Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Sections
    • Archive
  • Information
    • Instructions to Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • FAQs
    • For Subscribers
    • Terms & Conditions of Use
    • Permissions
  • Editorial Board
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Virtual Issues
  • Feedback
  • Submit
  • Other Publications
    • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
    • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
    • Molecular Pharmacology
    • Pharmacological Reviews
    • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
    • ASPET

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Molecular Pharmacology
  • Other Publications
    • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
    • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
    • Molecular Pharmacology
    • Pharmacological Reviews
    • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
    • ASPET
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Molecular Pharmacology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Sections
    • Archive
  • Information
    • Instructions to Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • FAQs
    • For Subscribers
    • Terms & Conditions of Use
    • Permissions
  • Editorial Board
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Virtual Issues
  • Feedback
  • Submit
  • Visit molpharm on Facebook
  • Follow molpharm on Twitter
  • Follow molpharm on LinkedIn
Research ArticleSpecial Section: From Insight to Modulation of CXCR4 and ACKR3 (CXCR7) Function – Minireview
Open Access

Context-Dependent Signaling of CXC Chemokine Receptor 4 and Atypical Chemokine Receptor 3

Joyce Heuninck, Cristina Perpiñá Viciano, Ali Işbilir, Birgit Caspar, Davide Capoferri, Stephen J. Briddon, Thierry Durroux, Stephen J. Hill, Martin J. Lohse, Graeme Milligan, Jean-Philippe Pin and Carsten Hoffmann
Molecular Pharmacology December 2019, 96 (6) 778-793; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.118.115477
Joyce Heuninck
IGF, CNRS, Inserm, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France (J.H., T.D., J.-P.P.); Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (C.P.V., A.I., M.J.L., C.H.); Institute for Molecular Cell Biology, Centre for Molecular Biomedicine, University Hospital Jena, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany (C.P.V., C.H.); Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany (A.I., M.J.L.); Centre for Translational Pharmacology, Institute of Molecular, Cell, and Systems Biology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom (D.C., G.M.); Division of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.); and Centre of Membrane Proteins and Receptors, University of Birmingham and University of Nottingham, The Midlands, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cristina Perpiñá Viciano
IGF, CNRS, Inserm, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France (J.H., T.D., J.-P.P.); Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (C.P.V., A.I., M.J.L., C.H.); Institute for Molecular Cell Biology, Centre for Molecular Biomedicine, University Hospital Jena, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany (C.P.V., C.H.); Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany (A.I., M.J.L.); Centre for Translational Pharmacology, Institute of Molecular, Cell, and Systems Biology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom (D.C., G.M.); Division of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.); and Centre of Membrane Proteins and Receptors, University of Birmingham and University of Nottingham, The Midlands, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ali Işbilir
IGF, CNRS, Inserm, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France (J.H., T.D., J.-P.P.); Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (C.P.V., A.I., M.J.L., C.H.); Institute for Molecular Cell Biology, Centre for Molecular Biomedicine, University Hospital Jena, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany (C.P.V., C.H.); Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany (A.I., M.J.L.); Centre for Translational Pharmacology, Institute of Molecular, Cell, and Systems Biology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom (D.C., G.M.); Division of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.); and Centre of Membrane Proteins and Receptors, University of Birmingham and University of Nottingham, The Midlands, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Birgit Caspar
IGF, CNRS, Inserm, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France (J.H., T.D., J.-P.P.); Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (C.P.V., A.I., M.J.L., C.H.); Institute for Molecular Cell Biology, Centre for Molecular Biomedicine, University Hospital Jena, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany (C.P.V., C.H.); Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany (A.I., M.J.L.); Centre for Translational Pharmacology, Institute of Molecular, Cell, and Systems Biology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom (D.C., G.M.); Division of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.); and Centre of Membrane Proteins and Receptors, University of Birmingham and University of Nottingham, The Midlands, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Davide Capoferri
IGF, CNRS, Inserm, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France (J.H., T.D., J.-P.P.); Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (C.P.V., A.I., M.J.L., C.H.); Institute for Molecular Cell Biology, Centre for Molecular Biomedicine, University Hospital Jena, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany (C.P.V., C.H.); Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany (A.I., M.J.L.); Centre for Translational Pharmacology, Institute of Molecular, Cell, and Systems Biology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom (D.C., G.M.); Division of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.); and Centre of Membrane Proteins and Receptors, University of Birmingham and University of Nottingham, The Midlands, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen J. Briddon
IGF, CNRS, Inserm, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France (J.H., T.D., J.-P.P.); Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (C.P.V., A.I., M.J.L., C.H.); Institute for Molecular Cell Biology, Centre for Molecular Biomedicine, University Hospital Jena, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany (C.P.V., C.H.); Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany (A.I., M.J.L.); Centre for Translational Pharmacology, Institute of Molecular, Cell, and Systems Biology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom (D.C., G.M.); Division of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.); and Centre of Membrane Proteins and Receptors, University of Birmingham and University of Nottingham, The Midlands, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thierry Durroux
IGF, CNRS, Inserm, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France (J.H., T.D., J.-P.P.); Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (C.P.V., A.I., M.J.L., C.H.); Institute for Molecular Cell Biology, Centre for Molecular Biomedicine, University Hospital Jena, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany (C.P.V., C.H.); Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany (A.I., M.J.L.); Centre for Translational Pharmacology, Institute of Molecular, Cell, and Systems Biology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom (D.C., G.M.); Division of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.); and Centre of Membrane Proteins and Receptors, University of Birmingham and University of Nottingham, The Midlands, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen J. Hill
IGF, CNRS, Inserm, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France (J.H., T.D., J.-P.P.); Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (C.P.V., A.I., M.J.L., C.H.); Institute for Molecular Cell Biology, Centre for Molecular Biomedicine, University Hospital Jena, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany (C.P.V., C.H.); Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany (A.I., M.J.L.); Centre for Translational Pharmacology, Institute of Molecular, Cell, and Systems Biology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom (D.C., G.M.); Division of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.); and Centre of Membrane Proteins and Receptors, University of Birmingham and University of Nottingham, The Midlands, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin J. Lohse
IGF, CNRS, Inserm, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France (J.H., T.D., J.-P.P.); Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (C.P.V., A.I., M.J.L., C.H.); Institute for Molecular Cell Biology, Centre for Molecular Biomedicine, University Hospital Jena, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany (C.P.V., C.H.); Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany (A.I., M.J.L.); Centre for Translational Pharmacology, Institute of Molecular, Cell, and Systems Biology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom (D.C., G.M.); Division of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.); and Centre of Membrane Proteins and Receptors, University of Birmingham and University of Nottingham, The Midlands, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Graeme Milligan
IGF, CNRS, Inserm, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France (J.H., T.D., J.-P.P.); Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (C.P.V., A.I., M.J.L., C.H.); Institute for Molecular Cell Biology, Centre for Molecular Biomedicine, University Hospital Jena, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany (C.P.V., C.H.); Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany (A.I., M.J.L.); Centre for Translational Pharmacology, Institute of Molecular, Cell, and Systems Biology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom (D.C., G.M.); Division of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.); and Centre of Membrane Proteins and Receptors, University of Birmingham and University of Nottingham, The Midlands, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jean-Philippe Pin
IGF, CNRS, Inserm, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France (J.H., T.D., J.-P.P.); Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (C.P.V., A.I., M.J.L., C.H.); Institute for Molecular Cell Biology, Centre for Molecular Biomedicine, University Hospital Jena, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany (C.P.V., C.H.); Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany (A.I., M.J.L.); Centre for Translational Pharmacology, Institute of Molecular, Cell, and Systems Biology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom (D.C., G.M.); Division of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.); and Centre of Membrane Proteins and Receptors, University of Birmingham and University of Nottingham, The Midlands, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carsten Hoffmann
IGF, CNRS, Inserm, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France (J.H., T.D., J.-P.P.); Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (C.P.V., A.I., M.J.L., C.H.); Institute for Molecular Cell Biology, Centre for Molecular Biomedicine, University Hospital Jena, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany (C.P.V., C.H.); Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany (A.I., M.J.L.); Centre for Translational Pharmacology, Institute of Molecular, Cell, and Systems Biology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom (D.C., G.M.); Division of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.); and Centre of Membrane Proteins and Receptors, University of Birmingham and University of Nottingham, The Midlands, United Kingdom (B.C., S.J.B., S.J.H.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Carsten Hoffmann
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

G protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs) are regulated by complex molecular mechanisms, both in physiologic and pathologic conditions, and their signaling can be intricate. Many factors influence their signaling behavior, including the type of ligand that activates the GPCR, the presence of interacting partners, the kinetics involved, or their location. The two CXC-type chemokine receptors, CXC chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) and atypical chemokine receptor 3 (ACKR3), both members of the GPCR superfamily, are important and established therapeutic targets in relation to cancer, human immunodeficiency virus infection, and inflammatory diseases. Therefore, it is crucial to understand how the signaling of these receptors works to be able to specifically target them. In this review, we discuss how the signaling pathways activated by CXCR4 and ACKR3 can vary in different situations. G protein signaling of CXCR4 depends on the cellular context, and discrepancies exist depending on the cell lines used. ACKR3, as an atypical chemokine receptor, is generally reported to not activate G proteins but can broaden its signaling spectrum upon heteromerization with other receptors, such as CXCR4, endothelial growth factor receptor, or the α1-adrenergic receptor (α1-AR). Also, CXCR4 forms heteromers with CC chemokine receptor (CCR) 2, CCR5, the Na+/H+ exchanger regulatory factor 1, CXCR3, α1-AR, and the opioid receptors, which results in differential signaling from that of the monomeric subunits. In addition, CXCR4 is present on membrane rafts but can go into the nucleus during cancer progression, probably acquiring different signaling properties. In this review, we also provide an overview of the currently known critical amino acids involved in CXCR4 and ACKR3 signaling.

Introduction

G protein–coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling involves numerous factors that influence cellular functions. These include: 1) the variety of ligands binding to the receptor, 2) the kinetics of the processes, 3) the location of the GPCR, and 4) the available interactome or cellular context:

  1. Different ligands can induce a variety of conformational changes in a receptor and, therefore, adopt several conformations (Kim et al., 2013; Manglik et al., 2015; Masureel et al., 2018). These conformations could preferentially activate different pathways, which is known as biased agonism (Vaidehi and Kenakin, 2010; Lane et al., 2017).

  2. GPCR activation is also influenced by the kinetics of both ligand binding and receptor signaling, which can possibly lead to the observation of bias profiles, such as in the case of the dopamine D2 receptor (Klein Herenbrink et al., 2016).

  3. Most GPCRs signal from the plasma membrane, where they gather in separate compartments rich in G proteins (Huang et al., 1997) and interact with other partners (Hur and Kim, 2002). Nevertheless, increasing evidence suggests that GPCRs also signal after internalization (Calebiro et al., 2010; Vilardaga et al., 2014; Eichel and von Zastrow, 2018) and from subcellular sites, including the endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, and nucleus (Rebois et al., 2006; Boivin et al., 2008; Godbole et al., 2017). These internalized receptors could activate signaling pathways distinct from those activated by the same receptors at the cell surface.

  4. Different cellular contexts contain different sets of proteins that may directly or indirectly interact with the GPCR and hence alter its signaling. Therefore, the signaling pattern of one GPCR can strongly vary between cell types. For instance, although class A GPCRs can function as monomers (Whorton et al., 2007), they can also form and function as homo- and hetero-oligomers, which might result in altered signaling properties compared with those of the individual monomers (Jordan and Devi, 1999; Ferré et al., 2014). In this respect, the existence of membrane compartments can facilitate the interaction between different partners and result in a variety of cellular outcomes.

Is this complexity in signaling also applicable to the GPCRs’ CXC chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) and atypical chemokine receptor 3 (ACKR3)? Both receptors bind the same chemokine, CXC motif ligand 12 (CXCL12), but interestingly their signaling outcomes are different (Busillo and Benovic, 2007; Rajagopal et al., 2010). In addition, ACKR3 also binds CXCL11, although with lower affinity (Burns et al., 2006). Under physiologic conditions, CXCR4 is involved in vascularization (Tachibana et al., 1998), neurogenesis (Cui et al., 2013), angiogenesis (Salcedo and Oppenheim, 2003) and homing of immune cells in the bone marrow (Sugiyama et al., 2006), while ACKR3 has a role in the development of the central nervous system (Wang et al., 2011), angiogenesis (Zhang et al., 2017), neurogenesis (Kremer et al., 2016), and cardiogenesis (Ceholski et al., 2017).

