Different contributions of chemokine N-terminal features attest to a different ligand binding mode and a bias towards activation of ACKR3/CXCR7 compared with CXCR4 and CXCR3.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Chemokines and their receptors form an intricate interaction and signalling network that plays critical roles in various physiological and pathological cellular processes. The high promiscuity and apparent redundancy of this network makes probing individual chemokine/receptor interactions and functional effects, as well as targeting individual receptor axes for therapeutic applications, challenging. Despite poor sequence identity, the N-terminal regions of chemokines, which play a key role in their activity and selectivity, contain several conserved features. Thus far little is known regarding the molecular basis of their interactions with typical and atypical chemokine receptors or the conservation of their contributions across chemokine-receptor pairs. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: We used a broad panel of chemokine variants and modified peptides derived from the N-terminal region of chemokines CXCL12, CXCL11 and vCCL2, to compare the contributions of various features to binding and activation of their shared receptors, the two typical, canonical G protein-signalling receptors, CXCR4 and CXCR3, as well as the atypical scavenger receptor CXCR7/ACKR3, which shows exclusively arrestin-dependent activity. KEY RESULTS: We provide molecular insights into the plasticity of the ligand-binding pockets of these receptors, their chemokine binding modes and their activation mechanisms. Although the chemokine N-terminal region is a critical determinant, neither the most proximal residues nor the N-loop are essential for binding and activation of ACKR3, as distinct from binding and activation of CXCR4 and CXCR3. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: These results suggest a different interaction mechanism between this atypical receptor and its ligands and illustrate its strong propensity to activation.

Ligand-specific conformational transitions and intracellular transport are required for atypical chemokine receptor 3-mediated chemokine scavenging.

The atypical chemokine receptor ACKR3 contributes to chemotaxis by binding, internalizing, and degrading the chemokines CXCL11 and CXCL12 to shape and terminate chemotactic gradients during development and immune responses. Although unable to trigger G protein activation, both ligands activate G protein-independent ACKR3 responses and prompt arrestin recruitment. This offers a model to specifically study ligand-specific receptor conformations leading to G protein-independent signaling and to functional parameters such as receptor transport and chemokine degradation. We here show chemokine specificity in arrestin recruitment, by different effects of single amino acid substitutions in ACKR3 on arrestin in response to CXCL12 or CXCL11. Chemokine specificity in receptor transport was also observed, as CXCL11 induced faster receptor internalization, slower recycling, and longer intracellular sojourn of ACKR3 than CXCL12. Internalization and recycling rates of the ACKR3 R1423.50A substitution in response to each chemokine were similar; however, ACKR3 R1423.50A degraded only CXCL12 and not CXCL11. This suggests that ligand-specific intracellular receptor transport is required for chemokine degradation. Remarkably, the failure of ACKR3 R1423.50A to degrade CXCL11 was not caused by the lack of arrestin recruitment; rather, arrestin was entirely dispensable for scavenging of either chemokine. This suggests the involvement of another, yet unidentified, ACKR3 effector in scavenging. In summary, our study correlates ACKR3 ligand-specific conformational transitions with chemokine-dependent receptor transport dynamics and points toward unexpected ligand specificity in the mechanisms of chemokine degradation.

Structural basis for chemokine recognition by a G protein-coupled receptor and implications for receptor activation.

Chemokines orchestrate cell migration for development, immune surveillance, and disease by binding to cell surface heterotrimeric guanine nucleotide-binding protein (G protein)-coupled receptors (GPCRs). The array of interactions between the nearly 50 chemokines and their 20 GPCR targets generates an extensive signaling network to which promiscuity and biased agonism add further complexity. The receptor CXCR4 recognizes both monomeric and dimeric forms of the chemokine CXCL12, which is a distinct example of ligand bias in the chemokine family. We demonstrated that a constitutively monomeric CXCL12 variant reproduced the G protein-dependent and ß-arrestin-dependent responses that are associated with normal CXCR4 signaling and lead to cell migration. In addition, monomeric CXCL12 made specific contacts with CXCR4 that are not present in the structure of the receptor in complex with a dimeric form of CXCL12, a biased agonist that stimulates only G protein-dependent signaling. We produced an experimentally validated model of an agonist-bound chemokine receptor that merged a nuclear magnetic resonance-based structure of monomeric CXCL12 bound to the amino terminus of CXCR4 with a crystal structure of the transmembrane domains of CXCR4. The large CXCL12:CXCR4 protein-protein interface revealed by this structure identified previously uncharacterized functional interactions that fall outside of the classical "two-site model" for chemokine-receptor recognition. Our model suggests a mechanistic hypothesis for how interactions on the extracellular face of the receptor may stimulate the conformational changes required for chemokine receptor-mediated signal transduction.

