Blog
About

78
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The structural basis for agonist and partial agonist action on a β 1-adrenergic receptor

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          β-Adrenergic receptors (βARs) are G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) that activate intracellular G proteins upon binding catecholamine agonist ligands such as adrenaline and noradrenaline1,2. Synthetic ligands have been developed that either activate or inhibit βARs for the treatment of asthma, hypertension or cardiac dysfunction. These ligands are classified as either full agonists, partial agonists or antagonists, depending on whether the cellular response is similar to that of the native ligand, reduced or inhibited, respectively. However, the structural basis for these different ligand efficacies is unknown. Here we present four crystal structures of the thermostabilised turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) β1-adrenergic receptor (β1AR-m23) bound to the full agonists carmoterol and isoprenaline and the partial agonists salbutamol and dobutamine. In each case, agonist binding induces a 1 Å contraction of the catecholamine binding pocket relative to the antagonist bound receptor. Full agonists can form hydrogen bonds with two conserved serine residues in transmembrane helix 5 (Ser5.42 and Ser5.46), but partial agonists only interact with Ser5.42 (superscripts refer to Ballesteros-Weinstein numbering3). The structures provide an understanding of the pharmacological differences between different ligand classes, illuminating how GPCRs function and providing a solid foundation for the structure-based design of novel ligands with predictable efficacies. Determining how agonists and antagonists bind to the β receptors has been the goal of research for more than 20 years4-11. Although the structures of the homologous β1 and β2 receptors12-15 show how some antagonists bind to receptors in the inactive state16, structures with agonists bound are required to understand subsequent structural transitions involved in activation. GPCRs exist in an equilibrium between an inactive state (R) and an activated state (R*) that can couple and activate G proteins17. The binding of a full agonist, such as adrenaline or noradrenaline, is thought to increase the probability of the receptor converting to R*, with a conformation similar to that of opsin18,19. In the absence of any ligand, the βARs exhibit a low level of constitutive activity, indicating that there is always a small proportion of the receptor in the activated state, with the β2AR showing a 5-fold higher level of basal activity than the β1AR20. Basal activity of β2AR is important physiologically, as shown by the T164I4.56 human polymorphism that reduces the basal activity of β2AR to levels similar to β1AR21 and whose expression has been associated with heart disease22. As a first step towards understanding how agonists activate receptors, we have determined the structures of β1AR bound to 4 different agonists. Native turkey β1AR is unstable in detergent23, so crystallization and structure determination relied on using a thermostabilised construct (β1AR-m23) that contained six point mutations, which dramatically improved its thermostability24. In addition, the thermostabilising mutations altered the equilibrium between R and R*, so that the receptor was preferentially in the R state24. However, it could still couple to G proteins after activation by agonists13 (Supplementary Fig. 1, Supplementary Tables 1-3), although the activation energy barrier is predicted to be considerably higher than for the wild-type receptor25. Here we report structures of β1AR-m23 (see Methods) bound to r-isoprenaline (2.85 Å resolution), r,r-carmoterol (2.6 Å resolution), r-salbutamol (3.05 Å resolution) and r-dobutamine (two independent structures at 2.6 Å and 2.5 Å resolution) (Supplementary Table 5). The overall structures of β1AR-m23 bound to the agonists are very similar to the structure with the bound antagonist cyanopindolol13, as expected for a receptor mutant stabilised preferentially in the R state. None of the structures show the outward movement of the cytoplasmic end of transmembrane helix H6 by 5-6 Å that is observed during light activation of rhodopsin18,19,26. This suggests that the structures represent an inactive, non-signaling state of the receptor formed on initial agonist binding. All four agonists bind in the catecholamine pocket in a virtually identical fashion (Fig. 1). The secondary amine and β-hydroxyl groups shared by all the agonists (except for dobutamine, which lacks the β-hydroxyl; see Supplementary Figure 4) form potential hydrogen bonds with Asp1213.32 and Asn3297.39, while the hydrogen bond donor/acceptor group equivalent to the catecholamine meta-hydroxyl (m-OH) generally forms a hydrogen bond with Asn3106.55. In addition, all the agonists can form a hydrogen bond with Ser2115.42, as seen for cyanopindolol13, and they also induce the rotamer conformation change of Ser2125.43 so that it makes a hydrogen bond with Asn3106.55. The major difference between the binding of full agonists compared to the partial agonists is that only full agonists make a hydrogen bond to the side chain of Ser2155.46 as a result of a change in side chain rotamer. All of these amino acid residues involved in the binding of the catecholamine headgroups to β1AR are fully conserved in both β1 and β2 receptors (Fig. 2). Furthermore, the role of many of these amino acid residues in ligand binding is supported by extensive mutagenesis studies on β2AR that were performed before the first β2AR structure was determined27. Thus it was predicted that Asp1133.32, Ser2035.42, Ser2075.46, Asn2936.55 and Asn3127.39 in β2AR were all involved in agonist binding4,5,7-9 (Fig. 3). Inspection of the region outside the catecholamine binding pocket in the structures with bound dobutamine and carmoterol allows the identification of non-conserved residues that interact with these ligands (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Figure 7), which may contribute to the subtype specificity of these ligands10,28. There are three significant differences