Similar to most chemokine receptors, CXCR4 and ACKR3 are important therapeutic targets due to their involvement in immune-related diseases and cancer. The CXCL12/CXCR4 axis is involved in over 23 types of cancer, including breast, lung, colon, and ovary cancer (Guo et al., 2014; Panneerselvam et al., 2015; Zheng et al., 2017; Raschioni et al., 2018), and acts as a coreceptor for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to enter host T cells (Feng et al., 1996). The discovery of ACKR3 as another CXCL12 receptor added complexity to the understanding of the CXCR4/CXCL12 signaling axis (Balabanian et al., 2005a). ACKR3 is also overexpressed in many cancer types, playing an important role in tumor development and metastasis by promoting cell survival and adhesion (Burns et al., 2006; Miao et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2008). Importantly, ACKR3 has a functional cross-talk with CXCR4, and they are proposed to heteromerize (Balabanian et al., 2005a; Burns et al., 2006; Levoye et al., 2009; Decaillot et al., 2011). Several other receptors can also alter the function of CXCR4 and ACKR3, either through a functional cross-talk or as a consequence of heteromerization (Contento et al., 2008; Martínez-Muñoz et al., 2014; Becker et al., 2017; Dinkel et al., 2018).

Studies regarding CXCR4 and ACKR3 have been performed using a variety of cellular systems in which interacting proteins may not necessarily be identical, and often in transfected conditions, which could lead to the artificial induction of oligomerization (Meyer et al., 2006). Hence, there is increasing interest in investigating their signaling in a native-like context. In this review, we discuss these issues and the importance of location, kinetics, and interactions with other receptors/effectors in the scope of CXCR4 and ACKR3 signaling in physiologic and pathologic conditions.

CXCR4 and ACKR3 Signaling

A number of signaling pathways are known to be activated by CXCR4 and ACKR3, with outcomes differing depending on the cellular context. Generally, CXCR4 is able to signal through multiple G proteins and is also regulated by β-arrestins through different interacting regions. Conversely, ACKR3 signals predominantly via β-arrestins and is generally not able to activate G proteins. Nevertheless, as discussed in the following section, there is still conflicting evidence in relation to the precise details of their signaling.

G Protein–Dependent Signaling through CXCR4.

CXCR4 couples predominantly to G proteins of the Gαi/o family. Upon activation of the receptor, this family of G proteins generally leads to the inhibition of adenylyl cyclase, and as a consequence, cAMP production and the activity of cAMP-dependent protein kinases are reduced.

Many G protein activation studies are performed using bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET)–based and Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET) –based techniques in transfected cells, which provide a very good model to study the possible signaling pathways triggered by a receptor. However, the disadvantage of such studies is the need to transfect cells, which could generate artifacts as a result of overexpression of the corresponding proteins (Meyer et al., 2006). Studies using these recombinant systems have shown that CXCR4 can engage and activate different Gαi/o proteins, including Gαi1, Gαi2, Gαi3, and Gαo, in response to CXCL12 stimulation. In particular, it seems that CXCR4 might couple more efficiently to the Gαi1 and Gαi2 subtypes than to Gαi3 and Gαo (Kleemann et al., 2008; Quoyer et al., 2013). No activation of Gαz, the only member of the Gαi family that is resistant to pertussis toxin, has been demonstrated, although the CXCR4/CC chemokine receptor 2 (CCR2) hetero-oligomer is capable of stimulating Gαz-driven Ca2+ mobilization through the CCR2 receptor (Armando et al., 2014).

In addition to its coupling to the Gαi/o subfamily, CXCR4 can also signal through other G proteins. Studies using a more endogenous-like setting suggested that CXCR4 mediates some of its functions through Gα13. For example, migration of Jurkat T cells in response to CXCL12 is controlled not only by Gαi through the activation of Rac but also by Gα13 through the activation of Rho (Tan et al., 2006). Importantly, it seems that the coordinated activation of these two pathways is also essential for the CXCR4-induced migration of metastatic basal-like breast cancer cells in vitro and in vivo in response to CXCL12 (Yagi et al., 2011). The coupling of CXCR4 to the noncognate G protein Gα13 might be relevant in specific contexts, such as in metastatic breast cancer cells, where Gα13 is potentially overexpressed (Yagi et al., 2011; Rasheed et al., 2015). In addition, CXCR4 trafficking into Rab11+ vesicles upon CXCL12-induced endocytosis in T cells is known to be dependent on Gα13, which, together with Rho, mediates the polymerization of actin necessary for this process. It is thought that in this subcellular compartment, CXCR4 forms heterodimers with the T lymphocyte Ag receptor (Kumar et al., 2011).

CXCL12 stimulation of CXCR4 also led to activation of Gαq (Soede et al., 2001), a strong activator of members of the phospholipase C-β subfamily. However, this was only the case in dendritic cells and granulocytes, but not in T and B cells, where CXCR4 signaling and, ultimately, chemotaxis were shown to be Gαi-dependent (Shi et al., 2007). Altogether, these examples suggest that the cellular context can potentially have an impact on the signaling properties of this GPCR, although some caution must be taken when comparing the different studies, since the assays used could differ in their sensitivity and selectivity.

G Protein–Independent Signaling through CXCR4.

Similar to the majority of GPCRs, CXCR4 can also be regulated by β-arrestins at a number of levels, including CXCR4 internalization, G protein signaling, and chemotaxis.

Following activation of a receptor, G protein–coupled receptor kinases (GRKs) phosphorylate the intracellular side of the receptor, resulting in the recruitment of β-arrestins-1/2 and subsequent internalization of the receptor through clathrin-coated pits. Interestingly, coexpression of CXCR4 with β-arrestin-2 notably increased internalization of CXCR4 upon CXCL12 stimulation in contrast to β-arrestin-1. However, this difference disappeared when GRK2 was overexpressed, suggesting that β-arrestin-1–mediated internalization highly depends on the phosphorylation state of CXCR4 (Cheng et al., 2000).

Several studies have shown that the arrestins attenuate G protein signaling. In human embryonic kidney 293 (HEK293) cells, overexpression of CXCR4 with either β-arrestin reduced inhibition of cAMP production in response to CXCL12, indicating that both β-arrestin-1 and -2 play an important role in signaling regulation (Cheng et al., 2000). In accordance with this, using endogenous levels of CXCR4, lymphocytes isolated from β-arrestin-2 knockout mice showed a decreased desensitization and enhanced G protein coupling to CXCR4 (Fong et al., 2002). This attenuating effect on G protein signaling could be abolished by truncating the C terminus of the receptor, revealing a functional interaction of the receptor’s C terminus with the arrestin. However, receptor internalization and extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) activation were not affected, suggesting that a different region of CXCR4, in addition to the C terminus, is involved in the binding of these proteins with a different functional role (Cheng et al., 2000). This other region appears to be the intracellular loop 3 of the receptor, as it was also first described by Wu et al. (1997) and Cheng et al. (2000). Overall, β-arrestins appear to regulate CXCR4 signaling through at least two different and independent interacting regions on the receptor (Cheng et al., 2000). In accordance, the presence of mutations or truncations in the C terminus of CXCR4 is the cause of a rare congenital disease named warts, hypogammaglobulinemia, immunodeficiency, and myelokathexis syndrome (Hernandez et al., 2003; Balabanian et al., 2005b; Luo et al., 2017).

Last, β-arrestin-2 also plays a key role in CXCR4/CXCL12-mediated chemotaxis of HeLa cells, enhancing the chemotactic efficacy of the ligand mainly through the p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway (Sun et al., 2002).

Kinetics of CXCR4 Signaling.

GPCR activation and downstream signaling kinetics have been extensively studied within the last two decades with the aid of emerging fluorescence microscopy methods. Unlike many other receptors (Lohse et al., 2008; Stumpf and Hoffmann, 2016), only a few studies have been published on the kinetics of CXCR4 activation and its corresponding downstream signaling processes. Even so, using BRET studies, activation kinetics by CXCL12 and the pepducin ATI-2341 were compared. CXCL12 has been shown to rapidly induce Gαi protein recruitment to CXCR4 and lead to a full activation with a t1/2 value of approximately 32 seconds. The kinetics of Gαi protein recruitment were similar for the pepducin, although activation of Gαi was significantly slower (Quoyer et al., 2013). One study also focused on the phosphorylation kinetics of intracellular sites of CXCR4 in both HEK293 and human astroglial cells and suggested that Ser-324, Ser-325, and Ser-339 were phosphorylated rapidly by GRK6 after CXCL12 exposure, while the kinetics for Ser-330 phosphorylation were significantly slower. Such phosphorylation is directly involved in the association of arrestin to the receptor and hence can finely regulate CXCR4 signaling (Busillo et al., 2010). Another group also demonstrated that Gαi engagement to CXCR4 upon CXCL12 stimulation led to the phosphorylation of Tyr residues in the receptor via the Janus kinases 2/3 within a few seconds (Vila-Coro et al., 1999).

Key Residues for Signaling in the CXCR4 Receptor.

The intracellular loop 3 and the C-terminal tail of the receptor seem to be important for β-arrestin recruitment and G protein activation, and accordingly, mutations in these regions have a considerable impact on signaling. Several mutational studies have been performed to unravel how CXCL12 binds to CXCR4, and how the signal is transmitted from the extracellular part of the receptor through the transmembrane regions to the intracellular part, where interactions with protein partners involved in signaling occur. In these regards, previous studies have identified, with nearly atomic resolution, the pathway from the binding of the chemokine to the G protein coupling, and that several mutations in the receptor impair ligand binding and signaling (Wescott et al., 2016). A schematic summary including important residues relating to the function of CXCR4 is provided in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Snake plot of human CXCR4 with highlighted residues important for receptor function as determined in the following studies: 1Wescott et al. (2016), 2Berson et al. (1996), 3Zhou et al. (2001), 4Cronshaw et al. (2010), 5Rapp et al. (2013), 6Doranz et al. (1999), 7Brelot et al. (2000), 8Tian et al. (2005), 9Armando et al. (2014), 10Ballester et al. (2016), and 11Martínez-Muñoz et al. (2018). Snake plot adapted from GPCRdatabase (GPCRdb) (Pándy-Szekeres et al., 2018). WHIM, warts, hypogammaglobulinemia, infections, myelokathexis.

G Protein–Dependent Signaling through ACKR3.

Many studies have shown that ligand binding to ACKR3 does not result in either coupling to or activation of G proteins, or the triggering of signaling pathways typical of G proteins, in contrast to CXCR4. In fact, ACKR3 lacks the specific DRYLAIV motif on the intracellular side of the receptor that is essential for G protein interaction in other chemokine receptors, and instead presents a DRYLSIT motif (Ulvmar et al., 2011). However, efforts on creating a chimeric ACKR3 where the DRYLSIT is replaced by the corresponding DRYLAIV motif of CXCR4 failed to induce CXCL12-mediated signaling, such as G protein activation, intracellular Ca2+ mobilization, G protein–mediated ERK phosphorylation, or chemotaxis (Naumann et al., 2010; Hoffmann et al., 2012). This implies that the missing DRYLAIV motif in ACKR3 is not the only determinant for the lack of G protein–dependent signaling.

Nonetheless, the interaction of ACKR3 with G proteins has been proposed in two studies. In the first case, a specific BRET signal was detected between ACKR3–yellow fluorescent protein (YFP) and Gαi1–Renilla luciferase (RLuc), which decreased upon treatment with guanosine 5′-3-O-(thio)triphosphate, suggesting that ACKR3 can interact with G proteins in the absence of an agonist but fails to activate them (Levoye et al., 2009). In the second case, CXCL12 was still able to promote Gi/o protein activation in primary astrocytes after CXCR4 depletion but not after ACKR3 depletion. In addition, ACKR3-only-expressing astrocytes also led to ERK and Akt activation in response to both CXCL12 and CXCL11, although only the former appeared to be G protein dependent (Ödemis et al., 2012). Both Gi/o and ACKR3 are highly abundant in astrocytes and glioma cells (Schönemeier et al., 2008; Tiveron et al., 2010; Ödemis et al., 2012; Banisadr et al., 2016), and therefore, a hypothesis is that ACKR3 might be able to activate G proteins specifically in these cell types, indicating once again how important the interactome might be for a given GPCR.

Overall, although there is conflicting evidence on the role of ACKR3 in relation to G protein–dependent signaling, there is increasing evidence for a β-arrestin–biased receptor in most cell types. Moreover, studies have shown that ACKR3 could modulate other cellular signaling pathways, potentially by forming a heteromeric complex with other receptors, which is discussed in a later section of this review.

G Protein–Independent Signaling through ACKR3.

Many studies have shown that ACKR3 can act as a “decoy” or “scavenging” receptor, since it can efficiently internalize its chemokine ligands CXCL11 and CXCL12 (Naumann et al., 2010). By internalizing CXCL12, ACKR3 finely tunes the CXCL12 gradient necessary for the CXCR4-mediated migration (Dambly-Chaudière et al., 2007; Boldajipour et al., 2008; Donà et al., 2013). Nevertheless, ACKR3 is not only a “decoy” receptor, it can also activate downstream pathways via β-arrestins, in response to both CXCL11 and CXCL12, directly promoting Akt and mitogen-activated protein kinase activity, ERK phosphorylation (Hattermann et al., 2010; Rajagopal et al., 2010; Decaillot et al., 2011; Ödemis et al., 2012; Torossian et al., 2014), and activation of the Janus kinase 2/STAT3 pathway (Hao et al., 2012). CXCL11-dependent ERK phosphorylation could be seen in ACKR3-overexpressing HEK293 cells but not in rat vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMCs) that endogenously express ACKR3, again demonstrating the importance of the cellular context (Rajagopal et al., 2010). Interestingly, AMD3100, an antagonistic small-molecule against CXCR4, can have an agonistic effect on ACKR3. In high concentrations, this molecule can induce β-arrestin recruitment to ACKR3 and increase CXCL12 binding to the receptor (Kalatskaya et al., 2009). A similar scenario was observed with the CXCR4 inverse agonist TC14012, which acts as an agonist on ACKR3 (Gravel et al., 2010). Therefore, when considering CXCR4 as a therapeutic target, it should be taken into account that a molecule can have unexpected effects via ACKR3 and vice versa.

