BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Thermostabilization by mutagenesis is one method which has facilitated the determination of high-resolution structures of the adenosine A2A receptor (A(2A)R). Sets of mutations were identified, which both thermostabilized the receptor and resulted in preferential agonist (Rag23 mutant) or antagonist (Rant5 and Rant21) binding forms as assessed by radioligand binding analysis. While the ligand-binding profiles of these mutants are known, the effects these mutations have on receptor activation and downstream signalling are less well characterized. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Here we have investigated the effects of the thermostabilizing mutations on receptor activation using a yeast cell growth assay. The assay employs an engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae, MMY24, which couples receptor activation to cell growth. KEY RESULTS: Analysis of the receptor activation profile revealed that the wild-type (WT) A(2A)R had considerable constitutive activity. In contrast, the Rag23, Rant5 and Rant21 thermostabilized mutants all exhibited no constitutive activity. While the preferentially antagonist-binding mutants Rant5 and Rant21 showed a complete lack of agonist-induced activity, the Rag23 mutant showed high levels of agonist-induced receptor activity. Further analysis using a mutant intermediate between Rag23 and WT indicated that the loss of constitutive activity observed in the agonist responsive mutants was not due to reduced G-protein coupling. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The loss of constitutive activity may be an important feature of these thermostabilized GPCRs. In addition, the constitutively active and agonist-induced active conformations of the A(2A)R are distinct.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Thermostabilization by mutagenesis is one method which has facilitated the determination of high-resolution structures of the adenosine A2A receptor (A(2A)R). Sets of mutations were identified, which both thermostabilized the receptor and resulted in preferential agonist (Rag23 mutant) or antagonist (Rant5 and Rant21) binding forms as assessed by radioligand binding analysis. While the ligand-binding profiles of these mutants are known, the effects these mutations have on receptor activation and downstream signalling are less well characterized. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Here we have investigated the effects of the thermostabilizing mutations on receptor activation using a yeast cell growth assay. The assay employs an engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae, MMY24, which couples receptor activation to cell growth. KEY RESULTS: Analysis of the receptor activation profile revealed that the wild-type (WT) A(2A)R had considerable constitutive activity. In contrast, the Rag23, Rant5 and Rant21 thermostabilized mutants all exhibited no constitutive activity. While the preferentially antagonist-binding mutants Rant5 and Rant21 showed a complete lack of agonist-induced activity, the Rag23 mutant showed high levels of agonist-induced receptor activity. Further analysis using a mutant intermediate between Rag23 and WT indicated that the loss of constitutive activity observed in the agonist responsive mutants was not due to reduced G-protein coupling. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The loss of constitutive activity may be an important feature of these thermostabilized GPCRs. In addition, the constitutively active and agonist-induced active conformations of the A(2A)R are distinct.
Authors: Veli-Pekka Jaakola; Mark T Griffith; Michael A Hanson; Vadim Cherezov; Ellen Y T Chien; J Robert Lane; Adriaan P Ijzerman; Raymond C Stevens Journal: Science Date: 2008-10-02 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Maria J Serrano-Vega; Francesca Magnani; Yoko Shibata; Christopher G Tate Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-01-11 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Sébastien Granier; Aashish Manglik; Andrew C Kruse; Tong Sun Kobilka; Foon Sun Thian; William I Weis; Brian K Kobilka Journal: Nature Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Guillaume Lebon; Tony Warne; Patricia C Edwards; Kirstie Bennett; Christopher J Langmead; Andrew G W Leslie; Christopher G Tate Journal: Nature Date: 2011-05-18 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Kirsten S Koretz; Claire E McGraw; Steven Stradley; Ahmed Elbaradei; Noah Malmstadt; Anne S Robinson Journal: Biophys J Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Cathryn Weston; Jing Lu; Naichang Li; Kerry Barkan; Gareth O Richards; David J Roberts; Timothy M Skerry; David Poyner; Meenakshi Pardamwar; Christopher A Reynolds; Simon J Dowell; Gary B Willars; Graham Ladds Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Lindsay D Clark; Igor Dikiy; Karen Chapman; Karin Ej Rödström; James Aramini; Michael V LeVine; George Khelashvili; Søren Gf Rasmussen; Kevin H Gardner; Daniel M Rosenbaum Journal: Elife Date: 2017-10-06 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Sarah J Routledge; Mohammed Jamshad; Haydn A Little; Yu-Pin Lin; John Simms; Alpesh Thakker; Corinne M Spickett; Roslyn M Bill; Tim R Dafforn; David R Poyner; Mark Wheatley Journal: Biochim Biophys Acta Biomembr Date: 2020-02-29 Impact factor: 3.747
Authors: Andrew J Brown; Christina Tsoulou; Emma Ward; Elaine Gower; Nisha Bhudia; Forhad Chowdhury; Tony W Dean; Nicolas Faucher; Akanksha Gangar; Simon J Dowell Journal: Pharmacol Res Perspect Date: 2015-05-08