in the β1AR catecholamine binding pocket when full agonists are bound compared to when an antagonist is bound, namely the rotamer conformation changes of side chains Ser2125.43 and Ser2155.46 (Fig.3) and the contraction of the catecholamine binding pocket by ~1 Å, as measured between the Cα atoms of Asn3297.39 and Ser2115.42 (Fig. 4). So why should these small changes increase the probability of R* formation? Agonist binding has not changed the conformation of transmembrane helix H5 below Ser2155.46, although significant changes in this region are predicted once the receptor has reached the fully activated state18,19. The only effect that the agonist-induced rotamer conformation change of Ser2155.46 appears to have is to break the van der Waals interaction between Val1724.56 and Ser2155.46, thus reducing the number of interactions between H4 and H5. As there is only a minimal interface between transmembrane helices H4 and H5 in this region (Supplementary Table 8 and Supplementary Fig. 8), this loss of interaction may be significant in the activation process. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the naturally occurring polymorphism in β2AR at the H4-H5 interface, T164I4.56, converts a polar residue to a hydrophobic residue as seen in β1AR (Val1724.56), which results in both reduced basal activity and reduced agonist stimulation21. This supports the hypothesis that the extent of interaction between H4 and H5 could affect the probability of a receptor transition into the activated state. In contrast to the apparent weakening of helix-helix interactions by the agonist-induced rotamer conformation change of Ser2155.46, the agonist-induced rotamer conformation change of Ser2125.43 probably results in the strengthening of interactions between H5 and H6. Upon agonist binding, Ser2125.43 forms a hydrogen bond with Asn3106.55 (Fig. 3) and, in addition, hydrogen bond interactions to Ser2115.43 and Asn3106.55mediated by the ligand serve to bridge H5 and H6. The combined effects of strengthening the H5-H6 interface and weakening the H4-H5 interface could facilitate the subsequent movements of H5 and H6, as observed in the activation of rhodopsin. Stabilisation of the contracted catecholamine binding pocket is probably the most important role of bound agonists in the activation process (Fig. 4). This probably requires strong hydrogen bonding interactions between the catechol (or equivalent) moiety and both H5 and H6, and strong interactions between the secondary amine and β-hydroxyl groups in the agonist and the amino acid side chains in helices H3 and H7. Reduction in the strength of these interactions is likely to reduce the efficacy of a ligand29. Both salbutamol and dobutamine are partial agonists of β1AR-m23 (Supplementary Table 3) and human β1AR. In the case of salbutamol, there are only two predicted hydrogen bonds between the headgroup and H5/H6, compared to 3-4 potential hydrogen bonds for isoprenaline and carmoterol. Dobutamine lacks the β-hydroxyl group, which similarly reduces the number of potential hydrogen bonds to H3/H7 from 3-4 seen in the other agonists to only 2. We propose that this weakening of agonist interactions with H5/H6 for salbutamol and H3/H7 for dobutamine is a major contributing factor in making these ligands partial agonists rather than full agonists. The agonist-bound structures of β1AR suggest there are three major determinants that dictate the efficacy of any ligand; ligand-induced rotamer conformational changes of (i) Ser2125.43 and (ii) Ser2155.46 and (iii) stabilization of the contracted ligand binding pocket. The full agonists studied here achieve all three. The partial agonists studied here do not alter the conformation of Ser2155.46 and may be less successful than isoprenaline or carmoterol at stabilizing the contracted catecholamine binding pocket due to reduced numbers of hydrogen bonds between the ligand and the receptor. The antagonist cyanopindolol acts as a very weak partial agonist and none of the three agonist-induced changes are observed. In contrast to partial agonists, neutral antagonists or very weak partial agonists such as cyanopindolol may also have a reduced ability to contract the binding pocket due to the greater distance between the secondary amine and the catechol moiety (or equivalent). For example, the number of atoms in the linker between the secondary amine and the headgroup of cyanopindolol is 4 whereas the agonists in this study only contain 2 (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Fig. 4). A ligand with a sufficiently bulky headgroup that binds with high-affinity and which actively prevents any spontaneous contraction of the binding pocket and/or Ser5.46 rotamer change, would be predicted to act as a full inverse agonist. This is indeed what is observed in the recently determined structure15 of β2AR bound to the inverse agonist ICI 118,551. The significant structural similarities amongst GPCRs suggests that similar agonist-induced conformational changes to those we have observed here may also be applicable to many other members of the GPCR superfamily, though undoubtedly there will be many subtle variations on this theme. METHODS SUMMARY Expression, purification and crystallization The β44-m23 construct was expressed in insect cells, purified in the detergent Hega-10 and crystallized in the presence of cholesterol hemisuccinate (CHS), following previously established protocols30. Crystals were grown by vapour diffusion, with the conditions shown in Supplementary Table 4. Data collection, structure solution and refinement Diffraction data were collected from a single cryo-cooled crystal (100 K) of each complex in multiple wedges at beamline ID23-2 at ESRF, Grenoble. The structures were solved by molecular replacement using the β1AR structure13 (PDB code 2VT4) as a model (see Online Methods). Data collection and refinement statistics are presented in Supplementary Table 5. Supplementary Material 1 2

          Related collections

          Most cited references 34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          High-resolution crystal structure of an engineered human beta2-adrenergic G protein-coupled receptor.

