HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 278, Issue 41, 39773-39781, October 10, 2003

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 278/41/39773    most recent M304482200v1 Submit a Letter to Editor Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Liang, W. Articles by Fishman, P. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Liang, W. Articles by Fishman, P. H. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Resistance of the Human ₁-Adrenergic Receptor to Agonist-mediated Down-regulation

ROLE OF THE C TERMINUS IN DETERMINING -SUBTYPE DEGRADATION^*

Wei Liang, Steven Austin , Quang Hoang and Peter H. Fishman 

From the Membrane Biochemistry Section, Laboratory of Molecular and Cellular Neurobiology, NINDS, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892

Received for publication, April 29, 2003 , and in revised form, July 21, 2003.

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Prolonged agonist stimulation results in down-regulation of most G protein-coupled receptors. When we exposed baby hamster kidney cells stably expressing the human ₁-adrenergic receptor (₁AR) to agonist over a 24-h period, we instead observed an increase of 30% in both ₁AR binding activity and immune-detected receptors. In contrast, ₂AR expressed in these cells exhibited a decrease of 50%. We determined that the basal turnover rates of the two subtypes were similar (t 7 h) and that agonist stimulation increased ₂AR but not ₁AR turnover. Blocking receptor trafficking to lysosomes with bafilomycin A₁ had no effect on basal turnover of either subtype but blocked agonist-stimulated ₂AR turnover. As ₁AR mRNA levels increased in agonist-stimulated cells, ₁AR up-regulation appeared to result from increased synthesis with no change in degradation. To explore the basis for the subtype differences, we expressed chimeras in which the C termini had been exchanged. Each chimera responded to persistent agonist stimulation based on the source of its C-tail; ₁AR with a ₂AR C-tail underwent down-regulation, and ₂AR with a ₁AR C-tail underwent up-regulation. The C-tails had a corresponding effect on agonist-stimulated receptor phosphorylation and internalization with the order being ₂AR > ₁AR with ₂AR C-tail > ₂AR with a ₁AR C-tail > ₁AR. As internalization may be a prerequisite for down-regulation, we addressed this possibility by co-expressing each subtype with arrestin-2. Although ₁AR internalization was increased to that of ₂AR, down-regulation still did not occur. Instead, ₁AR accumulated inside the cells. We conclude that in unstimulated cells, both subtypes appear to be turned over by the same mechanism. Upon agonist stimulation, both subtypes are internalized, and ₂AR but not ₁AR undergoes lysosomal degradation, the fate of each subtype being regulated by determinants in its C-tail.

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
The three -adrenergic receptor (AR)¹ subtypes, ₁AR, ₂AR, and ₃AR, are members of the G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) superfamily. Although all three subtypes respond to norepinephrine and epinephrine by activating adenylyl cyclase, they differ in their distribution, regulation, and interaction with other signaling pathways. This is evident in the heart where ₁AR is the predominant subtype followed by ₂AR and ₃AR, and each subtype appears to differ in signaling properties (1–4). ₂AR and ₃AR couple to G_s and G_i whereas ₁AR only couples to G_s. Overstimulation of ₁AR is pro-apoptotic whereas ₂AR stimulation is anti-apoptotic. During chronic heart failure, the compensating increase in sympathetic drive leads to high catecholamine levels and chronic -adrenergic signaling, in particular the norepinephrine/₁AR component contributes to the progression of the disease (5). Because ₁AR is implicated in chronic heart failure, there is considerable interest in its regulation.

Persistent agonist stimulation also leads to receptor down-regulation. Down-regulation is defined as a reduction in the total number of receptors and is usually determined by loss of binding sites and often attributed to receptor proteolysis. Although the down-regulation of ₂AR has been studied extensively, the mechanisms and pathways remain unresolved, which has led to the proposal of several models (6). A major question is whether receptor down-regulation occurs in the absence of internalization or is dependent on endocytosis and trafficking to lysosomes. Some studies show that internalization of ₂AR is necessary for its degradation. Following agonist-mediated endocytosis via clathrin-coated pits, most of the receptors are recycled, but some enter the lysosomal pathway and are degraded (7, 8). Other studies, however, indicate that internalization and down-regulation of ₂AR are independent of each other. Certain mutations of ₂AR impair one process but not the other (9–12), and inhibition of endocytosis does not block the degradation of ₂AR in mouse L cells or A431 cells (13). Based on a kinetic analysis, a two-pathway model of ₂AR down-regulation has been proposed: a high-affinity, low-capacity, internalization-independent pathway and a low-affinity, high-capacity, internalization-dependent pathway (14). An additional mechanism observed in some cells is the cyclic AMP-mediated reduction in steady-state ₂AR mRNA levels (15–18). The decrease is because of destabilization of the transcripts by proteins that bind to specific sequences in the 3'-untranslated region. Although some of these differences may be cell-specific, the precise mechanism of ₂AR down-regulation is not fully understood.

Less is known about the down-regulation of ₁AR, but in general it is not as responsive to this type of regulation compared with ₂AR. In rat C6 glioma cells exposed to the agonist ISO, down-regulation of both subtypes occurs at similar rates (19, 20), but when the cells are exposed to atypical agonists, only ₂AR levels are reduced (19). When rat H9c2 heart cells are treated with agonist, ₂AR but not ₁AR undergoes down-regulation (21). Distinctions also are found in vivo. Down-regulation is greater for ₂AR than ₁AR in fat cells isolated from dogs with chronically elevated plasma catecholamines (22) and in myocardial tissue from rats infused with norepinephrine (23). The opposite, however, was found in tissue from human failing hearts (24). The two subtypes have been directly compared by heterologously expressing each in the same cell line. ₁AR is more resistant to agonist-mediated down-regulation than ₂AR in CHW (25–27) and HEK 293 cells (28) and in some studies, undergoes up-regulation in the latter cells (29, 30).

We initiated the present studies to identify some of the mechanisms involved in the resistance to down-regulation of human ₁AR during persistent agonist stimulation. As ₁AR also is more resistant than ₂AR to agonist-mediated internalization (25, 26, 28, 31, 32), we determined whether the latter contributed to its resistance to down-regulation. In addition, we investigated whether the two subtypes differed in basal or agonist-mediated turnover and whether basal and agonist-mediated turnover involved different pathways. Finally, as the C-tails of GPCRs including the ₂AR have been identified as important determinates of sorting between recycling and degradation (33–36), we examined the effects of exchanging the C-tails of the two subtypes on receptor regulation. Our results indicate that in BHK cells, ₁AR is resistant to agonist-mediated down-regulation and instead undergoes up-regulation as does its mRNA; increased ₁AR internalization does not result in down-regulation; basal turnover is similar for both subtypes and appears to be non-lysosomal whereas agonist-mediated turnover of ₂AR is lysosomal; and finally the C-tails are key determinants of down-regulation, the ₁AR C-tail conferring resistance and the ₂AR conferring C-tail susceptibility.

	EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Materials—Methotrexate was purchased from Sigma. Bafilomycin A₁ was from Calbiochem. LipofectAMINE Plus, G418, and TRIzol reagent were from Invitrogen. [³²P]Orthophosphate and [-³²P]dCTP (3000 Ci/mmol) were from ICN. Rabbit anti-₂AR IgG (H-20) was from Santa Cruz Biotechnology. Mouse monoclonal anti-arrestin antibody (F4C1) was from Dr. L. Donoso (Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, PA). Monoclonal mouse anti-hemagglutinin (HA) 11 antibody-Sepharose was from Covance, and monoclonal rat anti-HA antibody was from Roche Applied Science. HRP-conjugated streptavidin, goat anti-rabbit and anti-mouse IgGs, and mouse anti-rat IgG were from Zymed Laboratories Inc. Sources of other reagents were described previously (27).

Plasmid Construction—The plasmids Zem228c-h₁AR and -h₂AR encoding the respective human receptors under control of the metallothionein promoter have been described (26), and the plasmids pcDNA3.1-h₁AR and -h₂AR were generated by the same procedure. The plasmid pcDNA3.1-HA-h₁AR encoding an N-terminal, HA epitope-tagged h₁AR (MYPYDVPDYAGAG–) was generated by PCR. The HA-tagged wild-type ₂AR and chimeric AR constructs in pCMV5 (32) were kindly provided by H. Kurose (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan). The latter encode the chimeric receptors (numbers refer to amino acid positions in wild-type AR sequences), ₁ Met¹-Ser³⁸⁰/₂ Pro³³⁰-Leu⁴¹³ (₁/₂ct-AR) and ₂ Met¹-Ser³²⁹/₁ Pro³⁸¹-Val⁴⁷⁷ (₂/₁ct-AR) in which the entire C terminus of one subtype has been replaced with that of the other. The ₁/₂ct-AR cDNA contains the 3'-untranslated region of the ₂AR gene whereas the ₂/₁ct-AR cDNA lacks any 3'-untranslated region of the ₁AR gene. The HA-₂AR and HA-₁/₂ct-AR cDNAs were excised and inserted into the EcoRI/XbaI site of pcDNA3.1(+), and the HA-₂/₁ct-AR cDNA was into the EcoRI/HindIII site of pcDNA3.1(–), respectively. The plasmid pcDNA3-arrestin-2 was obtained from J. Benovic (Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA). We generated Zem229-Arr2 by excising the coding region of the bovine arrestin-2 cDNA with NotI and ApaI and inserting it into the corresponding sites created in the BamHI cloning site of Zem229, which has a dihydrofolate reductase selectable marker.

Cell Culture and Transfection—The BHK cell line (clone tk-ts13) was obtained from the American Type Culture Collection and grown in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium with 10% fetal bovine serum. Clonal lines stably expressing ₁AR or ₂AR or co-expressing both arrestin-2 and either subtype were obtained by transfecting the cells with one of the Zem228c-hAR plasmids or co-transfecting with both Zem228c-hAR and Zem229-Arr2, selecting for resistance to G418 or both G418 and methotrexate, and by limiting dilution of the resistant cultures (26). Arrestin-2 expression was confirmed by Western blotting. To obtain cells expressing wild-type or chimeric HA-ARs, cells were transfected with one of the pcDNA plasmids using LipofectAMINE Plus according to the manufacturer's instructions and either used after 24 h or selected with G418. Although the resistant cultures were not cloned, AR expression levels remained fairly constant during the experimental period. All stably transfected cells were maintained in the culture medium containing 0.2 mg/ml G418 and/or 2 µM methotrexate.

AR Binding Assays—Control and treated cells were assayed for total and surface receptors as described previously (27, 37). Briefly, cells grown in 6-well plates or 35-mm dishes were incubated with 10 µM ISO at 37 °C for increasing times up to 24 h, rinsed with ice-cold Ca²⁺- and Mg²⁺-free DPBS, and lysed in 1 mM Tris-HCl, 2 mM EDTA, 1 mM EGTA, pH 7.4, and protease inhibitors at 4 °C. Portions of the lysates were assayed for protein and for total AR activity with 250 pM ¹²⁵ICYP for 1 h at 37 °C. Portions also were dissolved in SDS sample buffer and used for Western blotting as described below. To measure surface AR, cells grown in 24-well plates were exposed at 37 °C to 1 µM ISO for increasing times up to 30 min or to 10 µM ISO for up to 24 h. The plates were placed on a bed of ice, rapidly washed twice with ice-cold DPBS, and exposed to 5 nM [³H]CGP-12177 at 4 °C for 1 h. Finally, the cells were washed as above and assayed for ³H and protein. For both assays, nonspecific binding was determined in the presence of 10 µM propranolol.

AR mRNA Assay—Control and agonist-treated cells were washed twice, scraped into ice-cold DPBS, and centrifuged. The cell pellet was suspended in TRIzol reagent (5–10 x 10⁶ cells/ml), mixed well with volume of chloroform, and centrifuged for 15 min at 12,000 x g at 4 °C. The clear upper layer containing RNA was removed, adjusted to 35% ethanol, and further purified using an RNeasy kit (Qiagen). First strand cDNA in 20 µl was generated from 500 ng of total RNA with Random Decamers using a RETROscript kit and protocol (Ambion). Portions (0.2–0.4 µl) of the cDNA were used to quantify the relative amounts of AR mRNA by generating [-³²P]-labeled PCR products using a QuantumRNA 18 S Internal Standards kit and protocol (Ambion). For ₁AR and ₁/₂ct-AR cDNA amplification, the sense and antisense primers were 5'-CAAGTGCTGCGACTTCGTCACC-3' and 5'-GCCGAGGAAACGGCGCTC-3', which generated a 163-bp PCR product. For ₂AR cDNA, the primers were 5'-ACAAAGCCCTCAAGACGTTAGG-3' and 5'-CCTTCAAAGAAGACCTGCG-3', which generated a 240-bp product. For ₂/₁ct-AR cDNA, the ₂AR sense primer was paired with a ₁AR antisense primer, 5'-AGCAGAGCAGTCCCTGGAAG-3', which generated a 219-bp product. The 18 S PCR primer pair in the kit was used in a ratio of 18 S PCR primer pairs:18 S PCR Competimer of 1:9 to generate an internal control PCR 324-bp product. Amplification was done in a PerkinElmer Life Sciences GeneAmp PCR system 9600 with denaturation at 94 °C for 30 s (3 min for initial denaturation), annealing at 55 °C for 30 s, elongation at 74 °C for 45 s, 26 cycles, and final extension at 74 °C for 5 min. Pretests showed a liner correlation between the amount of AR mRNA and its final PCR products under these conditions. The final PCR fragments were resolved on a 6% Tris/borate/EDTA gel, which was dried and exposed to a Bio-Rad storage phosphor screen-BI. The screen was scanned, and the labeled bands were detected and quantified using a Bio-Rad GS525 molecular imager system and multi-analysis/PC software. The abundance of each AR mRNA was calculated relative to that of the control 18 S rRNA band from the same reaction.

