The E92K Melanocortin 1 Receptor Mutant Induces cAMP Production and Arrestin Recruitment but Not ERK Activity Indicating Biased Constitutive Signaling

BACKGROUND: The melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) constitutes a key regulator of melanism. Consequently, many naturally-occurring MC1R mutations are associated with a change in color. An example is the Glu-to-Lys substitution found at position II:20/2.60 in the top of transmembrane helix II which has been identified in melanic mice and several other species. This mutation induces a pronounced increase in MC1R constitutive activity suggesting a link between constitutive activity and melanism which is corroborated by the attenuation of α-melanocyte stimulating hormone (αMSH) induced activation. However, the mechanism by which the mutation induces constitutive activity is currently not known. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Here we characterize the constitutive activity, cell surface expression and internalization of the mouse mutant, Mc1r E92K. As previously reported, only positively charged residues at position II:20/2.60 induced an increase in constitutive activity as measured by cAMP accumulation and CREB activation. Furthermore, the mutation induced a constitutive recruitment of β-arrestin. This phenomenon is only observed in MC1R, however, as the equivalent mutations in MC2-5R had no effect on receptor signaling. Interestingly, the mutation did not induce constitutive ERK1/2 phosphorylation or increase the internalization rate indicating the constitutive activity to be biased. Finally, to identify regions of importance for the increased constitutive activity of Mc1r E92K, we employed a chimeric approach and identified G102 and L110 in the extracellular loop 1 to be selectively important for the constitutive activity as this, but not αMSH-mediated activation, was abolished upon Ala substitution. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: It is concluded that the E92K mutation induces an active conformation distinct from that induced by αMSH and that the extracellular loop 1 is involved in maintaining this conformational state. In turn, the results suggest that in MC1R, which lacks an extracellular loop 2, the first extracellular loop may play a more prominent role during receptor activation than in general

Biased and g protein-independent signaling of chemokine receptors

Biased signaling or functional selectivity occurs when a 7TM receptor preferentially activates one of several available pathways. It can be divided into three distinct forms: ligand bias, receptor bias, and tissue or cell bias, where it is mediated by different ligands (on the same receptor), different receptors (with the same ligand) or different tissues or cells (for the same ligand-receptor pair). Most often biased signaling is differentiated into G protein-dependent and β-arrestin-dependent signaling. Yet, it may also cover signaling differences within these groups. Moreover, it may not be absolute, i.e. full versus no activation. Here we discuss biased signaling in the chemokine system, including the structural basis for biased signaling in chemokine receptors, as well as in class A 7TM receptors in general. This includes overall helical movements and the contributions of micro-switches based on recently published 7TM crystals and molecular dynamics studies. All three forms of biased signaling are abundant in the chemokine system. This challenges our understanding of classic redundancy inevitably ascribed to this system, where multiple chemokines bind to the same receptor and where a single chemokine may bind to several receptors – in both cases with the same functional outcome. The ubiquitous biased signaling confer a hitherto unknown specificity to the chemokine system with a complex interaction pattern that is better described as promiscuous with context-defined roles and different functional outcomes in a ligand-, receptor- or cell/tissue-defined manner. As the low number of successful drug development plans implies, there are great difficulties in targeting chemokine receptors; in particular with regard to receptor antagonists as anti-inflammatory drugs. Un-defined and putative non-selective targeting of the complete cellular signaling system could be the underlying cause of lack of success. Therefore, biased ligands could be the solution

