4.6 Article

Biased Signaling at Chemokine Receptors

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 290, 期 15, 页码 9542-9554

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M114.596098

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique Medicale of Belgium
  2. Actions de Recherche Concertees
  3. Interuniversity Attraction Poles Programme, Belgian State, Belgian Science Policy [P7-14]
  4. Belgian Fonds pour la formation a la Recherche dans l'Industrie et l'Agriculture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) to activate selective signaling pathways according to the conformation stabilized by bound ligands (signaling bias) is a challenging concept in the GPCR field. Signaling bias has been documented for several GPCRs, including chemokine receptors. However, most of these studies examined the global signaling bias between G protein- and arrestin-de pendent pathways, leaving unaddressed the potential bias between particular G protein subtypes. Here, we investigated the coupling selectivity of chemokine receptors CCR2, CCR5, and CCR7 in response to various ligands with G protein subtypes by using bioluminescence resonance energy transfer biosensors monitoring directly the activation of G proteins. We also compared data obtained with the G protein biosensors with those obtained with other functional readouts, such as beta-arrestin-2 recruitment, cAMP accumulation, and calcium mobilization assays. We showed that the binding of chemokines to CCR2, CCR5, and CCR7 activated the three G alpha(i) subtypes (G alpha(i1); G alpha(i2), and G alpha(i3)) and the two G alpha(o) isoforms (G alpha(oa) and G alpha(ob)) with potencies that generally correlate to their binding affinities. In addition, we showed that the binding of chemokines to CCR5 and CCR2 also activated Ga-12, but not Ga-13. For each receptor, we showed that the relative potency of various agonist chemokines was not identical in all assays, supporting the notion that signaling bias exists at chemokine receptors.

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