AR Turnover Assay—Basal and agonist-mediated AR turnover were determined by following the loss of surface-biotinylated receptors. Briefly, cells grown in 35-mm dishes were rinsed with ice-cold Buffer B (40 mM NaHCO₃, 100 mM NaCl, pH 8.6), incubated with 1 mM sulfo-NHS-LC-biotin in Buffer B at 4 °C for 30 min, and rinsed with ice-cold DPBS, 20 mM glutamine (27). The cells then were warmed to 37 °C in fresh medium in the absence or presence of 10 µM ISO and collected at different times as described above for the total AR binding assay. Portions of the lysates were extracted in radioimmune precipitation assay buffer for 1 h at 4 °C and centrifuged at 17,000 x g for 20 min. ARs were immunoprecipitated from the soluble extracts using protein A-Sepharose beads coated with anti-₁AR or -₂AR antibodies, eluted from the beads by heating in SDS sample buffer at 60 °C for 15 min and subjected to SDS-PAGE and blotting with HRP-conjugated streptavidin as described below.

Whole Cell Phosphorylation of ARs—BHK cells grown in 6-well plates were transfected with one of the pcDNA3 plasmids encoding wild-type or chimeric HA-ARs (1 µg DNA/well; 3 wells per plasmid). After 24 h, one well of each set of three was assayed for total binding activity. The other two wells were washed with serum- and phosphate-free Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium/Hepes, incubated in the same medium containing 200 µCi/ml of [³²P]orthophosphate for 2.5 h and then for 10 min ± 1 µM ISO. The cells were washed extensively with ice-cold Ca²⁺- and Mg²⁺-free DPBS and lysed in 0.7 ml of radioimmune precipitation assay buffer with protease and phosphatase inhibitors. The lysates were extracted and centrifuged as described above. The soluble extracts were pre-cleared by gently rotating with 30 µl of protein A-Sepharose for 1 h. After removing the beads, the soluble samples were added to tubes containing 5 µl of anti-HA-Sepharose and 25 µl of protein A-Sepharose (added as carrier to have a visible pellet), and the tubes were rotated at 4 °C overnight. The beads were washed five times with 300 µl of radioimmune precipitation assay buffer, and bound proteins were eluted in 50–60 µl of sample buffer (based on lysate binding, adjusted to make ARs/µl the same in samples from control and stimulated cells) as described above. Portions of 40 µl were separated by SDS-PAGE, and the gel was dried and exposed to a phosphor screen for 20 to 30 h. The screen was scanned and analyzed as described above. We confirmed that equal amounts of receptors were immunoprecipitated from control and stimulated cells by transferring proteins from the gel to a blot that was probed with rat anti-HA and HRP-conjugated mouse anti-rat.

Western Blotting—Immunoblotting of AR proteins was done essentially as described previously (27). Briefly, portions of cell lysates or immunoprecipitates dissolved in SDS sample buffer were separated by SDS-PAGE and transferred to Immobilon-P membranes (Millipore). The latter were blocked with casein in Tris-buffered saline, blotted with anti-₁AR (1:10000), anti-₂AR (1:4000), or anti-arrestin (1:4000) antibodies, washed, and blotted with HRP-conjugated goat anti-rabbit or -mouse IgG or streptavidin (1:10000) as appropriate. Then the blots were visualized by enhanced chemiluminescence, and the images were captured on Eastman Kodak Co. Bio-Max MR or Lite 2 film and quantified using NIH Imaging software. ₁AR produces a linear response between 2.5 and 25 fmol (27). Similar results were observed with ₂AR (data not shown).

Data Analysis—Unless otherwise indicated, each experiment was repeated at least three times, and each data point within an experiment was done in triplicate. Data were fitted to curves by nonlinear regression analysis and analyzed for statistical significance by one- or two-way analysis of variance or two-tailed t test using Prism 3 (GraphPad Software).

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Opposite Changes in Levels of ₁AR and ₂AR by Persistent Agonist Stimulation—To investigate the effects of persistent agonist stimulation on ₁AR and ₂AR, we exposed clonal lines of BHK cells stably expressing either subtype at 1 pmol/mg protein (BHK-h₁ and -h₂ cells) to 10 µM ISO for up to 24 h. The cells then were lysed and assayed for total AR binding activity using the hydrophobic radioligand ¹²⁵ICYP. The number of ₂AR binding sites decreased to 52% of control with a t of 2.6 h whereas that of ₁AR increased to 131% of control (Fig. 1A). Although there was an initial, modest reduction of ₁AR binding, overall ₁AR underwent up-regulation in contrast to the rapid down-regulation of ₂AR. To determine whether the changes in binding activity reflected corresponding changes in AR proteins, we subjected the same samples to Western blotting with antibodies to AR C-terminal sequences. With increasing time of agonist treatment, the levels of immune-detected ₁AR increased, and those of ₂AR decreased (Fig. 1, B and C), establishing that the respective up- and down-regulation of binding activities occurred at the receptor protein level. ₂AR binding activity initially decreased more rapid than the immune-detected receptor proteins (see Fig. 1 and Table I). A similar delay was observed in the down-regulation of HA-₂AR expressed in mouse L-cells (13). In general, our results are consistent with previous studies that ₁AR is more resistant to agonist-mediated down-regulation than ₂AR.