Although ACKR3 is constitutively internalized via clathrin-coated pits by β-arrestins (Luker et al., 2010), it has also been described that ACKR3 internalizes in a ligand-dependent manner in response to both CXCL11 and CXCL12, leading to different patterns of receptor internalization (Rajagopal et al., 2010; Canals et al., 2012).

Ubiquitination, a constitutive modification on ACKR3, is the key modification responsible for the correct trafficking of the receptor from and to the plasma membrane (Canals et al., 2012). Also, the phosphorylation of serine and threonine residues at the cytoplasmic C-terminal tail of ACKR3 has been implicated in ACKR3 internalization, chemokine scavenging, and receptor-arrestin interactions (Ray et al., 2012).

There are some controversies regarding the involvement of ACKR3 in chemotaxis. Some reports suggest that ACKR3 induces migration of different cell types via ACKR3 exclusively (Rajagopal et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2015), while others report a role in migration by only modulating the CXCR4 function (Abe et al., 2014). Hence, this role of ACKR3 awaits further clarification.

Key Residues for Signaling in the ACKR3 Receptor.

In two studies, mutational analysis was performed to identify the key residues of ACKR3 in ligand binding (CXCL11 and CXCL12), recruitment of β-arrestins, the scavenging capacity of chemokines (Benredjem et al., 2017), and trafficking of ACKR3 (Canals et al., 2012). These key residues are shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Snake plot of human ACKR3 with highlighted residues important for receptor function as determined in the following studies: 1Benredjem et al. (2017), 2Canals et al. (2012), and 3Gustavsson et al. (2017). Snake plot adapted from GPCRdb (Pándy-Szekeres et al., 2018).

Key residues for CXCL11 and CXCL12 binding were mostly present in the extracellular loops. Surprisingly, no N-terminal residues of the receptor were required for CXCL12 binding in contrast to CXCL11 binding, highlighting the different binding mechanisms of these ligands (Benredjem et al., 2017). Certain C-terminal residues are ubiquitinated and very important for receptor internalization and recycling (Canals et al., 2012). Recently, the residues protected by CXCL12 were determined by radiolytic footprinting (Gustavsson et al., 2017).

Oligomerization of CXCR4 and ACKR3 Influences Signaling

CXCR4 and ACKR3 Homomerization.

CXCR4 is known to potentially form dimers, and in accordance, it has been crystallized as a homodimer in the presence of various ligands (Wu et al., 2010; Qin et al., 2015). There is also evidence that CXCR4 might form higher-order oligomers, demonstrated using bimolecular fluorescence complementation (Armando et al., 2014). A FRET signal between CXCR4–cyan fluorescent protein and CXCR4-YFP could be detected in intact tumor cells, and when the energy transfer was decreased, by depletion of cholesterol in lipid rafts or using a transmembrane (TM) 4 peptide analog, tumor cells significantly lost their capacity to migrate toward CXCL12. Although the decrease in FRET signal does not necessarily imply a disruption of the homomer, it does suggest that changing the conformation of a CXCR4 homomer can influence signaling (Wang et al., 2006). The observation of ligand-induced conformational changes within the CXCR4 homodimer unit was also reported prior to this work (Percherancier et al., 2005). In addition, pertussis toxin treatment reduced the amount of CXCR4 oligomers detected by single-molecule microscopy, suggesting that these oligomers play a role in G protein–mediated signaling. In the same study, it was shown that CXCR4 dimers also have more tendency to internalize than monomers (Ge et al., 2017). However, as stated previously in the Introduction, increasing CXCR4 expression levels could also increase the amount of homomers present, which should be accounted for when using transfected cell lines. Meanwhile, using single-molecule microscopy, at very low expression levels, CXCR4 was predominantly present in a monomeric state, and increasing its expression levels led to a higher degree of oligomers. This could suggest that higher-order oligomers might be present in cancer cells, where CXCR4 is expressed abundantly (Lao et al., 2017), which is consistent with the involvement of dimers in migration (Wang et al., 2006). Recently, nanoclusters of CXCR4 were also observed in Jurkat T cells using single-molecule tracking and super-resolution microscopy (Martínez-Muñoz et al., 2018). CXCL12 promoted the formation of these nanoclusters by decreasing the amount of monomers and dimers. The disruption of these nanoclusters using a TM6 analog strongly impaired CXCR4 functioning, suggesting that not only dimers but also bigger clusters of CXCR4 might be involved in signaling. Coexpression of cluster of differentiation 4 (CD4) or inhibition of the actin cytoskeleton reduced the size of CXCR4 nanoclusters and hence reduced the Ca2+ flux (Martínez-Muñoz et al., 2018). So, the presence of CD4 in the cellular system seems to be important when interpreting the signaling outcome mediated via CXCR4.

The dimeric interface in the crystal structure of CXCR4 consists of the fifth and sixth transmembrane domains when the receptor is in complex with IT1t (a specific small-molecule antagonist), and of the third and fourth helix when it is in complex with CVX15 (a small cyclic peptide) (Wu et al., 2010). However, mutations in those regions did not significantly decrease the specific BRET signal detected between luciferase- and green fluorescent protein–tagged CXCR4 receptors, indicating that multiple homomerization interfaces might exist (Hamatake et al., 2009). Since evidence exists that dimerization has an influence on CXCR4 signaling (Ge et al., 2017), the dimer conformation might also have important consequences in downstream activation. Since different ligands can induce different conformational changes, it can be speculated that these ligands can also lead to different homodimer interfaces, as could be seen for the crystal structures of CXCR4 (Wu et al., 2010). Hypothetically, these complexes could have different signaling properties (Percherancier et al., 2005).

To our knowledge, two publications suggest the existence of constitutive ACKR3 homomers in transfected HEK293T cells. In both papers, a specific BRET signal was observed between ACKR3-RLuc and ACKR3-YFP (Kalatskaya et al., 2009; Levoye et al., 2009). The costimulation with CXCL12 and AMD3100 caused an increase in the BRET signal between the tagged ACKR3 receptors that was significantly higher than when using CXCL12 alone, which is in accordance with the idea that AMD3100 might be an allosteric agonist for ACKR3 (Kalatskaya et al., 2009). Yet, no other publications focused on ACKR3 homomerization.

CXCR4 and ACKR3 Heteromerization.

CXCR4 function can be influenced by the interaction with other receptors, as shown by many publications that demonstrated CXCR4 heteromerization or cross-regulation with/via other chemokine receptors. The occurrence of heterodimers might be feasible, since chemokine receptors are often coexpressed in the same cell types and, in some cases, even bind the same chemokines. For example, several studies using transfected cells showed that CXCR4 is able to form heteromers with CCR2, CCR7, CCR5, and CXCR3, among others.

In the first example, using BRET assays, CXCR4 was shown to heteromerize with CCR2, and coactivation of both coexpressed receptors led to a potentiation in Ca2+ release. In addition, this heteromer has been shown to recruit β-arrestin-2 using bimolecular fluorescence complementation. However, using BRET again, it has been seen that while the CXCR4 homodimer was able to recruit the Gα13 protein, the CCR2/CXCR4 heteromer completely lost this ability (Armando et al., 2014). Moreover, in radioligand binding assays, binding of the respective chemokines to either CCR2 or CXCR4 impaired chemokine binding to the other receptor, suggesting a negative cooperativity within the heteromer. This has been shown in recombinant cells as well as in primary leukocytes, where CCR2 and CXCR4 are endogenously present, suggesting that these two receptors might form heteromers even in a native context (Sohy et al., 2007). In the second example, CXCR4 not only formed heteromers with CCR7, as shown by proximity ligation assay, but also required the presence of CXCR4 to be properly expressed on the CD4+ T-cell membrane. When activated by the HIV glycoprotein gp120, CXCR4 enhanced CCR7-mediated migration of CD4+ T cells to the lymph nodes, significantly facilitating HIV infection (Hayasaka et al., 2015). In another study, using bimolecular fluorescence complementation, Hammad et al. (2010) showed that CCR5 homomers could interact with an important GPCR regulatory protein named Na+/H+ exchanger regulatory factor 1 (NHERF1). However, upon formation of CCR5/CXCR4 heterodimers, this receptor could no longer interact with NHERF1. Therefore, one should account for heteromerization when targeting CCR5 in HIV infection (Hammad et al., 2010). In the last case, the existence of CXCR3/CXCR4 heteromers has been seen by coimmunoprecipitation, saturation BRET, time-resolved FRET, and GPCR-heteromer identification technology. A negative cooperativity for ligand binding was observed as well for CXCR3/CXCR4 heteromers. Addition of a CXCR3 antagonist impaired CXCL12 binding to CXCR4, but not the other way around. This heteromer could specifically recruit β-arrestin-2 according to an analysis that used GPCR-heteromerization identification technology (Watts et al., 2013).

CXCR4 has also been suggested to heteromerize with other class A GPCRs, such as adrenergic and opioid receptors (Pello et al., 2008; Tripathi et al., 2015; Gao et al., 2018). For example, activation of the α1-adrenergic receptor (AR) led to the recruitment of β-arrestin-2 to CXCR4, and a specific agonist of α1-AR induced the internalization of CXCR4, as shown using the PRESTO-Tango assay in HEK293 cells. Neither of these effects could be inhibited by AMD3100 or the 12G5, an antagonist and internalization-blocking CXCR4 antibody, respectively, but both could be abolished by disrupting the heteromer using a peptide analog of TM2 of CXCR4, suggesting a tight cross-regulation within the α1-AR/CXCR4 complex (Gao et al., 2018). In addition, CXCR4 also influences the adrenergic function (Tripathi et al., 2015). α1-AR/CXCR4 heteromers were detected in a completely endogenous context, on the cell surface of rat and human VSMCs, via a proximity ligation assay. Disrupting the α1-AR/CXCR4 heteromer with a TM2 analog of CXCR4 or CXCR4 silencing impaired the association of these two receptors, as well as inhibited adrenergic-mediated responses to an agonist such as Ca2+ mobilization or myosin light chain 2 phosphorylation. As a result, the authors proposed that targeting the α1-AR/CXCR4 heteromer might be an alternative for the current medications against α1-AR to modulate blood pressure (Tripathi et al., 2015). The significance of this work comes from it being an exceptional example of detecting oligomers at endogenous expression levels in vivo, rather than detection of overexpressed receptor probes with epitope tags.

Another example of how such cross-talk can affect currently used treatments is the cross-talk between CXCR4 and the opioid receptors. In mice studies, CXCR4 activation by CXCL12 decreased the effect of antinociceptive drugs on the μ- and δ-opioid receptors, but activation of these opioid receptors did not desensitize CXCR4 (Chen et al., 2007). A cross-desensitization in both directions could be detected only between CXCR4 and the κ-opioid receptor in several cell lines and in vivo (Finley et al., 2008). Such evidence suggests that the effect of painkillers is decreased when CXCR4 is present. Nonetheless, only CXCR4/δ-opioid receptor heteromers have been observed using FRET experiments (Pello et al., 2008); thus, the cross-talk between CXCR4 and the other opioid receptors might not necessarily be due to heteromerization, but rather as a consequence of sharing the same intracellular signaling pathways.

Not only human receptors from the class A GPCRs are able to change the signaling of CXCR4, but also some viruses can take advantage of the alterations in receptor signaling potentially caused by heteromerization. For example, the Epstein-Barr virus encodes in its genome a viral GPCR named BILF1, which heteromerizes with human CXCR4 according to BRET experiments. Coexpression of the constitutively active BILF1 impairs CXCL12 binding to CXCR4 and, ultimately, the CXCL12-mediated G protein signaling (Nijmeijer et al., 2010).

Altogether, the function of CXCR4 seems to be strongly dependent on the interacting partners found in the cells, and consequently, it significantly varies between cell types. It is important to keep in mind that the change in the CXCR4 function due to the presence of certain proteins is not always due to oligomerization, but can also be due to a cross-talk in signaling pathways. In pathology, the degree of oligomerization and the type of oligomers could be heavily altered. For example, using BRET, the authors observed that CXCR4–warts hypogammaglobulinemia, infections, myelokathexis mutants can oligomerize with the wild-type CXCR4 and possibly retain it at the plasma membrane (Lagane et al., 2008).

