PSI Structural Biology Knowledgebase

PSI | Structural Biology Knowledgebase
Header Icons
E-Collection

Related Articles
Drug Discovery: Solving the Structure of an Anti-hypertension Drug Target
July 2015
Retrospective: 7,000 Structures Closer to Understanding Biology
July 2015
Families in Gene Neighborhoods
June 2015
Channels and Transporters: BEST in Show
April 2015
Channels and Transporters: Reorienting a Peptide in the Pocket
April 2015
Ryanodine Receptor
April 2015
Protein Folding and Misfolding: It's the Journey, Not the Destination
March 2015
Protein Folding and Misfolding: Refolding in Membrane Mimetic
March 2015
Nuclear Pore Complex: A Flexible Transporter
February 2015
Nuclear Pore Complex: Higher Resolution of Macromolecules
February 2015
Nuclear Pore Complex: Integrative Approach to Probe Nup133
February 2015
Piecing Together the Nuclear Pore Complex
February 2015
Mitochondrion: Flipping for UCP2
December 2014
Transmembrane Spans
December 2014
Glucagon Receptor
April 2014
Membrane Proteome: A Cap on Transport
April 2014
Membrane Proteome: Microcrystals Yield Big Data
April 2014
Membrane Proteome: Pumping Out Heavy Metal
April 2014
Design and Discovery: Virtual Drug Screening
January 2014
G Proteins and Cancer
November 2013
Drug Discovery: Antidepressant Potential of 6-NQ SERT Inhibitors
October 2013
Drug Discovery: Modeling NET Interactions
October 2013
Microbiome: Solid-State NMR, Crystallized
September 2013
CAAX Endoproteases
August 2013
Membrane Proteome: A Funnel-like Viroporin
August 2013
Membrane Proteome: GPCR Substrate Recognition and Functional Selectivity
August 2013
Membrane Proteome: Making DNA Nanotubes for NMR Structure Determination
August 2013
Membrane Proteome: Unveiling the Human α-helical Membrane Proteome
August 2013
Cell-Cell Interaction: Magic Structure from Microcrystals
March 2013
Cell-Cell Interaction: Nanoparticles in Cell Camouflage
March 2013
Membrane Proteome: Capturing Multiple Conformations
December 2012
Membrane Proteome: Soft Sampling
December 2012
Membrane Proteome: Sphingolipid Synthesis Selectivity
December 2012
Membrane Proteome: Tuning Membrane Protein Expression
December 2012
Cytochrome Oxidase
November 2012
Membrane Proteome: Building a Carrier
November 2012
Membrane Proteome: Every Protein Has Its Tag
November 2012
Membrane Proteome: Specific vs. Non-specific weak interactions
November 2012
Membrane Proteome: The ABCs of Transport
November 2012
Bacterial Phosphotransferase System
October 2012
Insert Here
October 2012
Solute Channels
September 2012
To structure, faster
August 2012
Pocket changes
July 2012
Predictive protein origami
July 2012
G Protein-Coupled Receptors
May 2012
Twist to open
March 2012
Anchoring's the way
February 2012
Overexpressed problems
February 2012
Gentle membrane protein extraction
January 2012
Docking and rolling
October 2011
A fragmented approach to membrane protein structures
September 2011
Raising a glass to GLIC
August 2011
Sugar transport
June 2011
A2A Adenosine Receptor
May 2011
TrkH Potassium Ion Transporter
April 2011
Subtly different
March 2011
A new amphiphile for crystallizing membrane proteins
January 2011
CXCR4
January 2011
Guard cells pick up the SLAC
December 2010
ABA receptor diversity
November 2010
COX inhibition: Naproxen by proxy
November 2010
Zinc Transporter ZntB
July 2010
Formate transporter or channel?
March 2010
Tips for crystallizing membrane proteins in lipidic mesophases
February 2010
Urea transporter
February 2010
Five good reasons to use single protein production for membrane proteins
January 2010
Membrane proteins spotted in their native habitat
January 2010
Spot the pore
January 2010
Get3 into the groove
October 2009
GPCR subunits: Separate but not equal
September 2009
GPCR modeling: any good?
August 2009
Surviving in an acid environment
August 2009
Tips for crystallizing membrane proteins
June 2009
You look familiar: the Type VI secretion system
June 2009
Bacterial Leucine Transporter, LeuT
May 2009
Aquaglyceroporin
March 2009
Death clusters
March 2009
Protein nanopores
March 2009
Transporter mechanism in sight
February 2009
A pocket guide to GPCRs
December 2008
Tuning membrane protein overexpression
October 2008
Blocking AmtB
September 2008

Research Themes Membrane proteins

GPCR subunits: Separate but not equal

PSI-SGKB [doi:10.1038/fa_psisgkb.2009.39]
Featured Article - September 2009
Short description: A functional complementation assay reveals that maximal heterotrimeric G-protein activation is achieved by agonist binding to one subunit of a dopamine D2 receptor dimer.

Cartoon of different D2R dimer activation states, with activation data for these states, from the perspective of agonist-mediated activation of protomer A.

What is the minimal functional unit of a G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR)? Some receptors have been proposed to exist in a 2:1 stoichiometry with heterotrimeric G proteins, although rhodopsin and the β2 adrenergic receptor can activate G proteins in vitro as monomers. In addition, it is not always clear whether agonists bind one or both subunits of a receptor dimer. Reporting in Nature Chemical Biology, Jonathan Javitch and colleagues use a functional complementation assay to study the stoichiometry of human dopamine D2 receptor (D2R) signaling. They find that a D2R dimer binds to a single heterotrimeric G protein and is maximally activated by the binding of an agonist to one receptor protomer.

To study D2R activation, Han et al. fused one D2R (called protomer B) to a novel pertussis-toxin-insensitive Gqi5 chimera that produced calcium-dependent luminescence upon activation. The fusion protein did not signal in response to agonist binding because the very short linker did not allow the G protein to couple to the receptor to which it was fused. However, co-expression of a D2R protomer not fused to a G protein (called protomer A) caused robust agonist-mediated activation. Therefore, agonist-induced D2R signaling is mediated by two receptor protomers and one G protein.

A mutation in protomer A that inhibited agonist binding blocked G-protein-mediated signaling. Surprisingly, this same mutation in protomer B increased G-protein activation compared to the wild-type homodimer. Inverse agonist binding to protomer B also enhanced activation. Thus, the binding of an agonist to one subunit of a dimer is necessary and sufficient for G-protein activation. Intriguingly, agonist binding to protomer B, as well as a constitutively active version of protomer B, both diminished agonist-induced G-protein activation, suggesting that the active conformation of protomer B inhibits signaling and that agonist binding per se is not required for this effect.

Computational modeling and additional mutagenesis studies suggested that the second intracellular loop of both protomers makes contact with the G protein. However, the third intracellular loop of protomer A but not protomer B is required for G-protein activation, which indicates that each protomer in a receptor dimer has a discrete function. Given the apparent asymmetrical role of these protomers and the importance of conformational changes in modulating G-protein activation, it will be interesting to determine the effects of heterodimerization on agonist-stimulated signaling. The complementation assay described in this report will be a useful technique for these future studies.

Related articles

GPCR modeling: any good?

A pocket guide to GPCRs

Evolving a better-expressing GPCR

Emily Chenette

References

  1. Y. Han et al. Allosteric communication between protomers of dopamine class A GPCR dimers modulates activation.
    Nature Chem. Biol. (2009). doi:10.1038/nchembio.199

Structural Biology Knowledgebase ISSN: 1758-1338
Funded by a grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health