Understanding the structural and functional differences between mouse thyrotropin-releasing hormone receptors 1 and 2

Laboratory of Biological Modeling, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive, and Kidney Diseases, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-5646, USA.
Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics (Impact Factor: 2.92). 05/2008; 71(2):783-94. DOI: 10.1002/prot.21763
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Multiple computational methods have been employed in a comparative study of thyrotropin-releasing hormone receptors 1 and 2 (TRH-R1 and TRH-R2) to explore the structural bases for the different functional properties of these G protein-coupled receptors. Three-dimensional models of both murine TRH receptors have been built and optimized by means of homology modeling based on the crystal structure of bovine rhodopsin, molecular dynamics simulations, and energy minimizations in a membrane-aqueous environment. The comparison between the two models showed a correlation between the higher flexibility and higher basal activity of TRH-R2 versus the lesser flexibility and lower basal activity of TRH-R1 and supported the involvement of the highly conserved W6.48 in the signaling process. A correlation between the level of basal activity and conformational changes of TM5 was detected also. Comparison between models of the wild type receptors and their W6.48A mutants, which have reversed basal activities compared with their respective wild types, further supported these correlations. A flexible molecular docking procedure revealed that TRH establishes a direct interaction with W6.48 in TRH-R2 but not in TRH-R1. We designed and performed new mutagenesis experiments that strongly supported these observations.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) receptor signals via G(s) to produce cAMP and via G(q/11) to produce inositol-1,4,5-trisphosphate, which is degraded to inositol monophosphate (IP1; phosphoinositide signaling). The potency of TSH for cAMP signaling is higher than for phosphoinositide signaling, and it was suggested that there are "spare receptors" for cAMP signaling. In a human embryonic kidney macrophage scavenger receptor-expressing (HEK-EM) 293 model system, there are no spare receptors, but the cells still exhibited 100-fold differences in potencies. Dose responses for TSH-stimulated dissociation of prebound (125)I-TSH (negative cooperativity; EC(50)=70 mU/ml), which requires TSH binding to both sites of the TSH receptor (TSHR) homodimer, and TSH-stimulated IP1 production (EC(50)=50 mU/ml) were indistinguishable. Fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) using tagged receptors showed that TSHR formed homodimers and heterodimers with two binding-deficient mutant TSHRs, L252P and C41S. When L252P or C41S was expressed with TSHR, that is, when TSHR/L252P or TSHR/C41S heterodimers could only bind one TSH, TSH-stimulated IP1 production was decreased relative to cAMP production. The slopes of linear regression analyses comparing fold stimulation by TSH of IP1 vs. cAMP production were 0.044 ± 0.0047, 0.0043 ± 0.0041, and 0.0059 ± 0.0014 for cells expressing TSHR alone, TSHR and L252P, or TSHR and C41S, respectively. We suggest that TSHR coupling to phosphoinositide signaling is dependent on binding 2 molecules of TSH to TSHR homodimer, causing a conformational change allowing coupling to G(q/11).
    The FASEB Journal 06/2011; 25(10):3687-94. DOI:10.1096/fj.11-188961 · 5.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The thyrotropin or thyroid stimulating hormone receptor (TSHR) is a member of the glycoprotein hormone receptors (GPHRs), a sub-family of family A G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs). The TSHR is of great importance for the growth and function of the thyroid gland. The TSHR and its endogenous ligand TSH are pivotal proteins with respect to a variety of physiological functions and malfunctions. The molecular events of TSHR regulation can be summarized as a process of signal transduction, including signal reception, conversion and amplification. The steps during signal transduction from the extra- to the intracellular sites of the cell are not yet comprehensively understood. However, essential new insights have been achieved in recent years on the interrelated mechanisms at the extracellular region, the transmembrane domain and intracellular components. This review contains a critical summary of available knowledge of the molecular mechanisms of signal transduction at the TSHR, for example, the key amino acids involved in hormone binding or in the structural conformational changes that lead to G-protein activation or signaling regulation. Aspects of TSHR oligomerization, signaling promiscuity, signaling selectivity, phenotypes of genetic variations and potential extra-thyroidal receptor activity are also considered, as these are relevant to an understanding of the overall function of the TSHR, including physiological, pathophysiological and pharmacological perspectives. Directions for future research are discussed.
    Endocrine reviews 05/2013; 34(5). DOI:10.1210/er.2012-1072 · 19.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are a superfamily of membrane proteins of vast pharmaceutical interest. Here, we describe a graph theory-based analysis of the structure of the β2 adrenergic receptor (β2 AR), a prototypical GPCR. In particular, we illustrate the network of direct and indirect interactions that link each amino acid residue to any other residue of the receptor. Networks of interconnected amino acid residues in proteins are analogous to social networks of interconnected people. Hence, they can be studied through the same analysis tools typically employed to analyze social networks - or networks in general - to reveal patterns of connectivity, influential members, and dynamicity. We focused on the analysis of closeness-centrality, which is a measure of the overall connectivity distance of the member of a network to all other members. The residues endowed with the highest closeness-centrality are located in the middle of the seven transmembrane domains (TMs). In particular, they are mostly located in the middle of TM2, TM3, TM6 or TM7, while fewer of them are located in the middle of TM1, TM4 or TM5. At the cytosolic end of TM6, the centrality detected for the active structure is markedly lower than that detected for the corresponding residues in the inactive structures. Moreover, several residues acquire centrality when the structures are analyzed in the presence of ligands. Strikingly, there is little overlap between the residues that acquire centrality in the presence of the ligand in the blocker-bound structures and the agonist-bound structures. Our results reflect the fact that the receptor resembles a bow tie, with a rather tight knot of closely interconnected residues and two ends that fan out in two opposite directions: one toward the extracellular space, which hosts the ligand binding cavity, and one toward the cytosol, which hosts the G protein binding cavity. Moreover, they underscore how interaction network is by the conformational rearrangements concomitant with the activation of the receptor and by the presence of agonists or blockers.