.1007/s00210-011-0612-3) showing that JNJ7777120 can also activate β-arrestin in a supposedly G(i)-protein-independent (pertussis toxin-insensitive) manner and that at certain H(4)R species orthologs, JNJ7777120 exhibits partial agonist efficacy with respect to G(i)-protein activation (steady-state high-affinity GTPase activity). These novel findings can be explained within the concept of functional selectivity or biased signaling, assuming unique ligand-specific receptor conformations with distinct signal transduction capabilities. Thus, great caution must be exerted when interpreting in vivo effects of JNJ7777120 as H(4)R antagonism. We discuss future directions to get out of the current dilemma in which there is no "standard" H(4)R antagonist available to the scientific community.

Computational Insight into the Ligand-Induced Conformational Specificity of G-Protein Coupled Receptors

Several observations in the G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) literature support the existence of ligand-specific intermediate conformational states that are likely to be involved in differential activation of signaling pathways. Fluorescence spectroscopy studies provide direct evidence for ligand-specific receptor conformations of the β2-adrenergic receptor, making this system an attractive target to test the ability of computational methodologies to predict different activated states of GPCRs. To this end, we designed a computational strategy that combines adiabatic biased molecular dynamics (ABMD) and metadynamics simulations. Firstly, ABMD is used to generate transition paths between the experimental inactive crystal structure of the β2-adrenergic receptor and a conformation containing established features of activated states of GPCRs (modeled using the opsin crystal structures). Secondly, metadynamics is applied to study how ligands with different efficacies affect the free-energy of different metastable states identified along these putative activation pathways. The calculated free-energy profiles of the different ligand-β2 adrenoceptor complexes help rationalize the published experimental results, including the different kinetics of catecholaminergic agonists such as epinephrine, norepinephrine, dopamine, and isoproterenol. Representative structures of the identified energy basins suggest specific residues and contacts that may help stabilize different activated states of the receptor. This information holds promise for the crystallization of different GPCR conformations.

No Evidence for Functional Selectivity of Proxyfan at the Human Histamine H3 Receptor Coupled to Defined Gi/Go Protein Heterotrimers

Numerous structurally diverse ligands were developed to target the human histamine H(3) receptor (hH(3)R), a presynaptic G(i)/G(o)-coupled auto- and heteroreceptor. Proxyfan was identified to be functionally selective, with different efficacies toward G(i)/G(o)-dependent hH(3)R signaling pathways. However, the underlying molecular mechanism of functional selectivity of proxyfan is still unclear. In the current study, we investigated the role of different Galpha(i/o) proteins in hH(3)R signaling, using a baculovirus/Sf9 cell expression system. We tested the hypothesis that ligand-specific coupling differences to defined G(i)/G(o)-heterotrimers are responsible for functional selectivity of proxyfan at hH(3)R. In Sf9 membranes, full-length hH(3)R (445 amino acids) was expressed in combination with an excess of different mammalian G proteins (Galpha(i1), Galpha(i2), Galpha(i3), or Galpha(o1) and beta(1)gamma(2) dimers, respectively). In addition, we constructed the fusion proteins hH(3)R-Galpha(i2) and hH(3)R-Galpha(o1) to ensure clearly defined receptor/G protein stoichiometries. Steady-state GTPase experiments were performed to directly measure the impact of each G protein on hH(3)R signal transduction. The hH(3)R coupled similarly to all G proteins. We also observed similar ligand-independent or constitutive activity. Proxyfan and various other imidazole-containing ligands, including full agonists, partial agonists, and inverse agonists, showed very similar pharmacological profiles not influenced by the type of G protein coexpressed. Selected ligands, examined in membranes expressing the fusion proteins hH(3)R-Galpha(i2) and hH(3)R-Galpha(o1) (plus beta(1)gamma(2) dimers), yielded very similar results. Collectively, our data indicate that hH(3)R couples similarly to different Galpha(i/o)-subunits and that ligand-specific active receptor conformations, resulting in G protein-coupling preferences, do not exist for proxyfan or other imidazole compounds investigated.