Regarding ACKR3 heteromerization, there is evidence of the presence of α1-AR:ACKR3:CXCR4 hetero-oligomers in VSMCs, and the activation of ACKR3 can lead to the inhibition of the α1-AR activity (Albee et al., 2017). ACKR3 is also known to interact with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in a β-arrestin-2–dependent manner and is implicated in the phosphorylation of the EGFR. Together, they are involved in mitosis of breast cancer cells (Salazar et al., 2014).

Cross-Talk between CXCR4 and ACKR3.

Upon the discovery of ACKR3 as a receptor that can also bind CXCL12, which was previously known as a CXCR4-exclusive chemokine (Balabanian et al., 2005a), several studies focused on coexpression of CXCR4 and ACKR3 in diverse cell types and the influence of a possible CXCR4:ACKR3 interaction and/or cross-talk on the signaling properties. CXCR4 and ACKR3 are coexpressed in diverse cell types. These include human T and B lymphocytes (Balabanian et al., 2005a), dendritic cells (Infantino et al., 2006), monocytes (Sánchez-Martín et al., 2011), renal progenitor cells (Mazzinghi et al., 2008), VSMCs (Evans et al., 2016), vascular endothelial cells (Schutyser et al., 2007), and zebrafish primordial germ cells (Boldajipour et al., 2008).

A number of studies hypothesized that ACKR3 might regulate CXCR4 activity by scavenging or segregating CXCL12. ACKR3 generates a gradient of available ligand for CXCR4, thus finely tuning CXCR4-mediated cellular signaling and hence controlling, for example, primordial germ cell migration in zebrafish (Boldajipour et al., 2008; Naumann et al., 2010). The work of Naumann et al. (2010) suggested that the modulation of CXCR4 activation via ACKR3 is achieved by the scavenging activity of ACKR3, rather than heterodimerization, as they did not observe any cointernalization of these receptors.

Other studies shifted the focus more onto the mechanisms that may be involved, including the physical interaction of both receptors and subsequent modulation of their functions. For example, ACKR3 inhibition can act as a negative modulator of CXCR4-mediated lymphocyte integrin adhesiveness in human T lymphocytes and CD34+ cells (Hartmann et al., 2008). In this case, ACKR3-mediated modulation of CXCR4 activation was suggested to be due to a physical interaction between the two receptors. Indeed, the hetero-oligomerization of CXCR4/ACKR3 in intact HEK293 cells in the absence of CXCL12 was demonstrated using the FRET acceptor photobleaching method (Sierro et al., 2007). This study also highlighted that their coexpression potentiated Ca2+ flux mediated by CXCR4 activation and delayed ERK phosphorylation.

A follow-up study investigating CXCR4/ACKR3 hetero-oligomerization confirmed the heteromer formation in HEK293T cells using BRET (Levoye et al., 2009). However, they showed a negative modulation of the Ca2+ flux when both receptors were coexpressed. In accordance with this result, GTP binding potency of Gαi upon CXCR4 activation with CXCL12 decreased in cells coexpressing ACKR3. Moreover, ACKR3 coexpression with CXCR4 in HEK293 cells induced a conformational change between the precoupled CXCR4-YFP and Gαi-RLuc. The same study also demonstrated that knockdown of ACKR3 expression in T lymphocytes resulted in more potent migration at lower CXCL12 concentrations, addressing the scavenging function of ACKR3 (Levoye et al., 2009).

Another study also linked direct interactions of CXCR4/ACKR3 with oligomerization-specific functional outcomes (Decaillot et al., 2011). In this case, the evidence of CXCR4/ACKR3 hetero-oligomerization comes from the coimmunoprecipitation of overexpressed CXCR4-C9 and ACKR3-FLAG in HEK293 cells. In the same study, coexpression of ACKR3 with CXCR4 inhibited CXCR4/Gαi-mediated inhibition of cAMP production. In addition, activation of ACKR3 with CXCL11 restored CXCR4-dependent inhibition of cAMP production. Moreover, expression of CXCR4 increased the constitutive and ligand-induced recruitment of β-arrestin to ACKR3 heteromers, enhanced β-arrestin–mediated ERK phosphorylation, and increased migration of rat VSMCs (Decaillot et al., 2011).

Some caution must be taken when studying CXCR4/ACKR3 signaling, since their endogenous expression patterns can differ in different cell types and might influence the outcome of the experiments. Regarding drug development, one must acknowledge the complexity of targeting CXCR4 in different diseases and tissues, since heteromerization or cross-talk with other receptors can strongly impact its signaling.

Location of CXCR4 and ACKR3 Can Influence Receptor Signaling

Signaling of CXCR4 in Microdomains.

As CXCR4 is expressed in diverse tissues, different microenvironments within different cell types play an important role in the manner of CXCR4 signaling. CXCR4 localizes to membrane rafts (Mañes et al., 2000), which are microdomains enriched in cholesterol, sphingolipids, and proteins (Brown and London, 1998). The presence of cholesterol in these rafts seems to play an important role in CXCL12 binding (Nguyen and Taub, 2002), and the activation of CXCR4 can lead to cross-activation of other membrane proteins, such as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and EGFR in the raft (Conley-LaComb et al., 2016).

Upon activation of CXCR4, the receptor is rapidly internalized and can be either recycled back to the membrane or degraded at the lysosome (Marchese et al., 2003). Evidence suggests that phosphorylation of specific residues is involved in the determination between recycling and degradation (Marchese and Benovic, 2001). In renal cell carcinoma cells, CXCR4 moved to the cell nucleus after CXCL12 binding, and this nuclear location led to an increased Matrigel matrix invasion. In addition, histologic sections showed that CXCR4 was present in the nucleus only in metastatic renal cell carcinoma lesions (Wang et al., 2009). This might have important consequences for targeting CXCR4, since drugs would need to penetrate into the nucleus to attack metastatic cells. While the location of CXCR4 within a cell seems to be important, the location of these CXCR4-expressing cells within an organism might also influence outcomes. During the development of the lateral-line primordium of zebrafish, CXCR4 was present at the front cells while ACKR3 was at the back. This differential spacing might contribute to the establishment of a CXCL12 gradient that is important for the correct development of this species (Valentin et al., 2007; Donà et al., 2013).

Depending on its location, CXCR4 can activate different signaling pathways and can hence trigger different cellular responses. This might explain how CXCR4 has so many different roles in many organs and cell types and how its role might change in a pathologic condition, such as cancer.

Signaling of ACKR3 in Microdomains.

In contrast to CXCR4, which is mostly expressed on the plasma membrane and the early and recycling endosomes, ACKR3 is mainly expressed on the membrane of endocytic vesicles in the resting state (Zhu et al., 2012). Shortening the receptor’s C-terminal tail in ACKR3–green fluorescent protein increased membrane localization by up to 100% when the whole domain was missing. Although truncating the C terminus did not alter CXCL12 binding to the receptor, it significantly reduced the scavenging of the ligand as well as β-arrestin recruitment and activation of ERK1/2. In the presence of the dominant negative mutant K44A dynamin, all ACKR3 was located on the cell surface (Ray et al., 2012). This did not alter constitutive β-arrestin recruitment, but upon CXCL12 treatment, β-arrestin recruitment significantly increased and ERK phosphorylation lasted significantly longer. Thus, ACKR3 can show thorough signaling when localized exclusively to the plasma membrane without the chance to be internalized (Ray et al., 2012).

Meanwhile, upon chemokine ligand treatment, ACKR3 membrane expression over time did not decrease, as is the case for CXCR4, but after a small decrease, its presence on the membrane was slightly restored and resisted the depletion from the plasma membrane for a prolonged time. Furthermore, through radioligand internalization, it was demonstrated that ACKR3 brings its chemokine ligands to degradation, confirming its role as a scavenger receptor (Naumann et al., 2010). In platelets, where CXCR4 and ACKR3 are both present, CXCL12 induced the internalization of CXCR4 but, at the same time, the externalization of ACKR3. This latter process was CXCR4-mediated, since blocking CXCR4 abolished ACKR3 externalization (Chatterjee et al., 2014). The same study showed that ERK1/2 phosphorylation was important for the cyclophilin A–mediated ubiquitination of ACKR3, an essential modification for the membrane location of ACKR3.

Some studies have observed ACKR3 predominantly on the membrane (Hattermann et al., 2012, 2014; Kumar et al., 2012). For example, in MCF-7 breast cancer cells, CXCR4 and ACKR3 were mostly observed on the membrane, using immunofluorescence light microscopy and electron microscopy. After CXCL11 or CXCL12 treatment, receptors were internalized individually or in proximity. A cross-talk between both receptors was also seen, since CXCL11 could induce the internalization of CXCR4 (Hattermann et al., 2014).

Discussion

In this review, we summarized how CXCR4 and ACKR3 signaling can be influenced by their expression levels, localization, and interacting proteins (cross-talk and oligomerization) (a summary can be found in Tables 1 and 2). All of these aspects have important consequences, especially when a GPCR is being targeted for drug development.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Summary of CXCR4 signaling

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Summary of ACKR3 signaling

Many of the examples discussed in this review investigated CXCR4 and ACKR3 location and signaling in immortalized cell lines using an expression of reporter/recombinant proteins that was often much higher than endogenous expression levels. It is evident that these studies explain several crucial biologic outcomes that are governed by CXCR4 and ACKR3. However, it is worth noting that overexpression of receptors and/or downstream effectors might bias the receptor and downstream signaling behavior. Chabre et al. (2009) proposed, for example, a hypothesis for the apparent negative cooperativity between two receptors in ligand binding experiments: overexpression of receptors might lead to an insufficient amount of G proteins available for the receptor, causing receptor heterogeneity; some receptors would be coupled to a G protein, while others would not. These two states might present different affinities for the ligand and hence create an artificial negative cooperativity (Chabre et al., 2009). In addition to this, interaction partners can modulate the signaling properties of a receptor. Moreover, the cellular content (i.e., types and amounts of effector proteins that a receptor can activate) can also greatly influence the biologic outcomes of a specific receptor or receptor oligomer activation. Signaling pathways associated with the activation of CXCR4 and ACKR3 are vast. However, balance and dynamics of these pathways can be different in each tissue type. Thus, choice of a cell type while studying CXCR4 and ACKR3 oligomerization/signaling is crucial, and there is a need for studies in a more endogenous or disease-related context.

In various cell types, receptors can be found in different cellular compartments. Spatial and temporal aspects of chemokine receptor signaling may vary, depending on the receptor location in different cell and tissue types. The location of CXCR4 and ACKR3 can result in the activation of different signaling pathways. In targeting such receptors, such as in cancer, knowing the cellular location of the receptor is relevant—for instance, CXCR4 can localize and signal at the nuclear membrane of metastatic cells (Wang et al., 2009).

Despite several reports using diverse types of assays, GPCR oligomerization is still highly disputed. While certain reports demonstrate oligomerization of a certain receptor, others may dispute. This is mostly due to the type of assays that are used and even the manner of setting up the experimental conditions and analysis methods for a certain assay. Despite giving valuable information on receptor-receptor interactions, energy transfer–based methods BRET and FRET lack the ability to elucidate the kinetics of individual events. Since the observed resonance energy transfer signal comes from all of the receptors within a cell or a pool of cells, it is not possible to resolve whether the observed signal is due to a stable or transient interaction. With the help of advanced imaging methods, it is now possible to track the movements and interactions of single receptors with other receptors and interacting partners with high spatiotemporal precision (Sungkaworn et al., 2017). Such methods, combined with fluorescent labeling of endogenous receptors with minimal tags (Coin et al., 2013), can open a new avenue to study receptor-receptor and receptor-effector interactions with superior spatial and temporal resolution at endogenous expression levels in biologically relevant cell types. It is also worth recognizing the importance of knockout studies, as these can demonstrate the role of receptors and/or effectors in certain cellular signaling pathways and their consequent biologic importance in both health and disease conditions. Advancing CRISPR technologies have recently been used to study signaling bias and cross-activation of signaling pathways (Grundmann et al., 2018). Such studies can also be extended toward GPCR oligomerization, i.e., knocking out one of the heteromerizing partners, or knocking out a downstream effector that is believed to be activated only in the case of a heteromer activation, and studying its effects on downstream signaling.

A heteromer can have completely different signaling properties in comparison with the monomers (Milligan, 2009; Urizar et al., 2011). Thus, therapeutically targeting one particular GPCR might be too simplistic. As evidence on the biologic significance of class A GPCR heteromerization is increasing, targeting the pathologically relevant heteromers can be a novel approach to therapy. As allosteric modulators of GPCR dimers, bivalent ligands that could specifically target a heteromer might be an option for future investigation into whether they have therapeutic potential. However, determining to what extent oligomerization is relevant in vivo yet remains as a crucial question to be answered.

