QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: mol.106.029470v1 71/4/959    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rovati, G. E. Articles by Neubig, R. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rovati, G. E. Articles by Neubig, R. R.

Minireview

The Highly Conserved DRY Motif of Class A G Protein-Coupled Receptors: Beyond the Ground State

Laboratory of Molecular Pharmacology, Section of Theoretical and Receptor Pharmacology, Department of Pharmacological Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy (G.E.R., V.C.); and Department of Pharmacology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (R.R.N.)

Received for publication August 24, 2006.

Accepted for publication December 20, 2006.

	Abstract

Top Abstract Does a Common Structure... The Consensus Picture The Consensus Picture Does... Does Arginine Mutations Add... Other Considerations Conclusions References

 
Despite extensive study of heptahelical G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), the precise mechanism of G protein activation is unknown. The role of one highly conserved stretch of residues, the amino acids glutamic acid/aspartic acid–arginine–tyrosine (i.e., the E/DRY motif), has received considerable attention with respect to regulating GPCR conformational states. In the consensus view, glutamic acid/aspartic acid maintains the receptor in its ground state, because mutations frequently induce constitutive activity (CA). This hypothesis has been confirmed by the rhodopsin ground-state crystal structure and by computational modeling approaches. However, some class A GPCRs are resistant to CA, suggesting alternative roles for the glutamic acid/aspartic acid residue and the E/DRY motif. Here, we propose two different subgroups of receptors within class A GPCRs that make different use of the E/DRY motif, independent of the G protein type (G_s, G_i, or G_q) to which the receptor couples. In phenotype 1 receptors, nonconservative mutations of the glutamic acid/aspartic acid–arginine residues, besides inducing CA, increase affinity for agonist binding, retain G protein coupling, and retain an agonist-induced response. In contrast, in second phenotype receptors, the E/DRY motif is more directly involved in governing receptor conformation and G protein coupling/recognition. Hence, mutations of the glutamic acid/aspartic acid residues do not induce CA. Conversely, nonconservative mutations of the arginine of the E/DRY motif always impair agonist-induced receptor responses and, generally, reduce agonist binding affinity. Thus, it is essential to look beyond the rhodopsin ground-state model of conformational activation to clarify the role of this highly conserved triplet in GPCR activation and function.

	Does a Common Structure Predict a Common Behavior?

Top Abstract Does a Common Structure... The Consensus Picture The Consensus Picture Does... Does Arginine Mutations Add... Other Considerations Conclusions References

 
Although these putative GPCRs have no overall sequence homology, their primary structure is characterized by a common structural motif of seven transmembrane-spanning regions (Bockaert and Pin, 1999). Although the extracellular receptor surface is known to be critically involved in ligand binding (Schwartz, 1994; Strader et al., 1994), the intracellular receptor surface is known to be important for recognition and activation of heterotrimeric GTP-binding proteins (G proteins) (Dohlman et al., 1991), the primary, but not sole, signal-transducing system (Hall et al., 1999; Marinissen and Gutkind, 2001) for GPCRs.

It has not, however, been possible to define a consensus sequence of the binding interface(s) between receptor and G proteins (Bourne, 1997; Wess, 1998). Thus, there has been a sustained effort to elucidate the functional mechanisms of GPCRs, including their ability to undergo conformational changes and activate G proteins (Schwartz et al., 2006). Such efforts have focused on highly conserved amino acid sequence motifs, including one highly conserved stretch of residues, the triplet of amino acids glutamic acid/aspartic acid–arginine–tyrosine. This E/DRY or DRY motif is located at the boundary between transmembrane domain (TM) III and intracellular loop 2 of class A GPCRs (rhodopsin family). It plays a pivotal role in regulating GPCR conformational states (Table 1).

	The Consensus Picture

Top Abstract Does a Common Structure... The Consensus Picture The Consensus Picture Does... Does Arginine Mutations Add... Other Considerations Conclusions References

