C-terminal threonines and serines play distinct roles in the desensitization of rhodopsin, a G protein-coupled receptor

  1. Anthony W Azevedo
  2. Thuy Doan
  3. Hormoz Moaven
  4. Iza Sokal
  5. Faiza Baameur
  6. Sergey A Vishnivetskiy
  7. Kristoff T Homan
  8. John J G Tesmer
  9. Vsevolod V Gurevich
  10. Jeannie Chen
  11. Fred Rieke  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Washington, United States
  2. Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, United States
  3. Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, United States
  4. University of Michigan, United States

Abstract

Rod photoreceptors generate measurable responses to single-photon activation of individual molecules of the G-protein-coupled receptor, rhodopsin. Timely rhodopsin desensitization depends on phosphorylation and arrestin binding, which quenches G-protein activation. Rhodopsin phosphorylation has been measured biochemically at C-terminal serine residues, suggesting that these residues are critical for producing fast, low noise responses. The role of native threonine residues is unclear. We compared single-photon responses from rhodopsin lacking native serine or threonine phosphorylation sites. Contrary to expectation, serine-only rhodopsin generated prolonged step-like single-photon responses that terminated abruptly and randomly, whereas threonine-only rhodopsin generated responses that were only modestly slower than normal. We show that the step-like responses of serine-only rhodopsin reflect slow and stochastic arrestin binding. Thus, threonine sites play a privileged role in promoting timely arrestin binding and rhodopsin desensitization. Similar coordination of phosphorylation and arrestin binding may more generally permit tight control of the duration of G-protein-coupled receptor activity.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Anthony W Azevedo

    Department of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Thuy Doan

    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Hormoz Moaven

    Departments of Cell & Neurobiology and Ophthalmology, Zilkha Neurogenetic Institute, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Iza Sokal

    Department of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Faiza Baameur

    Department of Pharmacology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Sergey A Vishnivetskiy

    Department of Pharmacology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Kristoff T Homan

    Life Sciences Institute, Departments of Pharmacology and Biological Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. John J G Tesmer

    Life Sciences Institute, Departments of Pharmacology and Biological Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Vsevolod V Gurevich

    Department of Pharmacology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Jeannie Chen

    Departments of Cell & Neurobiology and Ophthalmology, Zilkha Neurogenetic Institute, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Fred Rieke

    Department of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    rieke@u.washington.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This work was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All procedures followed protocols approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol 3030-01) of the University of Washington.

Copyright

© 2015, Azevedo et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,893
    views
  • 482
    downloads
  • 34
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Anthony W Azevedo
  2. Thuy Doan
  3. Hormoz Moaven
  4. Iza Sokal
  5. Faiza Baameur
  6. Sergey A Vishnivetskiy
  7. Kristoff T Homan
  8. John J G Tesmer
  9. Vsevolod V Gurevich
  10. Jeannie Chen
  11. Fred Rieke
(2015)
C-terminal threonines and serines play distinct roles in the desensitization of rhodopsin, a G protein-coupled receptor
eLife 4:e05981.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05981

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05981

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Jinsai Shang, Douglas J Kojetin
    Research Advance

    Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) is a nuclear receptor transcription factor that regulates gene expression programs in response to ligand binding. Endogenous and synthetic ligands, including covalent antagonist inhibitors GW9662 and T0070907, are thought to compete for the orthosteric pocket in the ligand-binding domain (LBD). However, we previously showed that synthetic PPARγ ligands can cooperatively cobind with and reposition a bound endogenous orthosteric ligand to an alternate site, synergistically regulating PPARγ structure and function (Shang et al., 2018). Here, we reveal the structural mechanism of cobinding between a synthetic covalent antagonist inhibitor with other synthetic ligands. Biochemical and NMR data show that covalent inhibitors weaken—but do not prevent—the binding of other ligands via an allosteric mechanism, rather than direct ligand clashing, by shifting the LBD ensemble toward a transcriptionally repressive conformation, which structurally clashes with orthosteric ligand binding. Crystal structures reveal different cobinding mechanisms including alternate site binding to unexpectedly adopting an orthosteric binding mode by altering the covalent inhibitor binding pose. Our findings highlight the significant flexibility of the PPARγ orthosteric pocket, its ability to accommodate multiple ligands, and demonstrate that GW9662 and T0070907 should not be used as chemical tools to inhibit ligand binding to PPARγ.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yuanyuan Wang, Fan Xu ... Yongning He
    Research Article

    SCARF1 (scavenger receptor class F member 1, SREC-1 or SR-F1) is a type I transmembrane protein that recognizes multiple endogenous and exogenous ligands such as modified low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) and is important for maintaining homeostasis and immunity. But the structural information and the mechanisms of ligand recognition of SCARF1 are largely unavailable. Here, we solve the crystal structures of the N-terminal fragments of human SCARF1, which show that SCARF1 forms homodimers and its epidermal growth factor (EGF)-like domains adopt a long-curved conformation. Then, we examine the interactions of SCARF1 with lipoproteins and are able to identify a region on SCARF1 for recognizing modified LDLs. The mutagenesis data show that the positively charged residues in the region are crucial for the interaction of SCARF1 with modified LDLs, which is confirmed by making chimeric molecules of SCARF1 and SCARF2. In addition, teichoic acids, a cell wall polymer expressed on the surface of gram-positive bacteria, are able to inhibit the interactions of modified LDLs with SCARF1, suggesting the ligand binding sites of SCARF1 might be shared for some of its scavenging targets. Overall, these results provide mechanistic insights into SCARF1 and its interactions with the ligands, which are important for understanding its physiological roles in homeostasis and the related diseases.