Modulation of the Erwinia ligand-gated ion channel (ELIC) and the 5-HT3 receptor via a common vestibule site

  1. Marijke Brams
  2. Cedric Govaerts
  3. Kumiko Kambara
  4. Kerry L Price
  5. Radovan Spurny
  6. Anant Gharpure
  7. Els Pardon
  8. Genevieve L Evans
  9. Daniel Bertrand
  10. Sarah CR Lummis
  11. Ryan E Hibbs
  12. Jan Steyaert
  13. Chris Ulens  Is a corresponding author
  1. KU Leuven, Belgium
  2. Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
  3. HiQScreen, Switzerland
  4. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  5. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, United States
  6. VIB-VUB, Belgium

Abstract

Pentameric ligand-gated ion channels (pLGICs) or Cys-loop receptors are involved in fast synaptic signaling in the nervous system. Allosteric modulators bind to sites that are remote from the neurotransmitter binding site, but modify coupling of ligand binding to channel opening. In this study, we developed nanobodies (single domain antibodies), which are functionally active as allosteric modulators, and solved co-crystal structures of the prokaryote (Erwinia) channel ELIC bound either to a positive or a negative allosteric modulator. The allosteric nanobody binding sites partially overlap with those of small molecule modulators, including a vestibule binding site that is not accessible in some pLGICs. Using mutagenesis, we extrapolate the functional importance of the vestibule binding site to the human 5-HT3 receptor, suggesting a common mechanism of modulation in this protein and ELIC. Thus we identify key elements of allosteric binding sites, and extend drug design possibilities in pLGICs with an accessible vestibule site.

Data availability

Atomic coordinates and structure factors have been deposited with the Protein Data Bank under accession numbers 6SSI for the ELIC+PAM-Nb structure and 6SSP for the ELIC+NAM-Nb structure. The raw X-ray diffraction images for both data sets have been deposited on datadryad.org under accession number doi:10.5061/dryad.pv4097s.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Marijke Brams

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Cedric Govaerts

    Laboratory for the Structure and Function of Biological Membranes, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Kumiko Kambara

    HiQScreen, Geneva, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Kerry L Price

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Radovan Spurny

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Anant Gharpure

    Department of Neuroscience, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4458-359X
  7. Els Pardon

    Center for Structural Biology, VIB-VUB, Brussels, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Genevieve L Evans

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8612-9539
  9. Daniel Bertrand

    HiQScreen, Geneva, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Sarah CR Lummis

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Ryan E Hibbs

    Department of Neuroscience, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Jan Steyaert

    Center for Structural Biology, VIB-VUB, Brussels, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3825-874X
  13. Chris Ulens

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
    For correspondence
    chris.ulens@kuleuven.be
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8202-5281

Funding

SBO/IWT (1200261)

  • Jan Steyaert
  • Chris Ulens

FWO-Vlaanderen (G.0762.13)

  • Jan Steyaert
  • Chris Ulens

KU Leuven (OT/13/095)

  • Chris Ulens

KU Leuven (C32/16/035)

  • Chris Ulens

KU Leuven (C14/17/093)

  • Chris Ulens

INSTRUCT-ERIC

  • Jan Steyaert

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

Copyright

© 2020, Brams 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

  • 1,790
    views
  • 236
    downloads
  • 20
    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. Marijke Brams
  2. Cedric Govaerts
  3. Kumiko Kambara
  4. Kerry L Price
  5. Radovan Spurny
  6. Anant Gharpure
  7. Els Pardon
  8. Genevieve L Evans
  9. Daniel Bertrand
  10. Sarah CR Lummis
  11. Ryan E Hibbs
  12. Jan Steyaert
  13. Chris Ulens
(2020)
Modulation of the Erwinia ligand-gated ion channel (ELIC) and the 5-HT3 receptor via a common vestibule site
eLife 9:e51511.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.51511

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.51511

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Brian C Ruyle, Sarah Masud ... Jose A Morón
    Research Article

    Millions of Americans suffering from Opioid Use Disorders face a high risk of fatal overdose due to opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD). Fentanyl, a powerful synthetic opioid, is a major contributor to the rising rates of overdose deaths. Reversing fentanyl overdoses has proved challenging due to its high potency and the rapid onset of OIRD. We assessed the contributions of central and peripheral mu opioid receptors (MORs) in mediating fentanyl-induced physiological responses. The peripherally restricted MOR antagonist naloxone methiodide (NLXM) both prevented and reversed OIRD to a degree comparable to that of naloxone (NLX), indicating substantial involvement of peripheral MORs to OIRD. Interestingly, NLXM-mediated OIRD reversal did not produce aversive behaviors observed after NLX. We show that neurons in the nucleus of the solitary tract (nTS), the first central synapse of peripheral afferents, exhibit a biphasic activity profile following fentanyl exposure. NLXM pretreatment attenuates this activity, suggesting that these responses are mediated by peripheral MORs. Together, these findings establish a critical role for peripheral MORs, including ascending inputs to the nTS, as sites of dysfunction during OIRD. Furthermore, selective peripheral MOR antagonism could be a promising therapeutic strategy for managing OIRD by sparing CNS-driven acute opioid-associated withdrawal and aversion observed after NLX.

    1. Neuroscience
    David C Williams, Amanda Chu ... Michael A McDannald
    Research Advance Updated

    Recognizing and responding to threat cues is essential to survival. Freezing is a predominant threat behavior in rats. We have recently shown that a threat cue can organize diverse behaviors beyond freezing, including locomotion (Chu et al., 2024). However, that experimental design was complex, required many sessions, and had rats receive many foot shock presentations. Moreover, the findings were descriptive. Here, we gave female and male Long Evans rats cue light illumination paired or unpaired with foot shock (eight total) in a conditioned suppression setting using a range of shock intensities (0.15, 0.25, 0.35, or 0.50 mA). We found that conditioned suppression was only observed at higher foot shock intensities (0.35 mA and 0.50 mA). We constructed comprehensive temporal ethograms by scoring 22,272 frames across 12 behavior categories in 200-ms intervals around cue light illumination. The 0.50 mA and 0.35 mA shock-paired visual cues suppressed reward seeking, rearing, and scaling, as well as light-directed rearing and light-directed scaling. These shock-paired visual cues further elicited locomotion and freezing. Linear discriminant analyses showed that ethogram data could accurately classify rats into paired and unpaired groups. Using complete ethogram data produced superior classification compared to behavior subsets, including an immobility subset featuring freezing. The results demonstrate diverse threat behaviors – in a short and simple procedure – containing sufficient information to distinguish the visual fear conditioning status of individual rats.