 
Indeed, the consensus picture derived in part from the rhodopsin structure is that the basic arginine (denoted residue 3.50) forms stabilizing intramolecular interactions, notably with the neighboring aspartic acid or glutamic acid (3.49) (Ballesteros et al., 1998, 2001; Li et al., 2001) and/or with another charged residue (6.30) on helix 6 (Ballesteros et al., 2001; Angelova et al., 2002; Greasley et al., 2002; Shapiro et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2005), thereby constraining GPCRs in the inactive (R) conformation. The crystal structure of the ground state of rhodopsin indicates that the arginine is engaged in a double salt bridge with the adjacent glutamic acid (3.49) and with the glutamic acid (6.30) on helix 6 (Palczewski et al., 2000; Teller et al., 2001), suggesting that disruption of these salt bridges may be a key step in receptor activation (Cohen et al., 1993; Greasley et al., 2001; Angelova et al., 2002). Mutation of the glutamic acid/aspartic acid of the E/DRY motif has been proposed to induce a conformational change that repositions the arginine from its polar pocket, resulting in the ability of some GPCRs to adopt an active (R*) conformation (Scheer et al., 1996, 1997; Cotecchia et al., 2002). Thus, this first phenotype (P1-type) is characterized by an increase of agonist-independent basal receptor activity (constitutive activity, CA) upon mutation of glutamic acid/aspartic acid 3.49 (constitutive active mutant, CAM), which occurs, for example, in rhodopsin (Franke et al., 1992; Cohen et al., 1993; Acharya and Karnik, 1996), _1B-adrenergic receptors (_1B-AR) (Scheer et al., 1996, 1997), vasopressin type II receptors (V₂R) (Morin et al., 1998), ₂-AR (Rasmussen et al., 1999; Ballesteros et al., 2001), histamine H₂ receptors (H₂R) (Alewijnse et al., 2000), µ-opioid receptors (µO-R) (Li et al., 2001), _2B-AR (Ge et al., 2003), and oxytocin receptors (OT-R) (Favre et al., 2005) (Table 1).

	The Consensus Picture Does Not Apply to All GPCRs

Top Abstract Does a Common Structure... The Consensus Picture The Consensus Picture Does... Does Arginine Mutations Add... Other Considerations Conclusions References

 
By analyzing the available literature concerning mutations at the E/DRY motif of class A GPCRs to find a common pattern to predict its function, we were able to discriminate at least one other phenotype. This second phenotype (P2-type) does not exhibit increased CA upon mutation of glutamic acid/aspartic acid 3.49 (constitutive inactive mutant, CIM) and is observed for muscarinic M1 and M5 (M1 and M5 AChRs) (Lu et al., 1997; Burstein et al., 1998), gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) (Arora et al., 1997; Ballesteros et al., 1998), cannabinoid 2 (CB₂R) (Rhee et al., 2000; Feng and Song, 2003), _2A-AR (Wang et al., 1991; Chung et al., 2002), TP (TP-R) (Capra et al., 2004), V_1A (V_1AR) (Hawtin, 2005), and chemokine 5 (CCR5) (Lagane et al., 2005) receptors. Nonetheless, for receptors of the P2-type, mutations can still affect receptor function as glutamic acid/aspartic acid nonconservative (i.e., charge-neutralizing or hydropathy-reversing) mutations have a number of effects that support an important role in stabilizing receptor conformation (Table 1). For example, in the TP-R, the E129V mutant displayed a 2- to 6-fold increase in agonist affinity, a 10-fold decrease in EC₅₀ value and an approximately 2-fold increase in E_max for agonists compared with wild-type receptor (Capra et al., 2004). This phenomenon, also observed for other GPCRs such as M1 AChR (Lu et al., 1997), GnRH (Arora et al., 1997; Ballesteros et al., 1998), and _2A-AR (Chung et al., 2002) has been interpreted as a mutation-specific conformational change toward an active-like conformation in accordance to the extended ternary complex model (Samama et al., 1993); however, this is not accompanied by detectable constitutive activity. For some receptors, assignment to a defined phenotype was difficult due to differences in the methodologies used by various laboratories and/or lack of complete data. These receptors are listed as "undefined" in Table 1.

	Does Arginine Mutations Add Complexity or Fit into These Defined Phenotypes?

Top Abstract Does a Common Structure... The Consensus Picture The Consensus Picture Does... Does Arginine Mutations Add... Other Considerations Conclusions References

 
In contrast to the enhancement of basal activity observed for glutamic acid/aspartic acid mutations, nonconservative mutations of arginine 3.50 show variable effects on function of the P1-type receptors but invariably exert strongly disruptive effects on P2-type receptor activity (Table 1). This correlation between the effects of glutamic acid/aspartic acid and arginine mutations within the P1 and P2 groups of receptors is a key aspect of this phenotypic division. Furthermore, naturally occurring mutations in P2-type receptors have been identified that result in receptor dysfunction and are responsible for certain diseases such as nephrogenic diabetes insipidus (Rosenthal et al., 1993; Birnbaumer, 1995; Innamorati et al., 1997) and hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (Costa et al., 2001). It is interesting that arginine 3.50 mutations also show two patterns of effects on agonist binding. The first (generally in P1-type receptors) preserves high-affinity agonist binding and G protein coupling (rhodopsin, _1B-AR, V₂R, 2-AR, H₂R, µO-R, _2B-AR, and OT-R), whereas the second (in P2-type) disrupts high-affinity agonist binding and, conceivably, G protein coupling (M1 AChR and possibly M5 AChR, GnRH, CB₂R _2A-AR, TP-R, V_1aR, and CCR5).

