Literature DB >> 12356297

The local environment at the cytoplasmic end of TM6 of the mu opioid receptor differs from those of rhodopsin and monoamine receptors: introduction of an ionic lock between the cytoplasmic ends of helices 3 and 6 by a L6.30(275)E mutation inactivates the mu opioid receptor and reduces the constitutive activity of its T6.34(279)K mutant.

Peng Huang1, Irache Visiers, Harel Weinstein, Lee-Yuan Liu-Chen.   

Abstract

Activation of rhodopsin and monoamine G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) has been proposed to involve in part the disruption of a conserved E6.30-R3.50 ionic interaction between transmembrane segments (TMs) 3 and 6. However, this interaction does not occur in the opioid receptors, which have L275 at 6.30. On the basis of our findings that mutations of T6.34(279) to K and D produced, respectively, a constitutively active and an inactive form of the mu opioid receptor, we previously suggested that the functional role of the 6.30(275) residue could be assumed by T6.34(279), but the interplay between residues at positions 6.30 and 6.34 remained unresolved. In this study, we examined the effects of introducing an E in position 6.30(275) of the wild type (WT) and of the T6.34(279) mutants of the mu opioid receptor to compare the participation of the 6.30 locus in molecular events during activation in this receptor with its role in other GPCRs. The L6.30(275)E and the L6.30(275)E/T6.34(279)D mutants displayed no constitutive activity and could not be activated by the agonist DAMGO or morphine. The L6.30(275)E/T6.34(279)K mutant had some constitutive activity, but much less than the T6.34(279)K mutant, and could be activated by both agonists. The rank order of affinity for the agonist DAMGO is as follows: T6.34(279)K > WT congruent with L6.30(275)E/T6.34(279)K > L6.30(275)E congruent with T6.34(279)D > L6.30(275)E/T6.34(279)D; however, all constructs have a similar affinity for the antagonist [(3)H]diprenorphine. These data are interpreted in the context of interactions with the conserved R3.50(165) in TM3. When L6.30(275) is mutated to E, the favorable E6.30(275)-R3.50(165) interaction stabilizes an inactive state, as in rhodopsin, and hence reduces the activities of T6.34(279) mutants. Thus, the mu opioid receptor is shown to be different from rhodopsin and monoamine GPCRs, of which the WTs with native E6.30 can be activated, and the 6.34D or 6.34K mutants display enhanced constitutive activities. Our molecular modeling results suggest that some specific differences in local geometry at the cytoplasmic ends of TM5 and TM6 may account in part for the observed differences in the molecular mechanisms of receptor activation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12356297     DOI: 10.1021/bi026067b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biochemistry        ISSN: 0006-2960            Impact factor:   3.162


  9 in total

1.  Computational study of the heterodimerization between mu and delta receptors.

Authors:  Xin Liu; Ming Kai; Lian Jin; Rui Wang
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2009-02-13       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Differential response to morphine of the oligomeric state of μ-opioid in the presence of δ-opioid receptors.

Authors:  Urszula Golebiewska; Jennifer M Johnston; Lakshmi Devi; Marta Filizola; Suzanne Scarlata
Journal:  Biochemistry       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 3.162

Review 3.  Insights into the function of opioid receptors from molecular dynamics simulations of available crystal structures.

Authors:  Kristen A Marino; Yi Shang; Marta Filizola
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 8.739

4.  Understanding the effects on constitutive activation and drug binding of a D130N mutation in the β2 adrenergic receptor via molecular dynamics simulation.

Authors:  Yanyan Zhu; Yuan Yuan; Xiuchan Xiao; Liyun Zhang; Yanzhi Guo; Xuemei Pu
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2014-10-25       Impact factor: 1.810

5.  The third intracellular loop stabilizes the inactive state of the neuropeptide Y1 receptor.

Authors:  Melissa J S Chee; Karin Mörl; Diana Lindner; Nicole Merten; Gerald W Zamponi; Peter E Light; Annette G Beck-Sickinger; William F Colmers
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2008-09-23       Impact factor: 5.157

6.  Exploring molecular mechanisms of ligand recognition by opioid receptors with metadynamics.

Authors:  Davide Provasi; Andrea Bortolato; Marta Filizola
Journal:  Biochemistry       Date:  2009-10-27       Impact factor: 3.162

Review 7.  Opioid receptors: toward separation of analgesic from undesirable effects.

Authors:  Ping-Yee Law; Patricia H Reggio; Horace H Loh
Journal:  Trends Biochem Sci       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 13.807

8.  Modeling activated states of GPCRs: the rhodopsin template.

Authors:  Masha Y Niv; Lucy Skrabanek; Marta Filizola; Harel Weinstein
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2006-11-11       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 9.  Action of molecular switches in GPCRs--theoretical and experimental studies.

Authors:  B Trzaskowski; D Latek; S Yuan; U Ghoshdastider; A Debinski; S Filipek
Journal:  Curr Med Chem       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 4.530

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.