The future of antiviral immunotoxins

Abstract There is a constant need for new therapeutic interventions in a wide range of infectious diseases. Over the past few years, the immunotoxins have entered the stage as promising antiviral treatments. Immunotoxins have been extensively explored in cancer treatment and have achieved FDA approval in several cases. Indeed, the design of new anticancer immunotoxins is a rapidly developing field. However, at present, several immunotoxins have been developed targeting a variety of different viruses with high specificity and efficacy. Rather than blocking a viral or cellular pathway needed for virus replication and dissemination, immunotoxins exert their effect by killing and eradicating the pool of infected cells. By targeting a virus-encoded target molecule, it is possible to obtain superior selectivity and drastically limit the side effects, which is an immunotoxin-related challenge that has hindered the success of immunotoxins in cancer treatment. Therefore, it seems beneficial to use immunotoxins for the treatment of virus infections. One recent example showed that targeting of virus-encoded 7 transmembrane (7TM) receptors by immunotoxins could be a future strategy for designing ultraspecific antiviral treatment, ensuring efficient internalization and hence efficient eradication of the pool of infected cells, both in vitro and in vivo. In this review, we provide an overview of the mechanisms of action of immunotoxins and highlight the advantages of immunotoxins as future anti-viral therapies.</jats:p

Biased small-molecule ligands for selective inhibition of HIV-1 cell entry via CCR5

Since the discovery of HIV's use of CCR5 as the primary coreceptor in fusion, the focus on developing small‐molecule receptor antagonists for inhibition hereof has only resulted in one single drug, Maraviroc. We therefore investigated the possibility of using small‐molecule CCR5 agonists as HIV‐1 fusion inhibitors. A virus‐free cell‐based fusion reporter assay, based on mixing “effector cells” (expressing HIV Env and luciferase activator) with “target cells” (expressing CD4, CCR5 wild type or a selection of well‐described mutations, and luciferase reporter), was used as fusion readout. Receptor expression was evaluated by ELISA and fluorescence microscopy. On CCR5 WT, Maraviroc and Aplaviroc inhibited fusion with high potencies (EC (50) values of 91 and 501 nM, respectively), whereas removal of key residues for both antagonists (Glu283Ala) or Maraviroc alone (Tyr251Ala) prevented fusion inhibition, establishing this assay as suitable for screening of HIV entry inhibitors. Both ligands inhibited HIV fusion on signaling‐deficient CCR5 mutations (Tyr244Ala and Trp248Ala). Moreover, the steric hindrance CCR5 mutation (Gly286Phe) impaired fusion, presumably by a direct hindrance of gp120 interaction. Finally, the efficacy switch mutation (Leu203Phe) – converting small‐molecule antagonists/inverse agonists to full agonists biased toward G‐protein activation – uncovered that also small‐molecule agonists can function as direct HIV‐1 cell entry inhibitors. Importantly, no agonist‐induced receptor internalization was observed for this mutation. Our studies of the pharmacodynamic requirements for HIV‐1 fusion inhibitors highlight the possibility of future development of biased ligands with selective targeting of the HIV–CCR5 interaction without interfering with the normal functionality of CCR5

Patterns of human and porcine gammaherpesvirus-encoded BILF1 receptor endocytosis

The viral G-protein-coupled receptor (vGPCR) BILF1 encoded by the Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) is an oncogene and immunoevasin and can downregulate MHC-I molecules at the surface of infected cells. MHC-I downregulation, which presumably occurs through co-internalization with EBV-BILF1, is preserved among BILF1 receptors, including the three BILF1 orthologs encoded by porcine lymphotropic herpesviruses (PLHV BILFs). This study aimed to understand the detailed mechanisms of BILF1 receptor constitutive internalization, to explore the translational potential of PLHV BILFs compared with EBV-BILF1

Differential CCR7 Targeting in Dendritic Cells by Three Naturally Occurring CC-Chemokines