The effect of nonconservative arginine 3.50 mutations in P2-type GPCRs to disrupt receptor function concomitant with decreased agonist affinity is consistent with loss of G protein coupling in agreement with the extended ternary complex model (Table 1). Acharya and Karnik (1996) have suggested that arginine 3.50 interacts directly with the G protein to catalyze GDP release (1996); however, direct evidence in support of this conclusion is not available. The relationship between binding and response for some P1-type receptors is harder to reconcile. There is an apparent paradox between the increased or unchanged agonist affinity and loss of function. There are two possible explanations for this. Arginine 3.50 may serve as an effector for G protein activation as suggested by Acharya and Karnik (1996) and Chung et al. (2002). Alternatively, mutations in arginine 3.50 of the V₂R may produce a "constitutively desensitized" phenotype, reported as a loss-of-function mutant due to decreased expression at the plasma membrane (Barak et al., 2001). This latter observation has been extended to other GPCRs, suggesting that this emerging paradigm of constitutive receptor desensitization might represent a general mechanism of hormonal resistance (Wilbanks et al., 2002).

	Other Considerations

Top Abstract Does a Common Structure... The Consensus Picture The Consensus Picture Does... Does Arginine Mutations Add... Other Considerations Conclusions References

 
The tyrosine residue is the least conserved and studied among the triad sequence, with cysteinyl, histidyl, and serine residues occurring in some GPCRs, such as OT-R, V₂R, and GnRH. The tyrosine residue mutation often does not (Arora et al., 1997; Lu et al., 1997; Ohyama et al., 2002; Gaborik et al., 2003) or only marginally (Zhu et al., 1994; Rhee et al., 2000; Auger et al., 2002; Hawtin, 2005) affects receptor function.

The GTPS effects on agonist binding (i.e., GTP-induced affinity shift) has been seldom examined, and thus, the results are difficult to interpret (Table 1). Most CAMs become resistant to GTPS effects, whereas the only CIM studied maintains the GTP shift for aspartic acid 3.49 mutations while having their affinity lowered for arginine 3.50, as one would expect. More variable are the effects for the receptors listed as "undefined."

Despite our efforts to find a common pattern within each class of receptors, there does not seem to be a specific amino acid sequence or polarity profile in the intracellular loop 2 that accounts for the different functional properties of P1- and P2-type receptors (data not shown) as might be expected given that very closely related receptor subtypes (e.g., _2a- and _2b-AR) fall in different groups. Thus, given the present understanding of the mechanisms underlying receptor activation, it is not possible at present to predict the likely phenotype for a receptor that has not yet been mutated in this region.

	Conclusions

Top Abstract Does a Common Structure... The Consensus Picture The Consensus Picture Does... Does Arginine Mutations Add... Other Considerations Conclusions References

 
The classification described above is certainly an oversimplification. First, some receptors did not fall into the two categories outlined. In addition, an individual receptor might have constitutive activity or might be inactive depending on the particular signal output but behave differently for another output. For example, the triple mutant DRY/AAY of the AT₁R, while being unable to induce inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate accumulation and couple to G proteins (Shibata et al., 1996; Gaborik et al., 2003), results in activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade, which is functionally G_q-independent but -arrestin-dependent (Wei et al., 2003). Recently, Favre et al. (2005) demonstrated that the mutation D136N of the OT-R enhances signaling through G_q proteins while disrupting interactions with G_i proteins (Favre et al., 2005). Furthermore, all the studies reviewed here are, of course, performed in recombinant systems in which only homodimerization is present or prevalent. In native systems, the presence of heterodimerization may add complexity to some of the features here highlighted.

The two subgroups (P1- and P2-type) of class A GPCRs use the E/DRY motif in different ways (Fig. 1). This is apparently independent of the class of G protein (G_s, G_i, or G_q) to which the receptor is preferentially coupled (Burstein et al., 1998; Chung et al., 2002). In the P1-type group, E/DRY is involved in constraining the receptor in the ground state. In fact, activating mutations tend to weaken the ground-state interactions of the central arginine and increase the solvent accessibility of selected amino acids at the cytosolic extensions of TM3 and TM6. Accordingly, all nonconservative mutations of the glutamic acid/aspartic acid or arginine residues increase or induce CA of the receptors, increase (or not affect) affinity for agonist binding, and retain G protein coupling. An agonist-induced response that is sometimes evident may also be masked by an increase in receptor internalization (constitutively desensitized receptor, apparent loss-of-function phenotype). Although high-affinity agonist binding is usually interpreted to reflect G protein coupling, it is possible that mutations may induce a high affinity (R*) state even in the absence of G protein coupling. Thus, the main role of arginine 3.50 in this group might be to maintain the inactive state of the receptor (Flanagan, 2005). In contrast, in the P2-type group, the E/DRY motif is more directly involved in governing G protein coupling/recognition. Hence, mutations of the 3.49 glutamic acid/aspartic acid residue do not induce CA, whereas agonist-induced responses are altered in a mutation-specific manner. Indeed, some nonconservative mutants yield receptors with more efficient signaling properties (increase in agonist potency and/or efficacy), an observation that suggests a conformational change in the ground state toward an active-like conformation, which, despite the absence of CA as generally intended (i.e., increase in basal receptor signaling), might be viewed as a form of constitutive "activatability." Conversely, the central arginine of the DRY motif seems to be more directly involved in receptor-G protein-coupling/recognition. Nonconservative mutations of this residue invariably impair agonist-induced receptor responses and also reduce affinity for agonist binding.

