1. Neuroscience
  2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
Download icon

Architecture and structural dynamics of the heteromeric GluK2/K5 kainate receptor

  1. Nandish Khanra
  2. Patricia MGE Brown
  3. Amanda M Perozzo
  4. Derek Bowie
  5. Joel R Meyerson  Is a corresponding author
  1. Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Weill Cornell Medical College, United States
  2. Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, McGill University, Canada
Research Article
  • Cited 1
  • Views 1,195
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2021;10:e66097 doi: 10.7554/eLife.66097

Abstract

Kainate receptors (KARs) are L-glutamate-gated ion channels that regulate synaptic transmission and modulate neuronal circuits. KARs have strict assembly rules and primarily function as heteromeric receptors in the brain. A longstanding question is how KAR heteromer subunits organize and coordinate together to fulfill their signature physiological roles. Here we report structures of the GluK2/GluK5 heteromer in apo, antagonist-bound, and desensitized states. The receptor assembles with two copies of each subunit, ligand binding domains arranged as two heterodimers and GluK5 subunits proximal to the channel. Strikingly, during desensitization, GluK2, but not GluK5, subunits undergo major structural rearrangements to facilitate channel closure. We show how the large conformational differences between antagonist-bound and desensitized states are mediated by the linkers connecting the pore helices to the ligand binding domains. This work presents the first KAR heteromer structure, reveals how its subunits are organized, and resolves how the heteromer can accommodate functionally distinct closed channel structures.

Introduction

Ionotropic glutamate receptors (iGluRs) respond to the neurotransmitter L-glutamate (L-Glu) to mediate the majority of fast excitatory synaptic transmission in the human brain (Dingledine et al., 1999). This central role has implicated iGluRs in major pathological brain conditions including depression, schizophrenia, stroke, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease (Bowie, 2008). The iGluR family has three subtypes termed kainate receptors (KARs), α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptors (AMPARs), and N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors (NMDARs) (Traynelis et al., 2010). Each subtype possesses unique functional properties and fulfills distinct physiological roles (Dingledine et al., 1999; Traynelis et al., 2010). KARs are expressed throughout the central nervous system and act post-synaptically in depolarization and modulation of membrane excitability, and pre-synaptically to regulate excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitter release (Contractor et al., 2011; Lerma and Marques, 2013). Their role in pain perception, epilepsy, and mood disorders has also made KARs important targets of small-molecule antagonist and modulator development (Contractor et al., 2011; Larsen et al., 2017; Møllerud et al., 2017).

KARs are tetramers that assemble with four identical subunits (homomers) or mixtures of different subunits (heteromers). Each subunit has a modular three-layer design with an amino terminal domain (ATD), ligand binding domain (LBD), and transmembrane domain (TMD) which forms part of a common pore (Traynelis et al., 2010). The tetramers have variable symmetry among their three domain layers (Meyerson et al., 2016), a feature that is also found in AMPARs and NMDARs (Zhu and Gouaux, 2017). KAR tetramers are generated from a pool of five subunits. GluK1, GluK2, and GluK3 subunits can form functional homomers (Cui and Mayer, 1999). GluK4 and GluK5 cannot form functional channels on their own and are obliged to co-assemble with GluK1, GluK2, or GluK3 (Herb et al., 1992; Werner et al., 1991). GluK4-5 also have higher L-Glu affinity (Herb et al., 1992) and thus a lower activation threshold than GluK1-3 (Barberis et al., 2008; Fisher and Mott, 2011; Mott et al., 2010). Heteromers containing GluK5 subunits show enhanced permeation to polyamine pore blockers (Brown et al., 2016), distinct pharmacological properties (Herb et al., 1992; Swanson et al., 2002), and are endowed with slower deactivation kinetics (Barberis et al., 2008) which is proposed as central to their role in integrating synaptic signals (Frerking and Ohliger-Frerking, 2002; Lerma and Marques, 2013). Consequently homomers and heteromers occupy different functional niches in the brain, with heteromers thought to be the major KAR class (Herb et al., 1992; Petralia et al., 1994). Receptors containing either GluK4 or GluK5 are also specifically linked to diseases such as depression (Catches et al., 2012), epilepsy (Das et al., 2012), autism (Aller et al., 2015), and schizophrenia (Greenwood et al., 2016). Despite their significance, no KAR heteromer structure has been reported, which presents a major knowledge gap made more salient by recently reported structures of NMDAR (Karakas and Furukawa, 2014; Lee et al., 2014; Lü et al., 2017) and AMPAR heteromers (Herguedas et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2019).

KARs are ligand-gated cation channels which respond to L-Glu released into the synapse. L-Glu binding triggers the receptor to enter an active state with an open channel which allows cations to cross the membrane. The channel closes again if L-Glu is rapidly removed (deactivation) or if L-Glu exposure is sustained (desensitization) (Barberis et al., 2008). Recent structures have shown how GluK2 and GluK3 homomers are organized in the absence of L-Glu while bound to competitive antagonists and after the receptors have desensitized (Kumari et al., 2019; Meyerson et al., 2014a; Meyerson et al., 2016; Schauder et al., 2013). The desensitized structures revealed that KAR homomers feature a ‘desensitization ring’ motif which is proposed to facilitate channel closure and account for their slow recovery from desensitization (Meyerson et al., 2016). To date this motif has not been observed in AMPAR or NMDAR structures, raising the question of whether it is unique to KAR homomers or if KAR heteromers employ a similar desensitized structure.

Here, we report structures of the GluK2/GluK5 heteromer (GluK2/K5), proposed to be the major KAR in the brain (Herb et al., 1992; Petralia et al., 1994), in resting (apo), antagonist-bound (6-cyano-7-nitroquinoxaline-2,3-dione [CNQX]), and agonist-bound (L-Glu) desensitized states. The apo and antagonist-bound structures allow us to address questions of KAR heteromer architecture, symmetry, and the organization of its three structural ‘layers’. With the L-Glu-bound structure, we reveal the significant structural changes which accompany heteromer desensitization and compare the structure to the desensitized GluK2 homomer. We conclude with structural analysis to answer how antagonist-bound and desensitized GluK2/K5 states can both maintain a closed cation channel despite such different LBD arrangements. Critically, this work provides an expanded foundation for understanding differences and similarities among KAR (Kumari et al., 2019; Meyerson et al., 2014a; Meyerson et al., 2016), AMPAR (Herguedas et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2019), NMDAR (Karakas and Furukawa, 2014; Lee et al., 2014; Lü et al., 2017), and recently characterized ionotropic orphan delta (GluD) receptor structures (Burada et al., 2020a; Burada et al., 2020b).

Results

Receptor isolation, functional testing, and structure determination

In order to obtain a structure of GluK2/K5, it was necessary to generate receptor protein of sufficient quality and quantity for cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) imaging. However, the GluK2/K5 receptor has low expression levels in recombinant systems (Hayes et al., 2003; Nasu-Nishimura et al., 2006; Reiner et al., 2012; Ren et al., 2003). To surmount this problem, we developed optimized protein co-expression constructs for GluK2 and GluK5. In both subunits we mutated select cysteines in the TMD, and for GluK5 we also removed the flexible C-terminus which contains multiple endoplasmic reticulum retention signals (Nasu-Nishimura et al., 2006; Ren et al., 2003) (see 'Materials and methods' for details). We refer to these constructs as GluK2em and GluK5em (Figure 1—figure supplement 1, Figure 1—figure supplement 2A).

We next compared the functional properties of wild-type and cryo-EM constructs in order to validate that GluK2em and GluK5em form functional receptors (Figure 1—figure supplement 2 and Table 1). For these experiments, we used outside-out patch clamp electrophysiology to measure channel current decays in response to a prolonged (250 ms) exposure to L-Glu (i.e. desensitization) or to a brief (1 ms) pulse of L-Glu (i.e. deactivation). Recordings of cells transfected with wild-type GluK2 or co-transfected with wild-type GluK2 and GluK5 show rapid desensitization (Figure 1—figure supplement 2B,D), as expected (Barberis et al., 2008). In addition, the two conditions show divergent responses to short L-Glu exposure with GluK2 deactivating quickly and the combination of GluK2 and GluK5 deactivating slowly (Figure 1—figure supplement 2C,D). The slow channel closure in the heteromer occurs because GluK5 subunits have high affinity for L-Glu, and occupancy of their LBDs is sufficient to sustain channel activation after L-Glu application is halted (Barberis et al., 2008). Importantly, co-expression of GluK2 and GluK5 subunits gives a mixture of GluK2 homomers and GluK2/K5 heteromers (as noted, GluK5 alone does not form functional homomers), and measuring deactivation provides a way to isolate a characteristic heteromer signal (Barberis et al., 2008). We tested GluK2em alone and found it shows the expected rapid desensitization from prolonged L-Glu treatment and rapid deactivation after a short L-Glu pulse (Figure 1—figure supplement 2E). This confirmed GluK2em can form functional homomers with similar kinetic properties to wild-type GluK2 (Table 1). We next co-expressed GluK2em and GluK5em and observed rapid desensitization from a mixture of GluK2em homomers and GluK2em/GluK5em heteromers (referred to as GluK2/K5em heteromers) (Figure 1—figure supplement 2F). In turn, the deactivation current decays slowly, indicating the inclusion of the GluK5em subunits and formation of functional GluK2/K5em heteromers (Figure 1—figure supplement 2F). Taken together, GluK2/K5em heteromers exhibited the expected functional properties of rapid desensitization and relatively slow deactivation with kinetic parameters comparable to wild-type receptors (Table 1). We concluded that GluK2em and GluK5em can form functional heteromers, and the two expression constructs were used to produce GluK2/K5em protein using the BacMam method (Goehring et al., 2014; Morales-Perez et al., 2016) (see 'Materials and methods' and Figure 1—figure supplement 3).