The CCR7 ligands CCL19 and CCL21 are increasingly recognized as functionally different (biased). Using mature human dendritic cells (DCs), we show that CCL19 is more potent than CCL21 in inducing 3D chemotaxis. Intriguingly, CCL21 induces prolonged and more efficient ERK1/2 activation compared to CCL19 and to a C-terminal truncated (tailless) CCL21 in DCs. In contrast, tailless-CCL21 displays increased potency in DC chemotaxis compared to native CCL21. Using a CCL21-specific antibody, we show that CCL21, but not tailless-CCL21, accumulates at the cell surface. In addition removal of sialic acid from the cell surface by neuraminidase treatment impairs ERK1/2 activation by CCL21, but not of CCL19 or tailless-CCL21. Using standard laboratory cell-lines, we observe low potency of both CCL21 and tailless-CCL21 in G protein activation and -arrestin recruitment compared to CCL19, indicating that the tail itself does not improve receptor interaction. Chemokines interact with their receptors in a stepwise manner with ultimate docking of their N-terminus into the main binding pocket. Employing site-directed mutagenesis we identify residues in this pocket of selective CCL21 importance. We also identify a molecular switch in the top of TM7 important for keeping CCR7 in an inactive conformation (Tyr312), as introduction of the chemokine receptor-conserved Glu (or Ala) induces high constitutive activity. Summarized, we show that the interaction of the tail of CCL21 with polysialic acid is needed for strong ERK-signaling, whereas it impairs CCL21-mediated chemotaxis and has no impact on receptor docking consistent with the current model of chemokine:receptor interaction. This indicates that future selective pharmacological targeting of CCL19 versus CCL21 should focus on a differential targeting of the main receptor pocket, while selective targeting of tailless-CCL21 versus CCL21 and CCL19 requires targeting of the glycosaminoglycan (GAG) interaction

Novel Chemokine-Based Immunotoxins for Potent and Selective Targeting of Cytomegalovirus Infected Cells

Immunotoxins as antiviral therapeutics are largely unexplored but have promising prospective due to their high selectivity potential and their unparalleled efficiency. One recent example targeted the virus-encoded G protein-coupled receptor US28 as a strategy for specific and efficient treatment of human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) infections. US28 is expressed on virus-infected cells and scavenge chemokines by rapid internalization. The chemokine-based fusion-toxin protein (FTP) consisted of a variant (F49A) of CX3CL1 specifically targeting US28 linked to the catalytic domain of Pseudomonas exotoxin A (PE). Here, we systematically seek to improve F49A-FTP by modifications in its three structural domains; we generated variants with (1) altered chemokine sequence (K14A, F49L, and F49E), (2) shortened and elongated linker region, and (3) modified toxin domain. Only F49L-FTP displayed higher selectivity in its binding to US28 versus CX3CR1, the endogenous receptor for CX3CL1, but this was not matched by a more selective killing of US28-expressing cells. A longer linker and different toxin variants decreased US28 affinity and selective killing. Thereby, F49A-FTP represents the best candidate for HCMV treatment. Many viruses encode internalizing receptors suggesting that not only HCMV but also, for instance, Epstein-Barr virus and Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus may be targeted by FTPs

Biased Signaling of CCL21 and CCL19 Does Not Rely on N-Terminal Differences, but Markedly on the Chemokine Core Domains and Extracellular Loop 2 of CCR7

Chemokine receptors play important roles in the immune system and are linked to several human diseases. Targeting chemokine receptors have so far shown very little success owing to, to some extent, the promiscuity of the immune system and the high degree of biased signaling within it. CCR7 and its two endogenous ligands display biased signaling and here we investigate the differences between the two ligands, CCL21 and CCL19, with respect to their biased activation of CCR7. We use bystander bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) based signaling assays and Transwell migration assays to determine (A) how swapping of domains between the two ligands affect their signaling patterns and (B) how receptor mutagenesis impacts signaling. Using chimeric ligands we find that the chemokine core domains are central for determining signaling outcome as the lack of β-arrestin-2 recruitment displayed by CCL21 is linked to its core domain and not N-terminus. Through a mutagenesis screen, we identify the extracellular domains of CCR7 to be important for both ligands and show that the two chemokines interact differentially with extracellular loop 2 (ECL-2). By using in silico modeling, we propose a link between ECL-2 interaction and CCR7 signal transduction. Our mutagenesis study also suggests a lysine in the top of TM3, K1303.26, to be important for G protein signaling, but not β-arrestin-2 recruitment. Taken together, the bias in CCR7 between CCL19 and CCL21 relies on the chemokine core domains, where interactions with ECL-2 seem particularly important. Moreover, TM3 selectively regulates G protein signaling as found for other chemokine receptors.publishe