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.

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

  • 2,421
    views
  • 603
    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
    Gabriella O Estevam, Edmond Linossi ... James S Fraser
    Research Article

    Mutations in the kinase and juxtamembrane domains of the MET Receptor Tyrosine Kinase are responsible for oncogenesis in various cancers and can drive resistance to MET-directed treatments. Determining the most effective inhibitor for each mutational profile is a major challenge for MET-driven cancer treatment in precision medicine. Here, we used a deep mutational scan (DMS) of ~5764 MET kinase domain variants to profile the growth of each mutation against a panel of 11 inhibitors that are reported to target the MET kinase domain. We validate previously identified resistance mutations, pinpoint common resistance sites across type I, type II, and type I ½ inhibitors, unveil unique resistance and sensitizing mutations for each inhibitor, and verify non-cross-resistant sensitivities for type I and type II inhibitor pairs. We augment a protein language model with biophysical and chemical features to improve the predictive performance for inhibitor-treated datasets. Together, our study demonstrates a pooled experimental pipeline for identifying resistance mutations, provides a reference dictionary for mutations that are sensitized to specific therapies, and offers insights for future drug development.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Kira Breunig, Xuifen Lei ... Luiz O Penalva
    Research Article

    RNA binding proteins (RBPs) containing intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) are present in diverse molecular complexes where they function as dynamic regulators. Their characteristics promote liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) and the formation of membraneless organelles such as stress granules and nucleoli. IDR-RBPs are particularly relevant in the nervous system and their dysfunction is associated with neurodegenerative diseases and brain tumor development. Serpine1 mRNA-binding protein 1 (SERBP1) is a unique member of this group, being mostly disordered and lacking canonical RNA-binding domains. We defined SERBP1’s interactome, uncovered novel roles in splicing, cell division and ribosomal biogenesis, and showed its participation in pathological stress granules and Tau aggregates in Alzheimer’s brains. SERBP1 preferentially interacts with other G-quadruplex (G4) binders, implicated in different stages of gene expression, suggesting that G4 binding is a critical component of SERBP1 function in different settings. Similarly, we identified important associations between SERBP1 and PARP1/polyADP-ribosylation (PARylation). SERBP1 interacts with PARP1 and its associated factors and influences PARylation. Moreover, protein complexes in which SERBP1 participates contain mostly PARylated proteins and PAR binders. Based on these results, we propose a feedback regulatory model in which SERBP1 influences PARP1 function and PARylation, while PARylation modulates SERBP1 functions and participation in regulatory complexes.