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Effect of the mutation and proposed role for the DRY motif of class A GPCRs.

Measuring receptor cell surface expression, and especially their coupling efficiency to alternative signaling pathways should be considered in analysis of such mutants in the future. In this respect, ligand-induced regulation of [³⁵S]GTPS binding can provide an excellent measures of the basic pharmacological characteristics and the relative efficacy of different mutants (Milligan, 2003) and should be, despite its technical difficulties, the primary choice in this type of studies.

We also stress the importance, besides the charge, of the hydropathic characteristic of the residues involved in G protein-receptor binding (Moro et al., 1993; Wess, 1998; Greasley et al., 2001; Capra et al., 2004; Janz and Farrens, 2004). In fact, when mutagenesis was performed mutating the Asp142 of the _1B-AR to all possible natural amino acid, a clear relationship was found between the empirically deduced hydrophathy index of the substituted residues and the extent of CA (Scheer et al., 1997). Thus, not only charge-neutralizing, but also hydropathy-reversing substitutions should be considered nonconservative and have been demonstrated to affect receptor functionality (Capra et al., 2004).

Although other subclasses of class A GPCRs may exist with yet a different function of the conserved E/DRY motif, there are striking parallels between the functional behavior of the glutamic acid/aspartic acid and arginine mutations in the P1- and P2-type receptors. Extension of this concept to other class A GPCRs and elucidation of the molecular basis for these distinct functional behaviors would be of significant interest and should help clarify the role of this highly conserved triplet in GPCRs activation and function.

	Footnotes

 
This work was supported in part by grants from the Italian Ministry of University and Research, MIUR–PRIN 2004 (prot. 2004052155) to G. E. Rovati and V. Capra.

Article, publication date, and citation information can be found at http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org.

doi:10.1124/mol.106.029470.

ABBREVIATIONS: GPCR, heptahelical G protein-coupled receptors; CAM, constitutively active mutant; CA, constitutive activity; CIM, constitutively inactive mutant; CCR5, chemokine 5; GnRH, gonadotropin-releasing hormone; CB₂R, cannabinoid 2; OT-R, oxytocin receptor; µO-R, µ-opioid receptors; H₂R, histamine H₂ receptors; V₂R, vasopressin type II receptors; (_1B-AR, _1B-adrenergic receptor; TM, transmembrane domain; P1-type, first phenotype; P2-type, second phenotype; TP-R, TP receptor; V_1AR, V_1A receptor; AChR, acetylcholine receptor; GTPS, guanosine 5'-O-(3-thio)triphosphate.

Address correspondence to: Dr. G. Enrico Rovati, Laboratory of Molecular Pharmacology, Department of Pharmacological Sciences, University of Milan, Via Balzaretti 9, 20133 Milan, Italy. E-mail: genrico.rovati{at}unimi.it

	References

Top Abstract Does a Common Structure... The Consensus Picture The Consensus Picture Does... Does Arginine Mutations Add... Other Considerations Conclusions References

 
Acharya S and Karnik SS (1996) Modulation of GDP release from transducin by the conserved Glu134-Arg135 sequence in rhodopsin. J Biol Chem 271: 25406–25411.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Alewijnse AE, Timmerman H, Jacobs EH, Smit MJ, Roovers E, Cotecchia S, and Leurs R (2000) The effect of mutations in the DRY motif on the constitutive activity and structural instability of the histamine H₂ receptor. Mol Pharmacol 57: 890–898.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Angelova K, Fanelli F, and Puett D (2002) A model for constitutive lutropin receptor activation based on molecular simulation and engineered mutations in transmembrane helices 6 and 7. J Biol Chem 277: 32202–32213.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Arora KK, Cheng Z, and Catt KJ (1997) Mutations of the conserved DRS motif in the second intracellular loop of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor affect expression, activation, and internalization. Mol Endocrinol 11: 1203–1212.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Auger GA, Pease JE, Shen X, Xanthou G, and Barker MD (2002) Alanine scanning mutagenesis of CCR3 reveals that the three intracellular loops are essential for functional receptor expression. Eur J Immunol 32: 1052–1058.[CrossRef][Medline]