Table 1
Summary of kainate receptor (KAR) decay kinetics for wild-type and cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) constructs.
Desensitization kinetics
Receptorτ1 ± SEM (ms)%τ2 ± SEM (ms)%τ3 ± SEM (ms)%Weighted τ (ms)n
GluK26.3 ± 0.39246 ± 887.527
GluK2em7.7 ± 0.79541 ± 858.87
GluK2/K52.8 ± 0.19231 ± 684.226
GluK2/K5em2.4 ± 0.19620 ± 442.96
Deactivation kinetics
Receptorτ1 ± SEM (ms)%τ2 ± SEM (ms)%τ3 ± SEM (ms)%Weighted τ (ms)n
GluK23.3 ± 0.29721 ± 333.928
GluK2em4.0 ± 0.49816 ± 324.29
GluK2/K51.2 ± 0.14410 ± 12160 ± 23523.635
GluK2/K5em1.3 ± 0.26015 ± 51881 ± 162218.56

We first pursued a structure of GluK2/K5em in an apo resting state and imaged the receptor by cryo-EM. The data were processed using single particle analysis without symmetry applied and a structure of GluK2/K5em-apo was resolved to 7.5 Å global resolution (Figure 1—figure supplement 4, Table 2). At the calculated resolution, the structure is suitable to observe domain positions and we unambiguously identified ATDs, LBDs, and TMDs. The four LBDs arrange as two pairs of dimers (Figure 1—figure supplement 4) which accord with a canonical model of a resting state structure (Dürr et al., 2014). No apo state KAR LBD structures were available to analyze the status of the LBDs, but fitting a crystal structure of the apo GluA2 AMPAR LBD (PDB: 1FTO) into the cryo-EM densities confirmed that all four LBDs are compatible with an apo conformation (Figure 1—figure supplement 5A). Lastly, the ATD layer has a subtle ‘tilt’ away from the receptor central axis and the linkers connecting the ATD and LBD layers were not resolved (Figure 1—figure supplement 4). Taken together these features may indicate some degree of relative mobility between the ATD and the LBD-TMD region. We note that this tilt is similar to ATD tilts observed in AMPAR structures solved by X-ray crystallography (Sobolevsky et al., 2009; Yelshanskaya et al., 2014) and cryo-EM (Nakagawa, 2019) and may reflect a general structural requirement for flexible ATD-LBD linkers to accommodate LBD movements during receptor gating.

Table 2
Cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) data collection and processing.
GluK2/K5-apoGluK2/K5-CNQX
(full-length)
GluK2/K5-CNQX
(ATD)
GluK2/K5-CNQX
(LBD-TMD)
GluK2/K5-L-Glu
(full-length)
GluK2/K5-L-Glu
(ATD)
GluK2/K5-L-Glu
(LBD-TMD)
Magnification81,00036,00036,00036,00036,00036,00036,000
Voltage (kV)300200200200200200200
Electron exposure (e2)51.2350–5350–5350–5350–5350–5350–53
Defocus (μm)1.60.4–4.80.4–4.80.4–4.80.4–4.80.4–4.80.4–4.8
Pixel size (Å)1.0831.0961.0961.0961.0961.0961.096
Symmetry imposedC1C1C1C2C1C1C2
Initial particle images (#)1,778,62751,898,82651,898,82651,898,82628,586,52928,586,52928,586,529
Final particle images (#)90,0271,021,916540,580184,945573,403241,849140,028
Map resolution (Å)7.55.33.64.25.83.84.3
Fourier shell correlation (FSC) threshold0.1430.1430.1430.1430.1430.1430.143
Map resolution range (Å)6.5–8.04.0–6.03.5–4.04.0–5.04.0–6.03.5–4.04.0–5.0

We noted that many iGluR structures have been solved in the presence of saturating concentration of antagonist to stabilize the receptor assembly (Chou et al., 2020; Meyerson et al., 2016; Nakagawa, 2019; Sobolevsky et al., 2009). To maximize our chances of obtaining a high-resolution structure, we adopted this approach and selected the antagonist CNQX because it binds with low micromolar affinity to GluK2/K5 heteromers (Alt et al., 2004). We prepared samples of GluK2/K5em with 1 mM CNQX, imaged with cryo-EM, processed the data using single particle analysis without symmetry applied, and refined a structure to 5.3 Å resolution (Figure 1—figure supplements 6 and 7). The intermediate resolution motivated us to use particle subtraction in Relion (Zivanov et al., 2018) to independently resolve the ATD layer and the LBD-TMD assembly. After subtracting the LBD and TMD layers from the particle set, we refined the ATD layer to 3.6 Å resolution, and then did the opposite by subtracting the ATD layer and refined the LBD-TMD assembly to 4.2 Å (Figure 1—figure supplements 6 and 7). The two independent structures were used to make a full-length model which was used for analysis (Figure 1).

Figure 1 with 8 supplements see all
Structure of the GluK2/K5 heteromer.

(A) Cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) structure of the GluK2/K5em heteromer in a 6-cyano-7-nitroquinoxaline-2,3-dione (CNQX)-bound state with GluK2em and GluK5em subunits rendered in green and blue, respectively. The panel shows the map for the amino terminal domain (ATD) layer and the map for the ligand binding domain (LBD)-transmembrane domain (TMD) assembly which were reconstructed independently, as described in the text. (B and C) Molecular model for the receptor colored as in (A) and shown from two different views parallel to the membrane. (D–F) The three layers of the GluK2/K5em heteromer as viewed from the extracellular space. The local symmetries of the ATD (D, twofold), LBD (E, twofold), and TMD (F, fourfold) are illustrated.

Receptor organization and symmetry

The GluK2/K5em-CNQX quaternary architecture has three layers with ATDs at the ‘top’, the LBDs in the ‘middle’, and the TMD at the ‘base’ (Figure 1A–F). The overall profile of the receptor resembles the apo state with two pairs of LBD dimers and slightly tilted ATD (Figure 1B, C and E, Figure 1—figure supplement 4). Like many iGluR structures solved by cryo-EM, the resolution of the density map is not sufficient to determine the presence or absence of ligands (Jalali-Yazdi et al., 2018; Kumari et al., 2019; Lü et al., 2017; Tajima et al., 2016; Twomey et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2016), and rather ligand binding is inferred from the sample conditions and protein structure. To test if the LBDs are compatible with antagonist occupancy, we measured their similarity to an antagonist-bound GluK2 LBD crystal structure (PDB: 5CMK) and also compared the LBDs to an L-Glu-bound crystal structure (PDB: 1S50) (Figure 1—figure supplement 5B). Inspection of the conformational differences and the measured RMSD values showed clearly that the LBDs had ‘open’ binding clefts that were similar to the antagonist-bound LBD reference structure.

We next identified the GluK2em and GluK5em subunits in the assembly by exploiting successful visualization of the mutually exclusive N-linked glycosylation sites on GluK2 and GluK5 subunits (Figure 1—figure supplement 8). This shows that GluK2em subunits form an interface between the two halves of the ATD layer (B/D positions), while the GluK5em ATDs heterodimerize with GluK2em ATDs which position them at the periphery of the ATD layer (A/C positions) (Figure 1D, Figure 1—figure supplement 8). Assigning the ATD identities allowed us to conclude that GluK2/K5 receptors assemble with 2:2 stoichiometry which is consistent with single molecule experiments (Litwin et al., 2020; Reiner et al., 2012), molecular dynamics simulation (Paramo et al., 2017), and an X-ray structure of isolated GluK2/K5 ATDs (PDB: 3QLV) (Kumar et al., 2011).

The early studies on GluK4 and GluK5 showed that the subunits are unable to form functional receptors on their own and must co-assemble with GluK1, GluK2, or GluK3 (Herb et al., 1992; Werner et al., 1991). Recent work on the GluK4 LBD (Kristensen et al., 2016) and molecular dynamics simulations on GluK2/K5 (Paramo et al., 2017) suggest that GluK4 and GluK5 LBDs function as heterodimers with the other three KAR subunits. Based on these results we hypothesized that in the full-length receptor, GluK2 and GluK5 LBDs co-assemble as two pairs of heterodimers rather than as two pairs of homodimers. Analysis of the GluK2/K5em-CNQX structure validates this hypothesis and shows that GluK2/K5 LBD heterodimers form with GluK5 in pore-proximal (A/C) positions and GluK2 in pore-distal (B/D) positions (Figure 1—figure supplement 8). We next compared the LBD layer of GluK2/K5em-CNQX to LBD layers of an antagonist-bound KAR homomer (GluK2) (Meyerson et al., 2016), AMPAR (GluA1/A2) (Herguedas et al., 2019), and NMDAR heteromers (GluN1b/N2B) (Chou et al., 2020Figure 2). The profile of the GluK2/K5 LBD layer is most similar to GluK2 and the AMPAR when viewed from the extracellular space (Figure 2A). This observation is reinforced when considering subunit orientation by using helices B and G as references across the three LBD layers (Figure 2B,D). We then considered the positioning of each LBD by calculating distances between their centers of mass in UCSF ChimeraX (Goddard et al., 2018). Measurements between LBDs within a dimer were similar for all the structures and ranged between 26.7 and 30.6 Å (Figure 2B). When comparing between LBD dimers, it is clear that GluK2/K5em and GluN1b/N2B form an overall more compact arrangement with dimer-dimer distances of 49.9 and 47.9 Å, respectively. This contrasts with distances of 54.9 and 55.1 Å for GluK2 and GluA1/A2 (Figure 2B). From these measurements we conclude that the GluK2/K5 LBD layer is more compact than the GluK2 homomer or GluA1/A2 LBD layer, and in this respect is more akin to the GluN1b/N2B receptor.

Analysis of the GluK2/K5 ligand binding domain (LBD) layer.

(A) Extracellular view of LBD layers for (left to right) GluK2/K5em, GluK2, GluN1b/N2B, and GluA1/A2. The LBD layers are extracted from full-length antagonist-bound cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) structures: GluK2/K5em-CNQX, GluK2-LY466195 (PDB: 5KUH), GluN1b/N2B-SDZ 220–040/L689,560 (PDB: 6WHU), GluA1/A2-γ8-NBQX (PDB: 6QKC). (B) LBD layers as viewed in (A), but shown with secondary structure and helices B (red) and G (yellow) colored as visual guides for subunit orientation. (C) Intersubunit measurements for heteromeric LBD layers as shown in (A). Measurements are between the centers of mass for each LBD as calculated in UCSF ChimeraX. (D) LBDs are shown colored as in (B) but viewed parallel to the membrane.

The GluK2/K5em-CNQX density map allowed clear assignment of the three membrane-spanning helices (M1, M3, M4) on all four receptor subunits (Figure 1A, Figure 1—figure supplement 7). The small re-entrant helices (M2) were not resolved, likely because of conformational mobility. The TMD structure (Figure 3A) has a ‘trapezoidal’ shape and a square base (Figure 3B) which is seen in other members of the iGluR family (Herguedas et al., 2019; Karakas and Furukawa, 2014; Kumari et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2014; Lü et al., 2017; Meyerson et al., 2016; Sobolevsky et al., 2009). The antagonist-bound structure is expected to feature a closed ion channel; so to understand how GluK2/K5em restricts cation flow, we visualized the pore profile using HOLE (Smart et al., 1996Figure 3C–F). This analysis revealed three constrictions on the M3 helices at T652/T636, A656/A640, and T660/T644 (GluK2em/GluK5em subunits). The positions of these constrictions match those seen for the GluK2 homomer (Meyerson et al., 2016) which reflects the strong sequence conservation for M3 helices within the KAR family. The availability of closed-channel structures for other iGluRs enabled a cross-family comparison of pore structure. We compared the pore profiles of GluK2/K5em-CNQX with closed-channel structures of a KAR homomer (GluK2, PDB: 5KUF), a di-heteromeric AMPAR (GluA1/A2, PDB: 6QKC), and a di-heteromeric NMDAR (GluN1b/N2B, PDB: 6WHU) (Figure 3F). These measurements highlight a similarity in pore structure for GluK2 and GluK2/K5em and also show the KAR heteromer pore is more similar to the AMPAR than the NMDAR. Finally, given the mixed composition of the GluK2/K5em TMD, we asked how closely it adopts fourfold symmetry, given its mixed subunit composition. For this analysis we considered the correspondence between the pair of GluK2em and the pair of GluK5em subunits in the GluK2/K5em TMD (Figure 3G) and measured an RMSD of 1.5 Å. This near identity suggests that despite containing two different subunit types, the channel maintains near fourfold rotational symmetry.