View larger version (24K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 1. Persistent agonist-mediated regulation of AR subtypes expressed in BHK cells. BHK cells stably expressing 1 pmol of 1AR (•) or 2AR () per mg of protein were exposed to 10 µM ISO for the indicated times, washed, and lysed. The whole cell lysates were then assayed for the total number of AR binding sites with 125ICYP (A) and for receptor protein by Western blotting with anti-AR antibodies (B) and quantification of the immunoblots by densitometric analysis (C) as described under "Experimental Procedures." Data are the mean ± S.E. of three-six independent experiments.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   TABLE I Kinetic parameters of acute and persistent agonist-mediated regulation of 1AR and 2AR expressed in BHK cells Clonal BHK and Arr2-BHK cells stably expressing 1AR and 2AR were exposed to ISO for up to 30 min and assayed for internalization of cell surface binding sites with [3H]CGP-12177 or for up to 24 h, lysed, and assayed for total cellular binding sites with 125ICYP or analyzed by Western blotting for amounts of immune-detected receptors as described under "Experimental Procedures." Cells also were biotinylated, incubated in the absence and presence of ISO for up to 24 h, and analyzed for amounts of biotinylated receptors remaining by immunoprecipitation and streptavidin overlay. Data were best fit by nonlinear regression analysis to one-phase exponential decay curves by Prism 3, and rates and extents of change are expressed as t and maximal % change. When the data could not be curve-fitted, the value at 24 h is given. All values are the mean ± S.E. of three to six independent experiments.

The changes in ₁AR and ₂AR binding activity after 24 h was dependent on agonist concentration with half-maximal effects occurring at 1–3 nM ISO (Fig. 2A). When we compared short term and prolonged agonist stimulation on AR regulation, we found that a 15-min exposure had only a slight immediate effect on total AR binding activity but led to changes 24 h later, especially for ₁AR (Fig. 2B). ₁AR levels after 15 min were 103 ± 2% of control and increased to 126 ± 3% after 24 h. ₂AR levels decreased to 92.8 ± 9 and 79.6 ± 1% of control after 15 min and 24 h, respectively. Thus, the up-regulation of ₁AR after 15 min of agonist stimulation followed by 24 h without agonist treatment was substantial when compared with the up-regulation obtained with constant agonist stimulation for 24 h. In contrast, the down-regulation of ₂AR over the same time period was small in comparison to the maximum caused by prolonged stimulation. As cAMP has been reported to mediate down-regulation in some cells heterologously expressing ARs (15, 27), we exposed the cells to a permeable cAMP derivative, (chlorophenylthio)-cAMP, for 24 h. The effect was an up-regulation of ₁AR (129 ± 1% of control; p < 0.001, n = 3) similar to that induced by agonist. There was no ₂AR down-regulation but instead a small, not quite significant up-regulation (116 ± 7.5% of control; p = 0.07). Thus up-regulation of ₁AR levels may be mediated by agonist-generated cAMP whereas down-regulation of ₂AR may be because of agonist binding.

View larger version (23K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 2. Effects of agonist concentration and treatment time on AR levels in BHK cells. A, BHK-h1 (•) and -h2 () cells were exposed to increasing concentrations of ISO for 24 h and assayed for total receptor binding sites with 125ICYP. Data are the mean ± S.D. of one of two separate experiments. B, cells were incubated in the absence and presence of 10 µM ISO for 15 min, and some were collected for binding. The rest were washed six times with warm DPBS and incubated in medium ± 10 µM ISO for 24 h. The cells then were assayed for total receptor binding sites with 125ICYP. Data are the mean ± S.E. of three independent experiments. Open bars, 15 min + ISO; hatched bars, 15 min + ISO and then 24 h – ISO; solid bars, 24 h + ISO.

Agonist-mediated Up-regulation of AR mRNA—To find out whether changes in AR mRNA levels contributed to AR regulation by agonist, BHK-h₁ and -h₂ cells were treated with 10 µM ISO over a 24-h period, and ₁AR and ₂AR mRNA levels were quantified by reverse transcriptase-PCR. As shown in Fig. 3, ₁AR mRNA levels increased 3-fold within 1 h of ISO stimulation and then decreased but remained above control levels to the end of the 24-h treatment. ₂AR mRNA levels also increased but to a lesser degree. Similar results were obtained with a second clonal line expressing ₁AR or ₂AR and also co-expressing arrestin-2 (see below).

View larger version (39K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 3. Agonist-mediated regulation of AR mRNA levels in BHK cells. Cells stably expressing the indicated ARs were exposed to 10 µM ISO for up to 24 h. Total RNA was isolated from the cells, and AR mRNA levels quantified using reverse transcriptase-PCR as described under "Experimental Procedures." The 32P-labeled PCR-generated products were separated by gel electrophoresis and detected and quantified by a phosphorimaging system and imaging software. A, depicts a representative image of the 32P-labeled PCR-generated products from AR mRNAs in control and agonist-treated cells. B, quantification of the images showing 1AR mRNA levels as function of time of agonist treatment. C, levels of AR mRNAs in cells treated with 10 µM ISO for 24 h (expressed as % of control). Data are the mean ± S.E. of three-six independent experiments. *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; and ***, p < 0.001.

Prolonged ₁AR Regulation Unaffected by Increased Internalization—₁AR is more resistant to agonist-mediated internalization compared with ₂AR in CHW (25, 26, 31) and HEK 293 cells (28, 32)² As endocytosis of some GPCRs is necessary for their down-regulation (6), including ₁AR (27) and ₂AR (7, 8), we explored the possibility that subtype differences in internalization might account for differences in down-regulation in BHK cells. Exposing BHK-h₁ and -h₂ cells to ISO over a 30-min period resulted in time-dependent internalization of both subtypes with similar first order kinetics (t values of 3.2 and 2.9 min; see Table I). The maximal internalization of ₁AR, however, was only 16% in contrast to 38% of ₂AR (Fig. 4A). When the cells were continuously exposed to 10 µM ISO for longer times, the proportion of ₁AR remaining on the cell surface actually began to increase, and the difference with ₂AR reached 6-fold at 24 h (Fig. 4B).

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 4. Effects of acute and prolonged agonist stimulation on cell surface AR levels. BHK-h1 () and -h2 () cells were exposed to either 1 µM ISO for up to 30 min (A) or 10 µM ISO for up to 24 h (B). The cells were washed and assayed for cell surface receptors using [3H]CGP-12177 as described under "Experimental Procedures." Data are the mean ± S.E. of three (panel B) and five-six (panel A) independent experiments.

