The GIP receptor displays higher basal activity than the GLP-1 receptor but does not recruit GRK2 or arrestin3 effectively.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) are important regulators of insulin secretion, and their functional loss is an early characteristic of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Pharmacological levels of GLP-1, but not GIP, can overcome this loss. GLP-1 and GIP exert their insulinotropic effects through their respective receptors expressed on pancreatic ß-cells. Both the GLP-1 receptor (GLP-1R) and the GIP receptor (GIPR) are members of the secretin family of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) and couple positively to adenylate cyclase. We compared the signalling properties of these two receptors to gain further insight into why GLP-1, but not GIP, remains insulinotropic in T2DM patients. METHODS: GLP-1R and GIPR were transiently expressed in HEK-293 cells, and basal and ligand-induced cAMP production were investigated using a cAMP-responsive luciferase reporter gene assay. Arrestin3 (Arr3) recruitment to the two receptors was investigated using enzyme fragment complementation, confocal microscopy and fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET). RESULTS: GIPR displayed significantly higher (P<0.05) ligand-independent activity than GLP-1R. Arr3 displayed a robust translocation to agonist-stimulated GLP-1R but not to GIPR. These observations were confirmed in FRET experiments, in which GLP-1 stimulated the recruitment of both GPCR kinase 2 (GRK2) and Arr3 to GLP-1R. These interactions were not reversed upon agonist washout. In contrast, GIP did not stimulate recruitment of either GRK2 or Arr3 to its receptor. Interestingly, arrestin remained at the plasma membrane even after prolonged (30 min) stimulation with GLP-1. Although the GLP-1R/arrestin interaction could not be reversed by agonist washout, GLP-1R and arrestin did not co-internalise, suggesting that GLP-1R is a class A receptor with regard to arrestin binding. CONCLUSIONS: GIPR displays higher basal activity than GLP-1R but does not effectively recruit GRK2 or Arr3.

Functional coupling of Cys-226 and Cys-296 in the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor indicates a disulfide bond that is close to the activation pocket.

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are seven transmembrane α-helical (7TM) integral membrane proteins that play a central role in both cell signaling and in the action of many pharmaceuticals. The crystal structures of several Family A GPCRs have shown the presence of a disulfide bond linking transmembrane helix 3 (TM3) to the second extracellular loop (ECL2), enabling ECL2 to stabilize and contribute to the ligand binding pocket. Family B GPCRs share no significant sequence identity with those in Family A but nevertheless share two conserved cysteines in topologically equivalent positions. Since there are no available crystal structures for the 7TM domain of any Family B GPCR, we used mutagenesis alongside pharmacological analysis to investigate the role of ECL2 and the conserved cysteine residues. We mutated Cys-226, at the extracellular end of TM3 of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor, to alanine and observed a 38-fold reduction in GLP-1 potency. Interestingly, this potency loss was restored by the additional substitution of Cys-296 in ECL2 to alanine. Alongside the complete conservation of these cysteine residues in Family B GPCRs, this functional coupling suggested the presence of a disulfide bond. Further mutagenesis demonstrated that the low potency observed at the C226A mutant, compared with the C226A-C296A double mutant, was the result of the bulky nature of the released Cys-296 side chain. Since this suggested that ECL2 was in close proximity to the agonist activation pocket, an alanine scan of ECL2 was carried out which confirmed the important role of this loop in agonist-induced receptor activation.

Ligand-receptor interactions at the parathyroid hormone receptors: subtype binding selectivity is mediated via an interaction between residue 23 on the ligand and residue 41 on the receptor.

Parathyroid hormone (PTH) and parathyroid hormone-related peptide (PTHrP) bind and activate the PTH/PTHrP receptor (PTH-1R). However, while the related receptor PTH-2R responds potently to PTH, it is not activated by PTHrP. Two hormone sites are known to be responsible for these different potencies. First, the absence of efficacy for PTHrP at PTH-2R is due to the presence of His-5 in PTHrP (Ile-5 in PTH), which interacts with the receptor's juxtamembrane domain. Second, PTHrP has lower affinity than PTH for PTH-2R because of the presence of Phe-23 (Trp-23 in PTH), which interacts with the receptor's N-terminal extracellular domain. We used these different receptor subtype properties to demonstrate that residue 41 in PTH-1R, when either the native Leu or substituted by Ile or Met, can accommodate either Phe or Trp at position 23 of the ligand. However, when Leu-41 is substituted by a smaller side chain, either Ala or Val (its equivalent residue in PTH-2R), the receptor becomes highly selective for those peptide ligands with Trp-23. Hence, despite the conservative nature of the substitutions found in the native ligands (Phe for Trp) and receptors (Leu for Val), they nevertheless enable a significant degree of selectivity to be achieved. Analysis of this functionally important ligand-receptor contact, within the context of the recent X-ray structure of the peptide-bound PTH-1R N domain, reveals the nature of the selectivity filter and how it is by-passed in PTH-1R.