Ballesteros J, Kitanovic S, Guarnieri F, Davies P, Fromme BJ, Konvicka K, Chi L, Millar RP, Davidson JS, Weinstein H, et al. (1998) Functional microdomains in G-protein-coupled receptors. The conserved arginine-cage motif in the gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor. J Biol Chem 273: 10445–10453.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Ballesteros JA, Jensen AD, Liapakis G, Rasmussen SG, Shi L, Gether U, and Javitch JA (2001) Activation of the 2-adrenergic receptor involves disruption of an ionic lock between the cytoplasmic ends of transmembrane segments 3 and 6. J Biol Chem 276: 29171–29177.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Barak LS, Oakley RH, Laporte SA, and Caron MG (2001) Constitutive arrestin-mediated desensitization of a human vasopressin receptor mutant associated with nephrogenic diabetes insipidus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 93–98.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Birnbaumer M (1995) Mutations and diseases of G protein coupled receptors. J Recept Signal Transduct Res 15: 131–160.[Medline]

Bockaert J and Pin JP (1999) Molecular tinkering of G protein-coupled receptors: an evolutionary success. EMBO (Eur Mol Biol Organ) J 18: 1723–1729.[CrossRef][Medline]

Bourne HR (1997) How receptors talk to trimeric G proteins. Curr Opin Cell Biol 9: 134–142.[CrossRef][Medline]

Brink CB, Harvey BH, Bodenstein J, Venter DP, and Oliver DW (2004) Recent advances in drug action and therapeutics: relevance of novel concepts in G-protein-coupled receptor and signal transduction pharmacology. Br J Clin Pharmacol 57: 373–387.[CrossRef][Medline]

Burstein ES, Spalding TA, and Brann MR (1998) The second intracellular loop of the m5 muscarinic receptor is the switch which enables G-protein coupling. J Biol Chem 273: 24322–24327.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Capra V, Veltri A, Foglia C, Crimaldi L, Habib A, Parenti M, and Rovati GE (2004) Mutational analysis of the highly conserved ERY motif of the thromboxane A2 receptor: alternative role in G protein-coupled receptor signaling. Mol Pharmacol 66: 880–889.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Chung DA, Wade SM, Fowler CB, Woods DD, Abada PB, Mosberg HI, and Neubig RR (2002) Mutagenesis and peptide analysis of the DRY motif in the alpha2A adrenergic receptor: evidence for alternate mechanisms in G protein-coupled receptors. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 293: 1233–1241.[CrossRef][Medline]

Cohen GB, Yang T, Robinson PR, and Oprian DD (1993) Constitutive activation of opsin: influence of charge at position 134 and size at position 296. Biochemistry 32: 6111–6115.[CrossRef][Medline]

Costa EM, Bedecarrats GY, Mendonca BB, Arnhold IJ, Kaiser UB, and Latronico AC (2001) Two novel mutations in the gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor gene in Brazilian patients with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism and normal olfaction. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86: 2680–2686.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Cotecchia S, Bjorklof K, Rossier O, Stanasila L, Greasley P, and Fanelli F (2002) The alpha1b-adrenergic receptor subtype: molecular properties and physiological implications. J Recept Signal Transduct Res 22: 1–16.[CrossRef][Medline]

Dohlman HG, Thorner J, Caron MG, and Lefkowitz RJ (1991) Model systems for the study of seven-transmembrane-segment receptors. Annu Rev Biochem 60: 653–688.[CrossRef][Medline]

Drews J (2000) Drug discovery: a historical perspective. Science (Wash DC) 287: 1960–1964.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Favre N, Fanelli F, Missotten M, Nichols A, Wilson J, di Tiani M, Rommel C, and Scheer A (2005) The DRY motif as a molecular switch of the human oxytocin receptor. Biochemistry 44: 9990–10008.[CrossRef][Medline]

Feng W and Song ZH (2003) Effects of D3.49A, R3.50A, and A6.34E mutations on ligand binding and activation of the cannabinoid-2 (CB2) receptor. Biochem Pharmacol 65: 1077–1085.[CrossRef][Medline]

Flanagan CA (2005) A GPCR that is not "DRY". Mol Pharmacol 68: 1–3.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Franke RR, Sakmar TP, Graham RM, and Khorana HG (1992) Structure and function in rhodopsin. Studies of the interaction between the rhodopsin cytoplasmic domain and transducin. J Biol Chem 267: 14767–14774.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Fredriksson R, Lagerstrom MC, Lundin LG, and Schioth HB (2003) The G-protein-coupled receptors in the human genome form five main families. Phylogenetic analysis, paralogon groups, and fingerprints. Mol Pharmacol 63: 1256–1272.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Gaborik Z, Jagadeesh G, Zhang M, Spat A, Catt KJ, and Hunyady L (2003) The role of a conserved region of the second intracellular loop in AT1 angiotensin receptor activation and signaling. Endocrinology 144: 2220–2228.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Ge H, Scheinin M, and Kallio J (2003) Constitutive precoupling to G_i and increased agonist potency in the alpha_2B-adrenoceptor. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 306: 959–965.[CrossRef][Medline]

