Search

INTRODUCTIONTransmembrane signaling of heterotrimeric guanine nucleotide–binding protein (G protein)–coupled receptors (GPCRs) is mediated by ligand-dependent conformational changes that are transmitted from the extracellular ligand binding site to the intracellular side of the receptor to allow coupling with transducers. One hallmark of GPCR activation is the outward movement of the cytoplasmic end of transmembrane domain 6 (TM6) that opens up an intracellular cavity to accommodate the Gα subunit, leading to nucleotide exchange and activation of the G protein. Comparison of family A and family B receptor-Gs protein complex structures has revealed substantial differences in the conformational changes of TM6 upon activation. In family B GPCRs, TM6 shows a disruption of the helical fold and the formation of a sharp kink. This differs from the gradual bending in TM6 observed in family A GPCRs.RATIONALEDespite the recent surge of determined GPCR–G protein complex structures, the activation mechanism of family B receptors remains poorly understood. The missing conserved structural motifs found in family A GPCRs together with the marked differences in the conformation of TM6 in the active state suggest distinct activation mechanisms between family B and family A GPCRs. In particular, the disruption of the helical fold and the unraveling of the extracellular end of TM6 suggest that the energy required to produce the fully active-state of family B GPCRs is higher than for family A GPCRs. We investigated the functional impact of these structural differences by comparing the structure and function of a prototypical family B receptor, the glucagon receptor (GCGR), with the β2 adrenergic receptor (β2AR), a family A GPCR.RESULTSWe present the cryo–electron microscopy structure of the GCGR-Gs complex bound to an engineered soluble glucagon derivative. The structure shows that full activation of GCGR leads to a disruption in the α-helix of TM6 typical for family B GPCRs. Analysis of the functional consequence of this helix break on receptor-mediated G protein dissociation and guanosine triphosphate (GTP) turnover reveals that GCGR exhibits a substantially lower guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) activity in comparison with the family A receptor β2AR. Characterization of G protein association, guanosine diphosphate (GDP) release, and GTP binding kinetics shows that the receptor-mediated GDP dissociation and GTP binding of Gs are slower for GCGR than for β2AR. Measurements of ligand-dependent conformational alterations of GCGR by means of fluorescence and double electron-electron resonance spectroscopy show that agonist binding alone is insufficient to promote TM6 opening, in contrast to previously studied family A GPCRs, including β2AR. The outward movement of TM6 of GCGR is only observed upon interaction with Gs, suggesting that TM6 activation is only triggered by the engagement of the α5 helix of Gαs. Furthermore, TM6 of GCGR remains in the active state for a prolonged time after disengagement of Gs, which might contribute to the persistent and sustained cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) signaling previously observed for this receptor. A comprehensive comparison of the G protein activation kinetics for a number of other family A and family B GPCRs shows that family B receptors are in general less efficient than family A GPCRs in triggering G protein signaling.CONCLUSIONOur findings provide evidence for distinct activation mechanisms between family A and family B GPCRs. We propose that formation of the helix break and the sharp kink in TM6 of GCGR requires overcoming a higher energy barrier than the bending and outward movement of TM6 in family A receptors. Because of this kinetic barrier, ligand binding alone is not sufficient to stabilize the outward movement of TM6 but promotes the initial formation of the receptor–G protein complex and subsequent full engagement of the G protein at a slower time scale. Once activated by the insertion of the α5 helix of Gαs into the receptor core, as seen in the nucleotide-free complex structure, TM6 stays in the active conformation long after full disengagement of the G protein. This may be responsible for the previously described sustained and prolonged signaling of GCGR. Our comprehensive comparison of the G protein activation kinetics of family A and family B receptors suggests that the activation mechanism described for GCGR is generalizable to other family B GPCRs.

Metabotropic glutamate receptors are family C G-protein-coupled receptors. They form obligate dimers and possess extracellular ligand-binding Venus flytrap domains, which are linked by cysteine-rich domains to their 7-transmembrane domains. Spectroscopic studies show that signalling is a dynamic process, in which large-scale conformational changes underlie the transmission of signals from the extracellular Venus flytraps to the G protein-coupling domains-the 7-transmembrane domains-in the membrane. Here, using a combination of X-ray crystallography, cryo-electron microscopy and signalling studies, we present a structural framework for the activation mechanism of metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 5. Our results show that agonist binding at the Venus flytraps leads to a compaction of the intersubunit dimer interface, thereby bringing the cysteine-rich domains into close proximity. Interactions between the cysteine-rich domains and the second extracellular loops of the receptor enable the rigid-body repositioning of the 7-transmembrane domains, which come into contact with each other to initiate signalling.

