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

Educational guide

“Wag the Dog” Mechanism Helps Receptor Complex Stay on Message

Signaling processes in the cell tend to follow a familiar cycle—the activation and deactivation of membrane-bound receptors. Yet some signaling processes defy this cycle. They become activated and stay activated, preventing downstream cellular functions from r

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.

Signaling processes in the cell tend to follow a familiar cycle—the activation and deactivation of membrane-bound receptors. Yet some signaling processes defy this cycle. They become activated and stay activated, preventing downstream cellular functions from returning to the status quo.

Such message control may well have its uses in sustaining health or yielding to illness, which is why it attracted the interest of scientists based at Duke University. Specifically, these scientists decided to study G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) that seemed to counter foundational assumptions about cell signaling.

Classically, it was known that GPCRs located along the plasma membrane inside the cell activate G proteins, which are the molecular switches that transmit signals from external sources into the cell's interior, telling the cell how to function.

The activation process is followed by desensitization, led by a protein called β-arrestin that binds to the receptor, blocking further activation of G proteins and pulling the receptor to the inside of the cell in a process termed internalization or endocytosis. The end result of these two processes is to silence receptor signaling, allowing cellular function to return to baseline.

In recent years, however, scientists learned that some GPCRs continue to signal to G proteins, even after β-arrestin has been deployed and the receptors were internalized in the cellular compartments, called endosomes. These observations challenged the existing understanding of how GPCR signaling works.

In hopes of resolving this quirk of cell signaling, the Duke scientists employed a variety of biochemical, biophysical, and cell-based methods in a new study of GPCRs. Ultimately, these scientists, led by Robert Lefkowitz, M.D., a professor at Duke and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator, uncovered the existence, functionality, and architecture of previously unknown superstructures of receptors, which they've called supercomplexes or “megaplexes.”

Details of this work appeared August 4 in the journal Cell, in an article entitled, “GPCR-G Protein-β-Arrestin Super-Complex Mediates Sustained G Protein Signaling.”

“These super-complexes or 'megaplexes' more readily form at receptors that interact strongly with β-arrestins via a C-terminal tail containing clusters of serine/threonine phosphorylation sites,” wrote the article’s authors. “Single-particle electron microscopy analysis of negative-stained purified megaplexes reveals that a single receptor simultaneously binds through its core region with G protein and through its phosphorylated C-terminal tail with β-arrestin.”

The megaplexes differ from the typical couplings of the receptors and β-arrestin, binding simultaneously through their core region with G protein and through a tail region with β-arrestin. Because β-arrestin interacts only with the receptor tail, the entire inner surface of the receptor is exposed, enabling the receptor to keep activating the G protein.

“The formation of such megaplexes explains how G proteins can continue to send signals after being internalized by GPCRs,” said Dr. Lefkowitz. “This opens a whole world of possibilities yet to be explored to manipulate this duality of signaling from outside and inside the cell for therapeutic benefit.”

Co-lead author Alex R.B. Thomsen added that some previous studies showed that the cells respond differently when G protein signaling occurs from different cellular compartments.

“As a result, pharmaceutical drugs developed in the future, if they are capable of regulating signaling at specific compartments, might be able to better treat certain diseases while having fewer side effects,” Dr. Thomsen noted. Such research is in its infancy, however, and clinical applications are years away.

Connected reading

Helpful context for this guide

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

Related questions

01Undruggable 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 ↗
02How 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 ↗
P

About the author

Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team

Editorial team for Peptide Therapy Guide.

View all articles →