Overall, in this review, we focused on the advances in the signaling properties of CXCR4 and ACKR3 in a health and disease context. Previous studies shed light on distinct outcomes of complex cell-type-dependent signaling, receptor-receptor interactions, and receptor cross-talk. However, our knowledge for an accurate picture of CXCR4/ACKR3-mediated signaling is still not complete. Since model cells and overexpressing systems might bias receptor location, receptor-receptor interaction, and signaling outcome, choice of experimental methods and cell types must be well considered. Yet, novel fluorescent labeling, advanced imaging, and genetic engineering in model organisms and primary cells, as well as computational and structural methods, will allow us to study CXCR4 and ACKR3 signaling in a more endogenous and disease-related context in the near future.

Acknowledgments

We thank all other colleagues from the Oncogenic Receptor Network of Excellence and Training consortium for their helpful scientific discussions throughout all the meetings.

Authorship Contributions

Wrote or contributed to the writing of the manuscript: Heuninck, Perpiñá Viciano, Işbilir, Caspar, Capoferri, Briddon, Durroux, Hill, Lohse, Milligan, Pin, Hoffmann.

Footnotes

    • Received December 11, 2018.
    • Accepted March 21, 2019.
  • ↵1 J.H., C.P.V., and A.I. contributed equally to this work.

  • This research was funded by the European Union’s Horizon2020 MSCA Program under grant agreement 641833 (Oncogenic Receptor Network of Excellence and Training). This mini review is part of the mini review series “From insight to modulation of CXCR4 and ACKR3 (CXCR7) function.”

  • https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.118.115477.

Abbreviations

ACKR3
atypical chemokine receptor 3
AR
adrenergic receptor
BRET
bioluminescence resonance energy transfer
CCR
CC chemokine receptor
CD
cluster of differentiation
CXCL
CXC chemokine ligand
CXCR
CXC chemokine receptor
EGFR
endothelial growth factor receptor
ERK
extracellular signal-regulated kinase
FRET
Förster resonance energy transfer
GPCR
G protein–coupled receptor
GRK
G protein receptor kinase
HEK293
human embryonic kidney 293
NHERF1
Na+/H+ exchanger regulatory factor 1
RLuc
Renilla luciferase
TM
transmembrane
VSMC
vascular smooth muscle cell
YFP
yellow fluorescent protein
  • Copyright © 2019 by The Author(s)

