Structures of atypical chemokine receptor 3 reveal the basis for its promiscuity and signaling bias

Both CXC chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) and atypical chemokine receptor 3 (ACKR3) are activated by the chemokine CXCL12 yet evoke distinct cellular responses. CXCR4 is a canonical G protein–coupled receptor (GPCR), whereas ACKR3 is intrinsically biased for arrestin. The molecular basis for this difference is not understood. Here, we describe cryo-EM structures of ACKR3 in complex with CXCL12, a more potent CXCL12 variant, and a small-molecule agonist. The bound chemokines adopt an unexpected pose relative to those established for CXCR4 and observed in other receptor-chemokine complexes. Along with functional studies, these structures provide insight into the ligand-binding promiscuity of ACKR3, why it fails to couple to G proteins, and its bias toward β-arrestin. The results lay the groundwork for understanding the physiological interplay of ACKR3 with other GPCRs

Small-Molecule Inhibitors of METTL3, the Major Human Epitranscriptomic Writer

The RNA methylase METTL3 catalyzes the transfer of a methyl group from the cofactor S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAM) to the N$^{6}$ atom of adenine. We have screened a library of 4000 analogues and derivatives of the adenosine moiety of SAM by high-throughput docking into METTL3. Two series of adenine derivatives were identified in silico, and the binding mode of six of the predicted inhibitors was validated by protein crystallography. Two compounds, one for each series, show good ligand efficiency. We propose a route for their further development into potent and selective inhibitors of METTL3

Complexes of the neurotensin receptor 1 with small-molecule ligands reveal structural determinants of full, partial, and inverse agonism

Neurotensin receptor 1 (NTSR1) and related G protein-coupled receptors of the ghrelin family are clinically unexploited, and several mechanistic aspects of their activation and inactivation have remained unclear. Enabled by a new crystallization design, we present five new structures: apo-state NTSR1 as well as complexes with nonpeptide inverse agonists SR48692 and SR142948A, partial agonist RTI-3a, and the novel full agonist SRI-9829, providing structural rationales on how ligands modulate NTSR1. The inverse agonists favor a large extracellular opening of helices VI and VII, undescribed so far for NTSR1, causing a constriction of the intracellular portion. In contrast, the full and partial agonists induce a binding site contraction, and their efficacy correlates with the ability to mimic the binding mode of the endogenous agonist neurotensin. Providing evidence of helical and side-chain rearrangements modulating receptor activation, our structural and functional data expand the mechanistic understanding of NTSR1 and potentially other peptidergic receptors

Structures of atypical chemokine receptor 3 reveal the basis for its promiscuity and signaling bias

Both CXC chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) and atypical chemokine receptor 3 (ACKR3) are activated by the chemokine CXCL12 yet evoke distinct cellular responses. CXCR4 is a canonical G protein–coupled receptor (GPCR), whereas ACKR3 is intrinsically biased for arrestin. The molecular basis for this difference is not understood. Here, we describe cryo-EM structures of ACKR3 in complex with CXCL12, a more potent CXCL12 variant, and a small-molecule agonist. The bound chemokines adopt an unexpected pose relative to those established for CXCR4 and observed in other receptor-chemokine complexes. Along with functional studies, these structures provide insight into the ligand-binding promiscuity of ACKR3, why it fails to couple to G proteins, and its bias toward β-arrestin. The results lay the groundwork for understanding the physiological interplay of ACKR3 with other GPCRs

Safety of Probiotic Escherichia coli Strain Nissle 1917 Depends on Intestinal Microbiota and Adaptive Immunity of the Host▿

