Premium
Identification of distinct, ligand‐specific structural changes in a G protein‐coupled receptor
Author(s) -
Li Jian H,
Han SungJun,
Hamdan Fadi F.,
Kim SooKyung,
Jacobson Kenneth A,
Bloodworth Lanh M.,
Zhang Xiaohong,
Wess Jurgen
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.21.5.a425-c
Subject(s) - g protein coupled receptor , muscarinic acetylcholine receptor , inverse agonist , receptor , chemistry , muscarinic acetylcholine receptor m5 , transmembrane domain , muscarinic acetylcholine receptor m3 , muscarinic acetylcholine receptor m2 , biophysics , biochemistry , ligand (biochemistry) , microbiology and biotechnology , agonist , biology
G protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) represent by far the largest class of cell surface receptors. The conformational changes in GPCR structure induced by GPCR ligands (agonists, neutral antagonists, or inverse agonists) are not well understood at present. In this study, we employed an in situ disulfide cross‐linking strategy to monitor ligand‐induced conformational changes in a series of cysteine (Cys)‐substituted mutant M3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. We demonstrated that muscarinic agonists inhibited disulfide cross‐linking in the A91C/T549C and F92C/F550C double Cys mutant M3 receptors. In striking contrast, inverse muscarinic agonists enhanced disulfide bond formation in the same receptor constructs. Given the predicted localization of the Cys residues present in these mutant receptors, our data strongly suggest that muscarinic agonists trigger a separation of the N‐terminal segment of the cytoplasmic tail from the cytoplasmic end of transmembrane domain I (TM I), whereas inverse muscarinic agonists increase the proximity between these two receptor regions. These findings provide a structural basis for the opposing biological effects of muscarinic agonists and inverse agonists. This study also provides the first piece of direct structural information as to how the receptor conformations induced by these two functionally different classes of ligands differ at the molecular level. This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIDDK, NIH