Allosteric modulation in monomers and oligomers of a G protein-coupled receptor

  1. Rabindra V Shivnaraine  Is a corresponding author
  2. Brendan Kelly
  3. Krishana S Sankar
  4. Dar'ya S Redka
  5. Yi Rang Han
  6. Fei Huang
  7. Gwendolynne Elmslie
  8. Daniel Pinto
  9. Yuchong Li
  10. Jonathan V Rocheleau
  11. Claudiu C Gradinaru
  12. John Ellis
  13. James W Wells
  1. Stanford University School of Medicine, United States
  2. Stanford University, United States
  3. University of Toronto, Canada
  4. Hershey Medical Center, United States

Abstract

The M2 muscarinic receptor is the prototypic model of allostery in GPCRs, yet the molecular and the supramolecular determinants of such effects are unknown. Monomers and oligomers of the M2 muscarinic receptor therefore have been compared to identify those allosteric properties that are gained in oligomers. Allosteric interactions were monitored by means of a FRET-based sensor of conformation at the allosteric site and in pharmacological assays involving mutants engineered to preclude intramolecular effects. Electrostatic, steric, and conformational determinants of allostery at the atomic level were examined in molecular dynamics simulations. Allosteric effects in monomers were exclusively negative and derived primarily from intramolecular electrostatic repulsion between the allosteric and orthosteric ligands. Allosteric effects in oligomers could be positive or negative, depending upon the allosteric-orthosteric pair, and they arose from interactions within and between the constituent protomers. The complex behavior of oligomers is characteristic of muscarinic receptors in myocardial preparations.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Rabindra V Shivnaraine

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    For correspondence
    rvshiv@stanford.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Brendan Kelly

    Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Krishana S Sankar

    Department of Physiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Dar'ya S Redka

    Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Yi Rang Han

    Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Fei Huang

    Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Gwendolynne Elmslie

    Departments of Psychiatry and Pharmacology, Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Daniel Pinto

    Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Yuchong Li

    Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Jonathan V Rocheleau

    Department of Physiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Claudiu C Gradinaru

    Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. John Ellis

    Departments of Psychiatry and Pharmacology, Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. James W Wells

    Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Werner Kühlbrandt, Max Planck Institute of Biophysics, Germany

Version history

  1. Received: September 17, 2015
  2. Accepted: April 30, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 6, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: June 9, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Shivnaraine 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

  • 2,374
    views
  • 595
    downloads
  • 21
    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. Rabindra V Shivnaraine
  2. Brendan Kelly
  3. Krishana S Sankar
  4. Dar'ya S Redka
  5. Yi Rang Han
  6. Fei Huang
  7. Gwendolynne Elmslie
  8. Daniel Pinto
  9. Yuchong Li
  10. Jonathan V Rocheleau
  11. Claudiu C Gradinaru
  12. John Ellis
  13. James W Wells
(2016)
Allosteric modulation in monomers and oligomers of a G protein-coupled receptor
eLife 5:e11685.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11685

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11685

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Birol Cabukusta, Shalom Borst Pauwels ... Jacques Neefjes
    Research Article

    Numerous lipids are heterogeneously distributed among organelles. Most lipid trafficking between organelles is achieved by a group of lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) that carry lipids using their hydrophobic cavities. The human genome encodes many intracellular LTPs responsible for lipid trafficking and the function of many LTPs in defining cellular lipid levels and distributions is unclear. Here, we created a gene knockout library targeting 90 intracellular LTPs and performed whole-cell lipidomics analysis. This analysis confirmed known lipid disturbances and identified new ones caused by the loss of LTPs. Among these, we found major sphingolipid imbalances in ORP9 and ORP11 knockout cells, two proteins of previously unknown function in sphingolipid metabolism. ORP9 and ORP11 form a heterodimer to localize at the ER-trans-Golgi membrane contact sites, where the dimer exchanges phosphatidylserine (PS) for phosphatidylinositol-4-phosphate (PI(4)P) between the two organelles. Consequently, loss of either protein causes phospholipid imbalances in the Golgi apparatus that result in lowered sphingomyelin synthesis at this organelle. Overall, our LTP knockout library toolbox identifies various proteins in control of cellular lipid levels, including the ORP9-ORP11 heterodimer, which exchanges PS and PI(4)P at the ER-Golgi membrane contact site as a critical step in sphingomyelin synthesis in the Golgi apparatus.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Kien Xuan Ngo, Huong T Vu ... Taro Uyeda
    Research Article

    The mechanism underlying the preferential and cooperative binding of cofilin and the expansion of clusters toward the pointed-end side of actin filaments remains poorly understood. To address this, we conducted a principal component analysis based on available filamentous actin (F-actin) and C-actin (cofilins were excluded from cofilactin) structures and compared to monomeric G-actin. The results strongly suggest that C-actin, rather than F-ADP-actin, represented the favourable structure for binding preference of cofilin. High-speed atomic force microscopy explored that the shortened bare half helix adjacent to the cofilin clusters on the pointed end side included fewer actin protomers than normal helices. The mean axial distance (MAD) between two adjacent actin protomers along the same long-pitch strand within shortened bare half helices was longer (5.0–6.3 nm) than the MAD within typical helices (4.3–5.6 nm). The inhibition of torsional motion during helical twisting, achieved through stronger attachment to the lipid membrane, led to more pronounced inhibition of cofilin binding and cluster formation than the presence of inorganic phosphate (Pi) in solution. F-ADP-actin exhibited more naturally supertwisted half helices than F-ADP.Pi-actin, explaining how Pi inhibits cofilin binding to F-actin with variable helical twists. We propose that protomers within the shorter bare helical twists, either influenced by thermal fluctuation or induced allosterically by cofilin clusters, exhibit characteristics of C-actin-like structures with an elongated MAD, leading to preferential and cooperative binding of cofilin.