GluK2/K5 channel structure and symmetry.

(A and B) GluK2/K5em transmembrane domain (TMD) as seen parallel to the membrane (A) and perpendicular to the membrane from the intracellular side (B). Eye icon in (A) gives the perspective presented in (B). GluK2em and GluK5em subunits rendered in green and blue, respectively. (C) Visualization of the pore volume. Regions with pore radius less than 1.15 Å are red, water-accessible sections with radius larger than 1.15 Å are gray. One receptor subunit is hidden to give a view of the pore. (D) View of the channel from the extracellular side with M3 helix bundle (ribbons) and residues at pore constriction sites (ball-and-stick atoms). (E) Sequence alignment between GluK2 and GluK5 for the M3 helix of the TMD and the E helix of the ligand binding domain (LBD). Residues at pore constrictions are highlighted in red. (F) Comparison of pore profiles for GluK2/K5em (black), GluK2 (magenta), GluA1/A2 (green), and GluN1/N2B (red). Arrows indicate constrictions along GluK2/K5em permeation pathway. Plot shows pore radius as a function of channel position. Vertical dashed line marks 1.15 Å pore radius. Analysis done using PDB files 5KUF (GluK2), 6QKC (GluA1/A2), and 6WHU (GluN1b/N2B). (G) The two GluK2em subunits are aligned as a rigid body with the two GluK5em subunits. Gray line marks the central axis of the channel. Red markers and arrows designate pore constrictions seen in (C,F).

Desensitized GluK2/K5 is characterized by major GluK2 rearrangements

We next pursued a desensitized structure of GluK2/K5em to understand how the receptor may reorganize to close the channel in response to the sustained presence of L-Glu. Purified receptor was incubated with 1 mM L-Glu, imaged by cryo-EM, and the structure was solved by single particle analysis with no symmetry applied (Figure 4—figure supplements 1 and 2, and Table 2). The data was processed using a similar approach to that used for the antagonist-bound dataset, and we first resolved the full-length L-Glu-bound receptor to 5.8 Å, then independently resolved the ATD layer (3.8 Å) and LBD-TMD assembly (4.3 Å) (Figure 4—figure supplement 1). The resolution in the LBDs was not sufficient to resolve ligands, so we compared them to crystal structures of the GluK2 LBD bound by either L-Glu (PDB: 1S50) or a competitive antagonist (PDB: 5CMK) (Figure 1—figure supplement 5B). The structural alignments and the measured RMSD values showed unambiguously that the LBDs are similar to the L-Glu-bound LBD crystal structure.

The most striking feature of the GluK2/K5em-L-Glu structure is the LBD layer, which shows rupture of both LBD dimer pairs and exhibits an apparent fourfold symmetric subunit arrangement (Figure 4C,D). Although the LBD layer gives the impression of fourfold symmetry, close inspection shows that the G helices of all four LBDs come together in a staggered arrangement to render the layer twofold symmetric (Figure 4E). Critically, this arrangement is reminiscent of the ‘desensitization ring’ observed in the desensitized GluK2 homomer structure (Meyerson et al., 2016). We compared the structure of desensitized GluK2/K5em to the structure of desensitized GluK2 (PDB: 5KUF) to establish their congruence (Figure 4G–I). The structures show good global agreement in the LBD layers, although the in-plane rotation for GluK2em (B/D) and GluK5em (A/C) LBDs differ with the rotations for their GluK2 homomer counterparts by ~10° (B/D) and 7° (A/C). Furthermore, close inspection shows GluK5em G helices reside ~3 Å closer to each other across the twofold symmetry plane of the LBD layer, compared to analogous GluK2 subunits in the homomer (Figure 4E,H). This subtle difference has a geometric consequence of producing a more compact desensitization ring in the heteromer (Figure 4E,H, insets).

Figure 4 with 2 supplements see all
Structure of GluK2/K5 in a desensitized state.

(A) Cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) structure of the GluK2/K5em heteromer in a L-glutamate (L-Glu)-bound state with GluK2em and GluK5em subunits rendered in green and blue, respectively. The panel shows the map for the amino terminal domain (ATD) layer and the map for the ligand binding domain (LBD)-transmembrane domain (TMD) assembly which were reconstructed independently, as described in the text. (B) Molecular model for the receptor is colored as in (A) and shown parallel to the membrane. (C) The LBD (top) and TMD (bottom) layers as viewed from the extracellular space. The local symmetries of the LBD (twofold) and TMD (fourfold) are illustrated. (D and E) Top view of LBD layer for the GluK2/K5em heteromer. The model is shown without (D) and with (E) secondary structure. Helices B (red) and G (yellow) are colored as visual guides for subunit orientation. Inset highlights the desensitization ring formed by G helices. (F) LBDs are shown colored as in (E) but viewed parallel to the membrane. Individual B/D and A/C LBDs are aligned and presented to highlight different out of plane tilts, and the more elevated position of the G helices in A/C subunits. (G–I) Visualization of the LBD layer from the GluK2 homomer (PDB: 5KUF). GluK2 subunits shown in gray, and panel coloring and arrangement is otherwise the same as in (D–F).

We next wanted to understand the conformational differences between LBD layers in the GluK2/K5em-L-Glu structure (Figure 4E) and in the GluK2/K5em-CNQX structure (Figure 1E). The analysis showed that relative to the CNQX-bound structure, the L-Glu-bound GluK5em LBDs (A/C positions) are turned in plane by ~18°, while the GluK2em LBDs (B/D positions) are rotated by ~110° (Figure 4A–C). Meanwhile, the GluK5em LBDs pitch back by ~10° more than GluK2 partner subunits (Figure 4F, inset), while both GluK2em and GluK5em show the same change in cleft closure (~20°) between their open-cleft (CNQX) and closed-cleft (L-Glu) states. Critically, this latter measurement confirms that while the resolution of the desensitized structure is not sufficient to resolve ligand density, all four LBDs have closed clefts consistent with agonist binding (Møllerud et al., 2017Figure 1—figure supplement 5C). Overall this analysis shows that CNQX-bound and L-Glu-bound structures have radically different LBD configurations. While the CNQX-bound structure shows intact LBD dimers, the L-Glu bound structure shows ruptured and reorganized LBDs where all four LBD binding clefts are directed toward the receptor central axis. This is well illustrated by a structural morph between the two structures (Videos 1 and 2). The LBD organization in the desensitized state is entirely consistent with the model where L-Glu binding causes LBDs to open the channel, and the LBD dimer pairs then rupture to allow the channel to close (Armstrong et al., 2006; Dürr et al., 2014; Meyerson et al., 2014a; Twomey et al., 2017).

Video 1
Morph for GluK2/K5 ligand binding domain (LBD)-transmembrane domain (TMD) assembly viewed from the side.

The morph presents the conformational differences between antagonist-bound and desensitized states of GluK2/K5em. The LBD and TMD layers are presented without the amino terminal domain (ATD) layer and as viewed parallel to the membrane. The GluK2em and GluK5em subunits are shown in green and blue, respectively. B helices are shown in red, and G helices in yellow.

Video 2
Morph for GluK2/K5em ligand binding domain (LBD)-transmembrane domain (TMD) assembly viewed from the top.

The morph presents the conformational differences between antagonist-bound and desensitized states of GluK2/K5em. The LBD layer is presented without the amino terminal domain (ATD) or TMD layers, and as viewed perpendicular to the membrane from the extracellular space. The GluK2em and GluK5em subunits are shown in green and blue, respectively. B helices are shown in red, and G helices in yellow.

The M3-S2 linkers facilitate two different closed-channel receptor states

KARs function with a resting state with LBDs poised to bind L-Glu and activate the channel, and a desensitized state with LBDs bound to L-Glu after activation concludes. Critically, both states have a closed ion channel. Our structures of GluK2/K5em show that apo resting and antagonist-bound states have intact LBD dimers arranged with twofold local symmetry (Figure 1E, Figure 1—figure supplement 4), while the desensitized state has ruptured LBD dimers arranged with pseudo-fourfold local symmetry but true twofold local symmetry (Figure 4D). This raises the question of how the receptor can accommodate such radically different LBD conformations in two closed-channel structures.

To address this question we compared antagonist-bound and desensitized structures, and on both structures analyzed the region spanning the M3 helices (the major pore-forming helices in the TMD), the M3-S2 linkers (which join the M3 helices and LBD), and the E helices (the lower lobe of the LBD which couples to M3) (Figure 5—figure supplement 1). We first considered the overall correspondence between GluK2/K5em-CNQX and GluK2/K5em-L-Glu pores. The M3 helices (L631/L615 to M664/M648 for GluK2em/GluK5em) in both structures are similar with an RMSD of 2.8 Å. The similarity in M3 helices indicates that the LBD-TMD linkers alone accommodate the two distinct LBD layer configurations. To understand how this is accomplished, we isolated the lateral (Figure 5D,E) and vertical (Figure 5F,G) components of M3-S2 linker positions and considered differences in alpha-carbon position. For analysis of lateral linker positions, we noted that the four linkers arrange with clear twofold symmetry in the antagonist-bound state but adopt near fourfold symmetry in the desensitized state (Figure 5D,F, and Videos 3 and 4). Accordingly we measured the extent to which each chain in the desensitized structure deviates from its counterpart in the antagonist-bound structure (Figure 5E). Through this calculation we identified residue E662 on the M3 helices of GluK2em as the key site where the antagonist-bound and agonist-bound chains diverge (Figure 5E, arrow).

Figure 5 with 1 supplement see all
The M3-S2 linkers accommodate different ligand binding domain (LBD) arrangements.

(A) GluK2/K5em LBD-transmembrane domain (TMD) assembly, without the amino terminal domain (ATD) layer. Antagonist-bound state (left) annotated with arrows to convey conformational differences with the desensitized state (right). (B) Conformational differences as shown from the perspective of the eye icon given in (A). (C) Cartoon depicting differences between the states as viewed extracellularly, down the receptor axis. Black dots symbolize LBD binding cleft locations. (D and E) Lateral motions along the range from M3 helices through E helices. Comparison between antagonist-bound (D, top) and desensitized (D, bottom). Panel (E) considers the antagonist-bound state as a reference and measures the extent to which each chain in the desensitized state deviates from that reference. M3 helices show low deviation in all four subunits, consistent with minimal conformational difference. The M3-S2 linkers and E helix show modest deviation in GluK5em (A/C) and large deviations in GluK2em (B/D). Ranges are from L631-K676 (GluK2em) and L615-D660 (GluK5em). (F and G) Vertical differences along the M3 helix through E helix range. Comparison between antagonist-bound (F, top) and desensitized (F, bottom) indicates that lateral differences in GluK2em (B/D) subunits position are paired with a vertical rise (~6 Å). Panel (G) measures the vertical rise in each subunit as a function of amino acid residue, showing that for the antagonist-bound state the GluK2em (B/D) E helices reside at lower positions than in GluK5em subunits (A/C). This difference is essentially not present in the desensitized state, where all subunit chains rise in similar ways to reach approximately equal elevations above the membrane.