Greasley PJ, Fanelli F, Rossier O, Abuin L, and Cotecchia S (2002) Mutagenesis and modelling of the alpha_1b-adrenergic receptor highlight the role of the helix 3/helix 6 interface in receptor activation. Mol Pharmacol 61: 1025–1032.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Greasley PJ, Fanelli F, Scheer A, Abuin L, Nenniger-Tosato M, DeBenedetti PG, and Cotecchia S. (2001) Mutational and computational analysis of the _1b-adrenergic receptor. Involvement of basic and hydrophobic residues in receptor activation and G protein coupling. J Biol Chem 276: 46485–46494.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Hall RA, Premont RT, and Lefkowitz RJ (1999) Heptahelical receptor signaling: beyond the G protein paradigm. J Cell Biol 145: 927–932.[Free Full Text]

Hawtin SR (2005) Charged residues of the conserved DRY triplet of the vasopressin V1a receptor provide molecular determinants for cell surface delivery and internalization. Mol Pharmacol 68: 1172–1182.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Innamorati G, Sadeghi H, Eberle AN, and Birnbaumer M (1997) Phosphorylation of the V2 vasopressin receptor. J Biol Chem 272: 2486–2492.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Janz JM and Farrens DL (2004) Rhodopsin activation exposes a key hydrophobic binding site for the transducin -subunit C terminus. J Biol Chem 279: 29767–29773.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Lagane B, Ballet S, Planchenault T, Balabanian K, Le Poul E, Blanpain C, Percherancier Y, Staropoli I, Vassart G, Oppermann M, et al. (2005) Mutation of the DRY motif reveals different structural requirements for the CC chemokine receptor 5-mediated signaling and receptor endocytosis. Mol Pharmacol 67: 1966–1976.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Lefkowitz RJ (2000) The superfamily of heptahelical receptors. Nat Cell Biol 2: E133–E136.[CrossRef][Medline]

Li J, Huang P, Chen C, de Riel JK, Weinstein H, and Liu-Chen LY (2001) Constitutive activation of the mu opioid receptor by mutation of D3.49(164), but not D3.32(147): D3.49(164) is critical for stabilization of the inactive form of the receptor and for its expression. Biochemistry 40: 12039–12050.[CrossRef][Medline]

Lu ZL, Curtis CA, Jones PG, Pavia J, and Hulme EC (1997) The role of the aspartate-arginine-tyrosine triad in the m1 muscarinic receptor: mutations of aspartate 122 and tyrosine 124 decrease receptor expression but do not abolish signaling. Mol Pharmacol 51: 234–241.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Marinissen MJ and Gutkind JS (2001) G-protein-coupled receptors and signaling networks: emerging paradigms. Trends Pharmacol Sci 22: 368–376.[CrossRef][Medline]

Maudsley S, Martin B, and Luttrell LM (2005) The origins of diversity and specificity in g protein-coupled receptor signaling. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 314: 485–494.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Milligan G (2003) Principles: extending the utility of [35S]GTP gamma S binding assays. Trends Pharmacol Sci 24: 87–90.[CrossRef][Medline]

Morin D, Cotte N, Balestre MN, Mouillac B, Manning M, Breton C, and Barberis C (1998) The D136A mutation of the V2 vasopressin receptor induces a constitutive activity which permits discrimination between antagonists with partial agonist and inverse agonist activities. FEBS Lett 441: 470–475.[CrossRef][Medline]

Moro O, Lameh J, Hogger P, and Sadee W (1993) Hydrophobic amino acid in the i2 loop plays a key role in receptor-G protein coupling. J Biol Chem 268: 22273–22276.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Ohyama K, Yamano Y, Sano T, Nakagomi Y, Wada M, and Inagami T (2002) Role of the conserved DRY motif on G protein activation of rat angiotensin II receptor type 1A. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 292: 362–367.[CrossRef][Medline]

Palczewski K, Kumasaka T, Hori T, Behnke CA, Motoshima H, Fox BA, Le Trong I, Teller DC, Okada T, Stenkamp RE, et al. (2000) Crystal structure of rhodopsin: A G protein-coupled receptor. Science (Wash DC) 289: 739–745.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Pierce KL, Premont RT, and Lefkowitz RJ (2002) Seven-transmembrane receptors. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 3: 639–650.[CrossRef][Medline]

Rasmussen SG, Jensen AD, Liapakis G, Ghanouni P, Javitch JA, and Gether U (1999) Mutation of a highly conserved aspartic acid in the 2 adrenergic receptor: constitutive activation, structural instability, and conformational rearrangement of transmembrane segment 6. Mol Pharmacol 56: 175–184.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Rhee MH, Nevo I, Levy R, and Vogel Z (2000) Role of the highly conserved Asp-Arg-Tyr motif in signal transduction of the CB2 cannabinoid receptor. FEBS Lett 466: 300–304.[CrossRef][Medline]

