Evolution of ligand specificity in vertebrate corticosteroid receptors

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Corticosteroid receptors include mineralocorticoid (MR) and glucocorticoid (GR) receptors. Teleost fishes have a single MR and duplicate GRs that show variable sensitivities to mineralocorticoids and glucocorticoids. How these receptors compare functionally to tetrapod MR and GR, and the evolutionary significance of maintaining two GRs, remains unclear.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We used up to seven steroids (including aldosterone, cortisol and 11-deoxycorticosterone [DOC]) to compare the ligand specificity of the ligand binding domains of corticosteroid receptors between a mammal (<it>Mus musculus</it>) and the midshipman fish (<it>Porichthys notatus</it>), a teleost model for steroid regulation of neural and behavioral plasticity. Variation in mineralocorticoid sensitivity was considered in a broader phylogenetic context by examining the aldosterone sensitivity of MR and GRs from the distantly related daffodil cichlid (<it>Neolamprologus pulcher</it>), another teleost model for neurobehavioral plasticity. Both teleost species had a single MR and duplicate GRs. All MRs were sensitive to DOC, consistent with the hypothesis that DOC was the initial ligand of the ancestral MR. Variation in GR steroid-specificity corresponds to nine identified amino acid residue substitutions rather than phylogenetic relationships based on receptor sequences.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The mineralocorticoid sensitivity of duplicate GRs in teleosts is highly labile in the context of their evolutionary phylogeny, a property that likely led to neo-functionalization and maintenance of two GRs.</p

Re-evaluation of receptor–ligand interactions of the human neuropeptide Y receptor Y1: a site-directed mutagenesis study

Interactions of the human NPY (neuropeptide Y) receptor Y1 with the two endogenous agonists NPY and peptide YY and two non-peptide antagonists were investigated using site-directed mutagenesis at 17 positions. The present study was triggered by contradictions among previously published reports and conclusions that seemed inconsistent with sequence comparisons across species and receptor subtypes. Our results show that Asp(287), at the border between TM (transmembrane) region 6 and EL3 (extracellular loop 3) influences peptide binding, while two aspartic residues in EL2 do not, in agreement with some previous studies but in disagreement with others. A hydrophobic pocket of the Y1 receptor consisting of Tyr(100) (TM2), Phe(286) (TM6) and His(298) (EL3) has been proposed to interact with the amidated C-terminus of NPY, a theory that is unsupported by sequence comparisons between Y1, Y2 and Y5. Nevertheless, our results confirm that these amino acid residues are critical for peptide binding, but probably interact with NPY differently than proposed previously. Studies with the Y1-selective antagonist SR120819A identified a new site of interaction at Asn(116) in TM3. Position Phe(173) in TM4 is also important for binding of this antagonist. In contrast with previous reports, we found that Phe(173) is not crucial for the binding of BIBP3226, another selective Y1 receptor antagonist. Also, we found that position Thr(212) (TM5) is important for binding of both antagonists. Our mutagenesis results and our three-dimensional model of the receptor based on the high-resolution structure of bovine rhodopsin suggest new interactions for agonist as well as antagonist binding to the Y1 receptor