A degradatory fate for CCR4 suggests a primary role in Th2 inflammation.

CCR4 is the sole receptor for the chemokines CCL22 and CCL17. Clinical studies of asthmatic airways have shown levels of both ligands and CCR4+ Th2 cells to be elevated, suggestive of a role in disease. Consequently, CCR4 has aroused much interest as a potential therapeutic target and an understanding of how its cell surface expression is regulated is highly desirable. To this end, receptor expression, receptor endocytosis, and chemotaxis were assessed using transfectants expressing CCR4, CCR4+ human T cell lines, and human Th2 cells polarized in vitro. CCL17 and CCL22 drove rapid endocytosis of CCR4 in a dose-dependent manner. Replenishment at the cell surface was slow and sensitive to cycloheximide, suggestive of de novo synthesis of CCR4. Constitutive CCR4 endocytosis was also observed, with the internalized CCR4 found to be significantly degraded over a 6-h incubation. Truncation of the CCR4 C-terminus by 40 amino acids had no effect on cell surface expression, but resulted in significant impairment of ligand-induced endocytosis. Consequently, migration to both CCL17 and CCL22 was significantly enhanced. In contrast, truncation of CCR4 did not impair constitutive endocytosis or degradation, suggesting the use of alternative receptor motifs in these processes. We conclude that CCR4 cell surface levels are tightly regulated, with a degradative fate for endocytosed receptor. We postulate that this strict control is desirable, given that Th2 cells recruited by CCR4 can induce the further expression of CCR4 ligands in a positive feedback loop, thereby enhancing allergic inflammation.

Distinct conformations of the chemokine receptor CCR4 with implications for its targeting in allergy.

CC chemokine receptor 4 (CCR4) is expressed by Th2 and regulatory T cells and directs their migration along gradients of the chemokines CCL17 and CCL22. Both chemokines and receptor are upregulated in allergic disease, making CCR4 a therapeutic target for the treatment of allergy. We set out to assess the mechanisms underlying a previous report that CCL22 is a dominant ligand of CCR4, which may have implications for its therapeutic targeting. Human T cells expressing endogenous CCR4 and transfectants engineered to express CCR4 were assessed for receptor function, using assays of calcium release, chemotaxis, receptor endocytosis, and ligand binding. Despite the two ligands having equal potency in calcium flux and chemotaxis assays, CCL22 showed dominance in both receptor endocytosis assays and heterologous competitive binding assays. Using two different CCR4-specific Abs, we showed that CCR4 exists in at least two distinct conformations, which are differentially activated by ligand. A major population is activated by both CCL17 and CCL22, whereas a minor population is activated only by CCL22. Mutation of a single C-terminal residue K310 within a putative CCR4 antagonist binding site ablated activation of CCR4 by CCL17, but not by CCL22, despite having no effect on the binding of either ligand. We conclude that CCL17 and CCL22 are conformationally selective ligands of CCR4 and interact with the receptor by substantially different mechanisms. This finding suggests that the selective blockade of CCR4 in allergy may be feasible when one CCR4 ligand dominates, allowing the inhibition of Th2 signaling via one ligand while sparing regulatory T cell recruitment via another.

Site-directed mutagenesis of CC chemokine receptor 1 reveals the mechanism of action of UCB 35625, a small molecule chemokine receptor antagonist.

The chemokine receptor CCR1 and its principal ligand, CCL3/MIP-1alpha, have been implicated in the pathology of several inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and asthma. As such, these molecules are the focus of much research with the ultimate aim of developing novel therapies. We have described previously a non-competitive small molecule antagonist of CCR1 (UCB 35625), which we hypothesized interacted with amino acids located within the receptor transmembrane (TM) helices (Sabroe, I., Peck, M. J., Jan Van Keulen, B., Jorritsma, A., Simmons, G., Clapham, P. R., Williams, T. J., and Pease, J. E. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 25985-25992). Here we describe an approach to identifying the mechanism by which the molecule antagonizes CCR1. Thirty-three point mutants of CCR1 were expressed transiently in L1.2 cells, and the cells were assessed for their capacity to migrate in response to CCL3 in the presence or absence of UCB 35625. Cells expressing the mutant constructs Y41A (TM helix 1, or TM1), Y113A (TM3), and E287A (TM7) were responsive to CCL3 but resistant to the antagonist, consistent with a role for the TM helices in CCR1 interactions with UCB 35625. Subsequent molecular modeling successfully docked the compound with CCR1 and suggests that the antagonist ligates TM1, 2, and 7 of CCR1 and severely impedes access to TM2 and TM3, a region thought to be perturbed by the chemokine amino terminus during the process of receptor activation. Insights into the mechanism of action of these compounds may facilitate the development of more potent antagonists that show promise as future therapeutic agents in the treatment of inflammatory disease.

Variations in eosinophil chemokine responses: an investigation of CCR1 and CCR3 function, expression in atopy, and identification of a functional CCR1 promoter.

We previously showed in a small group of donors that eosinophils from a subgroup of individuals responded equipotently to CC chemokine ligand (CCL)11/eotaxin and CCL3/macrophage-inflammatory protein-1alpha in assays of eosinophil shape change (CCL3/macrophage-inflammatory protein-1alpha-highly responsive (MHR) donors). In this study, we investigated the functional role of CCL3 in eosinophil responses in 73 donors. MHR donors, identified by their eosinophil shape change responses, represented approximately 19% of the donor pool. Eosinophils from these donors showed increased eosinophil CCR1 expression and also underwent CCL3-mediated chemotaxis and up-regulation of CD11b. All MHR donors gave a history of atopy-associated diseases. In a further study, we prospectively recruited 110 subjects, subdivided into nonatopics or atopics, and investigated expression of CCR1 and CCR3 on eosinophils, basophils, monocytes, and neutrophils. Eosinophil CCR1 expression was non-normally distributed in atopics, although higher CCR1 expression levels were not predictive of a diagnosis of atopy or atopic disease. We identified the CCR1 promoter and investigated its function. We found a minimal promoter within 177 bp of the transcription start site, and an upstream enhancer region that facilitated expression in leukocyte cell lines. Collectively, these data demonstrate that MHR individuals form an important subgroup that, when associated with a diagnosis of allergic disease, may require tailored therapy to modulate eosinophil recruitment. Identification of a functional CCR1 promoter will facilitate the study of possible genetic determinants underlying this potentially important clinical phenotype.