4.6 Article

A single amino acid determines lysophospholipid specificity of the S1P1 (EDG1) and LPA1 (EDG2) phospholipid growth factor receptors

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 276, Issue 52, Pages 49213-49220

Publisher

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M107301200

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA92160] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL61469] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The phospholipid growth factors sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) and lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) are ligands for the related G protein-coupled receptors S1P(1)/EDG1 and LPA(1)/EDG2, respectively. We have developed a model of LPA(1) that predicts interactions between three polar residues and LPA. One of these, glutamine 125, which is conserved in the LPA receptor subfamily (LPA(1)/EDG2, LPA(2)/EDG4, and LPA(3)/EDG7), hydrogen bonds with the LPA hydroxyl group. Our previous S1P, study identified that the corresponding glutamate residue, conserved in all S1P receptors, ion pairs with the S1P ammonium. These two results predict that this residue might influence ligand recognition and specificity. Characterization of glutamate/glutamine interchange point mutants of S1P(1) and LPA(1) validated this prediction as the presence of glutamate was required for S1P recognition, whereas LPA recognition was possible with either glutamine or glutamate. The most likely explanation for this dual specificity behavior is a shift in the equilibrium between the acid and conjugate base forms of glutamic acid due to other amino acids surrounding that position in LPA(1), producing a mixture of receptors including those having an anionic glutamate that recognize S1P and others with a neutral glutamic acid that recognize LPA. Thus, computational modeling of these receptors provided valid information necessary for understanding the molecular pharmacology of these receptors.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available