Video 3
Morph of M3 and E helices viewed from side.

The movie presents conformational differences in M3 transmembrane helices and E helices of the ligand binding domains (LBDs) between antagonist-bound and desensitized states. The perspective is parallel to the membrane. The GluK2em and GluK5em subunits are shown in green and blue, respectively.

Video 4
Morph of M3 and E helices viewed from top.

The movie presents conformational differences in M3 transmembrane helices and E helices of the ligand binding domains (LBDs) between antagonist-bound and desensitized states. The perspective is perpendicular to the membrane from the extracellular space. The GluK2em and GluK5em subunits are shown in green and blue, respectively.

We analyzed the vertical component of the M3-S2 linker conformations by measuring the vertical position of each alpha-carbon ranging from the intracellular end of the M3 helix up through helix E at the base of the LBD (Figure 5F). These values were plotted as a function of residue number for all four subunits in both CNQX-bound and L-Glu-bound structures (Figure 5G). This vertical analysis revealed that GluK5em (A/C) linker elevation does not differ significantly between antagonist-bound and desensitized conformations. This is consistent with the overall observation that these subunits do not show major conformational differences between the two states. Meanwhile, for GluK2em (B/D) subunits, the M3-S2 linkers extend ~12 Å further from the membrane in the desensitized state. This latter measurement suggests that to facilitate channel closure during desensitization, the GluK2 subunits may move away from the membrane in addition to undergoing large in-plane rotations. This analysis yields the conclusion that the M3-S2 linkers on the GluK2 subunit are the core structural element that allows GluK2/K5 to adopt two significantly different LBD arrangements in the antagonist-bound and desensitized states.

Discussion

Defining how the subunits of GluK2/K5 organize and respond to neurotransmitter has been a major research goal since the discovery of the receptor 30 years ago (Herb et al., 1992). In our study we show that the heteromer assembles with two copies of each subunit, with GluK2 and GluK5 LBDs arranged in alternating fashion around the receptor central axis and with GluK5 subunits proximal to the pore and GluK2 subunits distal to the pore (Figure 1). The structure shows that GluK2 and GluK5 LBDs assemble as heterodimers, validating what was hypothesized from previous studies of GluK2/K5 (Kristensen et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2011; Litwin et al., 2020; Paramo et al., 2017; Reiner et al., 2012).

GluK5 is distinguished from GluK2 in that it has high L-Glu affinity and slow deactivation kinetics, which sustains non-desensitizing currents in GluK2/K5 heteromers (Barberis et al., 2008). Because of the high affinity of GluK5 for L-Glu, at low neurotransmitter concentration GluK2/K5 is activated by ligand binding to the GluK5 subunits without binding to GluK2 subunits (Fisher and Mott, 2011). Functional studies have found that desensitization is triggered when GluK2 subunits are also bound by neurotransmitter (Fisher and Fisher, 2014; Reiner and Isacoff, 2014). The desensitized GluK2/K5 structure helps rationalize this functional role for GluK2, suggesting that it is the GluK2 subunits which undergo large conformational changes to facilitate channel closure during desensitization (Figure 4). The fact that GluK5 can sustain non-desensitizing currents at low-micromolar L-Glu concentration (Fisher and Mott, 2011) presents the enticing potential to resolve an active state KAR structure, and also sheds light on how GluK2/K5 may sustain current during its slow deactivation. Another avenue to such a structure would be to visualize GluK2/K5 in the presence of the ligand AMPA, and exploit the fact that GluK5, and not GluK2, binds AMPA to produce stable currents (Herb et al., 1992).

This study shows that the LBD layer of desensitized GluK2/K5 is organized with pseudo-fourfold symmetry and with the four LBDs positioned such that their G helices are in a staggered arrangement near the central axis of the receptor (Figure 4E). This LBD configuration is similar to that observed in desensitized GluK2 (Figure 4HMeyerson et al., 2016) and GluK3 (Kumari et al., 2019), which suggests the arrangement is a hallmark of desensitization in the KAR family. The mechanistic role of this LBD arrangement cannot yet be fully understood because no active state KAR structure is available. However, it is clear that desensitization must involve reorganizing the LBD dimer interface to allow LBDs to remain bound to L-Glu while also closing the channel (Figure 1—figure supplement 2Armstrong et al., 2006; Twomey and Sobolevsky, 2018; Zhu and Gouaux, 2017). The LBD layer motif we observe would satisfy these requirements with its ruptured LBD dimers and LBDs arranged to accommodate a closed ion channel. Furthermore, the E662 position at the top of the M3 helices on GluK2 may serve as a fixed point around which GluK2 LBDs and M3-S2 linkers rotate during desensitization (Figure 5E).

Previous electrophysiology of KARs and X-ray crystallography of isolated LBDs have demonstrated that KAR homomers are regulated by extracellular ions that bind to the LBDs (Dawe et al., 2013; Plested and Mayer, 2007; Plested et al., 2008). However, a recent molecular dynamics study suggests that the canonical view of ion-dependent gating in homomeric receptors (Dawe et al., 2013) is different in GluK2/K5 heteromers (Paramo et al., 2017). Specifically, while sodium stabilizes GluK2 homomers, with a weaker allosteric effect by lithium ions, the situation is reversed in GluK2/K5 heteromers where lithium potentiates the agonist response and prolongs the rate of desensitization. Although we could not address questions of ion binding because of the resolution in our cryo-EM maps, the experimental foundation established in this study along with recent advances in atomic resolution cryo-EM (Nakane et al., 2020; Yip et al., 2020) pave the way for the future study of how heteromerization and subunit placement affects anion and cation regulation of GluK2/K5 heteromers. Indeed, further work which combines high-resolution cryo-EM with electrophysiology will make it possible to better understand the full extent to which the ion regulatory mechanism differs between homomeric and heteromeric channels.

It is notable that after refining the full-length structures of CNQX-bound and L-Glu-bound GluK2/K5em, we found that the resolutions of the ATD layer and the LBD-TMD assembly could be improved with local refinement (Figure 1—figure supplement 7, Figure 4—figure supplement 2). This suggests some degree of relative mobility between these regions permitted by the ATD-LBD linkers. The ATDs in both of these structures also gave the highest resolutions in the study so we searched for local conformational differences that might point to novel functional attributes of the ATDs. However, close comparison showed no significant differences between the two ATD layers which is consistent with the idea that KAR ATDs are not involved in channel gating. Rather, they are thought to play a key role in subunit oligomerization during receptor biogenesis (Kumar et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2017).

A key question during this study was whether GluK5 is always found at the A/C positions, or might other assemblies exist. Indeed, we performed extensive image classification in the hopes of discovering receptors that did not obey the proposed assembly. Despite this effort we did not find evidence that such particle subsets exist in the datasets. Importantly, given the 10-fold excess of GluK5em versus GluK2em virus added during protein expression, we would expect GluK5 to adopt alternative positions (i.e. B or D) if this were possible. That this does not happen led us to conclude that GluK5 can only occupy the A/C positions.

We note that this study used GluK2 and GluK5 subunits that were modified to facilitate protein expression and purification (Figure 1—figure supplement 1, Figure 1—figure supplement 2A), and while these subunits display similar functional properties to wild-type subunits (Figure 1—figure supplement 2 and Table 1), it will be valuable to test the observed subunit arrangement using an orthogonal approach. To this end the subunit arrangement seen in the structures will be supported by future experiments using a technique such as crosslinking to reinforce the conclusion that it represents the predominant physiological form of GluK2/K5.

This study marks a milestone in iGluR biology by providing the first structures of the presumed major neuronal type of KAR to accompany structures of the dominant forms of NMDARs and AMPARs. The structures answer long-standing questions about domain arrangements and orientations, and they lay a foundation for high-resolution studies of GluK2/K5 to fully illuminate its gating mechanism and coordination of small-molecule agonists, antagonists, and modulators (Jane et al., 2009; Larsen et al., 2017). Together the availability of molecular models for all iGluR family members now makes possible comparative structure-guided investigation across the iGluR family and a framework for precision targeting of drugs to specific receptor subtypes.

Materials and methods

Key resources table
Reagent type
(species) or resource
DesignationSource or referenceIdentifiersAdditional information
Gene (Rattus norvegicus)GRIK2_RATProvided by Dr. Janet Fisher (University of South Carolina)P42260
Gene (Rattus norvegicus)GRIK5_RATProvided by Dr. Janet Fisher (University of South Carolina)Q63273
Cell line (Homo sapiens)HEK293S GnTI-ATCCATCC, Cat. No. CRL-3022
Cell line (Homo sapiens)HEK293T/17ATCCATCC, Cat. No. CRL-11268
Cell line (insect)Sf9Expression Systems, courtesy of Dr. Xin-Yun Huang (Weill Cornell Medical College)Expression Systems, Cat. No. 94–001S
Recombinant DNA reagentpEZTBM vectordoi: 10.1016/j.str.2016.03.004https://www.addgene.org/74099/
Chemical compound, drug6-Cyano-7-nitroquinoxaline-2,3-dione (CNQX)TocrisTocris, Cat. No. 1045
Chemical compound, drugL-GlutamateSigmaSigma, Cat. No. G1251
Software, algorithmpClamp 9, Clampfit 10.5Molecular Devices, LLCRRID:SCR_011323http://www.moleculardevices.com/products/software/pclamp.html
Software, algorithmOriginPro 2020OriginLabRRID:SCR_014212https://www.originlab.com/2020
Software, algorithmRelion 3.1doi:10.7554/eLife.42166RRID:SCR_016274https://www3.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/relion/index.php/Main_Page
Software, algorithmcryoSPARC 2doi:10.1038/nmeth.4169.RRID:SCR_016501https://cryosparc.com/
Software, algorithmCTFFIND 4.1doi:10.1016/j.jsb.2015.08.008RRID:SCR_016732http://grigoriefflab.janelia.org/ctffind4
Software, algorithmUCSF Chimeradoi:10.1002/jcc.20084RRID:SCR_004097http://plato.cgl.ucsf.edu/chimera/
Software, algorithmUCSF ChimeraXdoi:10.1002/pro.3943RRID:SCR_015872https://www.cgl.ucsf.edu/chimerax/
Software, algorithmBsoftdoi:10.1006/jsbi.2001.4339RRID:SCR_016503https://lsbr.niams.nih.gov/bsoft/
Software, algorithmHOLEdoi:10.1016/s0263-7855(97)00009-xhttp://www.holeprogram.org
Software, algorithmCOOT 0.9doi:10.1107/S0907444910007493RRID:SCR_014222http://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/personal/pemsley/coot/
Software, algorithmPhenix 1.14doi:10.1107/S2059798319011471RRID:SCR_014224https://www.phenix-online.org/
Software, algorithmGraphPad PrismGraphPadRRID:SCR_002798http://www.graphpad.com/
Software, algorithmMolProbitydoi:10.1107/S0907444909042073RRID:SCR_014226http://molprobity.biochem.duke.edu

Construct design

Request a detailed protocol

Heteromer expression constructs were designed starting with genes for full-length rat GluK2 and GluK5. The genes were cloned into the pEZT-BM vector (Morales-Perez et al., 2016) and fused in frame via a thrombin recognition site to a Twin-Strep affinity tag (GluK2), and EGFP and a 1D4 tag (GluK5). The GluK2 gene underwent RNA editing at position 567 (I to V), and mutation of C576V and C595S to promote subunit expression (Schauder et al., 2013). The GluK5 gene was mutated at four cysteine positions (C559V, C578S, C619I, and C813A), truncated at position 827 after the M4 helix, and the GluA2 ‘tail’ (YKSRAEAKRMK) (Lee et al., 2014; Song et al., 2018) was added at the subunit C-terminus to improve heteromer monodispersity. The constructs are referred to as GluK2em and GluK5em and their heteromeric complex as GluK2/K5em.