This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC Attribution 4.0 International license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Abe P,
    2. Mueller W,
    3. Schütz D,
    4. MacKay F,
    5. Thelen M,
    6. Zhang P, and
    7. Stumm R
    (2014) CXCR7 prevents excessive CXCL12-mediated downregulation of CXCR4 in migrating cortical interneurons. Development 141:1857–1863.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Albee LJ,
    2. Eby JM,
    3. Tripathi A,
    4. LaPorte HM,
    5. Gao X,
    6. Volkman BF,
    7. Gaponenko V, and
    8. Majetschak M
    (2017) α1-adrenergic receptors function within hetero-oligomeric complexes with atypical chemokine receptor 3 and chemokine (C-X-C motif) receptor 4 in vascular smooth muscle cells. J Am Heart Assoc 6:1–17.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Armando S,
    2. Quoyer J,
    3. Lukashova V,
    4. Maiga A,
    5. Percherancier Y,
    6. Heveker N,
    7. Pin JP,
    8. Prézeau L, and
    9. Bouvier M
    (2014) The chemokine CXC4 and CC2 receptors form homo- and heterooligomers that can engage their signaling G-protein effectors and βarrestin. FASEB J 28:4509–4523.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Balabanian K,
    2. Lagane B,
    3. Infantino S,
    4. Chow KYC,
    5. Harriague J,
    6. Moepps B,
    7. Arenzana-Seisdedos F,
    8. Thelen M, and
    9. Bachelerie F
    (2005a) The chemokine SDF-1/CXCL12 binds to and signals through the orphan receptor RDC1 in T lymphocytes. J Biol Chem 280:35760–35766.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Balabanian K,
    2. Lagane B,
    3. Pablos JL,
    4. Laurent L,
    5. Planchenault T,
    6. Verola O,
    7. Lebbe C,
    8. Kerob D,
    9. Dupuy A,
    10. Hermine O, et al.
    (2005b) WHIM syndromes with different genetic anomalies are accounted for by impaired CXCR4 desensitization to CXCL12. Blood 105:2449–2457.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Ballester LY,
    2. Loghavi S,
    3. Kanagal-Shamanna R,
    4. Barkoh BA,
    5. Lin P,
    6. Medeiros LJ,
    7. Luthra R, and
    8. Patel KP
    (2016) Clinical validation of a CXCR4 mutation screening assay for Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 16:395–403.e1.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Banisadr G,
    2. Podojil JR,
    3. Miller SD, and
    4. Miller RJ
    (2016) Pattern of CXCR7 gene expression in mouse brain under normal and inflammatory conditions. J Neuroimmune Pharmacol 11:26–35.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Becker M,
    2. Hobeika E,
    3. Jumaa H,
    4. Reth M, and
    5. Maity PC
    (2017) CXCR4 signaling and function require the expression of the IgD-class B-cell antigen receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:5231–5236.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Benredjem B,
    2. Girard M,
    3. Rhainds D,
    4. St-Onge G, and
    5. Heveker N
    (2017) Mutational analysis of atypical chemokine receptor 3 (ACKR3/CXCR7) interaction with its chemokine ligands CXCL11 and CXCL12. J Biol Chem 292:31–42.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Berson JF,
    2. Long D,
    3. Doranz BJ,
    4. Rucker J,
    5. Jirik FR, and
    6. Doms RW
    (1996) A seven-transmembrane domain receptor involved in fusion and entry of T-cell-tropic human immunodeficiency virus type 1 strains. J Virol 70:6288–6295.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Boivin B,
    2. Vaniotis G,
    3. Allen BG, and
    4. Hébert TE
    (2008) G protein-coupled receptors in and on the cell nucleus: a new signaling paradigm? J Recept Signal Transduct Res 28:15–28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Boldajipour B,
    2. Mahabaleshwar H,
    3. Kardash E,
    4. Reichman-Fried M,
    5. Blaser H,
    6. Minina S,
    7. Wilson D,
    8. Xu Q, and
    9. Raz E
    (2008) Control of chemokine-guided cell migration by ligand sequestration. Cell 132:463–473.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Brelot A,
    2. Heveker N,
    3. Montes M, and
    4. Alizon M
    (2000) Identification of residues of CXCR4 critical for human immunodeficiency virus coreceptor and chemokine receptor activities. J Biol Chem 275:23736–23744.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Brown DA and
    2. London E
    (1998) Functions of lipid rafts in biological membranes. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 14:111–136.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Burns JM,
    2. Summers BC,
    3. Wang Y,
    4. Melikian A,
    5. Berahovich R,
    6. Miao Z,
    7. Penfold ME,
    8. Sunshine MJ,
    9. Littman DR,
    10. Kuo CJ, et al.
    (2006) A novel chemokine receptor for SDF-1 and I-TAC involved in cell survival, cell adhesion, and tumor development. J Exp Med 203:2201–2213.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Busillo JM,
    2. Armando S,
    3. Sengupta R,
    4. Meucci O,
    5. Bouvier M, and
    6. Benovic JL
    (2010) Site-specific phosphorylation of CXCR4 is dynamically regulated by multiple kinases and results in differential modulation of CXCR4 signaling. J Biol Chem 285:7805–7817.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Busillo JM and
    2. Benovic JL
    (2007) Regulation of CXCR4 signaling. Biochim Biophys Acta 1768:952–963.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Calebiro D,
    2. Nikolaev VO,
    3. Persani L, and
    4. Lohse MJ
    (2010) Signaling by internalized G-protein-coupled receptors. Trends Pharmacol Sci 31:221–228.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Canals M,
    2. Scholten DJ,
    3. de Munnik S,
    4. Han MK,
    5. Smit MJ, and
    6. Leurs R
    (2012) Ubiquitination of CXCR7 controls receptor trafficking. PLoS One 7:e34192.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Ceholski DK,
    2. Turnbull IC,
    3. Pothula V,
    4. Lecce L,
    5. Jarrah AA,
    6. Kho C,
    7. Lee A,
    8. Hadri L,
    9. Costa KD,
    10. Hajjar RJ, et al.
    (2017) CXCR4 and CXCR7 play distinct roles in cardiac lineage specification and pharmacologic β-adrenergic response. Stem Cell Res (Amst) 23:77–86.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Chabre M,
    2. Deterre P, and
    3. Antonny B
    (2009) The apparent cooperativity of some GPCRs does not necessarily imply dimerization. Trends Pharmacol Sci 30:182–187.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Chatterjee M,
    2. Seizer P,
    3. Borst O,
    4. Schönberger T,
    5. Mack A,
    6. Geisler T,
    7. Langer HF,
    8. May AE,
    9. Vogel S,
    10. Lang F, et al.
    (2014) SDF-1α induces differential trafficking of CXCR4-CXCR7 involving cyclophilin A, CXCR7 ubiquitination and promotes platelet survival. FASEB J 28:2864–2878.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Chen Q,
    2. Zhang M,
    3. Li Y,
    4. Xu D,
    5. Wang Y,
    6. Song A,
    7. Zhu B,
    8. Huang Y, and
    9. Zheng JC
    (2015) CXCR7 mediates neural progenitor cells migration to CXCL12 independent of CXCR4. Stem Cells 33:2574–2585.
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Chen X,
    2. Geller EB,
    3. Rogers TJ, and
    4. Adler MW
    (2007) Rapid heterologous desensitization of antinociceptive activity between mu or delta opioid receptors and chemokine receptors in rats. Drug Alcohol Depend 88:36–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Cheng ZJ,
    2. Zhao J,
    3. Sun Y,
    4. Hu W,
    5. Wu YL,
    6. Cen B,
    7. Wu GX, and
    8. Pei G
    (2000) beta-arrestin differentially regulates the chemokine receptor CXCR4-mediated signaling and receptor internalization, and this implicates multiple interaction sites between beta-arrestin and CXCR4. J Biol Chem 275:2479–2485.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Coin I,
    2. Katritch V,
    3. Sun T,
    4. Xiang Z,
    5. Siu FY,
    6. Beyermann M,
    7. Stevens RC, and
    8. Wang L
    (2013) Genetically encoded chemical probes in cells reveal the binding path of urocortin-I to CRF class B GPCR. Cell 155:1258–1269.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Conley-LaComb MK,
    2. Semaan L,
    3. Singareddy R,
    4. Li Y,
    5. Heath EI,
    6. Kim S,
    7. Cher ML, and
    8. Chinni SR
    (2016) Pharmacological targeting of CXCL12/CXCR4 signaling in prostate cancer bone metastasis. Mol Cancer 15:68.
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Contento RL,
    2. Molon B,
    3. Boularan C,
    4. Pozzan T,
    5. Manes S,
    6. Marullo S, and
    7. Viola A
    (2008) CXCR4-CCR5: a couple modulating T cell functions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:10101–10106.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Cronshaw DG,
    2. Nie Y,
    3. Waite J, and
    4. Zou YR
    (2010) An essential role of the cytoplasmic tail of CXCR4 in G-protein signaling and organogenesis. PLoS One 5:e15397.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Cui L,
    2. Qu H,
    3. Xiao T,
    4. Zhao M,
    5. Jolkkonen J, and
    6. Zhao C
    (2013) Stromal cell-derived factor-1 and its receptor CXCR4 in adult neurogenesis after cerebral ischemia. Restor Neurol Neurosci 31:239–251.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Dambly-Chaudière C,
    2. Cubedo N, and
    3. Ghysen A
    (2007) Control of cell migration in the development of the posterior lateral line: antagonistic interactions between the chemokine receptors CXCR4 and CXCR7/RDC1. BMC Dev Biol 7:23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Décaillot FM,
    2. Kazmi MA,
    3. Lin Y,
    4. Ray-Saha S,
    5. Sakmar TP, and
    6. Sachdev P
    (2011) CXCR7/CXCR4 heterodimer constitutively recruits β-arrestin to enhance cell migration. J Biol Chem 286:32188–32197.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Dinkel BA,
    2. Kremer KN,
    3. Rollins MR,
    4. Medlyn MJ, and
    5. Hedin KE
    (2018) GRK2 mediates TCR-induced transactivation of CXCR4 and TCR-CXCR4 complex formation that drives PI3Kγ/PREX1 signaling and T cell cytokine secretion. J Biol Chem 293:14022–14039.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Donà E,
    2. Barry JD,
    3. Valentin G,
    4. Quirin C,
    5. Khmelinskii A,
    6. Kunze A,
    7. Durdu S,
    8. Newton LR,
    9. Fernandez-Minan A,
    10. Huber W, et al.
    (2013) Directional tissue migration through a self-generated chemokine gradient. Nature 503:285–289.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Doranz BJ,
    2. Orsini MJ,
    3. Turner JD,
    4. Hoffman TL,
    5. Berson JF,
    6. Hoxie JA,
    7. Peiper SC,
    8. Brass LF, and
    9. Doms RW
    (1999) Identification of CXCR4 domains that support coreceptor and chemokine receptor functions. J Virol 73:2752–2761.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Eichel K and
    2. von Zastrow M
    (2018) Subcellular organization of GPCR signaling. Trends Pharmacol Sci 39:200–208.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Evans AE,
    2. Tripathi A,
    3. LaPorte HM,
    4. Brueggemann LI,
    5. Singh AK,
    6. Albee LJ,
    7. Byron KL,
    8. Tarasova NI,
    9. Volkman BF,
    10. Cho TY, et al.
    (2016) New insights into mechanisms and functions of chemokine (C-X-C motif) receptor 4 heteromerization in vascular smooth muscle. Int J Mol Sci 17:971–991.
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    1. Feng Y,
    2. Broder CC,
    3. Kennedy PE, and
    4. Berger EA
    (1996) HIV-1 entry cofactor: functional cDNA cloning of a seven-transmembrane, G protein-coupled receptor. Science 272:872–877.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  38. ↵
    1. Ferré S,
    2. Casadó V,
    3. Devi LA,
    4. Filizola M,
    5. Jockers R,
    6. Lohse MJ,
    7. Milligan G,
    8. Pin JP, and
    9. Guitart X
    (2014) G protein-coupled receptor oligomerization revisited: functional and pharmacological perspectives. Pharmacol Rev 66:413–434.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Finley MJ,
    2. Chen X,
    3. Bardi G,
    4. Davey P,
    5. Geller EB,
    6. Zhang L,
    7. Adler MW, and
    8. Rogers TJ
    (2008) Bi-directional heterologous desensitization between the major HIV-1 co-receptor CXCR4 and the kappa-opioid receptor. J Neuroimmunol 197:114–123.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Fong AM,
    2. Premont RT,
    3. Richardson RM,
    4. Yu YR,
    5. Lefkowitz RJ, and
    6. Patel DD
    (2002) Defective lymphocyte chemotaxis in beta-arrestin2- and GRK6-deficient mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:7478–7483.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Gao X,
    2. Albee LJ,
    3. Volkman BF,
    4. Gaponenko V, and
    5. Majetschak M
    (2018) Asymmetrical ligand-induced cross-regulation of chemokine (C-X-C motif) receptor 4 by α1-adrenergic receptors at the heteromeric receptor complex. Sci Rep 8:2730.
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    1. Ge B,
    2. Lao J,
    3. Li J,
    4. Chen Y,
    5. Song Y, and
    6. Huang F
    (2017) Single-molecule imaging reveals dimerization/oligomerization of CXCR4 on plasma membrane closely related to its function. Sci Rep 7:16873.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. ↵
    1. Godbole A,
    2. Lyga S,
    3. Lohse MJ, and
    4. Calebiro D
    (2017) Internalized TSH receptors en route to the TGN induce local Gs-protein signaling and gene transcription. [published correction appears in Nat Commun 2018;9:5459]. Nat Commun 8:443.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Gravel S,
    2. Malouf C,
    3. Boulais PE,
    4. Berchiche YA,
    5. Oishi S,
    6. Fujii N,
    7. Leduc R,
    8. Sinnett D, and
    9. Heveker N
    (2010) The peptidomimetic CXCR4 antagonist TC14012 recruits beta-arrestin to CXCR7: roles of receptor domains. J Biol Chem 285:37939–37943.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    1. Grundmann M,
    2. Merten N,
    3. Malfacini D,
    4. Inoue A,
    5. Preis P,
    6. Simon K,
    7. Rüttiger N,
    8. Ziegler N,
    9. Benkel T,
    10. Schmitt NK, et al.
    (2018) Lack of beta-arrestin signaling in the absence of active G proteins. Nat Commun 9:341–356.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Guo Q,
    2. Gao BL,
    3. Zhang XJ,
    4. Liu GC,
    5. Xu F,
    6. Fan QY,
    7. Zhang SJ,
    8. Yang B, and
    9. Wu XH
    (2014) CXCL12-CXCR4 Axis promotes proliferation, migration, invasion, and metastasis of ovarian cancer. Oncol Res 22:247–258.
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    1. Gustavsson M,
    2. Wang L,
    3. van Gils N,
    4. Stephens BS,
    5. Zhang P,
    6. Schall TJ,
    7. Yang S,
    8. Abagyan R,
    9. Chance MR,
    10. Kufareva I, et al.
    (2017) Structural basis of ligand interaction with atypical chemokine receptor 3. Nat Commun 8:14135–14148.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Hamatake M,
    2. Aoki T,
    3. Futahashi Y,
    4. Urano E,
    5. Yamamoto N, and
    6. Komano J
    (2009) Ligand-independent higher-order multimerization of CXCR4, a G-protein-coupled chemokine receptor involved in targeted metastasis. Cancer Sci 100:95–102.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Hammad MM,
    2. Kuang YQ,
    3. Yan R,
    4. Allen H, and
    5. Dupré DJ
    (2010) Na+/H+ exchanger regulatory factor-1 is involved in chemokine receptor homodimer CCR5 internalization and signal transduction but does not affect CXCR4 homodimer or CXCR4-CCR5 heterodimer. J Biol Chem 285:34653–34664.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Hao M,
    2. Zheng J,
    3. Hou K,
    4. Wang J,
    5. Chen X,
    6. Lu X,
    7. Bo J,
    8. Xu C,
    9. Shen K, and
    10. Wang J
    (2012) Role of chemokine receptor CXCR7 in bladder cancer progression. Biochem Pharmacol 84:204–214.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Hartmann TN,
    2. Grabovsky V,
    3. Pasvolsky R,
    4. Shulman Z,
    5. Buss EC,
    6. Spiegel A,
    7. Nagler A,
    8. Lapidot T,
    9. Thelen M, and
    10. Alon R
    (2008) A crosstalk between intracellular CXCR7 and CXCR4 involved in rapid CXCL12-triggered integrin activation but not in chemokine-triggered motility of human T lymphocytes and CD34+ cells. J Leukoc Biol 84:1130–1140.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Hattermann K,
    2. Held-Feindt J,
    3. Lucius R,
    4. Müerköster SS,
    5. Penfold ME,
    6. Schall TJ, and
    7. Mentlein R
    (2010) The chemokine receptor CXCR7 is highly expressed in human glioma cells and mediates antiapoptotic effects. Cancer Res 70:3299–3308.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. ↵
    1. Hattermann K,
    2. Holzenburg E,
    3. Hans F,
    4. Lucius R,
    5. Held-Feindt J, and
    6. Mentlein R
    (2014) Effects of the chemokine CXCL12 and combined internalization of its receptors CXCR4 and CXCR7 in human MCF-7 breast cancer cells. Cell Tissue Res 357:253–266.
    OpenUrl
  54. ↵
    1. Hattermann K,
    2. Mentlein R, and
    3. Held-Feindt J
    (2012) CXCL12 mediates apoptosis resistance in rat C6 glioma cells. Oncol Rep 27:1348–1352.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Hayasaka H,
    2. Kobayashi D,
    3. Yoshimura H,
    4. Nakayama EE,
    5. Shioda T, and
    6. Miyasaka M
    (2015) The HIV-1 Gp120/CXCR4 axis promotes CCR7 ligand-dependent CD4 T cell migration: CCR7 homo- and CCR7/CXCR4 hetero-oligomer formation as a possible mechanism for up-regulation of functional CCR7. PLoS One 10:e0117454.
    OpenUrl
  56. ↵
    1. Hernandez PA,
    2. Gorlin RJ,
    3. Lukens JN,
    4. Taniuchi S,
    5. Bohinjec J,
    6. Francois F,
    7. Klotman ME, and
    8. Diaz GA
    (2003) Mutations in the chemokine receptor gene CXCR4 are associated with WHIM syndrome, a combined immunodeficiency disease. Nat Genet 34:70–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Hoffmann F,
    2. Müller W,
    3. Schütz D,
    4. Penfold ME,
    5. Wong YH,
    6. Schulz S, and
    7. Stumm R
    (2012) Rapid uptake and degradation of CXCL12 depend on CXCR7 carboxyl-terminal serine/threonine residues. J Biol Chem 287:28362–28377.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    1. Huang C,
    2. Hepler JR,
    3. Chen LT,
    4. Gilman AG,
    5. Anderson RGW, and
    6. Mumby SM
    (1997) Organization of G proteins and adenylyl cyclase at the plasma membrane. Mol Biol Cell 8:2365–2378.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. ↵
    1. Hur EM and
    2. Kim KT
    (2002) G protein-coupled receptor signalling and cross-talk: achieving rapidity and specificity. Cell Signal 14:397–405.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Infantino S,
    2. Moepps B, and
    3. Thelen M
    (2006) Expression and regulation of the orphan receptor RDC1 and its putative ligand in human dendritic and B cells. J Immunol 176:2197–2207.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. ↵
    1. Jordan BA and
    2. Devi LA
    (1999) G-protein-coupled receptor heterodimerization modulates receptor function. Nature 399:697–700.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Kalatskaya I,
    2. Berchiche YA,
    3. Gravel S,
    4. Limberg BJ,
    5. Rosenbaum JS, and
    6. Heveker N
    (2009) AMD3100 is a CXCR7 ligand with allosteric agonist properties. Mol Pharmacol 75:1240–1247.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. ↵
    1. Kim TH,
    2. Chung KY,
    3. Manglik A,
    4. Hansen AL,
    5. Dror RO,
    6. Mildorf TJ,
    7. Shaw DE,
    8. Kobilka BK, and
    9. Prosser RS
    (2013) The role of ligands on the equilibria between functional states of a G protein-coupled receptor. J Am Chem Soc 135:9465–9474.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Kleemann P,
    2. Papa D,
    3. Vigil-Cruz S, and
    4. Seifert R
    (2008) Functional reconstitution of the human chemokine receptor CXCR4 with G(i)/G (o)-proteins in Sf9 insect cells. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 378:261–274.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Klein Herenbrink C,
    2. Sykes DA,
    3. Donthamsetti P,
    4. Canals M,
    5. Coudrat T,
    6. Shonberg J,
    7. Scammells PJ,
    8. Capuano B,
    9. Sexton PM,
    10. Charlton SJ, et al.
    (2016) The role of kinetic context in apparent biased agonism at GPCRs. Nat Commun 7:10842.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Kremer D,
    2. Cui QL,
    3. Göttle P,
    4. Kuhlmann T,
    5. Hartung HP,
    6. Antel J, and
    7. Küry P
    (2016) CXCR7 is involved in human oligodendroglial precursor cell maturation. PLoS One 11:e0146503.
    OpenUrl
  67. ↵
    1. Kumar A,
    2. Kremer KN,
    3. Dominguez D,
    4. Tadi M, and
    5. Hedin KE
    (2011) Gα13 and Rho mediate endosomal trafficking of CXCR4 into Rab11+ vesicles upon stromal cell-derived factor-1 stimulation. J Immunol 186:951–958.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. ↵
    1. Kumar R,
    2. Tripathi V,
    3. Ahmad M,
    4. Nath N,
    5. Mir RA,
    6. Chauhan SS, and
    7. Luthra K
    (2012) CXCR7 mediated Giα independent activation of ERK and Akt promotes cell survival and chemotaxis in T cells. Cell Immunol 272:230–241.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Lagane B,
    2. Chow KY,
    3. Balabanian K,
    4. Levoye A,
    5. Harriague J,
    6. Planchenault T,
    7. Baleux F,
    8. Gunera-Saad N,
    9. Arenzana-Seisdedos F, and
    10. Bachelerie F
    (2008) CXCR4 dimerization and beta-arrestin-mediated signaling account for the enhanced chemotaxis to CXCL12 in WHIM syndrome. Blood 112:34–44.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. ↵
    1. Lane JR,
    2. May LT,
    3. Parton RG,
    4. Sexton PM, and
    5. Christopoulos A
    (2017) A kinetic view of GPCR allostery and biased agonism. Nat Chem Biol 13:929–937.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  71. ↵
    1. Lao J,
    2. He H,
    3. Wang X,
    4. Wang Z,
    5. Song Y,
    6. Yang B,
    7. Ullahkhan N,
    8. Ge B, and
    9. Huang F
    (2017) Single-molecule imaging demonstrates ligand regulation of the oligomeric status of CXCR4 in living cells. J Phys Chem B 121:1466–1474.
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    1. Levoye A,
    2. Balabanian K,
    3. Baleux F,
    4. Bachelerie F, and
    5. Lagane B
    (2009) CXCR7 heterodimerizes with CXCR4 and regulates CXCL12-mediated G protein signaling. Blood 113:6085–6093.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. ↵
    1. Lohse MJ,
    2. Nikolaev VO,
    3. Hein P,
    4. Hoffmann C,
    5. Vilardaga JP, and
    6. Bünemann M
    (2008) Optical techniques to analyze real-time activation and signaling of G-protein-coupled receptors. Trends Pharmacol Sci 29:159–165.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. ↵
    1. Luker KE,
    2. Steele JM,
    3. Mihalko LA,
    4. Ray P, and