Stimulation of the metabotropic GABAB receptor by γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) results in prolonged inhibition of neurotransmission, which is central to brain physiology1. GABAB belongs to family C of the G-protein-coupled receptors, which operate as dimers to transform synaptic neurotransmitter signals into a cellular response through the binding and activation of heterotrimeric G proteins2,3. However, GABAB is unique in its function as an obligate heterodimer in which agonist binding and G-protein activation take place on distinct subunits4,5. Here we present cryo-electron microscopy structures of heterodimeric and homodimeric full-length GABAB receptors. Complemented by cellular signalling assays and atomistic simulations, these structures reveal that extracellular loop 2 (ECL2) of GABAB has an essential role in relaying structural transitions by ordering the linker that connects the extracellular ligand-binding domain to the transmembrane region. Furthermore, the ECL2 of each of the subunits of GABAB caps and interacts with the hydrophilic head of a phospholipid that occupies the extracellular half of the transmembrane domain, thereby providing a potentially crucial link between ligand binding and the receptor core that engages G proteins. These results provide a starting framework through which to decipher the mechanistic modes of signal transduction mediated by GABAB dimers, and have important implications for rational drug design that targets these receptors. Cryo-electron microscopy structures of heterodimeric and homodimeric full-length GABAB receptors, combined with cellular signalling assays, shed light on the mechanisms that underpin signal transduction mediated by these receptors.

Heterotrimeric G proteins are essential mediators of intracellular signaling of G protein–coupled receptors. The G(q/11) subfamily consists of G(q), G(11), G(14), and G(16) proteins, of which all but G(16) are inhibited by the structurally related natural products YM-254890 and FR900359. These inhibitors act by preventing the GDP/GTP exchange, which is necessary for activation of all G proteins. A homologous putative binding site for YM-254890/FR900359 can also be found in members of the other three G protein families, G(s), G(i/o), and G(12/13), but none of the published analogs of YM-254890/FR900359 have shown any inhibitory activity for any of these. To explain why the YM-254890/FR900359 scaffold only inhibits G(q/11/14), the present study delineated the molecular selectivity determinants by exchanging amino acid residues in the YM-254890/FR900359–binding site in G(q) and G(s). We found that the activity of a G(s) mutant with a G(q)-like binding site for YM-254890/FR900359 can be inhibited by FR900359, and a minimum of three mutations are necessary to introduce inhibition in G(s). In all, this suggests that although the YM-254890/FR900359 scaffold has proven unsuccessful to derive G(s), G(i/o), and G(12/13) inhibitors, the mechanism of inhibition between families of G proteins is conserved, opening up the possibility of targeting by other, novel inhibitor scaffolds. In lack of a selective Gα(s) inhibitor, FR900359-sensitive Gα(s) mutants may prove useful in studies where delicate control over Gα(s) signaling would be of the essence.

International audience; G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) play an important role in many cellular responses; as such, their mechanism of action is of utmost interest. To gain insight into the active conformation of GPCRs, the X-ray crystal structures of nanobody (Nb)-stabilized β2 -adrenergic receptor (β2 AR) have been reported. Nb80, in particular, is able to bind the intracellular G protein binding site of β2 AR and stabilize the receptor in an active conformation. Within Nb80, the complementarity-determining region 3 (CDR3) is responsible for most of the binding interactions. Hence, we hypothesized that peptidomimetics of the CDR3 loop might be sufficient for binding to the receptor, inhibiting the interaction of β2 AR with intracellular GPCR interacting proteins (e.g., G proteins). Based on previous crystallographic data, a set of peptidomimetics were synthesized that, similar to the Nb80 CDR3 loop, adopt a β-hairpin conformation. Syntheses, conformational analysis, binding and functional in vitro assays, as well as internalization experiments, were performed. We demonstrate that peptidomimetics can structurally mimic the CDR3 loop of a nanobody and its function by inhibiting G protein coupling as measured by partial inhibition of cAMP production.

The surname of author Toon Laeremans was misspelled ‘Laermans’. This error has been corrected online.