Electrophysiology

Request a detailed protocol

HEK293T cells (ATCC CRL-11268) were plated at low density (1.6 × 104 cells/mL) on poly-D-lysine-coated 35 mm dishes and transiently transfected 24 hr post-plating using the calcium phosphate precipitation method. For functional tests of GluK2em and GluK5em, the constructs were expressed from the pEZT-BM vector. Other experiments used GluK2 and GluK5 cDNAs expressed from the pRK5 plasmid and each construct contained a downstream IRES sequence encoding mCherry or EGFP, respectively. A GluK2:GluK5 ratio of 1:10 was used for all co-transfections. After 12–16 hr, cells were washed with divalent PBS and maintained in fresh medium (MEM containing GlutaMAX supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum).

Recordings were performed 36–48 hr post-transfection on outside-out patches excised from transfected cells. L-Glu (1 mM) was applied using a piezo-stack-driven perfusion system (Physik Instrumente). Solution exchange (<400 μs) was determined in a separate experiment by measuring the liquid junction current. The holding potential during recordings was −60 mV. External solution contained (in mM): 150 NaCl, 5 HEPES, 0.1 CaCl2 and 0.1 MgCl2, and 2% phenol red at pH 7.3–7.4. Internal solution contained (in mM): 115 NaCl, 10 NaF, 5 HEPES, 5 Na4BAPTA, 0.5 CaCl2, 1 MgCl2, and 10 Na2ATP at pH 7.3–7.4. The osmotic pressure of all solutions was adjusted to 295–300 mOsm with sucrose. Recording pipettes were composed of borosilicate glass (3–6 MΩ, King Precision Glass, Inc) coated with dental wax. All recordings were performed at room temperature using an Axopatch 200B amplifier (Molecular Devices, LLC). Current records were filtered at 5 kHz and sampled at 25 kHz. Series resistance (3–12 MΩ) was compensated for by 95%. Data were acquired using pClamp nine software (Molecular Devices, LLC) and analyzed using Clampfit 10.5 (Molecular Devices, LLC). Data were visualized using OriginPro 2020 (OriginLab). A minimum of three individual patch recordings per condition were collected. Individual patch recordings were collected from multiple transfections.

Protein expression and purification

Request a detailed protocol

The GluK2/K5em heteromer was expressed using the BacMam method (Goehring et al., 2014). Protein expression constructs were transformed into DH10Bac cells to produce bacmids. Bacmids for both constructs were transfected into Sf9 cells grown in ESF 921 media (Expression Systems). P1 and P2 virus production was monitored using GFP fluorescence from the pEZT-BM vector until virus harvesting. HEK293S GnTI cells (ATCC CRL-3022) were grown (3.2 or 6.4 L) at 37°C and 8% CO2 to a density of 3.5 × 106 cells/mL in FreeStyle suspension media (Gibco) supplemented with 2% fetal bovine serum (Gibco) and Anti-Anti (Gibco). P2 viruses for GluK2 and GluK5 were added to cells at a ratio of 1:10 (GluK2em:GluK5em) for a combined 10% (v/v) of the cell suspension. The suspension was incubated at 37°C for 24 hr, then sodium butyrate (Sigma) was added to a final concentration of 10 mM and flasks were shifted to 30°C and 8% CO2. Cells were collected 84 hr after transduction by low-speed centrifugation, flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen, and stored at −80°C. Cell pellets were resuspended in ice-cold resuspension buffer containing 20 mM Tris (pH 8.0), 300 mM NaCl, 0.8 μM aprotinin, 2 μg/mL leupeptin, 2 μM pepstatin, 0.5 mM EDTA, and 1 mM PMSF (1 mL buffer per 1 g of cell pellet) and manually pipetted until no clumps remained. An equal volume of solubilization buffer containing 20 mM Tris (pH 8.0), 300 mM NaCl, supplemented with 100 mM dodecyl-β-D-maltoside (DDM, Anatrace), 0.5% cholesteryl hemisuccinate (CHS, Anatrace), 0.8 μM aprotinin, 2 μg/mL leupeptin, 2 μM pepstatin, 0.5 mM EDTA, and 1 mM PMSF was added to the mixture, and the sample was nutated for 90 min at 4°C. The mixture was spun by low-speed centrifugation at 20,000×g for 20 min, followed by ultracentrifugation at 125,000×g for 90 min. The supernatant was filtered through a 0.45 μm filter to remove debris, bound to a Strep-Tactin column (GE) equilibrated with running buffer (20 mM Tris, pH 8.0, 300 mM NaCl, 1 mM DDM, 0.005% CHS), washed with 10 column volumes of running buffer, and eluted in running buffer supplemented with 20 mM desthiobiotin (IBA). The elution fraction from Twin-Strep affinity purification was then mixed with 1D4 affinity resin (Cube Biotech) equilibrated in running buffer and bound in batch mode for 1 hr at 4°C with gentle mixing. The resin was washed with 100 column volumes of running buffer and eluted using running buffer supplemented with 0.2 mM 1D4 peptide (Cube Biotech). The receptor was concentrated and loaded onto a Superose 6 Increase 10/300 GL column equilibrated with gel filtration buffer containing 20 mM Tris (pH 8.0), 300 mM NaCl, 0.35 mM DDM, 0.0017% CHS. Elution fractions were collected, analyzed by SDS-PAGE, and peak fractions were concentrated and used for cryo-EM experiments. Protein biochemistry experiments were done with several batches of cells and different virus infections during optimization to ensure reproducibility. The full-scale purification of GluK2/K5em was performed successfully three times.

Cell lines

Request a detailed protocol

In this study we used authentic and mycoplasma-free cells that were provided by Expression Systems and ATCC, and we did not do additional authentication or mycoplasma testing. At the time of purchase, the cells were frozen into multiple stocks. After approximately 30 passages (Sf9) or 20 passages (HEK), a new vial of cells was thawed for use and the previous batch discarded.

Cryo-EM sample preparation and data acquisition

Request a detailed protocol

Samples were prepared using GluK2/K5em receptor (3.7 mg/mL) without ligand (apo), or receptor incubated with 1 mM CNQX (Tocris) or 1 mM L-Glu (Sigma). UltrAuFoil 1.2/1.3 300 mesh grids (Quantifoil) were plasma-treated and rendered hydrophilic by reaction with PEG-thiol (Meyerson et al., 2014b). Vitrified samples were prepared by adding a 2.5 µL droplet of sample solution to a grid, then blotting (2 s blot time, 0 or −1 blot force) and plunge-freezing in liquid ethane using a Vitrobot Mk IV (Thermo Fisher).

Single particle images of GluK2/K5em-apo were collected with Leginon (Suloway et al., 2005) using a Titan Krios electron microscope (Thermo Fisher) operated at 300 kV and a nominal magnification of 81,000 × and equipped with a GIF (Gatan) and K3 camera (Gatan) set in counted mode (1.083 Å pixel size). Exposures were made with an average defocus value of ~1.6 µm, dose fractionation into 40 frames, a total exposure time of 2 s, and total dose of 51.23 e2. A total of 970 movies were recorded.

Single particle images of GluK2/K5em-CNQX and GluK2/K5em-L-Glu were collected with Leginon (Suloway et al., 2005) using an Arctica electron microscope (Thermo Fisher) operated at 200 kV and a nominal magnification of 36,000× and equipped with a K3 camera (Gatan) set in super-resolution mode (0.5480 Å pixel size). Exposures were done with nominal defocus values between 0.4 and 4.8 µm, dose fractionation into 40 frames, a total exposure time of 2.8 s, and total dose of 50–53 e2. A total of 9076 (GluK2/K5em-CNQX) and 5275 (GluK2/K5em-L-Glu) movies were recorded.

Image processing and structural analysis

Request a detailed protocol

Movie stacks were corrected for beam-induced motion (with twofold binning for super-resolution K3 data) in Relion 3.1 (Zivanov et al., 2018) yielding dose-weighted images with an image pixel size of 1.083 Å for the apo state dataset, and 1.096 Å for CNQX-bound and L-Glu-bound datasets. These images were used for contrast transfer function (CTF) estimation with CTFFIND4.1 (Rohou and Grigorieff, 2015). Reference-free particle auto-picking was done using Laplacian-of-Gaussian tool in Relion. The auto-picked particles were extracted with a box size of 416 pixels, binned to a box size of 64 or 128 pixels, and imported into cryoSPARC (Punjani et al., 2017). One round of 2D classification was performed for CNQX-bound and L-Glu-bound datasets but was not used for the apo dataset. Ab initio 3D reconstruction and several rounds of heterogeneous refinement with C1-symmetry were used for all three datasets. This process removed false positives from auto-picking and isolated interpretable particle sets (Figure 1—figure supplements 4 and 6, and Figure 4—figure supplement 1).

The resulting particles were re-extracted with a box size of 320 or 416 without binning and imported into cryoSPARC. Particles extracted with a box size of 320 pixels were first re-centered. Ab initio 3D reconstruction and several rounds of heterogeneous refinements were again performed with C1-symmetry to obtain the final set of particles. The final 3D reconstructions were obtained by non-uniform (GluK2/K5em-apo) or homogeneous refinement (GluK2/K5em-CNQX and GluK2/K5em-L-Glu) in cryoSPARC. The global resolutions were calculated using the FSC as 7.5 Å (apo), 5.3 Å (CNQX), and 5.8 Å (L-Glu) (Figure 1—figure supplements 4 and 7, and Figure 4—figure supplement 2, Table 2). Local resolution was calculated using ResMap (Kucukelbir et al., 2014) and visualized in UCSF ChimeraX (Goddard et al., 2018).