Mutational Analysis of Atypical Chemokine Receptor 3 (ACKR3/CXCR7) Interaction with Its Chemokine Ligands CXCL11 and CXCL12.

Atypical chemokine receptors do not mediate chemotaxis or G protein signaling, but they recruit arrestin. They also efficiently scavenge their chemokine ligands, thereby contributing to gradient maintenance and termination. ACKR3, also known as CXCR7, binds and degrades the constitutive chemokine CXCL12, which also binds the canonical receptor CXCR4, and CXCL11, which also binds CXCR3. Here we report comprehensive mutational analysis of the ACKR3 interaction with its chemokine ligands, using 30 substitution mutants. Readouts are radioligand binding competition, arrestin recruitment, and chemokine scavenging. Our results suggest different binding modes for both chemokines. CXCL11 depends on the ACKR3 N terminus and some extracellular loop (ECL) positions for primary binding, ECL residues mediate secondary binding and arrestin recruitment potency. CXCL12 binding required key residues Asp-1794.60 and Asp-2756.58 (residue numbering follows the Ballesteros-Weinstein scheme), with no evident involvement of N-terminal residues, suggesting an uncommon mode of receptor engagement. Mutation of residues corresponding to CRS2 in CXCR4 (positions Ser-1032.63 and Gln-3017.39) increased CXCL11 binding, but reduced CXCL12 affinity. Mutant Q301E7.39 did not recruit arrestin. Mutant K118A3.26 in ECL1 showed moderate baseline arrestin recruitment with ablation of ligand-induced responses. Substitutions that affected CXCL11 binding also diminished scavenging. However, detection of reduced CXCL12 scavenging by mutants with impaired CXCL12 affinity required drastically reduced receptor expression levels, suggesting that scavenging pathways can be saturated and that CXCL12 binding exceeds scavenging at higher receptor expression levels. Arrestin recruitment did not correlate with scavenging; although Q301E7.39 degraded chemokines in the absence of arrestin, S103D2.63 had reduced CXCL11 scavenging despite intact arrestin responses.

Mode of binding of the cyclic agonist peptide TC14012 to CXCR7: identification of receptor and compound determinants.

The chemokine receptor CXCR7 is an atypical CXCL12 receptor that, as opposed to the classical CXCL12 receptor CXCR4, signals preferentially via the ß-arrestin pathway and does not mediate chemotaxis. We previously reported that the cyclic peptide TC14012, a potent CXCR4 antagonist, also engaged CXCR7, albeit with lower potency. Surprisingly, the compound activated the CXCR7-arrestin pathway. The reason underlying the opposite effects of TC14012 on CXCR4 and CXCR7, and the mode of binding of TC14012 to CXCR7, remained unclear. The mode of binding of TC14012 to CXCR4 is known from cocrystallization of its analogue CVX15 with CXCR4. We here report the the mode of binding of TC14012 to CXCR7 by combining the use of compound analogues, receptor mutants, and molecular modeling. We find that the mode of binding of TC14012 to CXCR7 is indeed similar to that of CVX15 to CXCR4, with compound positions Arg2 and Arg14 engaging CXCR7 key residues D179(4.60) (on the tip of transmembrane domain 4) and D275(6.58) (on the tip of transmembrane domain 6), respectively. Interestingly, the TC14012 parent compound T140 is not a CXCR7 agonist, because of conformational constraints in its pharmacophore, which in TC14012 are relieved through C-terminal amidation. However, an engineered salt bridge between the CXCR7 ECL2 substitution R197D and compound residue Arg1 permitted T140 agonism by repositioning the compound in the binding pocket. In conclusion, our results show that the opposite effect of TC14012 on CXCR4 and CXCR7 is not explained by different binding modes. Rather, engagement of the interface between transmembrane domains and extracellular loops readily triggers CXCR7, but not CXCR4, activation.

Different effects of the different natural CC chemokine receptor 2b ligands on beta-arrestin recruitment, Gαi signaling, and receptor internalization.