To investigate whether increasing ₁AR internalization would overcome its resistance to down-regulation, we co-expressed arrestin-2 with each -subtype in BHK cells, which contain low levels of arrestin-3 and no arrestin-2 (38). Arrestins are necessary for endocytosis of GPCRs via clathrin-coated pits (39, 40). We obtained clones that co-expressed 3 pmol of arrestin-2 and 1.3 pmol of either ₁AR or ₂AR per mg of protein (Arr2-BHK-h₁ and -h₂ cells) (Fig. 5A). The internalization of ₁AR was substantially increased to 52% and that of ₂AR was increased to 64% in these cells (Fig. 5B) with a reduction in the t values to 1.5 min (Table I). When we exposed Arr2-BHK-h₁ and -h₂ cells to persistent agonist treatment, ₁AR still underwent up-regulation even though 70% or more of the total ₁AR was internalized at any given time (Fig. 5C). The extent of ₂AR down-regulation was similar to that in cells not co-transfected with arrestin-2, but rate was significantly slowed (see Table I). In addition, because total ₁AR levels increased and ₂AR levels decreased, the relative amounts of internalized ₁AR were more than those of ₂AR, reaching almost 4-fold by 24 h. Thus despite the extensive intracellular accumulation of ₁AR, it remained resistant to agonist-mediated down-regulation.

View larger version (32K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 5. Effects of overexpression of arrestin-2 on regulation of ARs by agonist in BHK cells. A, Western blot of arrestin expression in BHK cells and the Arr2-BHK-h1 and -h2 cells. Increasing amounts of purified arrestin-2 or 20 µg of cell protein were subjected to Western blotting using a monoclonal antibody against arrestins. B, Arr2-BHK-h1 () and -h2 () cells were exposed to 1 µM ISO for the indicated times, washed, and assayed for cell surface receptors using [3H]CGP-12177 as described under "Experimental Procedures." Results represent the mean ± S.E. of five-six independent experiments. C, Arr2-BHK-h1 (, •) and -h2 (, ) cells were exposed to 10 µM ISO for the indicated times, washed, and assayed for cell surface receptors (open symbols) or lysed and assayed for total receptors (solid symbols). Initially, 90% of the total receptors were on the cell surface. Data are expressed as % of initial total receptors and are the mean ± S.D. from one of three similar experiments.

Basal and Agonist-mediated Turnover of ₁AR and ₂AR—In the absence of agonist stimulation, receptors are maintained at a steady state level, the rate of receptor synthesis balanced by receptor turnover (14, 41). We used a biotinylation procedure to identify any differences in either basal or agonist-mediated turnover of ₁AR and ₂AR. The cells were labeled with a non-permeable, non-cleavable biotin derivative, incubated up to 24 h in the presence or absence of agonist, and solubilized. ARs in the soluble extracts were immunoprecipitated with anti-AR antibodies, and biotinylated ARs were detected by blotting with HRP-conjugated streptavidin. As shown in Fig. 6 and Table I, basal turnover of both ₁AR and ₂AR occurred with similar kinetics (t = 6.5 ± 0.7 and 6.9 ± 1.8 h, respectively), and over 90% of the biotinylated AR disappeared after 24 h. Whereas agonist stimulation increased ₂AR turnover significantly (t = 3.0 ± 0.2 h; p < 0.01), it had only a slight impact on ₁AR turnover (t of 5.0 ± 0.5 h; p > 0.05). We also compared basal and agonist-mediated turnover in the Arr2-BHK-h₁ and -h₂ cells and found a similar pattern for the two subtypes (data not shown). Together these results are indicative that ₁AR is resistant to agonist-mediated degradation in BHK cells, even under conditions in which it undergoes extensive internalization.

View larger version (41K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 6. Basal and agonist-mediated turnover of ARs in BHK cells. BHK-h1 and -h2 cells were biotinylated, incubated for the indicated times in the presence or absence of 10 µM ISO, and then analyzed for biotinylated AR proteins by immunoprecipitation, SDS-PAGE, and blotting with peroxidase-conjugated streptavidin as described under "Experimental Procedures." A, representative blots showing biotinylated receptors. Amounts were quantified by densitometry. B, turnover of 1AR in control () and agonist-treated (•) cells. C, turnover of 2AR in control () and agonist-treated () cells. Results represent the mean ± S.E. of three-six independent experiments.

To validate the biotinylation method, we used another approach to measure the basal turnover rate of each subtype. For ₂AR, we applied the methods and equations described by Williams et al. (14) to the down-regulation data and obtained a t of 7.2 h for basal turnover. As ₁AR did not down-regulate, we took advantage of the receptor being under control of the metallothionein promoter, exposed BHK-h₁ cells to zinc sulfate to induce more receptors, and followed their turnover as described by Dunigan et al. (27). A t of 7.2 h for the turnover of zinc-induced ₁AR in BHK cells was obtained. These values are very close to the basal turnover rates obtained using biotinylation assay, indicating that biotinylation did not alter the turnover of either subtype.

Effects of Blocking Trafficking to Lysosomes on Basal and Agonist-mediated Turnover of -Subtypes—Little is known about basal turnover of GPCRs, and although it is general accepted that agonist-mediated degradation occurs in lysosomes (6), non-lysosomal proteolysis of ₂AR has been described (13). To investigate the two possibilities, we used bafilomycin A₁, which has been shown to block trafficking of ₂AR from endosomes to lysosomes (8). Biotin-labeled BHK-h₁ and -h₂ cells were incubated in the presence and absence of 1 µM bafilomycin A₁ and/or 10 µM ISO and were analyzed for the disappearance of biotinylated AR after 4 h. Bafilomycin A₁ slightly increased the basal turnover of ₁AR and ₂AR but effectively blocked the agonist-mediated turnover of ₂AR (Fig. 7). Based on these results, it appears that the basal degradation of both subtypes may be non-lysosomal, whereas agonist-mediated degradation of ₂AR is lysosomal.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 7. Effects of bafilomycin A1 on the basal and agonist-mediated turnover of ARs in BHK cells. BHK-h1 and -h2 cells were biotinylated, incubated for 0 (control) or 4 h in the presence or absence of 10 µM ISO and the presence (solid bars) or absence (open bars) of 1 µM bafilomycin A1 (BMA1) and then analyzed for biotinylated ARs as described in the legend to Fig. 6. Data represent the mean ± S.E. of three-six independent experiments. **, p < 0.01 (two-way analysis of variance).