The GluK2/K5em-CNQX ATD layer and LBD-TMD assembly were independently refined starting with particles from homogeneous refinement of the full-length receptor. For the ATD layer, The LBD-TMD signal was subtracted from the particles in Relion, then the particles were processed with ab initio reconstruction, heterogeneous refinement, non-uniform refinement, and local refinement in cryoSPARC to a resolution of 3.6 Å (Figure 1—figure supplements 6 and 7, and Table 2). For the LBD-TMD assembly, the particles were subjected to 2D classification, ab initio reconstruction, and several rounds of heterogeneous refinements in cryoSPARC to further isolate a particle subset. A round of non-uniform refinement was performed followed by particle subtraction to remove the ATD layer. The signal-subtracted particles were then processed with 2D classification, ab initio reconstruction, and several rounds of heterogeneous refinements to isolate a well-resolved LBD-TMD class. Non-uniform refinement (C2 symmetry) was used in a final step to refine the assembly to 4.2 Å (Figure 1—figure supplements 6 and 7, Table 2). C1 symmetry was used throughout unless otherwise noted.

The GluK2/K5em-L-Glu ATD layer and LBD-TMD assembly were separately refined starting with the particles used for homogeneous refinement of the full-length receptor, and which had been further processed by a round of 2D classification and non-uniform refinement in cryoSPARC. To refine the ATD layer, particles were subjected to signal subtraction to remove the LBD-TMD region, then processed with ab initio reconstruction and several rounds of heterogeneous refinements to isolate a uniform population of ATD particles. Non-uniform refinement (C2 symmetry) followed by local refinement were used to obtain an ATD structure at 3.8 Å resolution (Figure 4—figure supplements 1 and 2, Table 2). The LBD-TMD assembly was resolved by subtracting ATD signal from the particles, followed by 2D classification, ab initio reconstruction, and several rounds of heterogenous refinements to obtain a uniform particle subset, and then a final round of non-uniform refinement (C2 symmetry) gave a resolution of 4.3 Å (Figure 4—figure supplements 1 and 2, Table 2). C1 symmetry was used throughout unless otherwise noted.

Additional analysis was performed in an attempt to improve resolutions in the LBD and TMD regions of both GluK2/K5em-CNQX and GluK2/K5em-L-Glu, and we first attempted to use masked local refinement of these regions. This strategy did not improve the resolutions likely because of the small masses of the LBD and TMD layers, so we next applied conformational variability analysis in cryoSPARC. This showed no evidence for local conformational variability in either the LBD or TMD regions.

Structural modeling

Request a detailed protocol

To model GluK2/K5em-CNQX and GluK2/K5em-L-Glu, the ATD and LBD-TMD maps were first aligned to their respective full-length maps using Chimera (Pettersen et al., 2004). This made sure that ATD and LBD-TMD maps were correctly positioned relative to each other. The ATD and LBD-TMD maps were then used for model building.

The ATD cryo-EM maps were resolved to 3.6 Å (GluK2/K5em-L-CNQX) and 3.8 Å resolution (GluK2/K5em-L-Glu) which permitted side chain modeling. The ATDs were modeled starting from the GluK2/K5 ATD crystal structure (PDB: 3QLU) which was docked into the maps using Chimera. The model was rebuilt using COOT (Emsley et al., 2010) and refined using Phenix (Liebschner et al., 2019).

The LBD-TMD assemblies were built starting from a homology model based on the GluK2 homomer structure (PDB: 5KUF) and generated by the SWISS-MODEL server (Waterhouse et al., 2018). The LBD and TMD homology models were docked into the LBD-TMD maps using Chimera, then rebuilt using COOT. Because the global resolutions of the LBD-TMD maps were 4.2 Å (CNQX) and 4.3 Å (L-Glu) (Table 2), the assemblies were modeled as poly-alanine chains. The exception to this was the pore-lining M3-helix bundle crossing in the TMD where side chains were visible in both CNQX-bound and L-Glu-bound maps and could be modeled for structural analysis (Figure 5C–G, Figure 5—figure supplement 1). Specifically, side chains were modeled at positions 620–646 (A/C, GluK5 subunits) and 636–661 (B/D, GluK2 subunits). The ATD-LBD linkers, S2-M4 linkers, and M2 helices were not resolved in either structure and were not modeled. In addition, the S1-M1 linkers in GluK2/K5em-L-Glu were not resolved or modeled.

References

    1. Dingledine R
    2. Borges K
    3. Bowie D
    4. Traynelis SF
    (1999)
    The glutamate receptor ion channels
    Pharmacological Reviews 51:7–61.
    1. Emsley P
    2. Lohkamp B
    3. Scott WG
    4. Cowtan K
    (2010) Features and development of coot
    Acta Crystallographica Section D Structural Biology 66:486–501.
    https://doi.org/10.1107/S0907444910007493

Decision letter

  1. Kenton J Swartz
    Senior Editor; National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, United States
  2. Merritt Maduke
    Reviewing Editor; Stanford University School of Medicine, United States
  3. Merritt Maduke
    Reviewer; Stanford University School of Medicine, United States
  4. Andrew JR Plested
    Reviewer; Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Germany

In the interests of transparency, eLife publishes the most substantive revision requests and the accompanying author responses.

Acceptance summary:

This work presents cryo-EM structures of heteromeric GluK2/K5 kainate receptors, which are ion channels that respond to the neurotransmitter glutamate. This is an important advance because previous structures had all been of homomeric receptors, while it is known that native receptors are largely heteromeric. This paper will be of great interest to molecular neuroscientists. It presents high-quality structural data of a critical synaptic ionotropic glutamate receptor in the context of its known functional properties.

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "Architecture and structural dynamics of the heteromeric GluK2/K5 kainate receptor" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by four peer reviewers, including Merritt Maduke as the Reviewing Editor and Reviewer #1, and the evaluation has been overseen by Kenton Swartz as the Senior Editor. The following individual involved in review of your submission has agreed to reveal their identity: Andrew J R Plested (Reviewer #2).

The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission.

We would like to draw your attention to changes in our revision policy that we have made in response to COVID-19 (https://elifesciences.org/articles/57162). Specifically, we are asking editors to accept without delay manuscripts, like yours, that they judge can stand as eLife papers without additional data, even if they feel that they would make the manuscript stronger. Thus the revisions requested below only address clarity and presentation.

Summary:

In this work, the authors solve structures of a kainate-type glutamate receptor in a hetermeric form that is expected to be a major form in the brain. By using antagonists and agonists, they could solve the structures in resting, inhibited and desensitized forms. The major strengths are the establishment of a clear assembly rule – the GluK5 subunits sit on the A/C positions – so called proximal subunits – and the GluK2 subunits sit in the B/D positions. Given the different functional properties of heteromeric receptors, it is a shock that the GluK2/K5 heteromers here present very similar structures to GluK2 homomers. These similarities suggest common mechanisms despite molecular diversity. The weakness of the work is that there is no independent test of the subunit arrangement, based on the structural knowledge delivered. Also, the low resolution of some parts of the structures forbids analysis of some aspects of the biology, including one of the linkers. This work will open the way to a more accurate molecular analysis of kainate receptors, and a better understanding of the diversity in the glutamate receptor family. Additional discussion as to how these structures provide insight into extensive functional data available for the heteromeric receptors will increase the impact of the paper.

Essential revisions:

1) It appears that the authors needed to remove particles that were not amenable to 3D reconstruction in their single particle analyses. After cleaning up the particles, were the authors able to observe meaningful conformational variations that may provide insights into functions? Or is there only one conformation of each for the CNQX-bound and the glutamate -bound (desensitized) structures? The authors may pick these conformational variations by running other software packages such as RELION and/or cisTEM. It is likely advantageous for the authors to run further 3D classification on their dataset to potentially extract meaningful 3D classes to enrich their insights into protein dynamics.

2) One major concern is that since these structures are with modified constructs and may not represent the predominant physiologically conformation. Hence it is essential to have other measurements, such as cross-linking/ mutational studies/or other biochemical/biophysical methods that can validate these structures. At a minimum the authors should discuss this and in addition rationalize the structure with prior functional data, adding the caveat that the subunit arrangement seen in the structures will be confirmed or supported by future experiments using an orthogonal technique (such as crosslinking).

3) Related to point 2: while it is good to see that the constructs used for cryo-EM constructs exhibit the expected electrophysiological properties (deactivation and densensitization), the functional characteristics are not directly compared to the wild-type constructs. It would be helpful to know whether the changes to the constructs introduce changes in receptor kinetics. If the authors do not have these data, the issue should at least be raised and discussed.

4) Additional discussion is needed as to how these structures provide insight into extensive functional data available for the heteromeric receptors. For example, DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2017.08.047 and other prior functional studies by co-author Bowie and by others (Barberis/Mulle for example). We found it strange such discussion was missing. (Some studies were cited, but the impression is that the structure adds little. We think the authors could either speculate or say what else has to be done before the new structures can be used to gain additional insight into mechanism; for example, answering questions such as why GluK2/5 have slower deactivation speed and faster desensitization speed compared to GluK2?).

5) That the structures of GluK5 and GluK2 are so similar that they must be distinguished by differential glycans is somewhat of a surprise. The authors do not comment, except the subunits are described as "mismatched". The phrase "mismatched subunits are woven together" is pretty, but is it apt? The subunits seem very similar…

6) Because particles are selected, can we be sure that the rule of assembly the authors propose (GluK5 is always at A/C) is really validated? Are there any further information that they authors can provide to further assure this proposal? Or perhaps to add a caveat?

7) Subsection “Receptor isolation, functional testing, and structure determination”: The “tilt” is not clear to readers. A figure to explain this point is necessary. Or modify Figure 1—figure supplement 4 to address this point. Also, it is not clear why the authors think this tilt is the reason for not observing cryo-EM density for the linker between ATD and LBD. How is that important in terms of functions of GluK2/5?

8) Subsection “Receptor organization and symmetry”. While CNQX density is not observed, can the authors say something about the LBD conformations? For example, are the LBD conformations similar to structure of antagonist-bound LBD crystal structures? Usage of "a saturating concentration of CNQX" may be a weak argument for stating this structure as CNQX-bound.

9) Discussion: We do not see a “pinwheel-shaped” motif in Figure 4. Do the authors mean Figure 5? Also, how exactly is this motif defined (e.g. what residue, where in the structure, etc?)

10) Can the authors gain any insights into the mechanism underlying channel regulation by binding of extracellular ions from the cryo-EM structures?

11) Is there anything new gained from the 2/5 ATD tetramer considering that the ATD layer has the highest resolution in both CNQX and glutamate structures? Is there any opportunity for targeting ATD as in the case of NMDA receptors (e.g. ifenprodil binding to the NMDAR ATD)? This could be addressed in the manuscript.

