4.8 Article

Ligands and signaling proteins govern the conformational landscape explored by a G protein-coupled receptor

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1119881109

关键词

membrane protein; structural repertoire; biased ligands; constitutive activity

资金

  1. University of Montpellier 1
  2. University of Montpellier 2
  3. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
  4. Agence Nationale pour la Recherche [PCV08_323163]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The dynamic character of G protein-coupled receptors is essential to their function. However, the details of how ligands stabilize a particular conformation to selectively activate a signaling pathway and how signaling proteins affect this conformational repertoire remain unclear. Using a prototypical peptide-activated class A G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR), the ghrelin receptor, reconstituted as a monomer into lipid discs and labeled with a fluorescent conformational reporter, we demonstrate that ligand efficacy and functional selectivity are directly related to different receptor conformations. Of importance, our data bring direct evidence that distinct effector proteins affect the conformational landscape of the ghrelin receptor in different ways. Whereas G proteins affect the balance between active and inactive receptor substates in favor of the active state, agonist-induced arrestin recruitment is accompanied by a marked change in the structural features of the receptor that adopt a conformation different from that observed in the absence of arrestin. In contrast to G proteins and arrestins, mu-AP2 has no significant effect on the organization of the transmembrane core of the receptor. Such a modulation of a GPCR conformational landscape by pharmacologically distinct ligands and effectors provides insights into the structural bases that decisively affect ligand efficacy and subsequent biological responses. This is also likely to have major implications for the design of drugs activating specific GPCR-associated signaling pathways.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据