Abstract

Human calcium-sensing receptor (CaSR) is a G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) that maintains extracellular Ca2+ homeostasis through the regulation of parathyroid hormone secretion. It functions as a disulfide-tethered homodimer composed of three main domains, the Venus Flytrap module, cysteine-rich domain, and seven-helix transmembrane region. Here we present the crystal structures of the entire extracellular domain of CaSR in the resting and active conformations. We provide direct evidence that L-amino acids are agonists of the receptor. In the active structure, L-Trp occupies the orthosteric agonist-binding site at the interdomain cleft, and is primarily responsible for inducing extracellular domain closure to initiate receptor activation. Our structures reveal multiple binding sites for Ca2+ and PO43- ions. Both ions are crucial for structural integrity of the receptor. While Ca2+ ions stabilize the active state, PO43- ions reinforce the inactive conformation. The activation mechanism of CaSR involves the formation of a novel dimer interface between subunits.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Yong Geng

    Department of Pharmacology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Lidia Mosyak

    Department of Pharmacology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Igor Kurinov

    Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Hao Zuo

    Department of Pharmacology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Emmanuel Sturchler

    Department of Molecular Therapeutics, The Scripps Translational Science Institute, Jupiter, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Tat Cheung Cheng

    Department of Pharmacology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Prakash Subramanyam

    Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Alice P Brown

    School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Sarah C Brennan

    School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Hee-chang Mun

    School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Martin Bush

    Department of Pharmacology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Yan Chen

    Department of Pharmacology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Trang X Nguyen

    Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Baohua Cao

    Department of Pharmacology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Donald D Chang

    Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Matthias Quick

    Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Arthur D Conigrave

    School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Henry M Colecraft

    Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Patricia McDonald

    Department of Molecular Therapeutics, The Scripps Translational Science Institute, Jupiter, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Qing R Fan

    Department of Pharmacology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    qf13@cumc.columbia.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9330-0963

Funding

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM112973)

  • Qing R Fan

American Heart Association (15GRNT25420002)

  • Qing R Fan

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2016, Geng 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

  • 6,836
    views
  • 1,645
    downloads
  • 204
    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. Yong Geng
  2. Lidia Mosyak
  3. Igor Kurinov
  4. Hao Zuo
  5. Emmanuel Sturchler
  6. Tat Cheung Cheng
  7. Prakash Subramanyam
  8. Alice P Brown
  9. Sarah C Brennan
  10. Hee-chang Mun
  11. Martin Bush
  12. Yan Chen
  13. Trang X Nguyen
  14. Baohua Cao
  15. Donald D Chang
  16. Matthias Quick
  17. Arthur D Conigrave
  18. Henry M Colecraft
  19. Patricia McDonald
  20. Qing R Fan
(2016)
Structural mechanism of ligand activation in human calcium-sensing receptor
eLife 5:e13662.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13662

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13662

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yamato Niitani, Kohei Matsuzaki ... Michio Tomishige
    Research Article

    The two identical motor domains (heads) of dimeric kinesin-1 move in a hand-over-hand process along a microtubule, coordinating their ATPase cycles such that each ATP hydrolysis is tightly coupled to a step and enabling the motor to take many steps without dissociating. The neck linker, a structural element that connects the two heads, has been shown to be essential for head–head coordination; however, which kinetic step(s) in the chemomechanical cycle is ‘gated’ by the neck linker remains unresolved. Here, we employed pre-steady-state kinetics and single-molecule assays to investigate how the neck-linker conformation affects kinesin’s motility cycle. We show that the backward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the front kinesin head confers higher affinity for microtubule, but does not change ATP binding and dissociation rates. In contrast, the forward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the rear kinesin head decreases the ATP dissociation rate but has little effect on microtubule dissociation. In combination, these conformation-specific effects of the neck linker favor ATP hydrolysis and dissociation of the rear head prior to microtubule detachment of the front head, thereby providing a kinetic explanation for the coordinated walking mechanism of dimeric kinesin.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christopher T Schafer, Raymond F Pauszek III ... David P Millar
    Research Article

    The canonical chemokine receptor CXCR4 and atypical receptor ACKR3 both respond to CXCL12 but induce different effector responses to regulate cell migration. While CXCR4 couples to G proteins and directly promotes cell migration, ACKR3 is G-protein-independent and scavenges CXCL12 to regulate extracellular chemokine levels and maintain CXCR4 responsiveness, thereby indirectly influencing migration. The receptors also have distinct activation requirements. CXCR4 only responds to wild-type CXCL12 and is sensitive to mutation of the chemokine. By contrast, ACKR3 recruits GPCR kinases (GRKs) and β-arrestins and promiscuously responds to CXCL12, CXCL12 variants, other peptides and proteins, and is relatively insensitive to mutation. To investigate the role of conformational dynamics in the distinct pharmacological behaviors of CXCR4 and ACKR3, we employed single-molecule FRET to track discrete conformational states of the receptors in real-time. The data revealed that apo-CXCR4 preferentially populates a high-FRET inactive state, while apo-ACKR3 shows little conformational preference and high transition probabilities among multiple inactive, intermediate and active conformations, consistent with its propensity for activation. Multiple active-like ACKR3 conformations are populated in response to agonists, compared to the single CXCR4 active-state. This and the markedly different conformational landscapes of the receptors suggest that activation of ACKR3 may be achieved by a broader distribution of conformational states than CXCR4. Much of the conformational heterogeneity of ACKR3 is linked to a single residue that differs between ACKR3 and CXCR4. The dynamic properties of ACKR3 may underly its inability to form productive interactions with G proteins that would drive canonical GPCR signaling.