3.9 Article

The N-terminal juxtamembrane segment of the V1a vasopressin receptor provides two independent epitopes required for high-affinity agonist binding and signaling

Journal

MOLECULAR ENDOCRINOLOGY
Volume 19, Issue 11, Pages 2871-2881

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1210/me.2005-0148

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is fundamentally important to define how agonist-receptor interaction differs from antagonist-receptor interaction. The V-1a vasopressin receptor (V1aR) is a member of the neurohypophysial hormone subfamily of G protein-coupled receptors. Using alanine-scanning mutagenesis of the N-terminal juxtamembrane segment of the V1aR, we now establish that Glu(54) (1.35) is critical for arginine vasopressin binding. The mutant [E54A] V1aR exhibited decreased arginine vasopressin affinity (1700-fold) and disrupted signaling, but antagonist binding was unaffected. Mutation of Glu(54) had an almost identical pharmacological effect as mutation of Arg(46), raising the possibility that agonist binding required a mutual interaction between Glu(54) and Arg(46). The role of these two charged residues was investigated by 1) substituting Glu(54); 2) inserting additional Glu/Arg in transmembrane helix (TM) 1; 3) repositioning the Glu/Arg in TM1; and 4) characterizing the reciprocal mutant [R46E/E54R] V1aR. We conclude that 1) the positive/negative charges need to be precisely positioned in this N terminus/TM1 segment; and 2) Glu(54) and Arg(46) function independently, providing two discrete epitopes required for high-affinity agonist binding and signaling. This study explains why Glu and Arg, part of an -R(X-3)L/V(X-3)E(X-3)L- motif, are conserved at these loci throughout this G protein-coupled receptor subfamily and provides molecular insight into key differences between agonist and antagonist binding requirements.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available