Role of the C-tail of AR in Agonist-mediated Regulation—As the C-tails of a number of GPCRs have been identified as structural determinants in targeting the receptors to lysosomes (33–35), we explored the effect of replacing the C-tail of one subtype with that of the other on agonist-mediated regulation. As the first step in the regulatory process is receptor phosphorylation, we ³²P-labeled BHK cells transiently expressing ₁AR, ₂AR, or the chimeras, ₁/₂ct-AR and ₂/₁ct-AR, stimulated the cells with agonist, and purified and analyzed the receptors for ³²P incorporation (Fig. 8). Whereas agonist stimulation increased the phosphorylation of ₂AR and ₁/₂ct-AR by 271 and 200% of control, respectively, it had no significant effect on the phosphorylation of ₁AR and ₂/₁ct-AR. We next compared the agonist-mediated internalization of the wild-type and chimeric receptors (Fig. 9A). ₁/₂ct-AR underwent more internalization than wild-type ₁AR, and ₂/₁ct-AR underwent less than wild-type ₂AR, which is in agreement with previous findings in HEK 293 cells (32). Having confirmed that the chimeras behaved similarly in BHK cells, we investigated the effects of persistent agonist stimulation on their regulation. As shown in Fig. 9B, ₁/₂ct-AR underwent down-regulated and thus was more similar to ₂AR, the source of its C-tail, than to ₁AR, which represented most of its structure. In an analogous manner, ₂/₁ct-AR exhibited up-regulation, the same as ₁AR from which it derived its C-tail. Western blotting confirmed the down- and up-regulation of the chimeras occurred at the protein level (Fig. 9C). Although the magnitude and rate of up- or down-regulation of each chimera were respectively less and slower than the corresponding wild-type AR source of its C-tail, the results clearly demonstrated that the C-tails are important determinants not only of rapid agonist-mediated phosphorylation and internalization but also of persistent agonist-mediated up- or down-regulation of ₁AR and ₂AR.

View larger version (46K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 8. Phosphorylation of wild-type and chimeric ARs in response to agonist stimulation. A, BHK cells transiently expressing wild-type or chimeric HA-ARs were [32P]-labeled, incubated ± 1 µM ISO for 10 min, washed, lysed, and solubilized. Receptors were absorbed to anti-HA-Sepharose, eluted, and separated by SDS-PAGE. [32P]-Labeled receptors were visualized after exposing the dried gel for 16–30 h to a phosphor screen that was scanned and quantified as described under "Experimental Procedures." Shown is a representative image of phosphorylated ARs from control and ISO-stimulated cells. Molecular mass markers are indicated in kDa. B, shown is the quantification of receptor phosphorylation expressed as % of control. Data are the mean ± S.E. of three-four independent experiments. ns, p > 0.05; ***, p < 0.001 (one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni's post test).

View larger version (33K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 9. Role of the AR C-tail in the agonist-mediate regulation of receptors in BHK cells. A, stably transfected uncloned BHK cells expressing wild-type or chimeric ARs were untreated or exposed to 1 µM ISO for 30 min, washed, and assayed for cell surface binding using [3H]CGP-12177. B, cells were treated with 10 µM ISO for the indicated times, lysed, and assayed for total AR using 125ICYP. C, shown is a representative immunoblot of chimeric ARs from control and agonist-treated cells. 1/2ct-AR and 2/1ct-AR were detected with antibodies against 2AR and 1AR C-tails, respectively. D, cells were biotinylated, incubated for 0 (control) or 4 h in the presence (solid bars) or absence (open bars) of 10 µM ISO, and then analyzed for biotinylated ARs as described in the legend to Fig. 6. Data represent the mean ± S.E. of three-six independent experiments. *, p < 0.05; ***, p < 0.001 (two-way analysis of variance).

It was noted that although the ₁/₂ct-AR expression vector contains the 3'-untranslated region of the ₂AR gene, the ₂/₁ct-AR expression vector lacks the 3'-untranslated region of the ₁AR gene. Thus, the mRNA of the _2/1ct-AR chimera does not have a 3'-untranslated region, which often contains specific sequences recognized by mRNA-binding proteins that modulate mRNA stability. Therefore, we determined the mRNA levels of the chimeras. A 24-h exposure to 10 µM ISO did not change the levels of ₁/₂ct-AR mRNA (98.5 ± 1.2% of control) and slightly but significantly increased the levels of ₂/₁ct-AR mRNA (116 ± 1.1% of control) (Fig. 3). Apparently, the up-regulation of AR mRNAs in BHK cells is not dependent on the 3'-untranslated region.

To further confirm the role of the C-tail on AR regulation, we determined the turnover of the chimeric receptors. We labeled BHK cells stably expressing wild-type and chimeric ARs with biotin and measured the loss of biotinylated AR over a 4-h period. The basal turnover was similar for all the receptors except that ₂/₁ct-AR turned over more slowly (Fig. 9D). Agonist stimulation had no effect on ₁AR turnover but increased the turnover of the other receptors in the order of ₂/₁ct-AR < ₁/₂ct-AR < ₂AR. The same pattern emerged when we directly compared the percent of biotinylated receptors remaining after 4 h of agonist treatment. Based on these results, it appears that agonist-mediated AR turnover is enhanced by the ₂AR C-tail and reduced by ₁AR C-tail.

	DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
In the present study, we have shown that in response to prolonged stimulation by agonist, ₁AR underwent up-regulation in contrast to the rapid down-regulation of ₂AR in BHK cells. The changes in receptor binding activity were accompanied by corresponding changes in immune-detected receptor proteins. Thus, up- and down-regulation occurred not by activating or inactivating pre-existing receptors but by varying the rates of receptor synthesis or turnover. To resolve how the two processes contribute to this subtype difference, we determined both the levels of AR mRNA and the kinetics of AR degradation. Our results showed that in agonist-treated cells, the mRNA levels of both subtypes were increased, being greater for ₁AR. Although agonist-induced decreases in levels of both human ₁AR and ₂AR mRNA have been observed in CHW cells (15, 27), up-regulation of the mRNA levels of other GPCRs has been reported, an example being the dopamine D_2L receptor stably expressed in Chinese hamster ovary cells (42). The basal turnover rate as measured by the disappearance of biotin-labeled AR was essentially the same for both subtypes. Although the degradation of ₂AR was significantly accelerated by agonist stimulation, ₁AR turnover was not. In cells treated with a permeable cAMP derivative, up-regulation of ₁AR was similar to that with agonist treatment whereas down-regulation of ₂AR was not observed. A 15-min pulse with agonist caused a substantial up-regulation of ₁AR in cells washed and incubated without agonist for 24 h. For ₂AR, the corresponding down-regulation was much less. This suggested that the brief stimulation of ₁AR produced a signal or activated a pathway in the cells that did not require the further presence of agonist. Based on these results, we propose that the up-regulation of ₁AR by prolonged agonist stimulation is because of a cAMP-mediated increase in receptor mRNA levels and the resistance to agonist-mediated degradation, and the down-regulation of ₂AR is because of the agonist-mediated increased rate of turnover.