Queries about writing/interpretation:

12) Abstract: "The receptor assembles with two copies of each subunit and positions GluK5 subunits proximal to the channel to direct receptor activation. "

We are not sure that we agree with the logic of this statement. It is clear from previous work that B/D subunits provide (if anything) more driving force to open the channel. But then the authors do not follow up on this in the main text so perhaps it should be removed. How does K5 "direct" activation?

13) "Critically, this work gives a foundation for understanding differences and similarities among KAR, AMPAR (Herguedas et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2019), and NMDAR structures (Karakas and Furukawa, 2014; Lee et al., 2014; Lü et al., 2017), and reveals that while they share common architectural principles the iGluR receptor subtypes display enormous structural diversity."

The point about structural diversity is well taken, but the new knowledge contributed by this paper does not go in this direction. This would be in comparison to the cited works and the senior author's own previous work on KARs, which oddly merits no citation. We do not want to diminish the achievement in this paper. That GluK2/K5 seem to behave almost the same as GluK2 homomer is really interesting, but it does not expand our view of structural diversity. Finally, it would be appropriate to mention GluD structures from Janesh Kumar's lab if you are talking about diversity in the family.

14) Subsection “Receptor isolation, functional testing, and structure determination”: The structure in the GluA2 paper (2009) is the antagonist-bound state, not the resting state.

15) "Furthermore, close inspection shows GluK5em G helices reside ~3 Å closer to each other across the two-fold symmetry plane of the LBD layer, compared to analogous GluK2 subunits in the homomer (Figure 4E, H). This subtle difference has a geometric consequence of producing a more compact desensitization ring in the heteromer (Figure 4E, H, 226 insets)."

Does not go with the next sentence "This discovery strongly suggests that despite different receptor compositions KAR homomers and heteromers employ a shared desensitization mechanism."

16) "the GluK2/K5em structure raises the question of whether KAR tri-heteromers could form". We do not understand the logic of this point. Of course it's an interesting question – heteromeric receptors have been studied for decades and this possibility is mentioned at the end of the Introduction of the Cui and Mayer, 1999. How is the question raised by the work in hand? The idea is that a third subunit like GluK1 would have to occupy a B or D position because GluK5 is dominating assembly? As we know that K1/K2 heteromers and homomers can form, we see no restriction on which position that GluK1 would adopt if it were to be introduced to the GluK2/5 heteromer. If there is a more profound observation that we are missing, the authors should try to illustrate it more clearly, perhaps with an additional cartoon.

17) "This study marks a milestone in iGluR biology by providing the first structures of the major neuronal KAR to accompany structures of the dominant forms of NMDARs and AMPARs."

We think it is wrong to say "neuronal KAR" because now we have (and there will be more) structures of native receptors. These GluK2/K5 are the presumed major neuronal type. It is good to have KAR heteromer structures, but we would not be so effusive. For example, GluK2 was not edited at Q/R in this study; in the forebrain, it would be (90%, Bernard et al. 1999 EJN).

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.66097.sa1

Author response

Essential revisions:

1) It appears that the authors needed to remove particles that were not amenable to 3D reconstruction in their single particle analyses. After cleaning up the particles, were the authors able to observe meaningful conformational variations that may provide insights into functions? Or is there only one conformation of each for the CNQX-bound and the glutamate -bound (desensitized) structures? The authors may pick these conformational variations by running other software packages such as RELION and/or cisTEM. It is likely advantageous for the authors to run further 3D classification on their dataset to potentially extract meaningful 3D classes to enrich their insights into protein dynamics.

We share the reviewer’s interest in this question and looked closely for interpretable classes that could give meaningful insights into conformational variation. At each iteration of three-dimensional classification the class averages were carefully compared to one another. The classes typically had a range of resolutions and feature qualities as seen in our supplementary figures (Figure 1—figure supplement 4, Figure 1—figure supplement 6, and Figure 4—figure supplement 1), so we looked primarily for evidence of major differences in LBD or ATD domain orientations. Although we processed the data multiple times and used classification tools in both Relion and cryoSPARC we were unable to extract classes in obviously distinct conformations on the path to resolving full-length structures.

However, as described in the manuscript, after producing full-length reconstructions we then refined the ATD and LBD-TMD assemblies separately for both the GluK2/K5em-CNQX and GluK2/K5em-L-Glu structures. The fact that reconstructions of isolated ATD and LBD-TMD regions were better resolved than the full-length receptors suggests some degree of relative conformational mobility in the ATD versus the LBD-TMD assembly.

This also raised the question of local conformational variability within the ATD, LBD, and TMD regions. The ATDs were resolved to high resolution and we found no evidence for additional conformations during classification. However, the lower resolution of the LBD-TMD assemblies suggested local conformational variability that may have resisted classification. We attempted to refine the LBD and TMD layers separately but were unsuccessful, likely because of the small masses of these regions (120 kDa for the LBD layer; 60 kDa for the TMD layer). This motivated us to apply conformational variability analysis (cryoSPARC) to the LBD-TMD assemblies. Unfortunately this analysis showed no evidence for local conformational variability in either the LBD or the TMD.

In summary, we found one conformation for each full-length structure. Local reconstructions of the ATD and LBD-TMD assemblies indicated that these two regions are mobile with respect to one another. Further investigation of local variability within the ATD, LBD, and TMD regions showed no evidence of meaningful conformational variation within these regions of the structures.

We feel this is an important point to address and have elaborated on our approach in the Materials and methods section (see Materials and methods section, “Image processing and structure analysis” subsection, paragraph five).

2) One major concern is that since these structures are with modified constructs and may not represent the predominant physiologically conformation. Hence it is essential to have other measurements, such as cross-linking/ mutational studies/or other biochemical/biophysical methods that can validate these structures. At a minimum the authors should discuss this and in addition rationalize the structure with prior functional data, adding the caveat that the subunit arrangement seen in the structures will be confirmed or supported by future experiments using an orthogonal technique (such as crosslinking).

We agree that applying an additional technique would add value by further validating our expression constructs and structures. Because the present restrictions on lab operations pose a challenge to timely preparation of new data, the subunit arrangement seen in the structures will be confirmed or supported by future experiments using an orthogonal technique such as crosslinking. We have noted this in the text to inform the reader (see Discussion, paragraph seven).

3) Related to point 2: while it is good to see that the constructs used for cryo-EM constructs exhibit the expected electrophysiological properties (deactivation and densensitization), the functional characteristics are not directly compared to the wild-type constructs. It would be helpful to know whether the changes to the constructs introduce changes in receptor kinetics. If the authors do not have these data, the issue should at least be raised and discussed.

Thank you for this comment. Our initial submission did indeed compare wild-type to cryo-EM constructs. This was presented in the Results section and the data were found in Figure 1—figure supplement 2. Specifically, wild-type function was shown in panels B-D, and cryo-EM construct function in panels E-G. In addition, Table 1 provided a summary of all the kinetic properties (deactivation, desensitization time constants) and reveals that the functional behavior of the wild-type and cryo-EM KAR heteromers are very similar.

This reviewer comment prompted us to re-evaluate our presentation of the functional data and we felt it was essential to improve communication of these data in the text. Accordingly we have revised the Results subsection dealing with functional validation (see Results), and we more clearly alert the reader to Figure 1—figure supplement 2 and Table 1.

4) Additional discussion is needed as to how these structures provide insight into extensive functional data available for the heteromeric receptors. For example, DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2017.08.047 and other prior functional studies by co-author Bowie and by others (Barberis/Mulle for example). We found it strange such discussion was missing. (Some studies were cited, but the impression is that the structure adds little. We think the authors could either speculate or say what else has to be done before the new structures can be used to gain additional insight into mechanism; for example, answering questions such as why GluK2/5 have slower deactivation speed and faster desensitization speed compared to GluK2?).

We have expanded the Discussion of how the structures in this study relate to functional data on desensitization, deactivation, and to emerging data that suggest the ion-dependent gating of homomeric KARs differs from the GluK2/K5 heteromer. We also comment on the future prospect of using the experimental foundation established in this study to address questions about ion binding, ligand binding, and receptor activation (see Discussion).

5) That the structures of GluK5 and GluK2 are so similar that they must be distinguished by differential glycans is somewhat of a surprise. The authors do not comment, except the subunits are described as "mismatched". The phrase "mismatched subunits are woven together" is pretty, but is it apt? The subunits seem very similar…

In order to improve clarity of the text we changed the phrase “how its mismatched subunits are woven together” to “how its subunits are organized” (see Abstract).

6) Because particles are selected, can we be sure that the rule of assembly the authors propose (GluK5 is always at A/C) is really validated? Are there any further information that they authors can provide to further assure this proposal? Or perhaps to add a caveat?

We were also very interested in this question and analyzed the data multiple times throughout the study in the hopes of discovering receptors that did not obey the proposed assembly. Despite extensive three-dimensional classification we never found evidence that such particle subsets exist in the datasets. Given the ten-fold excess of GluK5em versus GluK2em virus added during protein expression, we would expect GluK5 to adopt alternative positions (i.e. B or D) if this were possible. That this does not happen led us to conclude that GluK5 is indeed always at the A/C positions. We have now addressed this point in the Discussion section (see Discussion, paragraph six).

7) Subsection “Receptor isolation, functional testing, and structure determination”: The “tilt” is not clear to readers. A figure to explain this point is necessary. Or modify Figure 1—figure supplement 4 to address this point. Also, it is not clear why the authors think this tilt is the reason for not observing cryo-EM density for the linker between ATD and LBD. How is that important in terms of functions of GluK2/5?

We have added annotations to Figure 1—figure supplement 4 in order to indicate the ATD “tilt”.

We did not intend to imply or argue that the ATD tilt is the reason for not observing cryo-EM density in the ATD-LBD linkers. Rather, we merely meant to say that the tilted ATD layer, together with the poorly resolved linkers, may indicate flexibility between the ATD layer and the rest of the receptor. Indeed, resolution improvements achieved through local refinement of the ATD region and LBD-TMD region in the GluK2/K5em-CNQX structure support this conclusion (see our response to Comment 1 above). Because similar features have been observed in AMPAR structures using both X-ray crystallography (Sobolevsky, Rosconi and Gouaux, 2009) and cryo-EM (Nakagawa, 2019) the “tilt” may be some basic feature of KARs and AMPARs structures that is not yet understood. We have revised the text to clarify this point (see Results).

8) Subsection “Receptor organization and symmetry”. While CNQX density is not observed, can the authors say something about the LBD conformations? For example, are the LBD conformations similar to structure of antagonist-bound LBD crystal structures? Usage of "a saturating concentration of CNQX" may be a weak argument for stating this structure as CNQX-bound.