    5. Luker GD
    (2010) Constitutive and chemokine-dependent internalization and recycling of CXCR7 in breast cancer cells to degrade chemokine ligands. Oncogene 29:4599–4610.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    1. Luo J,
    2. Busillo JM,
    3. Stumm R, and
    4. Benovic JL
    (2017) G protein-coupled receptor kinase 3 and protein kinase C phosphorylate the distal C-terminal tail of the chemokine receptor CXCR4 and mediate recruitment of β-Arrestin. Mol Pharmacol 91:554–566.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. ↵
    1. Mañes S,
    2. del Real G,
    3. Lacalle RA,
    4. Lucas P,
    5. Gómez-Moutón C,
    6. Sánchez-Palomino S,
    7. Delgado R,
    8. Alcamí J,
    9. Mira E, and
    10. Martínez-A C
    (2000) Membrane raft microdomains mediate lateral assemblies required for HIV-1 infection. EMBO Rep 1:190–196.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  77. ↵
    1. Manglik A,
    2. Kim TH,
    3. Masureel M,
    4. Altenbach C,
    5. Yang Z,
    6. Hilger D,
    7. Lerch MT,
    8. Kobilka TS,
    9. Thian FS,
    10. Hubbell WL, et al.
    (2015) Structural insights into the dynamic process of β2-adrenergic receptor signaling. Cell 161:1101–1111.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. Marchese A and
    2. Benovic JL
    (2001) Agonist-promoted ubiquitination of the G protein-coupled receptor CXCR4 mediates lysosomal sorting. J Biol Chem 276:45509–45512.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  79. ↵
    1. Marchese A,
    2. Chen C,
    3. Kim YM, and
    4. Benovic JL
    (2003) The ins and outs of G protein-coupled receptor trafficking. Trends Biochem Sci 28:369–376.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. Martínez-Muñoz L,
    2. Barroso R,
    3. Dyrhaug SY,
    4. Navarro G,
    5. Lucas P,
    6. Soriano SF,
    7. Vega B,
    8. Costas C,
    9. Muñoz-Fernández MÁ,
    10. Santiago C, et al.
    (2014) CCR5/CD4/CXCR4 oligomerization prevents HIV-1 gp120IIIB binding to the cell surface. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:E1960–E1969.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. ↵
    1. Martínez-Muñoz L,
    2. Rodríguez-Frade JM,
    3. Barroso R,
    4. Sorzano CÓS,
    5. Torreño-Pina JA,
    6. Santiago CA,
    7. Manzo C,
    8. Lucas P,
    9. García-Cuesta EM,
    10. Gutierrez E, et al.
    (2018) Separating actin-dependent chemokine receptor nanoclustering from dimerization indicates a role for clustering in CXCR4 signaling and function. Mol Cell 70:106–119.e10.
    OpenUrl
  82. ↵
    1. Masureel M,
    2. Zou Y,
    3. Picard LP,
    4. van der Westhuizen E,
    5. Mahoney JP,
    6. Rodrigues JPGLM,
    7. Mildorf TJ,
    8. Dror RO,
    9. Shaw DE,
    10. Bouvier M, et al.
    (2018) Structural insights into binding specificity, efficacy and bias of a β2AR partial agonist. [published correction appears in Nat Chem Biol 2019;15:205]. Nat Chem Biol 14:1059–1066.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. ↵
    1. Mazzinghi B,
    2. Ronconi E,
    3. Lazzeri E,
    4. Sagrinati C,
    5. Ballerini L,
    6. Angelotti ML,
    7. Parente E,
    8. Mancina R,
    9. Netti GS,
    10. Becherucci F, et al.
    (2008) Essential but differential role for CXCR4 and CXCR7 in the therapeutic homing of human renal progenitor cells. J Exp Med 205:479–490.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. ↵
    1. Meyer BH,
    2. Segura JM,
    3. Martinez KL,
    4. Hovius R,
    5. George N,
    6. Johnsson K, and
    7. Vogel H
    (2006) FRET imaging reveals that functional neurokinin-1 receptors are monomeric and reside in membrane microdomains of live cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:2138–2143.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  85. ↵
    1. Miao Z,
    2. Luker KE,
    3. Summers BC,
    4. Berahovich R,
    5. Bhojani MS,
    6. Rehemtulla A,
    7. Kleer CG,
    8. Essner JJ,
    9. Nasevicius A,
    10. Luker GD, et al.
    (2007) CXCR7 (RDC1) promotes breast and lung tumor growth in vivo and is expressed on tumor-associated vasculature. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:15735–15740.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  86. ↵
    1. Milligan G
    (2009) G protein-coupled receptor hetero-dimerization: contribution to pharmacology and function. Br J Pharmacol 158:5–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. ↵
    1. Naumann U,
    2. Cameroni E,
    3. Pruenster M,
    4. Mahabaleshwar H,
    5. Raz E,
    6. Zerwes HG,
    7. Rot A, and
    8. Thelen M
    (2010) CXCR7 functions as a scavenger for CXCL12 and CXCL11. PLoS One 5:e9175.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. ↵
    1. Nguyen DH and
    2. Taub D
    (2002) CXCR4 function requires membrane cholesterol: implications for HIV infection. J Immunol 168:4121–4126.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  89. ↵
    1. Nijmeijer S,
    2. Leurs R,
    3. Smit MJ, and
    4. Vischer HF
    (2010) The Epstein-Barr virus-encoded G protein-coupled receptor BILF1 hetero-oligomerizes with human CXCR4, scavenges Gαi proteins, and constitutively impairs CXCR4 functioning. J Biol Chem 285:29632–29641.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  90. ↵
    1. Ödemis V,
    2. Lipfert J,
    3. Kraft R,
    4. Hajek P,
    5. Abraham G,
    6. Hattermann K,
    7. Mentlein R, and
    8. Engele J
    (2012) The presumed atypical chemokine receptor CXCR7 signals through G(i/o) proteins in primary rodent astrocytes and human glioma cells. Glia 60:372–381.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. ↵
    1. Pándy-Szekeres G,
    2. Munk C,
    3. Tsonkov TM,
    4. Mordalski S,
    5. Harpsøe K,
    6. Hauser AS,
    7. Bojarski AJ, and
    8. Gloriam DE
    (2018) GPCRdb in 2018: adding GPCR structure models and ligands. Nucleic Acids Res 46 (D1):D440–D446.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. ↵
    1. Panneerselvam J,
    2. Jin J,
    3. Shanker M,
    4. Lauderdale J,
    5. Bates J,
    6. Wang Q,
    7. Zhao YD,
    8. Archibald SJ,
    9. Hubin TJ, and
    10. Ramesh R
    (2015) IL-24 inhibits lung cancer cell migration and invasion by disrupting the SDF-1/CXCR4 signaling axis. PLoS One 10:e0122439.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. ↵
    1. Pello OM,
    2. Martínez-Muñoz L,
    3. Parrillas V,
    4. Serrano A,
    5. Rodríguez-Frade JM,
    6. Toro MJ,
    7. Lucas P,
    8. Monterrubio M,
    9. Martínez-A C, and
    10. Mellado M
    (2008) Ligand stabilization of CXCR4/delta-opioid receptor heterodimers reveals a mechanism for immune response regulation. Eur J Immunol 38:537–549.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. ↵
    1. Percherancier Y,
    2. Berchiche YA,
    3. Slight I,
    4. Volkmer-Engert R,
    5. Tamamura H,
    6. Fujii N,
    7. Bouvier M, and
    8. Heveker N
    (2005) Bioluminescence resonance energy transfer reveals ligand-induced conformational changes in CXCR4 homo- and heterodimers. J Biol Chem 280:9895–9903.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  95. ↵
    1. Qin L,
    2. Kufareva I,
    3. Holden LG,
    4. Wang C,
    5. Zheng Y,
    6. Zhao C,
    7. Fenalti G,
    8. Wu H,
    9. Han GW,
    10. Cherezov V, et al.
    (2015) Structural biology. Crystal structure of the chemokine receptor CXCR4 in complex with a viral chemokine. Science 347:1117–1122.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  96. ↵
    1. Quoyer J,
    2. Janz JM,
    3. Luo J,
    4. Ren Y,
    5. Armando S,
    6. Lukashova V,
    7. Benovic JL,
    8. Carlson KE,
    9. Hunt SW III., and
    10. Bouvier M
    (2013) Pepducin targeting the C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4 acts as a biased agonist favoring activation of the inhibitory G protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:E5088–E5097.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  97. ↵
    1. Rajagopal S,
    2. Kim J,
    3. Ahn S,
    4. Craig S,
    5. Lam CM,
    6. Gerard NP,
    7. Gerard C, and
    8. Lefkowitz RJ
    (2010) Beta-arrestin- but not G protein-mediated signaling by the “decoy” receptor CXCR7. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:628–632.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  98. ↵
    1. Rapp C,
    2. Snow S,
    3. Laufer T, and
    4. McClendon CL
    (2013) The role of tyrosine sulfation in the dimerization of the CXCR4:SDF-1 complex. Protein Sci 22:1025–1036.
    OpenUrl
  99. ↵
    1. Raschioni C,
    2. Bottai G,
    3. Sagona A,
    4. Errico V,
    5. Testori A,
    6. Gatzemeier W,
    7. Corsi F,
    8. Tinterri C,
    9. Roncalli M,
    10. Santarpia L, et al.
    (2018) CXCR4/CXCL12 signaling and protumor macrophages in primary tumors and sentinel lymph nodes are involved in luminal B breast cancer progression. Dis Markers 2018:5018671.
    OpenUrl
  100. ↵
    1. Rasheed SA,
    2. Teo CR,
    3. Beillard EJ,
    4. Voorhoeve PM,
    5. Zhou W,
    6. Ghosh S, and
    7. Casey PJ
    (2015) MicroRNA-31 controls G protein alpha-13 (GNA13) expression and cell invasion in breast cancer cells. Mol Cancer 14:67.
    OpenUrl
  101. ↵
    1. Ray P,
    2. Mihalko LA,
    3. Coggins NL,
    4. Moudgil P,
    5. Ehrlich A,
    6. Luker KE, and
    7. Luker GD
    (2012) Carboxy-terminus of CXCR7 regulates receptor localization and function. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 44:669–678.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. ↵
    1. Rebois RV,
    2. Robitaille M,
    3. Galés C,
    4. Dupré DJ,
    5. Baragli A,
    6. Trieu P,
    7. Ethier N,
    8. Bouvier M, and
    9. Hébert TE
    (2006) Heterotrimeric G proteins form stable complexes with adenylyl cyclase and Kir3.1 channels in living cells. J Cell Sci 119:2807–2818.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  103. ↵
    1. Salazar N,
    2. Muñoz D,
    3. Kallifatidis G,
    4. Singh RK,
    5. Jordà M, and
    6. Lokeshwar BL
    (2014) The chemokine receptor CXCR7 interacts with EGFR to promote breast cancer cell proliferation. Mol Cancer 13:198.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. ↵
    1. Salcedo R and
    2. Oppenheim JJ
    (2003) Role of chemokines in angiogenesis: CXCL12/SDF-1 and CXCR4 interaction, a key regulator of endothelial cell responses. Microcirculation 10:359–370.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. ↵
    1. Sánchez-Martín L,
    2. Estecha A,
    3. Samaniego R,
    4. Sánchez-Ramón S,
    5. Vega MÁ, and
    6. Sánchez-Mateos P
    (2011) The chemokine CXCL12 regulates monocyte-macrophage differentiation and RUNX3 expression. Blood 117:88–97.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  106. ↵
    1. Schönemeier B,
    2. Kolodziej A,
    3. Schulz S,
    4. Jacobs S,
    5. Hoellt V, and
    6. Stumm R
    (2008) Regional and cellular localization of the CXCl12/SDF-1 chemokine receptor CXCR7 in the developing and adult rat brain. J Comp Neurol 510:207–220.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. ↵
    1. Schutyser E,
    2. Su Y,
    3. Yu Y,
    4. Gouwy M,
    5. Zaja-Milatovic S,
    6. Van Damme J, and
    7. Richmond A
    (2007) Hypoxia enhances CXCR4 expression in human microvascular endothelial cells and human melanoma cells. Eur Cytokine Netw 18:59–70.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  108. ↵
    1. Shi G,
    2. Partida-Sánchez S,
    3. Misra RS,
    4. Tighe M,
    5. Borchers MT,
    6. Lee JJ,
    7. Simon MI, and
    8. Lund FE
    (2007) Identification of an alternative Galphaq-dependent chemokine receptor signal transduction pathway in dendritic cells and granulocytes. J Exp Med 204:2705–2718.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  109. ↵
    1. Sierro F,
    2. Biben C,
    3. Martínez-Muñoz L,
    4. Mellado M,
    5. Ransohoff RM,
    6. Li M,
    7. Woehl B,
    8. Leung H,
    9. Groom J,
    10. Batten M, et al.
    (2007) Disrupted cardiac development but normal hematopoiesis in mice deficient in the second CXCL12/SDF-1 receptor, CXCR7. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:14759–14764.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  110. ↵
    1. Soede RDM,
    2. Zeelenberg IS,
    3. Wijnands YM,
    4. Kamp M, and
    5. Roos E
    (2001) Stromal cell-derived factor-1-induced LFA-1 activation during in vivo migration of T cell hybridoma cells requires Gq/11, RhoA, and myosin, as well as Gi and Cdc42. J Immunol 166:4293–4301.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  111. ↵
    1. Sohy D,
    2. Parmentier M, and
    3. Springael JY
    (2007) Allosteric transinhibition by specific antagonists in CCR2/CXCR4 heterodimers. J Biol Chem 282:30062–30069.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  112. ↵
    1. Stumpf AD and
    2. Hoffmann C
    (2016) Optical probes based on G protein-coupled receptors - added work or added value? Br J Pharmacol 173:255–266.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  113. ↵
    1. Sugiyama T,
    2. Kohara H,
    3. Noda M, and
    4. Nagasawa T
    (2006) Maintenance of the hematopoietic stem cell pool by CXCL12-CXCR4 chemokine signaling in bone marrow stromal cell niches. Immunity 25:977–988.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  114. ↵
    1. Sun Y,
    2. Cheng Z,
    3. Ma L, and
    4. Pei G
    (2002) Beta-arrestin2 is critically involved in CXCR4-mediated chemotaxis, and this is mediated by its enhancement of p38 MAPK activation. J Biol Chem 277:49212–49219.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  115. ↵
    1. Sungkaworn T,
    2. Jobin ML,
    3. Burnecki K,
    4. Weron A,
    5. Lohse MJ, and
    6. Calebiro D
    (2017) Single-molecule imaging reveals receptor-G protein interactions at cell surface hot spots. Nature 550:543–547.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  116. ↵
    1. Tachibana K,
    2. Hirota S,
    3. Iizasa H,
    4. Yoshida H,
    5. Kawabata K,
    6. Kataoka Y,
    7. Kitamura Y,
    8. Matsushima K,
    9. Yoshida N,
    10. Nishikawa S, et al.
    (1998) The chemokine receptor CXCR4 is essential for vascularization of the gastrointestinal tract. Nature 393:591–594.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  117. ↵
    1. Tan W,
    2. Martin D, and
    3. Gutkind JS
    (2006) The Galpha13-Rho signaling axis is required for SDF-1-induced migration through CXCR4. J Biol Chem 281:39542–39549.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  118. ↵
    1. Tian S,
    2. Choi WT,
    3. Liu D,
    4. Pesavento J,
    5. Wang Y,
    6. An J,
    7. Sodroski JG, and
    8. Huang Z
    (2005) Distinct functional sites for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 and stromal cell-derived factor 1alpha on CXCR4 transmembrane helical domains. J Virol 79:12667–12673.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  119. ↵
    1. Tiveron MC,
    2. Boutin C,
    3. Daou P,
    4. Moepps B, and
    5. Cremer H
    (2010) Expression and function of CXCR7 in the mouse forebrain. J Neuroimmunol 224:72–79.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. ↵
    1. Torossian F,
    2. Anginot A,
    3. Chabanon A,
    4. Clay D,
    5. Guerton B,
    6. Desterke C,
    7. Boutin L,
    8. Marullo S,
    9. Scott MGH,
    10. Lataillade JJ, et al.
    (2014) CXCR7 participates in CXCL12-induced CD34+ cell cycling through β-arrestin-dependent Akt activation. Blood 123:191–202.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  121. ↵
    1. Tripathi A,
    2. Vana PG,
    3. Chavan TS,
    4. Brueggemann LI,
    5. Byron KL,
    6. Tarasova NI,
    7. Volkman BF,
    8. Gaponenko V, and
    9. Majetschak M
    (2015) Heteromerization of chemokine (C-X-C motif) receptor 4 with α1A/B-adrenergic receptors controls α1-adrenergic receptor function. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:E1659–E1668.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  122. ↵
    1. Ulvmar MH,
    2. Hub E, and
    3. Rot A
    (2011) Atypical chemokine receptors. Exp Cell Res 317:556–568.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  123. ↵
    1. Urizar E,
    2. Yano H,
    3. Kolster R,
    4. Galés C,
    5. Lambert N, and
    6. Javitch JA
    (2011) CODA-RET reveals functional selectivity as a result of GPCR heteromerization. Nat Chem Biol 7:624–630.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  124. ↵
    1. Vaidehi N and
    2. Kenakin T
    (2010) The role of conformational ensembles of seven transmembrane receptors in functional selectivity. Curr Opin Pharmacol 10:775–781.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  125. ↵
    1. Valentin G,
    2. Haas P, and
    3. Gilmour D
    (2007) The chemokine SDF1a coordinates tissue migration through the spatially restricted activation of Cxcr7 and Cxcr4b. Curr Biol 17:1026–1031.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  126. ↵
    1. Vila-Coro AJ,
    2. Rodríguez-Frade JM,
    3. Martín De Ana A,
    4. Moreno-Ortíz MC,
    5. Martínez-A C, and
    6. Mellado M
    (1999) The chemokine SDF-1alpha triggers CXCR4 receptor dimerization and activates the JAK/STAT pathway. FASEB J 13:1699–1710.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  127. ↵
    1. Vilardaga JP,
    2. Jean-Alphonse FG, and
    3. Gardella TJ
    (2014) Endosomal generation of cAMP in GPCR signaling. Nat Chem Biol 10:700–706.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  128. ↵
    1. Wang J,
    2. He L,
    3. Combs CA,
    4. Roderiquez G, and
    5. Norcross MA
    (2006) Dimerization of CXCR4 in living malignant cells: control of cell migration by a synthetic peptide that reduces homologous CXCR4 interactions. Mol Cancer Ther 5:2474–2483.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  129. ↵
    1. Wang J,
    2. Shiozawa Y,
    3. Wang J,
    4. Wang Y,
    5. Jung Y,
    6. Pienta KJ,
    7. Mehra R,
    8. Loberg R, and
    9. Taichman RS
    (2008) The role of CXCR7/RDC1 as a chemokine receptor for CXCL12/SDF-1 in prostate cancer. J Biol Chem 283:4283–4294.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  130. ↵
    1. Wang L,
    2. Wang Z,
    3. Yang B,
    4. Yang Q,
    5. Wang L, and
    6. Sun Y
    (2009) CXCR4 nuclear localization follows binding of its ligand SDF-1 and occurs in metastatic but not primary renal cell carcinoma. Oncol Rep 22:1333–1339.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  131. ↵
    1. Wang Y,
    2. Li G,
    3. Stanco A,
    4. Long JE,
    5. Crawford D,
    6. Potter GB,
    7. Pleasure SJ,
    8. Behrens T, and
    9. Rubenstein JL
    (2011) CXCR4 and CXCR7 have distinct functions in regulating interneuron migration. Neuron 69:61–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  132. ↵
    1. Watts AO,
    2. van Lipzig MM,
    3. Jaeger WC,
    4. Seeber RM,
    5. van Zwam M,
    6. Vinet J,
    7. van der Lee MM,
    8. Siderius M,
    9. Zaman GJ,
    10. Boddeke HW, et al.
    (2013) Identification and profiling of CXCR3-CXCR4 chemokine receptor heteromer complexes. Br J Pharmacol 168:1662–1674.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  133. ↵
    1. Wescott MP,
    2. Kufareva I,
    3. Paes C,
    4. Goodman JR,
    5. Thaker Y,
    6. Puffer BA,
    7. Berdougo E,
    8. Rucker JB,
    9. Handel TM, and
    10. Doranz BJ
    (2016) Signal transmission through the CXC chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) transmembrane helices. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:9928–9933.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  134. ↵
    1. Whorton MR,
    2. Bokoch MP,
    3. Rasmussen SG,
    4. Huang B,
    5. Zare RN,
    6. Kobilka B, and
    7. Sunahara RK
    (2007) A monomeric G protein-coupled receptor isolated in a high-density lipoprotein particle efficiently activates its G protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:7682–7687.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  135. ↵
    1. Wu B,
    2. Chien EYT,
    3. Mol CD,
    4. Fenalti G,
    5. Liu W,
    6. Katritch V,
    7. Abagyan R,
    8. Brooun A,
    9. Wells P,
    10. Bi FC, et al.
    (2010) Structures of the CXCR4 chemokine GPCR with small-molecule and cyclic peptide antagonists. Science 330:1066–1071.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  136. ↵
    1. Wu G,
    2. Krupnick JG,
    3. Benovic JL, and
    4. Lanier SM
    (1997) Interaction of arrestins with intracellular domains of muscarinic and alpha2-adrenergic receptors. J Biol Chem 272:17836–17842.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  137. ↵
    1. Yagi H,
    2. Tan W,
    3. Dillenburg-Pilla P,
    4. Armando S,
    5. Amornphimoltham P,
    6. Simaan M,
    7. Weigert R,
    8. Molinolo AA,
    9. Bouvier M, and
    10. Gutkind JS
    (2011) A synthetic biology approach reveals a CXCR4-G13-Rho signaling axis driving transendothelial migration of metastatic breast cancer cells. Sci Signal 4:ra60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  138. ↵
    1. Zhang M,
    2. Qiu L,
    3. Zhang Y,
    4. Xu D,
    5. Zheng JC, and
    6. Jiang L
    (2017) CXCL12 enhances angiogenesis through CXCR7 activation in human umbilical vein endothelial cells. Sci Rep 7:8289.
    OpenUrl
  139. ↵
    1. Zheng F,
    2. Zhang Z,
    3. Flamini V,
    4. Jiang WG, and
    5. Cui Y
    (2017) The axis of CXCR4/SDF-1 plays a role in colon cancer cell adhesion through regulation of the AKT and IGF1R signalling pathways. Anticancer Res 37:4361–4369.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  140. ↵
    1. Zhou N,
    2. Luo Z,
    3. Luo J,
    4. Liu D,
    5. Hall JW,
    6. Pomerantz RJ, and
    7. Huang Z
    (2001) Structural and functional characterization of human CXCR4 as a chemokine receptor and HIV-1 co-receptor by mutagenesis and molecular modeling studies. J Biol Chem 276:42826–42833.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  141. ↵
    1. Zhu B,
    2. Xu D,
    3. Deng X,
    4. Chen Q,
    5. Huang Y,
    6. Peng H,
    7. Li Y,
    8. Jia B,
    9. Thoreson WB,
    10. Ding W, et al.
    (2012) CXCL12 enhances human neural progenitor cell survival through a CXCR7- and CXCR4-mediated endocytotic signaling pathway. Stem Cells 30:2571–2583.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Molecular Pharmacology: 96 (6)
Molecular Pharmacology
Vol. 96, Issue 6
1 Dec 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Molecular Pharmacology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Context-Dependent Signaling of CXC Chemokine Receptor 4 and Atypical Chemokine Receptor 3
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Molecular Pharmacology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Molecular Pharmacology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Research ArticleSpecial Section: From Insight to Modulation of CXCR4 and ACKR3 (CXCR7) Function – Minireview