The chemokine receptor CCR2, which has been implicated in a variety of inflammatory, autoimmune, and cardiovascular conditions, binds several natural chemokine ligands. Here, we assessed the recruitment of ß-arrestin to CCR2 in response to these ligands using bioluminescence resonance energy transfer technology. Compared with CCL2, which was considered as a full agonist, other CCR2 ligands were partial agonists with reduced efficacy and potency. Agonist potencies were not a function of their affinity for CCR2. Efficacy of arrestin recruitment matched that of agonist-induced CCR2 internalization. Although the potency and efficacy rank orders of the ligands in arrestin recruitment were similar to those observed for Gα(i1) activation, arrestin recruitment was at least in part resistant to Gα(i/o)-inactivating pertussis toxin, suggesting partial independence from Gα(i/o). The degree of pertussis toxin resistance of arrestin recruitment was different between the chemokines. Moreover, qualitative differences between the arrestin responses to the different ligands were identified in the stability of the response: although CCL7-induced arrestin recruitment had a half-life of less than 15 min, CCL8 and CCL13 induced stable CCR2-arrestin interactions. Finally, the ligands stabilized different conformations of the CCR2 homodimer. Our results support the validity of models for receptor-ligand interactions in which different ligands stabilize different receptor conformations also for endogenous receptor ligands, with corresponding implications for drug development targeting CCR2.

DNA variants in the dihydrofolate reductase gene and outcome in childhood ALL.

Dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR) is the major target of methotrexate (MTX), a key component in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) treatment. A total of 15 polymorphisms in DHFR promoter were analyzed, and 3 sites (C-1610G/T, C-680A, and A-317G) were identified as sufficient to define observed haplotypes (tag single nucleotide polymorphisms [tagSNPs]). These polymorphisms were investigated for association with treatment response in 277 children with ALL. Lower event-free survival (EFS) was associated with homozygosity for the allele A-317 and C-1610 (P=.03 and .02), and with the haplotype *1, defined by both C-1610 and A-317 alleles (P=.03). The haplotype *1 conferred higher transcriptional activity (P<.01 compared with haplotypes generating minimal luciferase expression). Quantitative mRNA analysis showed higher DHFR levels for particular haplotype *1 carriers (P<.01). The analysis combining haplotype *1 with thymidylate synthase (TS) and cyclin D1 (CCND1) genotypes previously shown to affect ALL outcome showed that the number of event-predisposing genotypes was associated with increasingly lower EFS (P<.001). In conclusion, DHFR promoter polymorphisms are associated with worse ALL outcome, likely due to a higher DHFR expression. Combined effects among genes of the folate cycle can further accentuate differences in the response to the treatment.

[Pharmacogenomics of acute lymphoblastic leukemia]. / Pharmacogénétique de la leucémie lymphoblastique aiguë

Pharmacogenomics of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) evolved rapidly in the past few years. Majority of recent findings concerns knowledge on key components of ALL treatment, 6-mercaptopurine and methotrexate. Leukemia is the most common cancer affecting children, with ALL comprising 80 % of all leukemia cases. Introduction of treatment protocols composed of several chemotherapeutic agents improved importantly survival in patients with ALL. Nevertheless, ALL is still the leading cause of cancer-related death in children. Interindividual differences in drug responses are an important cause of resistance to treatment and adverse drug reactions. Identifying pharmacogenomic determinants of drugs used in ALL treatment may allow for prospective identification of patients with suboptimal drug responses allowing for complementation of traditional treatment protocols by genotype-based drug dose adjustment.

Oleate promotes the proliferation of breast cancer cells via the G protein-coupled receptor GPR40.

Evidence from epidemiological studies and animal models suggests a link between high levels of dietary fat intake and risk of breast cancer. In addition, obesity, in which circulating lipids are elevated, is associated with increased risk of various cancers. Relative to this point, we previously showed that oleate stimulates the proliferation of breast cancer cells and that phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase plays a role in this process. Nonetheless, questions remain regarding the precise mechanism(s) by which oleate promotes breast cancer cell growth. Pharmacological inhibitors of the GTP-binding proteins G(i)/G(o), phospholipase C, Src, and mitogenic-extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 (MEK 1/2) decreased oleate-induced [3H]thymidine incorporation in the breast cancer cell line MDA-MB-231. In addition, oleate caused a rapid and transient rise in cytosolic Ca2+ and an increase in protein kinase B phosphorylation. Overexpressing in these cells the G protein-coupled receptor GPR40, a fatty acid receptor, amplified oleate-induced proliferation, whereas silencing the GPR40 gene using RNA interference decreased it. Overexpressing GPR40 in T47D and MCF-7 breast cancer cells that are poorly responsive to oleate allowed a robust proliferative action of oleate. The data indicate that the phospholipase C, MEK 1/2, Src, and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/protein kinase B signaling pathways are implicated in the proliferative signal induced by oleate and that these effects are mediated at least in part via the G protein-coupled receptor GPR40. The results suggest that GPR40 is implicated in the control of breast cancer cell growth by fatty acids and that GPR40 may provide a link between fat and cancer.