CXCR4 Mediated Chemotaxis Is Regulated by 5T4 Oncofetal Glycoprotein in Mouse Embryonic Cells

5T4 oncofetal molecules are highly expressed during development and upregulated in cancer while showing only low levels in some adult tissues. Upregulation of 5T4 expression is a marker of loss of pluripotency in the early differentiation of embryonic stem (ES) cells and forms an integrated component of an epithelial-mesenchymal transition, a process important during embryonic development and metastatic spread of epithelial tumors. Investigation of the transcriptional changes in early ES differentiation showed upregulation of CXCL12 and down-regulation of a cell surface protease, CD26, which cleaves this chemokine. CXCL12 binds to the widely expressed CXCR4 and regulates key aspects of development, stem cell motility and tumour metastasis to tissues with high levels of CXCL12. We show that the 5T4 glycoprotein is required for optimal functional cell surface expression of the chemokine receptor CXCR4 and CXCL12 mediated chemotaxis in differentiating murine embryonic stem cells and embryo fibroblasts (MEF). Cell surface expression of 5T4 and CXCR4 molecules is co-localized in differentiating ES cells and MEF. By contrast, differentiating ES and MEF derived from 5T4 knockout (KO) mice show only intracellular CXCR4 expression but infection with adenovirus encoding mouse 5T4 restores CXCL12 chemotaxis and surface co-localization with 5T4 molecules. A series of chimeric constructs with interchanged domains of 5T4 and the glycoprotein CD44 were used to map the 5T4 sequences relevant for CXCR4 membrane expression and function in 5T4KO MEF. These data identified the 5T4 transmembrane domain as sufficient and necessary to enable CXCR4 cell surface expression and chemotaxis. Furthermore, some monoclonal antibodies against m5T4 can inhibit CXCL12 chemotaxis of differentiating ES cells and MEF which is not mediated by simple antigenic modulation. Collectively, these data support a molecular interaction of 5T4 and CXCR4 occurring at the cell surface which directly facilitates the biological response to CXCL12. The regulation of CXCR4 surface expression by 5T4 molecules is a novel means to control responses to the chemokine CXCL12 for example during embryogenesis but can also be selected to advantage the spread of a 5T4 positive tumor from its primary site

Backbone NMR reveals allosteric signal transduction networks in the β1-adrenergic receptor

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are physiologically important transmembrane signalling proteins that trigger intracellular responses upon binding of extracellular ligands. Despite recent breakthroughs in GPCR crystallography1–3, the details of ligand induced signal transduction are not well understood owing to missing dynamical information. In principle, such information can be provided by NMR4, but so far only limited data of functional relevance on few side-chain sites of eukaryotic GPCRs have been obtained 5–9. Here we show that receptor motions can be followed at virtually any backbone site in a thermostabilized mutant of the turkey β1-adrenergic receptor (β1AR) 10–12. Labelling with [15N] valine in a eukaryotic expression system provides over twenty resolved resonances that report on structure and dynamics in six ligand complexes and the apo form. The response to the various ligands is heterogeneous in the vicinity of the binding pocket, but gets transformed into a homogeneous readout at the intracellular side of helix 5 (TM5), which correlates linearly with ligand efficacy for the G protein pathway. The effect of several pertinent, thermostabilizing point mutations was assessed by reverting them to the native sequence. Whereas the response to ligands remains largely unchanged, binding of the G protein mimetic nanobody NB80 and G protein activation are only observed when two conserved tyrosines (Y227 and Y343) are restored. Binding of NB80 leads to very strong spectral changes throughout the receptor, including the extracellular ligand entrance pocket. This indicates that even the fully thermostabilized receptor undergoes activating motions in TM5, but that the fully active state is only reached in presence of Y227 and Y343 by stabilization with a G protein-like partner. The combined analysis of chemical shift changes from the point mutations and ligand responses identifies crucial connections in the allosteric activation pathway, and presents a general experimental method to delineate signal transmission networks at high resolution in GPCRs

Propagation of conformational changes during μ-opioid receptor activation

μ-Opioid receptors (μOR) are G protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) that are activated by a structurally diverse spectrum of natural and synthetic agonists including endogenous endorphin peptides, morphine and methadone. The recent structures of the μOR in inactive(1) and agonist-induced active states (companion article) provide snapshots of the receptor at the beginning and end of a signaling event, but little is known about the dynamic sequence of events that span these two states. Here we report the use of solution-state NMR to examine the process of μOR activation. We obtained spectra of the μOR in the absence of ligand, and in the presence of the high-affinity agonist BU72 alone, or with BU72 and a G protein mimetic nanobody. Our results show that conformational changes in transmembrane segments (TM) 5 and 6, which are required for the full engagement of a G protein, are almost completely dependent on the presence of both the agonist and the G protein mimetic nanobody revealing a weak allosteric coupling between the agonist binding pocket and the G protein coupling interface (TM5 and TM6) similar to what has been observed for the β2-adrenergic receptor(2). Unexpectedly, in the presence of agonist alone, we observe larger spectral changes involving intracellular loop 1 (ICL1) and helix 8 (H8), when compared to changes in TM5 and TM6. These results suggest that one or both of these domains may play a role in the initial interaction with the G protein, and that TM5 and TM6 are only engaged later in the process of complex formation. The initial interactions between the G protein and ICL1 and/or H8 may play a role in G protein coupling specificity as has been suggested for other family A GPCRs