Search

The alpha(2C)-adrenergic receptor (alpha(2C)AR) is known to be poorly trafficked to the cell surface when expressed in a variety of cell types. We tested the hypothesis that the surface expression and signaling of alpha(2C)AR might be enhanced by heterodimerization with other G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Cotransfection of alpha(2C)AR with more than 25 related GPCRs revealed that only coexpression with the beta(2)-adrenergic receptor (beta(2)AR) increased the surface localization of alpha(2C)AR in human embryonic kidney-293 cells. Coimmunoprecipitation of alpha(2C)AR with beta(2)AR confirmed a physical interaction between the two receptors. Confocal microscopy studies demonstrated that alpha(2C)AR expressed alone was mainly intracellular, whereas alpha(2C)AR coexpressed with beta(2)AR was predominantly localized to the plasma membrane. Ligand binding studies revealed a significant increase in alpha(2C)AR binding sites upon coexpression with beta(2)AR, with no apparent change in affinity for alpha(2)AR ligands. Functional assays with the alpha(2)AR-specific agonist brimonidine (UK 14,304) revealed that coexpression of beta(2)AR with alpha(2C)AR enhanced alpha(2C)AR-mediated activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2. Furthermore, analyses of agonist-promoted receptor endocytosis demonstrated enhanced alpha(2C)AR internalization in response to alpha(2)AR agonists when alpha(2C)AR and beta(2)AR were coexpressed. In addition, substantial cointernalization of alpha(2C)AR in response to betaAR agonists was observed when alpha(2C)AR was coexpressed with beta(2)AR. These data reveal that alpha(2C)AR can interact with beta(2)AR in cells in a manner that regulates alpha(2C)AR surface expression, internalization, and functionality.

Heterologous expression of alpha(1D)-adrenergic receptors (alpha(1D)-ARs) in most cell types results in intracellular retention and little or no functionality. We showed previously that heterodimerization with alpha(1B)-ARs promotes surface localization of alpha(1D)-ARs. Here, we report that the alpha(1B)-/alpha(1D)-AR interaction has significant effects on the pharmacology and signaling of the receptors, in addition to the effects on trafficking described previously. Upon coexpression of alpha(1B)-ARs and epitope-tagged alpha(1D)-ARs in both human embryonic kidney 293 and DDT(1)MF-2 cells, alpha(1D)-AR binding sites were not detectable with the alpha(1D)-AR selective antagonist 8-[2-(4-(2-methoxyphenyl)piperazin-1-yl)ethyl]-8-azaspiro[4,5]decane-7,9-dione (BMY 7378), despite the ability to detect alpha(1D)-AR protein using confocal microscopy, immunoprecipitation, and a luminometer cell-surface assay. However, the alpha(1B)-AR-selective mutant F18A conotoxin showed a striking biphasic inhibition in alpha(1B)/alpha(1D)-AR-expressing cells, revealing that alpha(1D)-ARs were expressed but did not bind BMY 7378 with high affinity. Studies of norepinephrine-stimulated inositol phosphate formation showed that maximal responses were greatest in alpha(1B)/alpha(1D)-AR-coexpressing cells. Stable coexpression of an uncoupled mutant alpha(1B)-AR (Delta12) with alpha(1D)-ARs resulted in increased responses to norepinephrine. However, Schild plots for inhibition of norepinephrine-stimulated inositol phosphate formation showed a single low-affinity site for BMY 7378. Thus, our findings suggest that alpha(1B)/alpha(1D)-AR heterodimers form a single functional entity with enhanced functional activity relative to either subtype alone and a novel pharmacological profile. These data may help to explain why alpha(1D)-ARs are often pharmacologically undetectable in native tissues when they are coexpressed with alpha(1B)-ARs.

The alpha-1 adrenergic receptors (alpha(1)ARs) play important roles in normal physiology and in many disease states, and understanding their signaling pathways and regulatory mechanisms is thus of considerable relevance, in particular for identifying pharmacological targets for therapeutic modulation. The expression, function, localization, trafficking, and stability of these receptors are all subject to complex regulation by diverse molecular mechanisms. This article highlights recent studies from our laboratory and others focused on the localization and trafficking of the alpha-1B adrenergic receptor (alpha(1B)AR) subtype and on changes in its stability that are likely to be involved in regulating receptor expression. The role(s) of protein kinase C in alpha(1B)AR sequestration, endocytosis, and extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) activation are summarized, and evidence for alpha(1B)AR localization in caveolae/rafts is presented. Receptor structural domains involved in the multiple steps and mechanisms of agonist-induced desensitization are described. Finally, aspects of alpha(1B)AR structural stability that appear to control its drug-induced up- and down-regulation are discussed. Our understanding of regulation for the alpha(1B)AR subtype provides a model for studies of the differential regulation of the other alpha(1)AR subtypes and may lead to identification of new molecular targets for therapeutic intervention in a variety of disease states.

The biochemical basis for the unexpected agonist-induced up-regulation of the number of radioligand binding sites for two mutated alpha1B-adrenergic receptors reported previously was investigated. Up-regulation was independent of the expression vector used and was not prevented by cycloheximide or actinomycin D, eliminating several potential transcriptional mechanisms and new receptor protein synthesis. Antagonists were also able to induce up-regulation, suggesting that ligand occupancy without signal generation was sufficient to induce the increase in binding sites. Accordingly, we hypothesized that up-regulation results from ligand-induced protection from inherent instability of these mutated receptors. Studies with receptors in isolated membranes revealed that the two mutated receptors that exhibited up-regulation in intact cells also exhibited an inherent instability of their ligand binding capacity, and binding of either agonists or antagonists to these receptors could protect against the loss of binding. In contrast, the wild-type receptor and other mutated receptors that did not exhibit up-regulation in intact cells did not exhibit instability or ligand-induced protection in isolated membranes. The occurrence of instability and protection in isolated membranes for only those mutated receptors and ligands that exhibit up-regulation in intact cells provides compelling evidence that the apparent up-regulation of binding sites in intact cells results from ligand-induced protection from an inherent instability of these G protein coupling-defective receptors. Inclusion of protease inhibitors markedly reduced the loss of binding in isolated membranes, implicating membrane-localized proteolysis as the likely mechanism for the instability.