We should note that the rates of basal turnover of both -subtypes and of agonist-mediated turnover of ₂AR are relatively rapid. Many previous studies indicated that in the absence of agonist, ARs turn over very slowly with t values of 30–200 h (41). However, the t values for the basal turnover of endogenous ₂AR and ₁AR in rat C6 glioma cells are 6.4 and 9.4 h, respectively (43), and 11 h for endogenous ₂AR in mouse S49 lymphoma cells (44). Regarding the agonist-mediated turnover of ₂AR in BHK cells, the down-regulation of binding activity occurred with a t of 2.3 h, which is consistent with other reports on ₂AR. Examples are as follows: L cells, 5 h; A431 cells, 1 h (13); BEAS-2B cells, 3.3 h (14); and CHW cells, 2.6–7.3 h (15, 26, 27). When making such comparisons, one must keep in mind that whereas basal turnover is independent of receptor density, agonist-mediated turnover is sensitive to receptor density (27).

We also established that bafilomycin A₁, which disrupts trafficking of ₂AR from endosomes to lysosomes (8), blocked the agonist-mediated degradation of ₂AR but not the basal turnover of either subtype. Together with the similar basal turnover rates, it is reasonable to assume that both subtypes are turned over by the same process. Both human ₁AR and ₂AR have been located in microdomains of the plasma membrane known as caveolae (45), and similar results were obtained with BHK-h₁ and -h₂ cells.³ Basal turnover of ARs may involve a caveolae-associated process occurring either within the caveolae or after caveolae-mediated endocytosis (46). Although the mechanism(s) and pathway by which ARs undergo basal turnover are not known, our results suggest that agonist-mediated turnover is a separate process and not just an increase in the rate of the basal process.

More than one mechanism has been proposed for the down-regulation of ₂AR (6). Upon agonist stimulation, ₂AR is internalized through clathrin-coated pits and undergoes endosomal trafficking and sorting either to the recycling pathway or to the late endosome/lysosome pathway (7, 8). Internalization is necessary for lysosomal degradation in this model. Other studies using mutagenesis or inhibitors of endocytosis showed that blocking of either internalization (10, 11, 13) or down-regulation (9, 12, 47) of ₂AR does not prevent the other process from occurring. In this model distinct pathways are used for internalization and down-regulation of ₂AR, and degradation may be independent of internalization, as well as non-lysosomal. We found that in BHK cells, overexpression of arrestin-2 increased the extent of internalization but not down-regulation of ₂AR. This does not eliminate the possibility that ₂AR internalization is necessary for its down-regulation. In fact, the inhibition of agonist-stimulated turnover of ₂AR by bafilomycin A₁ is consistent with this possibility. Although ₁AR undergoes less agonist-mediated internalization than ₂AR, increasing ₁AR internalization by overexpressing arrestin-2 did not result in its down-regulation. ₁AR continued to undergo up-regulation in agonist-treated cells even though most of the receptors remained internalized. Thus, differences in subtype internalization did not contribute to differences in their down-regulation.

There is increasing evidence the C-tails of GPCRs are important determinants in regulating their endosomal trafficking (33–36). For the C-tail of ₂AR, tyrosine 350 and 354 are required for receptor down-regulation (9), and the terminal four amino acid residues (DSLL) represent a PDZ domain binding motif that is involved in the sorting of ₂AR between recycling endosomes and lysosomes (34, 36). ₁AR has no tyrosine residues in its C-tail but does terminate in a PDZ binding motif (ESKV) that is recognized by PSD-95 and MAGI-2, two postsynaptic scaffolding proteins that respectively inhibit and enhance receptor internalization (48, 49). Mutation of the PDZ motif of mouse ₁AR enhances agonist-mediated endocytosis in mouse cardiac myocytes (50). When we used chimeric receptors in which the C-tails had been exchanged, we found that upon persistent agonist stimulation, ₂/₁ct-AR underwent up-regulation, and ₁/₂ct-AR underwent down-regulation, the order of down-regulation being ₂AR > ₁/₂ct-AR >> ₂/₁ct-AR > ₁AR. The same order was observed for agonist-mediated turnover of biotinylated receptors, as well as internalization of cell surface receptors. The C-tails also contribute to the differences in agonist-mediated desensitization of the two subtypes (51) and thus are involved in all the major mechanisms of AR regulation. Furthermore, we demonstrated that agonist-stimulated phosphorylation of the receptors was determined by the C-tails as an increase occurred in ₂AR and ₁/₂ct-AR but not in ₁AR and ₂/₁ct-AR. The agonist-stimulated increase in phosphorylation of ₁AR also is much less than that of ₂AR in HEK 293 cells (52). These differences in subtype phosphorylation may account for the differences in other down-stream regulatory events such as binding of arrestins, arrestin-mediated desensitization and internalization, and possibly down-regulation.

As up- or down-regulation of the chimeras is not as effective as that of the wild-type receptors, other receptor domains may contribute to their regulation. One candidate is the proline-rich region in the third intracellular loop of ₁AR that is recognized by Src homology 3 domain-containing proteins of the endophilin family (53). Overexpression of endophilin (53) or deletion of the region (31) enhances ₁AR internalization. Another candidate is the N-terminal region that contains an allelic polymorphism at codon 49. When expressed in HEK 293 cells, the less frequent Gly-49 variant of the human ₁AR undergoes some agonist-mediated down-regulation whereas the more abundant Ser-49 variant is resistant and even exhibits up-regulation (29, 30).

The cell type-specific effects on ₁AR regulation are very striking. In both BHK and HEK 293 cells, ₁AR is totally resistant to agonist-mediated down-regulation. In contrast, we have shown previously that ₁AR endogenously expressed in SK-N-MC cells (54) or stably expressed in CHW cells (27) undergoes agonist-mediated down-regulation. This apparent anomaly is most likely explained by the existence of sorting proteins that recognize specific motifs on receptors and control their endosomal trafficking. The PDZ binding motif in the C-tail of ₂AR interacts with PDZ domain-containing proteins of the Na⁺/H⁺-exchanger regulatory factor family (34). When the motif is mutated or phosphorylated by G protein-coupled receptor kinase 5, the interaction is disrupted, and receptor trafficking is shifted from recycling to degradation. More recently, a cytosolic protein named GASP (GPCR-associated sorting protein) has been identified that binds to the C-tails of a subset of GPCRs including ₂AR and facilitates receptor trafficking to lysosomes (55). Sorting nexin 1, a membrane-associated protein, also mediates GPCR sorting to lysosomes (56). Most likely, sorting proteins that recognize the C-tail of ₁AR exist, and their levels of expression vary among different cell types. Such variations have been observed for G protein-coupled receptor kinases and arrestins (38, 57). In the absence of a ₁AR-selective sorting protein, the ₁-subtype may only be recycled. A further consideration is that differences in post-translational receptor modifications such as phosphorylation (present study and Ref. 52) and ubiquitination (58) may contribute to cell type, as well as subtype, dissimilarities in receptor degradation.

