2021
DOI: 10.7554/elife.67478
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Conformational specificity of opioid receptors is determined by subcellular location irrespective of agonist

Abstract: The prevailing model for the variety in drug responses is that they stabilize distinct active states of their G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) targets, allowing coupling to different effectors. However, whether the same ligand generates different GPCR active states based on the immediate environment of receptors is not known. Here we address this question using spatially resolved imaging of conformational biosensors that read out distinct active conformations of the δ-opioid receptor (DOR), a physiologically … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
18
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 80 publications
3
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In particular, the efficiency of Gs coupling was markedly augmented by either high cholesterol or absence of the primary (Gq/11) transducers, demonstrating that the local environment of the receptor within a cell is also critical for the mode of transducer engagement. Differential transducer engagement has been reported for different cellular compartments, linked to different receptor conformations [ 46 ], and our current observations expand the potential mechanisms for such observations. Our work supports a model for G protein interaction where the extent of GPCR conformational change that occurs upon agonist activation is intrinsic to the individual receptor, but where conformational dynamics within the primary activated state are likely to play a substantial role in G protein coupling and activation.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…In particular, the efficiency of Gs coupling was markedly augmented by either high cholesterol or absence of the primary (Gq/11) transducers, demonstrating that the local environment of the receptor within a cell is also critical for the mode of transducer engagement. Differential transducer engagement has been reported for different cellular compartments, linked to different receptor conformations [ 46 ], and our current observations expand the potential mechanisms for such observations. Our work supports a model for G protein interaction where the extent of GPCR conformational change that occurs upon agonist activation is intrinsic to the individual receptor, but where conformational dynamics within the primary activated state are likely to play a substantial role in G protein coupling and activation.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…The present results, together with previous studies, establish that ORs in the Golgi apparatus are signaling competent as they engage transducer proteins (G proteins, GRKs) and inhibit cAMP production in response to permeant agonists ( 7, 32 ). Yet the transcriptomic and phosphoproteomic analyses delineate prominent differences in the downstream effects of Golgi-localized DOR relative to the PM receptor pool.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…The location-dependent binding of β-arrestin to active ORs was reminiscent of the recruitment pattern of a specific mG probe, termed mGsi, which had recently been shown to bind to active DOR in the PM, but not in the Golgi apparatus ( 32 ). mGsi consists of the Ras-like domain of Gαs, but contains selectivity determining residues of Gαi in the C-terminal α5-helix (Suppl.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Endocytosis therefore stringently restricts the number of plasma membrane receptors available for signaling. Interestingly, there have been several reports suggesting that the internalized receptors also mediate signaling and the signaling mediated by the internalized GPCR could be different from that on the plasma membrane ( Irannejad et al, 2013 ; Irannejad et al, 2015 ; Lohse and Hofmann, 2015 ; Bowman et al, 2016 ; Eichel and von Zastrow, 2018 ; Jong et al, 2018 ; Thomsen et al, 2018 ; Lobingier and von Zastrow, 2019 ; Crilly et al, 2021 ; Crilly and Puthenveedu, 2021 ; Kumar and Puthenveedu, 2022 ).…”
Section: Endocytosis and Cellular Trafficking: New Paradigm In Slos R...mentioning
confidence: 99%