Investigation of prolactin receptor activation and blockade using time-resolved fluorescence resonance energy transfer.

The prolactin receptor (PRLR) is emerging as a therapeutic target in oncology. Knowledge-based drug design led to the development of a pure PRLR antagonist (Del1-9-G129R-hPRL) that was recently shown to prevent PRL-induced mouse prostate tumorogenesis. In humans, the first gain-of-function mutation of the PRLR (PRLR(I146L)) was recently identified in breast tumor patients. At the molecular level, the actual mechanism of action of these two novel players in the PRL system remains elusive. In this study, we addressed whether constitutive PRLR activation (PRLR(I146L)) or PRLR blockade (antagonist) involved alteration of receptor oligomerization and/or of inter-chain distances compared to unstimulated and PRL-stimulated PRLR. Using a combination of various biochemical and spectroscopic approaches (co-IP, blue native electrophoresis, BRET(1)), we demonstrated that preformed PRLR homodimers are altered neither by PRL- or I146L-induced receptor triggering, nor by antagonist-mediated blockade. These findings were confirmed using a novel time-resolved fluorescence resonance energy transfer (TR-FRET) technology that allows monitoring distance changes between cell surface tagged receptors. This technology revealed that PRLR blockade or activation did not involve detectable distance changes between extracellular domains of receptor chains within the dimer. This study merges with our previous structural investigations suggesting that the mechanism of PRLR activation solely involves intermolecular contact adaptations leading to subtle intramolecular rearrangements.

Structural characterization of the stem-stem dimerization interface between prolactin receptor chains complexed with the natural hormone.

The most promising approach to targeting the tumor-growth-promoting actions of prolactin (PRL) mediated by its autocrine/paracrine pathway has been the development of specific PRL receptor (PRLR) antagonists. However, the optimization of such antagonists requires a thorough understanding of the activation mechanism of PRLR. We have thus conducted a systematic X-ray crystallographic study in order to visualize the successive steps of PRLR activation by PRL. We report here the structure at 3.35 Å resolution of the 1:2 complex between natural PRL and two PRLR chains (PRLR1 and PRLR2), corresponding to the final activated state of PRLR. Further than our previously published structure involving an affinity-matured PRL variant, this structure allowed to visualize for the first time the loop L5 spanning PRLR2 residues Thr133-Phe140, revealing its central implication for the three intermolecular interfaces of the complex. We equally succeeded in obtaining a comprehensive picture of the PRLR-PRLR dimerization interface, also called stem-stem interface. Site-directed mutagenesis was conducted to probe the energetic importance of stem-stem contacts highlighted by the structure. Surprisingly, in spite of significant structural differences between the PRL/PRLR(2) complex and the 1:2 growth hormone/growth hormone receptor complex, our mutational data suggest that hot-spot residues that stabilize the receptor dimerization interface are equivalent in the two complexes. This study provides a new overall picture of the structural features of PRLR involved in stabilizing its complex with PRL.

Crystal structure of an affinity-matured prolactin complexed to its dimerized receptor reveals the topology of hormone binding site 2.

We report the first crystal structure of a 1:2 hormone.receptor complex that involves prolactin (PRL) as the ligand, at 3.8-A resolution. Stable ternary complexes were obtained by generating affinity-matured PRL variants harboring an N-terminal tail from ovine placental lactogen, a closely related PRL receptor (PRLR) ligand. This structure allows one to draw up an exhaustive inventory of the residues involved at the PRL.PRLR site 2 interface, consistent with all previously reported site-directed mutagenesis data. We propose, with this description, an interaction model involving three structural components of PRL site 2 ("three-pin plug"): the conserved glycine 129 of helix alpha3, the hydrogen bond network involving surrounding residues (glycine cavity), and the N terminus. The model provides a molecular basis for the properties of the different PRL analogs designed to date, including PRLR antagonists. Finally, comparison of our 1:2 PRL.PRLR(2) structure with those of free PRL and its 1:1 complex indicates that the structure of PRL undergoes significant changes when binding the first, but not the second receptor. This suggests that the second PRLR moiety adapts to the 1:1 complex rather than the opposite. In conclusion, this structure will be a useful guiding tool for further investigations of the molecular mechanisms involved in PRLR dimerization and activation, as well as for the optimization of PRLR antagonists, an emerging class of compounds with high therapeutic potential against breast and prostate cancer.

Differences in prolactin receptor (PRLR) in mouse and human fallopian tubes: evidence for multiple regulatory mechanisms controlling PRLR isoform expression in mice.