Probiotics are viable microorganisms that are increasingly used for treatment of a variety of diseases. Occasionally, however, probiotics may have adverse clinical effects, including septicemia. Here we examined the role of the intestinal microbiota and the adaptive immune system in preventing translocation of probiotics (e.g., Escherichia coli Nissle). We challenged C57BL/6J mice raised under germfree conditions (GF-raised C57BL/6J mice) and Rag1−/− mice raised under germfree conditions (GF-raised Rag1−/− mice) and under specific-pathogen-free conditions (SPF-raised Rag1−/− mice) with probiotic E. coli strain Nissle 1917, strain Nissle 1917 mutants, the commensal strain E. coli mpk, or Bacteroides vulgatus mpk. Additionally, we reconstituted Rag1−/− mice with CD4+ T cells. E. coli translocation and dissemination and the mortality of mice were assessed. In GF-raised Rag1−/− mice, but not in SPF-raised Rag1−/− mice or GF-raised C57BL/6J mice, oral challenge with E. coli strain Nissle 1917, but not oral challenge with E. coli mpk, resulted in translocation and dissemination. The mortality rate was significantly higher for E. coli strain Nissle 1917-challenged GF-raised Rag1−/− mice (100%; P < 0.001) than for E. coli strain Nissle 1917-challenged SPF-raised Rag1−/− mice (0%) and GF-raised C57BL/6J mice (0%). Translocation of and mortality due to strain E. coli Nissle 1917 in GF-raised Rag1−/− mice were prevented when mice were reconstituted with T cells prior to strain E. coli Nissle 1917 challenge, but not when mice were reconstituted with T cells after E. coli strain Nissle 1917 challenge. Cocolonization experiments revealed that E. coli mpk could not prevent translocation of strain E. coli Nissle 1917. Moreover, we demonstrated that neither lipopolysaccharide structure nor flagella play a role in E. coli strain Nissle 1917 translocation and dissemination. Our results suggest that if both the microbiota and adaptive immunity are defective, translocation across the intestinal epithelium and dissemination of the probiotic E. coli strain Nissle 1917 may occur and have potentially severe adverse effects. Future work should define the possibly related molecular factors that promote probiotic functions, fitness, and facultative pathogenicity

Crystal structure of the α1B_{1B}-adrenergic receptor reveals molecular determinants of selective ligand recognition

α-adrenergic receptors (αARs) are G protein-coupled receptors that regulate vital functions of the cardiovascular and nervous systems. The therapeutic potential of αARs, however, is largely unexploited and hampered by the scarcity of subtype-selective ligands. Moreover, several aminergic drugs either show off-target binding to αARs or fail to interact with the desired subtype. Here, we report the crystal structure of human α$_{1B}$AR bound to the inverse agonist (+)-cyclazosin, enabled by the fusion to a DARPin crystallization chaperone. The α$_{1B}$AR structure allows the identification of two unique secondary binding pockets. By structural comparison of α$_{1B}$AR with α$_{2}$ARs, and by constructing α$_{1B}$AR-α$_{2C}$AR chimeras, we identify residues 3.29 and 6.55 as key determinants of ligand selectivity. Our findings provide a basis for discovery of α$_{1B}$AR-selective ligands and may guide the optimization of aminergic drugs to prevent off-target binding to αARs, or to elicit a selective interaction with the desired subtype

Crystal structure of the α1B-adrenergic receptor reveals molecular determinants of selective ligand recognition

α-adrenergic receptors (αARs) are G protein-coupled receptors that regulate vital functions of the cardiovascular and nervous systems. The therapeutic potential of αARs, however, is largely unexploited and hampered by the scarcity of subtype-selective ligands. Moreover, several aminergic drugs either show off-target binding to αARs or fail to interact with the desired subtype. Here, we report the crystal structure of human α1BAR bound to the inverse agonist (+)-cyclazosin, enabled by the fusion to a DARPin crystallization chaperone. The α1BAR structure allows the identification of two unique secondary binding pockets. By structural comparison of α1BAR with α2ARs, and by constructing α1BAR-α2CAR chimeras, we identify residues 3.29 and 6.55 as key determinants of ligand selectivity. Our findings provide a basis for discovery of α1BAR-selective ligands and may guide the optimization of aminergic drugs to prevent off-target binding to αARs, or to elicit a selective interaction with the desired subtype.ISSN:2041-172