Rosenthal W, Antaramian A, Gilbert S, and Birnbaumer M (1993) Nephrogenic diabetes insipidus. A V2 vasopressin receptor unable to stimulate adenylyl cyclase. J Biol Chem 268: 13030–13033.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Samama P, Cotecchia S, Costa T, and Lefkowitz RJ (1993) A mutation-induced activated state of the 2-adrenergic receptor. Extending the ternary complex model. J Biol Chem 268: 4625–4636.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Scheer A, Fanelli F, Costa T, De Benedetti PG, and Cotecchia S (1996) Constitutively active mutants of the alpha 1B-adrenergic receptor: role of highly conserved polar amino acids in receptor activation. EMBO (Eur Mol Biol Organ) J 15: 3566–3578.[Medline]

Scheer A, Fanelli F, Costa T, De Benedetti PG, and Cotecchia S (1997) The activation process of the 1B-adrenergic receptor: potential role of protonation and hydrophobicity of a highly conserved aspartate. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94: 808–813.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Schwartz TW (1994) Locating ligand-binding sites in 7TM receptors by protein engineering. Curr Opin Biotechnol 5: 434–444.[CrossRef][Medline]

Schwartz TW, Frimurer TM, Holst B, Rosenkilde MM, and Elling CE (2006) Molecular mechanism of 7tm receptor activation-a global toggle switch model. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 46: 481–519.[CrossRef][Medline]

Shapiro DA, Kristiansen K, Weiner DM, Kroeze WK, and Roth BL (2002) Evidence for a model of agonist-induced activation of 5-hydroxytryptamine 2A serotonin receptors that involves the disruption of a strong ionic interaction between helices 3 and 6. J Biol Chem 277: 11441–11449.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Shibata T, Suzuki C, Ohnishi J, Murakami K, and Miyazaki H (1996) Identification of regions in the human angiotensin II receptor type 1 responsible for Gi and Gq coupling by mutagenesis study. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 218: 383–389.[CrossRef][Medline]

Strader CD, Fong TM, Tota MR, Underwood D, and Dixon RA (1994) Structure and function of G protein-coupled receptors. Annu Rev Biochem 63: 101–132.[CrossRef][Medline]

Teller DC, Okada T, Behnke CA, Palczewski K, and Stenkamp RE (2001) Advances in determination of a high-resolution three-dimensional structure of rhodopsin, a model of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Biochemistry 40: 7761–7772.[CrossRef][Medline]

Wang CD, Buck MA, and Fraser CM (1991) Site-directed mutagenesis of alpha 2A-adrenergic receptors: identification of amino acids involved in ligand binding and receptor activation by agonists. Mol Pharmacol 40: 168–179.[Abstract]

Wei H, Ahn S, Shenoy SK, Karnik SS, Hunyady L, Luttrell LM, and Lefkowitz RJ (2003) Independent -arrestin 2 and G protein-mediated pathways for angiotensin II activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1 and 2. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 10782–10787.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Wess J (1998) Molecular basis of receptor/G-protein-coupling selectivity. Pharmacol Ther 80: 231–264.[CrossRef][Medline]

Wilbanks AM, Laporte SA, Bohn LM, Barak LS, and Caron MG (2002) Apparent loss-of-function mutant GPCRs revealed as constitutively desensitized receptors. Biochemistry 41: 11981–11989.[CrossRef][Medline]

Wise A, Jupe SC, and Rees S (2004) The identification of ligands at orphan G-protein coupled receptors. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 44: 43–66.[CrossRef][Medline]

