Independent education resourceInformation here does not replace care from a qualified health professional.
Peptide Therapy GuideClear peptide education

Educational guide

Cell Signaling Modulation Study Sheds Light on Differential Responses to Same Drug

Scientists at Scripps Research say they have comprehensively mapped how a key class of proteins within cells regulates signals coming in from cell surface receptors. The study reveals, among other things, that people commonly have variants in these proteins th

Written by Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team
For education only

This guide cannot diagnose a condition or recommend a personal treatment plan. Discuss medical questions with a qualified professional.

Scientists at Scripps Research say they have comprehensively mapped how a key class of proteins within cells regulates signals coming in from cell surface receptors. The study reveals, among other things, that people commonly have variants in these proteins that cause their cells to respond differently when the same cell receptor is stimulated—offering a plausible explanation for why people’s responses to the same drugs can vary widely.

The findings “A Global Map of G Protein Signal Regulation by RGS Proteins,” published in Cell, could set the stage for a better understanding of the complex roles these proteins, known as RGS proteins, play in health and disease. That in turn could lead to new treatment approaches for a range of conditions.

“The control over the extent and timing of G protein signaling is provided by the regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins that deactivate G protein α subunits (Gα). Mammalian genomes encode 20 canonical RGS and 16 Gα genes with key roles in physiology and disease,” write the investigators.

“To understand the principles governing the selectivity of Gα regulation by RGS, we examine the catalytic activity of all canonical human RGS proteins and their selectivity for a complete set of Gα substrates using real-time kinetic measurements in living cells. The data reveal rules governing RGS-Gα recognition, the structural basis of its selectivity, and provide principles for engineering RGS proteins with defined selectivity.”

“The study also explores the evolution of RGS-Gα selectivity through ancestral reconstruction and demonstrates how naturally occurring non-synonymous variants in RGS alter signaling. These results provide a blueprint for decoding signaling selectivity and advance our understanding of molecular recognition principles.”

“Before you can fix things, you need to know how they’re broken and how they work normally, and in this study that’s essentially what we’ve done for these important regulatory proteins,” says study senior author Kirill Martemyanov, PhD, professor and chair of the department of neuroscience at Scripps Research’s Florida campus.

RGS proteins, discovered about 25 years ago, provide an essential “braking” function for a large family of cellular receptors called G-protein-coupled receptors. GPCRs control hundreds of important functions on cells throughout the body, and have been implicated in dozens of diseases, from heart problems to vision impairments and mood disorders.

Accordingly, GPCRs comprise the largest single category of drug targets—more than a third of FDA-approved drugs treat diseases by binding to GPCRs and modifying their activities.

When GPCRs are activated by hormones or neurotransmitters, they initiate signaling cascades within their host cells, via signal-carrying proteins called G-proteins. RGS (Regulator of G-Protein Signaling) proteins work by deactivating G-proteins, shutting off this signaling cascade. This shutoff mechanism limits G-protein signaling to a brief time window and allows cells to reset and accept new incoming signals. Without it, the GPCR-initiated signal stays on inappropriately and functional signaling becomes dysfunctional.

“One condition I studied earlier in my career involves the loss of RGS regulation in light-detecting cells in the retina,” Martemyanov says. “Patients born with this condition can’t stop perceiving light, even when they go into a dark room, and they can’t track moving objects very well because they lack the normal visual refresh rate. It’s easy to imagine how devastating it would be if you had a similar loss of RGS regulation in the heart or the brain where timing is so important.”

Researchers have evaluated some RGS proteins individually, but in the new study, Martemyanov and colleagues covered all 20 of the RGS proteins found in human cells, studying how each one selectively recognizes and regulates its G-protein counterparts. In so doing the researchers essentially created a roadmap for how GPCR signals are routed in cells.

“This selective recognition of G-protein subunits turns out to be performed by a few elements in each RGS protein—elements organized in a pattern resembling a barcode,” says study first author Ikuo Masuho, PhD, staff scientist in the Martemyanov lab.

In an analysis of the genomes of more than 100,000 people, the researchers showed in general how mutations and common variations in RGS barcode regions can disrupt RGS proteins’ recognition of G-proteins or even cause them to recognize the wrong G-proteins. The team also demonstrated a particular example, showing how mutations in the RGS protein known as RGS16, which have been linked to insomnia, cause it to lose its usual recognition of G proteins.

“It’s clear that genetic variation in the RGS barcode regions has the potential to disrupt normal GPCR signaling, to cause disease or to create more subtle differences or traits,” Martemyanov says. “For example, it may help explain why different individuals treated with the same GPCR-targeting drug often differ widely in their responses.”

Martemyanov and his team found that RGS proteins’ barcode regions and the G-proteins they regulate are constantly evolving. They were able to reconstruct less refined, “ancestral” RGS proteins, based on analyses of different species. From these findings they were able to devise principles for crafting “designer” RGS proteins that regulate a desired set of G-proteins.

The same principles could guide the development of drugs targeting RGS proteins for therapeutic benefits, a major ongoing effort in the GPCR field. Treatments that put corrective new RGS proteins in cells might be another avenue, according to Martemyanov.

Connected reading

Helpful context for this guide

Source-derived material selected through this article’s indexed topics.

Related questions

01How stable is the antibody?

A crucial question often addressed during preclinical development focuses on the in vivo stability of therapeutic antibodies. Increasing the half-life of a therapeutic antibody has several benefits ranging from higher treatment efficacy to increased advantages for the patients who will have a fewer number of therapy sessions and a reduced cost. Given these compelling benefits, following the identification of therapeutic antibodies with the desired specificity, developers usually subject them to a refinement step to increase their stability. This process is often hindered by the lack of reliable experimental tools to predict the half-life of antibodies in patients. The major hurdle of using mouse models to predict antibody stability in the serum lies in the way immunoglobulin proteins are processed by the organism. In mammals, most proteins circulating in the serum undergo constant uptake by endothelial cells and are routed through the endosomes to the lysosomal compartment for degradation. In the endosomes, immunoglobulin G (IgG) proteins are recognized and bound by a transmembrane protein, called the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which mediates their recycling to the plasma membrane and subsequent release back into the serum. As a result, the half-life of IgGs are significantly extended by this mechanism. Since most therapeutic antibodies belong to the IgG class, this recycling system is very relevant for their relative stability in the body. Remarkably, the relative affinity between IgGs and FcRn is extremely disparate between different species, with the mouse receptor showing a much higher affinity than its human counterpart.

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
02Undruggable or unscreenable?

Another obstacle to discovering new PPI inhibitors is the lack of libraries designed to hunt for them, points out Philippe Roche, PhD, senior scientist at the Integrative Structural and Chemical Biology team at the Cancer Research Center of Marseilles, France. “If you screen PPIs using libraries that were designed for kinases or GPCRs, that’s why you don’t get a lot of good results,” he says. To that end, his group began assembling a library focused on orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs. The result was 2P2Idb, a hand-curated, structural database cataloguing orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs for which the interface had been 3D characterized. From analyzing these known PPI inhibitors, and what structures they had in common, Roche and his colleagues developed a model to predict whether compounds would likely inhibit PPIs. Using this method, 2P2Idb creates an enriched screening library that dramatically increases the hit rate compared to standard libraries. Having proven their success with a small library of 1600 compounds, they are in the process of expanding the library to 10,000 compounds. Once that’s published, “the idea is to make this library available to labs around the world,” Roche says. “We will provide the library free of charge for people to be able to screen PPI targets.”

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
P

About the author

Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team

Editorial team for Peptide Therapy Guide.

View all articles →