Docking studies suggest ligand-specific δ-opioid receptor conformations

An automated docking procedure was used to study binding of a series of delta-selective ligands to three models of the delta-opioid receptor. These models are thought to represent the three ligand-specific receptor conformations. Docking results are in agreement with point mutation studies and suggest that different ligands--agonists and antagonists--may bind to the same binding site under different receptor conformations. Docking to different receptor models (conformations) also suggests that by changing to a receptor-specific conformation, the receptor may open or close different binding sites to other ligands.

Probing Ligand-Specific Histamine H1- and H2-Receptor Conformations withNG-Acylated Imidazolylpropylguanidines

Impromidine (IMP) and arpromidine (ARP)-derived guanidines are more potent and efficacious guinea pig (gp) histamine H(2)-receptor (gpH(2)R) than human (h) H(2)R agonists and histamine H(1)-receptor (H(1)R) antagonists with preference for hH(1)R relative to gpH(1)R. We examined N(G)-acylated imidazolylpropylguanidines (AIPGs), which are less basic than guanidines, at hH(2)R, gpH(2)R, rat H(2)R (rH(2)R), hH(1)R, and gpH(1)R expressed in Sf9 cells as probes for ligand-specific receptor conformations. AIPGs were similarly potent H(2)R agonists as the corresponding guanidines IMP and ARP, respectively. Exchange of pyridyl in ARP against phenyl increased AIPG potency 10-fold, yielding the most potent agonists at the hH(2)R-G(salpha) fusion protein and gpH(2)R-G(salpha) identified so far. Some AIPGs were similarly potent and efficacious at hH(2)R-G(salpha) and gpH(2)R-G(salpha). AIPGs stabilized the ternary complex in hH(2)R-G(salpha) and gpH(2)R-G(salpha) differently than the corresponding guanidines. Guanidines, AIPGs, and small H(2)R agonists exhibited distinct agonist properties at hH(2)R, gpH(2)R, and rH(2)R measuring adenylyl cyclase activity. In contrast to ARP and IMP, AIPGs were partial H(1)R agonists exhibiting higher efficacies at hH(1)R than at gpH(1)R. This is remarkable because, so far, all bulky H(1)R agonists exhibited higher efficacies at gpH(1)R than at hH(1)R. Collectively, our data suggest that AIPGs stabilize different active conformations in hH(2)R, gpH(2)R, and rH(2)R than guanidines and that, in contrast to guanidines, AIPGs are capable of stabilizing a partially active state of hH(1)R.

Effects of guanine, inosine, and xanthine nucleotides on beta(2)-adrenergic receptor/G(s) interactions: evidence for multiple receptor conformations.

The aim of our study was to examine the effects of different purine nucleotides [GTP, ITP, and xanthosine 5'-triphosphate (XTP)] on receptor/G protein coupling. As a model system, we used a fusion protein of the beta(2)-adrenergic receptor and the alpha subunit of the G protein G(s). GTP was more potent and efficient than ITP and XTP at inhibiting ternary complex formation and supporting adenylyl cyclase (AC) activation. We also studied the effects of several beta(2)-adrenergic receptor ligands on nucleotide hydrolysis and on AC activity in the presence of GTP, ITP, and XTP. The efficacy of agonists at promoting GTP hydrolysis correlated well with the efficacy of agonists for stimulating AC in the presence of GTP. This was, however, not the case for ITP hydrolysis and AC activity in the presence of ITP. The efficacy of ligands at stimulating AC in the presence of XTP differed considerably from the efficacies of ligands in the presence of GTP and ITP, and there was no evidence for receptor-regulated XTP hydrolysis. Our findings support the concept of multiple ligand-specific receptor conformations and demonstrate the usefulness of purine nucleotides as tools to study conformational states of receptors.