Zhang M, Mizrachi D, Fanelli F, and Segaloff DL (2005) The formation of a salt bridge between helices 3 and 6 is responsible for the constitutive activity and lack of hormone responsiveness of the naturally occurring L457R mutation of the human lutropin receptor. J Biol Chem 280: 26169–26176.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Zhu SZ, Wang SZ, Hu J, and el-Fakahany EE (1994) An arginine residue conserved in most G protein-coupled receptors is essential for the function of the m1 muscarinic receptor. Mol Pharmacol 45: 517–523.[Abstract]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. Peverelli, A. G. Lania, G. Mantovani, P. Beck-Peccoz, and A. Spada Characterization of Intracellular Signaling Mediated by Human Somatostatin Receptor 5: Role of the DRY Motif and the Third Intracellular Loop Endocrinology, July 1, 2009; 150(7): 3169 - 3176. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. D. Ye, F. Boulay, J. M. Wang, C. Dahlgren, C. Gerard, M. Parmentier, C. N. Serhan, and P. M. Murphy International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. LXXIII. Nomenclature for the Formyl Peptide Receptor (FPR) Family Pharmacol. Rev., June 1, 2009; 61(2): 119 - 161. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. Auchampach, L. M. Kreckler, T. C. Wan, J. E. Maas, D. van der Hoeven, E. Gizewski, J. Narayanan, and G. E. Maas Characterization of the A2B Adenosine Receptor from Mouse, Rabbit, and Dog J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., April 1, 2009; 329(1): 2 - 13. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Kocan, H. B. See, N. G. Sampaio, K. A. Eidne, B. J. Feldman, and K. D. G. Pfleger Agonist-Independent Interactions between {beta}-Arrestins and Mutant Vasopressin Type II Receptors Associated with Nephrogenic Syndrome of Inappropriate Antidiuresis Mol. Endocrinol., April 1, 2009; 23(4): 559 - 571. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. O. Dror, D. H. Arlow, D. W. Borhani, M. O. Jensen, S. Piana, and D. E. Shaw Identification of two distinct inactive conformations of the {beta}2-adrenergic receptor reconciles structural and biochemical observations PNAS, March 24, 2009; 106(12): 4689 - 4694. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. T. Strachan, D. J. Sheffler, B. Willard, M. Kinter, J. G. Kiselar, and B. L. Roth Ribosomal S6 Kinase 2 Directly Phosphorylates the 5-Hydroxytryptamine 2A (5-HT2A) Serotonin Receptor, Thereby Modulating 5-HT2A Signaling J. Biol. Chem., February 27, 2009; 284(9): 5557 - 5573. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. S. Sum, I. G. Tikhonova, S. Costanzi, and M. C. Gershengorn Two Arginine-Glutamate Ionic Locks Near the Extracellular Surface of FFAR1 Gate Receptor Activation J. Biol. Chem., February 6, 2009; 284(6): 3529 - 3536. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Zhang, H. Zhao, Y. Qiu, H. H. Loh, and P.-Y. Law Src Phosphorylation of {micro}-Receptor Is Responsible for the Receptor Switching from an Inhibitory to a Stimulatory Signal J. Biol. Chem., January 23, 2009; 284(4): 1990 - 2000. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. T. Chung, T. R. Webb, L. F. Chan, S. N. Cooray, L. A. Metherell, P. J. King, J. P. Chapple, and A. J. L. Clark The Majority of Adrenocorticotropin Receptor (Melanocortin 2 Receptor) Mutations Found in Familial Glucocorticoid Deficiency Type 1 Lead to Defective Trafficking of the Receptor to the Cell Surface J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., December 1, 2008; 93(12): 4948 - 4954. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. Wacker, D. B. Feller, X.-B. Tang, M. C. DeFino, Y. Namkung, J. S. Lyssand, A. J. Mhyre, X. Tan, J. B. Jensen, and C. Hague Disease-causing Mutation in GPR54 Reveals the Importance of the Second Intracellular Loop for Class A G-protein-coupled Receptor Function J. Biol. Chem., November 7, 2008; 283(45): 31068 - 31078. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. A. Sarkar, I. Dodevski, M. Kenig, S. Dudli, A. Mohr, E. Hermans, and A. Pluckthun From the Cover: Directed evolution of a G protein-coupled receptor for expression, stability, and binding selectivity PNAS, September 30, 2008; 105(39): 14808 - 14813. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. D. Proulx, B. J. Holleran, A. A. Boucard, E. Escher, G. Guillemette, and R. Leduc Mutational Analysis of the Conserved Asp2.50 and ERY Motif Reveals Signaling Bias of the Urotensin II Receptor Mol. Pharmacol., September 1, 2008; 74(3): 552 - 561. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. A. Artigas, A. Gonzalez, E. Riquelme, C. A. Carvajal, A. Cattani, A. Martinez-Aguayo, A. M. Kalergis, T. Perez-Acle, and C. E. Fardella A Novel Adrenocorticotropin Receptor Mutation Alters Its Structure and Function, Causing Familial Glucocorticoid Deficiency J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., August 1, 2008; 93(8): 3097 - 3105. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Pang, J. Dong, and P. Thomas Estrogen Signaling Characteristics of Atlantic Croaker G Protein-Coupled Receptor 30 (GPR30) and Evidence It Is Involved in Maintenance of Oocyte Meiotic Arrest Endocrinology, July 1, 2008; 149(7): 3410 - 3426. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Hase, T. Yokomizo, T. Shimizu, and M. Nakamura Characterization of an Orphan G Protein-coupled Receptor, GPR20, That Constitutively Activates Gi Proteins J. Biol. Chem., May 9, 2008; 283(19): 12747 - 12755. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Tokunaga, B. Matsuura, M. Dong, L. J. Miller, T. Ueda, S. Furukawa, Y. Hiasa, and M. Onji Mutational analysis of predicted intracellular loop domains of human motilin receptor Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol, February 1, 2008; 294(2): G460 - G466. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. A. Johnston and D. P. Siderovski Receptor-Mediated Activation of Heterotrimeric G-Proteins: Current Structural Insights Mol. Pharmacol., August 1, 2007; 72(2): 219 - 230. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Q. Tao, S. Nandadasa, P. D. McCrea, J. Heasman, and C. Wylie G-protein-coupled signals control cortical actin assembly by controlling cadherin expression in the early Xenopus embryo Development, July 15, 2007; 134(14): 2651 - 2661. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: mol.106.029470v1 71/4/959    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rovati, G. E. Articles by Neubig, R. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rovati, G. E. Articles by Neubig, R. R.