The anterior pituitary-derived hormone prolactin (PRL) signals through the PRL receptor (PRLR) and is important for female reproductive function in mammals. In contrast to the extensive studies of PRLR expression and regulation in human and mouse ovary and uterus, the mechanisms controlling the regulation of PRLR isoform expression in the fallopian tube are poorly understood. Because dynamic interaction of hormonal signaling in gonadal tissue and the pituitary or in gonadal tissues themselves in mammals suggests endocrine or paracrine regulation of PRLR expression, we questioned whether differential regulation of PRLR isoforms by PRL ovarian-derived estrogen (E(2)) and progesterone (P(4)) exists in the fallopian tube and pituitary of prepubertal female mice. Western blot analysis showed distinct molecular separation of PRLR isoforms in mouse and human fallopian tubes, and cellular localization was found in mouse and human tubal epithelia but not in mouse tubal smooth muscle cells. These data support the concept of an isoform- and cell type-specific expression of PRLR in human and mouse fallopian tubes. Moreover, expression of the long form of PRLR decreased after PRL treatment and increased after blockage of endogenous PRL secretion by bromocriptine (an inhibitor of PRL secretion) in a time-dependent manner in mouse fallopian tube. The opposite regulation was observed in the pituitary. Treatment with exogenous E(2) or P(4) led to changes in PRLR expression in the fallopian tube similar to those of PRL treatment. However, E(2) and P(4) did not affect PRLR expression in the pituitary. Estrogen had no effect on the long form of PRLR expression, whereas P(4) regulated the long form of PRLR in the fallopian tube, as did PRL. Taken together, the data from our comparative study provide evidence that PRLR can be regulated by an interplay of two different mechanisms, PRL or ovarian steroid hormones independently or in combination in a tissue-specific manner. Furthermore, we found that ovarian steroid hormones selectively suppress the expression of PRLR isoforms in mouse fallopian tubes. These findings may contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms controlling PRLR isoform expression in the fallopian tube (in addition to ovary and uterus), with implications for female reproduction.

Rational design of competitive prolactin/growth hormone receptor antagonists.

There is increasing evidence that prolactin (PRL) and growth hormone (GH) act as growth-promoters of breast tumors. Recent arguments have accumulated to suggest that when they are locally-produced within the mammary tissue, these hormones, acting by an autocrine-paracrine mechanism may have enhanced, or even specific functions compared to endocrine PRL and GH. Classical drugs blocking pituitary hormone production (dopamine and somatostatin analogs) are ineffective on extrapituitary expression of PRL/GH genes, therefore the undesirable effects of these locally-produced hormones remain a target of interest for alternative strategies. This has encouraged the development of competitive PRL and/or GH receptor antagonists, which involve engineered variants of natural receptor ligands (PRL or GH) aimed at blocking receptor activation rather than hormone production in peripheral tissues. This article overviews the rational design of this new class of molecules, their specific molecular features (receptor specificity, biological properties, etc.) and whenever available, the data that have been obtained in cell or animal models of breast cancer.

Structural and thermodynamic bases for the design of pure prolactin receptor antagonists: X-ray structure of Del1-9-G129R-hPRL.

Competitive antagonists of the human prolactin (hPRL) receptor are a novel class of molecules of potential therapeutic interest in the context of cancer. We recently developed the pure antagonist Del1-9-G129R-hPRL by deleting the nine N-terminal residues of G129R-hPRL, a first generation partial antagonist. We determined the crystallographic structure of Del1-9-G129R-hPRL, which revealed no major change compared with wild type hPRL, indicating that its pure antagonistic properties are intrinsically due to the mutations. To decipher the molecular bases of pure antagonism, we compared the biological, physicochemical, and structural properties of numerous hPRL variants harboring N-terminal or Gly(129) mutations, alone or combined. The pure versus partial antagonistic properties of the multiple hPRL variants could not be correlated to differences in their affinities toward the hPRL receptor, especially at site 2 as determined by surface plasmon resonance. On the contrary, residual agonism of the hPRL variants was found to be inversely correlated to their thermodynamic stability, which was altered by all the Gly(129) mutations but not by those involving the N terminus. We therefore propose that residual agonism can be abolished either by further disrupting hormone site 2-receptor contacts by N-terminal deletion, as in Del1-9-G129R-hPRL, or by stabilizing hPRL and constraining its intrinsic flexibility, as in G129V-hPRL.