Context-Dependent Signaling of CXCR4 and ACKR3

Joyce Heuninck, Cristina Perpiñá Viciano, Ali Işbilir, Birgit Caspar, Davide Capoferri, Stephen J. Briddon, Thierry Durroux, Stephen J. Hill, Martin J. Lohse, Graeme Milligan, Jean-Philippe Pin and Carsten Hoffmann
Molecular Pharmacology December 1, 2019, 96 (6) 778-793; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.118.115477

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Research ArticleSpecial Section: From Insight to Modulation of CXCR4 and ACKR3 (CXCR7) Function – Minireview

Context-Dependent Signaling of CXCR4 and ACKR3

Joyce Heuninck, Cristina Perpiñá Viciano, Ali Işbilir, Birgit Caspar, Davide Capoferri, Stephen J. Briddon, Thierry Durroux, Stephen J. Hill, Martin J. Lohse, Graeme Milligan, Jean-Philippe Pin and Carsten Hoffmann
Molecular Pharmacology December 1, 2019, 96 (6) 778-793; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.118.115477
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • CXCR4 and ACKR3 Signaling
    • Oligomerization of CXCR4 and ACKR3 Influences Signaling
    • Location of CXCR4 and ACKR3 Can Influence Receptor Signaling
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Authorship Contributions
    • Footnotes
    • Abbreviations
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Phosphorylation/Interactome Regulate CXCR4/ACKR3 Functions
  • Lessons from Chemokine Receptor X-Ray Structures
Show more Special Section: From Insight to Modulation of CXCR4 and ACKR3 (CXCR7) Function – Minireview

Similar Articles

Advertisement
  • Home
  • Alerts
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   RSS

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Fast Forward by date
  • Fast Forward by section
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive
  • Search for Articles
  • Feedback
  • ASPET

More Information

  • About Molecular Pharmacology
  • Editorial Board
  • Instructions to Authors
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Customized Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • Subscriptions
  • Permissions
  • Terms & Conditions of Use

ASPET's Other Journals

  • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
  • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
  • Pharmacological Reviews
  • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
ISSN 1521-0111 (Online)

Copyright © 2023 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics