Computational Modeling for the Activation Cycle of G-proteins by G-protein-coupled Receptors

In this paper, we survey five different computational modeling methods. For comparison, we use the activation cycle of G-proteins that regulate cellular signaling events downstream of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) as a driving example. Starting from an existing Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs) model, we implement the G-protein cycle in the stochastic Pi-calculus using SPiM, as Petri-nets using Cell Illustrator, in the Kappa Language using Cellucidate, and in Bio-PEPA using the Bio-PEPA eclipse plug in. We also provide a high-level notation to abstract away from communication primitives that may be unfamiliar to the average biologist, and we show how to translate high-level programs into stochastic Pi-calculus processes and chemical reactions.Comment: In Proceedings MeCBIC 2010, arXiv:1011.005

Both Ligand- and Cell-Specific Parameters Control Ligand Agonism in a Kinetic Model of G Protein–Coupled Receptor Signaling

G protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs) exist in multiple dynamic states (e.g., ligand-bound, inactive, G protein–coupled) that influence G protein activation and ultimately response generation. In quantitative models of GPCR signaling that incorporate these varied states, parameter values are often uncharacterized or varied over large ranges, making identification of important parameters and signaling outcomes difficult to intuit. Here we identify the ligand- and cell-specific parameters that are important determinants of cell-response behavior in a dynamic model of GPCR signaling using parameter variation and sensitivity analysis. The character of response (i.e., positive/neutral/inverse agonism) is, not surprisingly, significantly influenced by a ligand's ability to bias the receptor into an active conformation. We also find that several cell-specific parameters, including the ratio of active to inactive receptor species, the rate constant for G protein activation, and expression levels of receptors and G proteins also dramatically influence agonism. Expressing either receptor or G protein in numbers several fold above or below endogenous levels may result in system behavior inconsistent with that measured in endogenous systems. Finally, small variations in cell-specific parameters identified by sensitivity analysis as significant determinants of response behavior are found to change ligand-induced responses from positive to negative, a phenomenon termed protean agonism. Our findings offer an explanation for protean agonism reported in β2-adrenergic and α2A-adrenergic receptor systems

Dual positive and negative regulation of GPCR signaling by GTP hydrolysis

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) regulate a variety of intracellular pathways through their ability to promote the binding of GTP to heterotrimeric G proteins. Regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins increase the intrinsic GTPase activity of G-subunits and are widely regarded as negative regulators of G protein signaling. Using yeast we demonstrate that GTP hydrolysis is not only required for desensitization, but is essential for achieving a high maximal (saturated level) response. Thus RGS-mediated GTP hydrolysis acts as both a negative (low stimulation) and positive (high stimulation) regulator of signaling. To account for this we generated a new kinetic model of the G protein cycle where GGTP enters an inactive GTP-bound state following effector activation. Furthermore, in vivo and in silico experimentation demonstrates that maximum signaling output first increases and then decreases with RGS concentration. This unimodal, non-monotone dependence on RGS concentration is novel. Analysis of the kinetic model has revealed a dynamic network motif that shows precisely how inclusion of the inactive GTP-bound state for the G produces this unimodal relationship

Advocating the need of a systems biology approach for personalised prognosis and treatment of B-CLL patients

The clinical course of B-CLL is heterogeneous. This heterogeneity leads to a clinical dilemma: can we identify those patients who will benefit from early treatment and predict the survival? In recent years, mathematical modelling has contributed significantly in understanding the complexity of diseases. In order to build a mathematical model for determining prognosis of B-CLL one has to identify, characterise and quantify key molecules involved in the disease. Here we discuss the need and role of mathematical modelling in predicting B-CLL disease pathogenesis and suggest a new systems biology approach for a personalised therapy of B-CLL patients

Crystal structure of rhodopsin bound to arrestin by femtosecond X-ray laser.

G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) signal primarily through G proteins or arrestins. Arrestin binding to GPCRs blocks G protein interaction and redirects signalling to numerous G-protein-independent pathways. Here we report the crystal structure of a constitutively active form of human rhodopsin bound to a pre-activated form of the mouse visual arrestin, determined by serial femtosecond X-ray laser crystallography. Together with extensive biochemical and mutagenesis data, the structure reveals an overall architecture of the rhodopsin-arrestin assembly in which rhodopsin uses distinct structural elements, including transmembrane helix 7 and helix 8, to recruit arrestin. Correspondingly, arrestin adopts the pre-activated conformation, with a ∼20° rotation between the amino and carboxy domains, which opens up a cleft in arrestin to accommodate a short helix formed by the second intracellular loop of rhodopsin. This structure provides a basis for understanding GPCR-mediated arrestin-biased signalling and demonstrates the power of X-ray lasers for advancing the frontiers of structural biology

Structure and functional motifs of GCR1, the only plant protein with a GPCR fold?

Whether GPCRs exist in plants is a fundamental biological question. Interest in deorphanizing new G protein coupled receptors (GPCRs), arises because of their importance in signaling. Within plants, this is controversial as genome analysis has identified 56 putative GPCRs, including GCR1 which is reportedly a remote homologue to class A, B and E GPCRs. Of these, GCR2, is not a GPCR; more recently it has been proposed that none are, not even GCR1. We have addressed this disparity between genome analysis and biological evidence through a structural bioinformatics study, involving fold recognition methods, from which only GCR1 emerges as a strong candidate. To further probe GCR1, we have developed a novel helix alignment method, which has been benchmarked against the the class A – class B - class F GPCR alignments. In addition, we have presented a mutually consistent set of alignments of GCR1 homologues to class A, class B and class F GPCRs, and shown that GCR1 is closer to class A and /or class B GPCRs than class A, class B or class F GPCRs are to each other. To further probe GCR1, we have aligned transmembrane helix 3 of GCR1 to each of the 6 GPCR classes. Variability comparisons provide additional evidence that GCR1 homologues have the GPCR fold. From the alignments and a GCR1 comparative model we have identified motifs that are common to GCR1, class A, B and E GPCRs. We discuss the possibilities that emerge from this controversial evidence that GCR1 has a GPCR fol

A predictive computational model reveals that GIV/girdin serves as a tunable valve for EGFR-stimulated cyclic AMP signals.

Cellular levels of the versatile second messenger cyclic (c)AMP are regulated by the antagonistic actions of the canonical G protein → adenylyl cyclase pathway that is initiated by G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) and attenuated by phosphodiesterases (PDEs). Dysregulated cAMP signaling drives many diseases; for example, its low levels facilitate numerous sinister properties of cancer cells. Recently, an alternative paradigm for cAMP signaling has emerged in which growth factor-receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs; e.g., EGFR) access and modulate G proteins via a cytosolic guanine-nucleotide exchange modulator (GEM), GIV/girdin; dysregulation of this pathway is frequently encountered in cancers. In this study, we present a network-based compartmental model for the paradigm of GEM-facilitated cross-talk between RTKs and G proteins and how that impacts cellular cAMP. Our model predicts that cross-talk between GIV, Gαs, and Gαi proteins dampens ligand-stimulated cAMP dynamics. This prediction was experimentally verified by measuring cAMP levels in cells under different conditions. We further predict that the direct proportionality of cAMP concentration as a function of receptor number and the inverse proportionality of cAMP concentration as a function of PDE concentration are both altered by GIV levels. Taking these results together, our model reveals that GIV acts as a tunable control valve that regulates cAMP flux after growth factor stimulation. For a given stimulus, when GIV levels are high, cAMP levels are low, and vice versa. In doing so, GIV modulates cAMP via mechanisms distinct from the two most often targeted classes of cAMP modulators, GPCRs and PDEs

When kinases meet mathematics: the systems biology of MAPK signalling

The mitogen activated protein kinase/extracellular signal regulated kinase pathway regulates fundamental cellular function such as cell proliferation, survival, differentiation and motility, raising the question how these diverse functions are specified and coordinated. They are encoded through the activation kinetics of the pathway, a multitude of feedback loops, scaffold proteins, subcellular compartmentalisation, and crosstalk with other pathways. These regulatory motifs alone or in combination can generate a multitude of complex behaviour. Systems biology tries to decode this complexity through mathematical modelling and prediction in order to gain a deeper insight into the inner works of signalling networks

Approximations and their consequences for dynamic modelling of signal transduction pathways

Signal transduction is the process by which the cell converts one kind of signal or stimulus into another. This involves a sequence of biochemical reactions, carried out by proteins. The dynamic response of complex cell signalling networks can be modelled and simulated in the framework of chemical kinetics. The mathematical formulation of chemical kinetics results in a system of coupled differential equations. Simplifications can arise through assumptions and approximations. The paper provides a critical discussion of frequently employed approximations in dynamic modelling of signal transduction pathways. We discuss the requirements for conservation laws, steady state approximations, and the neglect of components. We show how these approximations simplify the mathematical treatment of biochemical networks but we also demonstrate differences between the complete system and its approximations with respect to the transient and steady state behavior