This is an absolutely essential point to address. In our initial submission we did indeed compare LBDs from GluK2/K5em-CNQX to crystal structures of isolated LBDs. The analysis can be found in Figure 1—figure supplement 5B and shows that the LBDs from GluK2/K5em-CNQX have similar conformations to the antagonist-bound LBD reference structure. In addition, we showed analogous comparisons for GluK2/K5em-apo and GluK2/K5em-L-Glu which also support our conclusions about the LBD conformations for those structures.

We believe this analysis was not communicated clearly in the initial submission. To address the deficiency and expand the analysis we have done the following:

a) Added text in the manuscript to better alert the reader to the analysis (see Results).

b) Added RMSD values to quantify how closely the GluK2em and GluK5em LBDs match the reference LBDs used for comparison (see Figure 1—figure supplement 5).

c) Revised the layout of Figure 1—figure supplement 5 to improve the presentation.

9) Discussion: We do not see a “pinwheel-shaped” motif in Figure 4. Do the authors mean Figure 5? Also, how exactly is this motif defined (e.g. what residue, where in the structure, etc?)

The “pinwheel” referred to the entire LBD layer in the GluK2/K5-L-Glu structure when viewed from the extracellular side (Figure 4C and D). It was so named because we felt it resembled a classic pinwheel toy and the naming might aid reader interpretation of the structure. However, we now appreciate it may not appear this way to every reader. As such we have removed the “pinwheel” language from the manuscript and replaced it with plain language descriptions.

10) Can the authors gain any insights into the mechanism underlying channel regulation by binding of extracellular ions from the cryo-EM structures?

The resolution in the LBDs was not high enough to visualize ions so we were unable to gain insights into channel regulation by extracellular ion binding. However, this is certainly an area for future investigation and we have commented on this point in the Discussion (see Discussion, paragraph four).

11) Is there anything new gained from the 2/5 ATD tetramer considering that the ATD layer has the highest resolution in both CNQX and glutamate structures? Is there any opportunity for targeting ATD as in the case of NMDA receptors (e.g. ifenprodil binding to the NMDAR ATD)? This could be addressed in the manuscript.

In our analysis we found that the ATDs in CNQX and L-Glu structures do not show conformational differences. This is consistent with the idea that KAR ATDs are not involved in channel gating. Rather, they are thought to play a key role in subunit oligomerization during receptor biogenesis. We have added text to the Discussion section to better contextualize the ATD results (see Discussion, paragraph five). It is currently unclear if KAR ATDs participate in small molecule binding and thus appear to be different from NMDAR ATDs in this respect.

Queries about writing/interpretation:

12) Abstract: "The receptor assembles with two copies of each subunit and positions GluK5 subunits proximal to the channel to direct receptor activation. "

We are not sure that we agree with the logic of this statement. It is clear from previous work that B/D subunits provide (if anything) more driving force to open the channel. But then the authors do not follow up on this in the main text so perhaps it should be removed. How does K5 "direct" activation?

We used the word “direct” in an effort to succinctly connect our results to the idea that GluK5 alone can activate the channel. However, after considering the reviewer feedback on this point we feel this language detracts from the clarity of the Abstract. We have replaced this wording with text to clearly state key findings from our structural analysis (see Abstract).

13) "Critically, this work gives a foundation for understanding differences and similarities among KAR, AMPAR (Herguedas et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2019), and NMDAR structures (Karakas and Furukawa, 2014; Lee et al., 2014; Lü et al., 2017), and reveals that while they share common architectural principles the iGluR receptor subtypes display enormous structural diversity."

The point about structural diversity is well taken, but the new knowledge contributed by this paper does not go in this direction. This would be in comparison to the cited works and the senior author's own previous work on KARs, which oddly merits no citation. We do not want to diminish the achievement in this paper. That GluK2/K5 seem to behave almost the same as GluK2 homomer is really interesting, but it does not expand our view of structural diversity. Finally, it would be appropriate to mention GluD structures from Janesh Kumar's lab if you are talking about diversity in the family.

We thank the reviewer(s) for making this point and have removed the language on structural diversity from the sentence (see Introduction, paragraph four). The addition of references to earlier KAR structures and GluD structures is indeed appropriate and we have also added these references.

14) Subsection “Receptor isolation, functional testing, and structure determination”: The structure in the GluA2 paper (2009) is the antagonist-bound state, not the resting state.

We have now changed this reference to Dürr et al., 2014 which reports an apo GluA2 structure (PDB: 4U2P) (see Results).

15) "Furthermore, close inspection shows GluK5em G helices reside ~3 Å closer to each other across the two-fold symmetry plane of the LBD layer, compared to analogous GluK2 subunits in the homomer (Figure 4E, H). This subtle difference has a geometric consequence of producing a more compact desensitization ring in the heteromer (Figure 4E, H, 226 insets)."

Does not go with the next sentence "This discovery strongly suggests that despite different receptor compositions KAR homomers and heteromers employ a shared desensitization mechanism."

Thank you, we have removed this sentence (see Results).

16) "the GluK2/K5em structure raises the question of whether KAR tri-heteromers could form". We do not understand the logic of this point. Of course it's an interesting question – heteromeric receptors have been studied for decades and this possibility is mentioned at the end of the Introduction of the Cui and Mayer, 1999. How is the question raised by the work in hand? The idea is that a third subunit like GluK1 would have to occupy a B or D position because GluK5 is dominating assembly? As we know that K1/K2 heteromers and homomers can form, we see no restriction on which position that GluK1 would adopt if it were to be introduced to the GluK2/5 heteromer. If there is a more profound observation that we are missing, the authors should try to illustrate it more clearly, perhaps with an additional cartoon.

In this paragraph we merely wished to make the point that we find no obvious aspects of the GluK2/K5 subunit arrangement which would preclude formation of KAR tri-heteromers containing GluK2, GluK5 and another subunit. To our knowledge KARs have so far been studied as homomers or di-heteromers so we thought it would be stimulating to the reader to address the prospect of more complex KARs. Indeed, we felt this merited discussion given the recent structural evidence for native AMPAR tri-heteromers from the Gouaux lab, and well-known existence of NMDAR tri-heteromers. However, upon considering reviewer feedback we believe that this point is not strong enough to warrant discussion and as such have removed the paragraph to avoid confusion.

17) "This study marks a milestone in iGluR biology by providing the first structures of the major neuronal KAR to accompany structures of the dominant forms of NMDARs and AMPARs."

We think it is wrong to say "neuronal KAR" because now we have (and there will be more) structures of native receptors. These GluK2/K5 are the presumed major neuronal type. It is good to have KAR heteromer structures, but we would not be so effusive. For example, GluK2 was not edited at Q/R in this study; in the forebrain, it would be (90%, Bernard et al. 1999 EJN).

As suggested, we have replaced “major neuronal” with “presumed major neuronal type” (see Discussion, paragraph eight).

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.66097.sa2

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Nandish Khanra

    Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4217-1273
  2. Patricia MGE Brown

    Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, McGill University, Montréal, Canada
    Present address
    MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8340-0330
  3. Amanda M Perozzo

    Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, McGill University, Montréal, Canada
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9681-3548
  4. Derek Bowie

    Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, McGill University, Montréal, Canada
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Project administration, Writing - review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9491-8768
  5. Joel R Meyerson

    Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing
    For correspondence
    jrm2008@med.cornell.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6127-0093

Funding

Leon Levy Foundation

  • Joel R Meyerson

Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé

  • Patricia MGE Brown

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (136832)

  • Derek Bowie

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (162317)

  • Derek Bowie

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

  • Amanda M Perozzo

Leon Levy Foundation

  • Joel R Meyerson

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

Acknowledgements

We thank J Fisher (University of South Carolina) for providing genes for GluK2 and GluK5, and N Panitz (SUNY Binghamton) for assistance with image processing pipeline development. We thank members of our labs, O Clarke (Columbia University), and the A Accardi, O Boudker, and XY Huang labs for discussions. Electron microscopy was performed at the NYU Langone Health’s Cryo–Electron Microscopy Laboratory with assistance from WJ Rice and B Wang, and at the Simons Electron Microscopy Center and National Resource for Automated Molecular Microscopy located at the New York Structural Biology Center and supported by grants from the Simons Foundation (SF349247), NYSTAR, and the NIH National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM103310). We acknowledge the Weill Cornell Medicine Cryo-EM Core Facility for use of equipment, technical assistance, and expertise. Our work was supported in part by the resources and expert staff of Weill Cornell Medicine’s Scientific Computing Unit. Molecular graphics were made and analysis was performed with UCSF ChimeraX, developed by the Resource for Biocomputing, Visualization, and Informatics at the University of California, San Francisco, with support from National Institutes of Health R01-GM129325 and the Office of Cyber Infrastructure and Computational Biology, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. This work was funded by a Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé (FRQS) Doctoral Fellowship to PMGEB, a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC, PGS-D) doctoral award to AMP, a Leon Levy Fellowship in Neuroscience and a Weill Cornell Medical College startup grant to JRM, and Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) grants to DB (FRN 136832 and FRN 162317).

Senior Editor

  1. Kenton J Swartz, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, United States

Reviewing Editor

  1. Merritt Maduke, Stanford University School of Medicine, United States

Reviewers

  1. Merritt Maduke, Stanford University School of Medicine, United States
  2. Andrew JR Plested, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Germany

Publication history

  1. Received: December 29, 2020
  2. Accepted: March 5, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 16, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 26, 2021 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record updated: April 9, 2021 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2021, Khanra et al.

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

Metrics

  • 1,195
    Page views
  • 227
    Downloads
  • 1
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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)

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

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

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Rebecca A Mount et al.
    Research Article

    Trace conditioning and extinction learning depend on the hippocampus, but it remains unclear how neural activity in the hippocampus is modulated during these two different behavioral processes. To explore this question, we performed calcium imaging from a large number of individual CA1 neurons during both trace eye-blink conditioning and subsequent extinction learning in mice. Our findings reveal that distinct populations of CA1 cells contribute to trace conditioned learning versus extinction learning, as learning emerges. Furthermore, we examined network connectivity by calculating co-activity between CA1 neuron pairs and found that CA1 network connectivity patterns also differ between conditioning and extinction, even though the overall connectivity density remains constant. Together, our results demonstrate that distinct populations of hippocampal CA1 neurons, forming different sub-networks with unique connectivity patterns, encode different aspects of learning.

    1. Neuroscience
    Mahmood S Hoseini et al.
    Research Article

    Visual perception in natural environments depends on the ability to focus on salient stimuli while ignoring distractions. This kind of selective visual attention is associated with gamma activity in the visual cortex. While the nucleus reticularis thalami (nRT) has been implicated in selective attention, its role in modulating gamma activity in the visual cortex remains unknown. Here we show that somatostatin- (SST) but not parvalbumin-expressing (PV) neurons in the visual sector of the nRT preferentially project to the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (dLGN), and modulate visual information transmission and gamma activity in primary visual cortex (V1). These findings pinpoint the SST neurons in nRT as powerful modulators of the visual information encoding accuracy in V1, and represent a novel circuit through which the nRT can influence representation of visual information.