          Heterotrimeric guanine nucleotide-binding protein (G protein)-coupled receptors constitute the largest family of eukaryotic signal transduction proteins that communicate across the membrane. We report the crystal structure of a human beta2-adrenergic receptor-T4 lysozyme fusion protein bound to the partial inverse agonist carazolol at 2.4 angstrom resolution. The structure provides a high-resolution view of a human G protein-coupled receptor bound to a diffusible ligand. Ligand-binding site accessibility is enabled by the second extracellular loop, which is held out of the binding cavity by a pair of closely spaced disulfide bridges and a short helical segment within the loop. Cholesterol, a necessary component for crystallization, mediates an intriguing parallel association of receptor molecules in the crystal lattice. Although the location of carazolol in the beta2-adrenergic receptor is very similar to that of retinal in rhodopsin, structural differences in the ligand-binding site and other regions highlight the challenges in using rhodopsin as a template model for this large receptor family.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Improved methods for building protein models in electron density maps and the location of errors in these models.

            Map interpretation remains a critical step in solving the structure of a macromolecule. Errors introduced at this early stage may persist throughout crystallographic refinement and result in an incorrect structure. The normally quoted crystallographic residual is often a poor description for the quality of the model. Strategies and tools are described that help to alleviate this problem. These simplify the model-building process, quantify the goodness of fit of the model on a per-residue basis and locate possible errors in peptide and side-chain conformations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Satisfying hydrogen bonding potential in proteins.

              We have analysed the frequency with which potential hydrogen bond donors and acceptors are satisfied in protein molecules. There are a small percentage of nitrogen or oxygen atoms that do not form hydrogen bonds with either solvent or protein atoms, when standard criteria are used. For high resolution structures 9.5% and 5.1% of buried main-chain nitrogen and oxygen atoms, respectively, fail to hydrogen bond under our standard criteria, representing 5.8% and 2.1% of all main-chain nitrogen and oxygen atoms. We find that as the resolution of the data improves, the percentages fall. If the hydrogen bond criteria are relaxed many of these unsatisfied atoms form weak hydrogen bonds. However, there remain some buried atoms (1.3% NH and 1.8% CO) that fail to hydrogen bond without any immediately obvious compensating interactions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                0410462
                6011
                Nature
                Nature
                Nature
                0028-0836
                1476-4687
                21 December 2010
                13 January 2011
                13 July 2011
                : 469
                : 7329
                : 241-244
                Affiliations
                MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 0QH, UK
                [1 ]Institute of Cell Signalling, C Floor Medical School, Queen’s Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Joint corresponding authors: MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 0QH, UK, cgt@ 123456mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk , gebhard.schertler@ 123456psi.ch , Telephone +44-(0)1223-402266, Fax +44-(0)1223-213556
                [2]

                Current Address: Paul Scherrer Institut, Laboratory of Biomolecular Research, BMR, OFLC 109, CH-5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland, Telephone +41 (0)56 310 4265

                Author contributions: T.W. devised and performed receptor expression, purification, crystallization, cryo-cooling of the crystals, data collection and initial data processing. P.C.E. helped with crystal cryo-cooling and data collection. J.G.B. performed the pharmacological analyses on receptor mutants in whole cells and R.N. performed the ligand binding studies on baculovirus-expressed receptors. R.M. and A.G.W.L. were involved in data processing and structure refinement. Manuscript preparation was performed by T.W., C.G.T., A.G.W.L. and G.F.X.S. The overall project management was by G.F.X.S. and C.G.T.

                Author Information: Co-ordinates and structure factors have been submitted to the PDB database under accession codes 2y00, 2y01, 2y02, 2y03 and 2y04 for β44-m23 bound either to dobutamine (dob92 and dob102), carmoterol, isoprenaline or salbutamol, respectively.

                Article
                UKMS33749
                10.1038/nature09746
                3023143
                21228877

                Users may view, print, copy, download and text and data- mine the content in such documents, for the purposes of academic research, subject always to the full Conditions of use: http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/license.html#terms

                Funding
                Funded by: Medical Research Council :
                Award ID: U.1051.04.034 || MRC_
                Funded by: Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council :
                Award ID: BB/G003653/1 || BB_
                Categories
                Article

                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article