4.6 Article

Adenosine A2A-dopamine D2 receptor-receptor heteromerization -: Qualitative and quantitative assessment by fluorescence and bioluminescence energy transfer

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 278, 期 47, 页码 46741-46749

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M306451200

关键词

-

资金

  1. Telethon [TCP00068] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is evidence for strong functional antagonistic interactions between adenosine A(2A) receptors (A(2A)Rs) and dopamine D-2 receptors (D(2)Rs). Although a close physical interaction between both receptors has recently been shown using co-immunoprecipitation and co-localization assays, the existence of a A(2A)R-D2R protein-protein interaction still had to be demonstrated in intact living cells. In the present work, fluorescence resonance energy transfer ( FRET) and bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) techniques were used to confirm the occurrence of A(2A)R-D2R interactions in cotransfected cells. The degree of A(2A)R-D2R heteromerization, measured by BRET, did not vary after receptor activation with selective agonists, alone or in combination. BRET competition experiments were performed using a chimeric D2R-D1R in which helices 5 and 6, the third intracellular loop (I3), and the third extracellular loop (E3) of the D2R were replaced by those of the dopamine D-1 receptor (D1R). Although the wild type D2R was able to decrease the BRET signal, the chimera failed to achieve any effect. This suggests that the helix 5-I3-helix 6-E3 portion of D2R holds the site(s) for interaction with A(2A)R. Modeling of A(2A)R and D2R using a modified rhodopsin template followed by molecular dynamics and docking simulations gave essentially two different possible modes of interaction between D2R and A(2A)R. In the most probable one, helix 5 and/or helix 6 and the N-terminal portion of I3 from D2R approached helix 4 and the C-terminal portion of the C-tail from the A(2A)R, respectively.

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

4.6
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