Phosphorylation bar-coding of Free Fatty Acid receptor 2 is generated in a tissue-specific manner

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
Very systematic generation of phosphosite-specific antisera to monitor FFA2 phosphorylation in native cells and tissues. Provides evidence that FFA2 phosphorylation is tissue-specific.

Strengths:
Technical tour de force, rigorous experimental approaches taking advantage of wt and DREADD versions of FFA2 to make sure that ligand-and receptor-dependent phosphorylations are indeed specific to FFA2.

Weaknesses:
In this reviewer's opinion, the only shortcoming is that the implications of tissue-selective phosphorylation barcoding remain unexplored. However, I understand that tool development is required before tools are used to provide insight into the functional outcomes of receptor regulation by phosphorylation. The study is a technical tour de force to generate highly valuable tools. I have no major criticisms but suggest adding an additional aspect to the discussion as specified below.

Arrestins are highly flexible and dynamic phosphate sensors. If two arrestins have to recognize 800 different phosphorylated GPCRs, is it possible that any barcode serves the same purpose: arrestin recognition followed by signal arrest and internalization? Because phosphorylation barcoding is linked to G protein-independent signaling, which is claimed by some but is experimentally unsupported, and because arrestins don't transduce receptor signals on their own (they only scaffold signaling components and shuttle receptors within cellular compartments), I would also include this option in the discussion, i.e. that the different barcodes are a way nature may have chosen to regulate the location of 800 GPCRs by only 2 arrestins.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The strengths of this paper begin with the topic. Specifically, this approaches the question of how GPCR signals are directed to different outcomes under different conditions. There is rich complexity within this question; there are potentially billions of molecules that could interact with >800 human GPCRs and thousands of molecular effectors that may be activated. However, these outcomes are filtered through a small number of GPCR-interacting proteins that direct the signal.

Experimentally, strengths include the initial experimental controls employed in characterizing their ever-important antisera, on which their conclusions hinge. In showing strong agonist-dependent and phosphosite-dependent recognition, as well as the addition of GRK inhibitors and eventually an antagonist and phosphatase treatment, the authors substantiate the role of the antiserum in recognizing their intended motifs. When employed, those antisera overall give clear indications of differences across variables in immunoblots, and while the immunocytochemical studies are qualitative and at times not visually significantly different across all variables, they are in large part congruent with the results of the immunoblots and provide secondary supporting evidence for the author's major claims. One confounding aspect of the immunocytochemical images is the presence of background pThr306/pThr310, like in Figures 4C and 6A and B. In 4A and C, while the immunoblot shows a complete absence of pThr306/pThr310, Figure 4C's immuno image does not. In 6A and B, a similar presence of pThr306/pThr310 is seen in the vehicle image, which is not strikingly over-shown by the MOMBA-treated image. In addition, only Ser/Thr residues of the C-terminus were investigated, while residues of ICL3 have long been known to direct signaling in many GPCRs. Because of the presentations of sequences, it was not clear whether there were residues of ICL3 that have the possibility of being involved.

It may be possible and further testable to show whether the residues that maintain basal phosphorylation could also be tissue-specific, especially considering the presence of pThr306/pThr310 detection in both the Figure 6A immunoblot's vehicle lane (but not MOMBA lane). The aforementioned detection in the immunocytochemical vehicle image could support differential basal phosphorylation in the enteroendocrine cells. Should this be the case, it could have confounded the initial mass-spec screen wherein the Ser residues were basally active in that cell type, while in a distinct cell type that may not be the case. Lastly, should normalized quantification of these images be possible, it may help in clearing up these hard-to-compare visual images.

It is noted that aspects of the writing and presentation may lead to confusion for some readers, but this does not affect the overall significance of the work.

Nevertheless, in terms of the global goal of the authors, the indication of differences in phosphorylation states between tissues is still evident across the experiments. Accordingly, the paper is overall strongly well-researched, well-controlled, and the conclusions made by the authors are data-grounded and not overly extrapolated. Providing direct evidence for the tissue-based branch of the barcode hypothesis is both novel and significant for the field, and the paper leaves room for much more exciting research to be done in the area, opening the door for new questions and hypotheses.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:
The authors generate and characterize two phosphospecific antisera for FFA2 receptor and claim a "bar code" difference between white fat and Peyers patches.

Strengths:
The question is interesting and the antibody characterization is convincing.

Weaknesses:
The mass spectrometry analysis is not convincing because the method is not quantitative (no SILAC, TMT, internal standards etc). Figure 1 shows single tryptic peptides with one and two phosphorylation fragmentations as claimed, but there is no data testing the abundance of these so the differences claimed between cell treatment conditions are not established.

The blot analysis cannot distinguish 296/7 but it does convincingly show an agonist increase. Can the authors clarify why the amount of constitutive phosphorylation is much higher in the example blot in Figure 2 than in Figure 3? It would be helpful to quantify this across more than one example, like in Figures 4 and 5 for tissue.

Compound 101 is shown in Figure 2 to block barrestin recruitment. I agree this suggests phosphorylation mediated by GRK2/3 but this is not tested. The new antibodies should be good for this so I don't understand why the indirect approach.

The conditions used to inhibit dephosphorylation are not specified, the method only says "phosphatase inhibitors". How do the authors know that low P at 306/7 in white fat is not a result of dephosphorylation during sample preparation? If these sites are GRK2/3 dependent (see above) then does adipose tissue lack this GRK?