Finally, the combination of limited internalization and up-regulation of ₁AR in contrast to more extensive internalization, and down-regulation of ₂AR results in a large disparity between the subtypes in the number of cell surface receptors present after agonist stimulation for 24 h. Whereas ₂AR levels were less than 20% of control, ₁AR levels were more than control. As ₁AR has been found to undergo less agonist-mediated desensitization than ₂AR (26, 51), ₁AR may remain responsive to agonist stimulation for prolonged periods. This capacity may be useful in certain cell types but not in others such as cardiomyocytes where the apoptotic effects of ₁AR could be detrimental. Our identification of the receptor C-tail as an important structural element in determining subtype down-regulation may provide a basis for future studies and therapeutic strategies.

	FOOTNOTES

 
^* The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Present address: Dept. of Psychology, State University of Arizona, Tempe, AZ 85287.

To whom correspondence should be addressed: Bldg. 49, Rm. 2A28, 49 Convent Dr., MSC4440, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892-4440. Tel.: 301-496-1325; Fax: 301-496-8244; E-mail: fishmanp{at}ninds.nih.gov.

¹ The abbreviations used are: AR, -adrenergic receptor; BHK, baby hamster kidney; CHW, Chinese hamster fibroblast; DPBS, Dulbecco's phosphate-buffered saline; GPCR, G protein-coupled receptor; HRP, horseradish peroxidase; ¹²⁵ICYP, [¹²⁵I]iodocyanopindolol; ISO, isoproterenol; HEK, human embryonic kidney; HA, hemagglutinin.

² W. Liang, S. Austin, Q. Hoang, and P. H. Fishman, unpublished observations.

³ J. Shor, P. K. Curran, and P. H. Fishman, unpublished observations.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
We thank Dr. R. Victor Rebois for helpful discussions and critically reading the manuscript, Jeremy Johnson for technical assistance in the phosphorylation experiments, Dr. H. Kurose for providing the plasmids encoding HA-₂AR and HA-AR chimeras, and Dr. J. Benovic for the arrestin-2 expression construct.

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 

1. Devic, E., Xiang, Y., Gould, D., and Kobilka, B. (2001) Mol. Pharmacol. 60, 577–583[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Xiao, R. P. (2000) Circ. Res. 87, 635–637[Free Full Text]
3. Zhu, W. Z., Zheng, M., Koch, W. J., Lefkowitz, R. J., Kobilka, B. K., and Xiao, R. P. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 1607–1612[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Communal, C., Singh, K., Sawyer, D. B., and Colucci, W. S. (1999) Circulation 100, 2210–2212[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Port, J. D., and Bristow, M. R. (2001) J. Mol. Cell. Cardiol. 33, 887–905[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
6. Tsao, P., Cao, T., and von Zastrow, M. (2001) Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 22, 91–96[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7. Gagnon, A. W., Kallal, L., and Benovic, J. L. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 6976–6981[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Moore, R. H., Tuffaha, A., Millman, E. E., Dai, W., Hall, H. S., Dickey, B. F., and Knoll, B. J. (1999) J. Cell Sci. 112, 329–338[Abstract]
9. Valiquette, M., Bonin, H., Hnatowich, M., Caron, M. G., Lefkowitz, R. J., and Bouvier, M. (1990) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 87, 5089–5093[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Hausdorff, W. P., Campbell, P. T., Ostrowski, J., Yu, S. S., Caron, M. G., and Lefkowitz, R. J. (1991) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 88, 2979–2983[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Barak, L. S., Tiberi, M., Freedman, N. J., Kwatra, M. M., Lefkowitz, R. J., and Caron, M. G. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 2790–2795[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Green, S. A., Turki, J., Innis, M., and Liggett, S. B. (1994) Biochemistry 33, 9414–9419[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13. Jockers, R., Angers, S., Da Silva, A., Benaroch, P., Strosberg, A. D., Bouvier, M., and Marullo, S. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 28900–28908[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Williams, B. R., Barber, R., and Clark, R. B. (2000) Mol. Pharmacol. 58, 421–430[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Bouvier, M., Collins, S., O'Dowd, B. F., Campbell, P. T., de Blasi, A., Kobilka, B. K., MacGregor, C., Irons, G. P., Caron, M. G., and Lefkowitz, R. J. (1989) J. Biol. Chem. 264, 16786–16792[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. Port, J. D., Huang, L. Y., and Malbon, C. C. (1992) J. Biol. Chem. 267, 24103–24108[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Danner, S., Frank, M., and Lohse, M. J. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 3223–3229[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. Blaxall, B. C., Pellett, A. C., Wu, S. C., Pende, A., and Port, J. D. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 4290–4297[Abstract/Free Full Text]
19. Neve, K. A., Barrett, D. A., and Molinoff, P. B. (1985) J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 235, 657–664[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. Fishman, P. H., Miller, T., Curran, P. K., and Feussner, G. K. (1994) J. Recep. Res. 14, 281–296[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
21. Dangel, V., Giray, J., Ratge, D., and Wisser, H. (1996) Biochem. J. 317, 925–931[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
22. Valet, P., Montastruc, J. L., Berlan, M., Tran, M. A., Lafontan, M., and Montastruc, P. (1989) J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 249, 271–277[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. Zhao, M., Hagler, H. K., and Muntz, K. H. (1996) Am. J. Physiol. 271, H1762–H1768[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
24. Bristow, M. R., Ginsburg, R., Umans, V., Fowler, M., Minobe, W., Rasmussen, R., Zera, P., Menlove, R., Shah, P., Jamieson, S., et al. (1986) Circ. Res. 59, 297–309[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Suzuki, T., Nguyen, C. T., Nantel, F., Bonin, H., Valiquette, M., Frielle, T., and Bouvier, M. (1992) Mol. Pharmacol. 41, 542–548[Abstract]
26. Zhou, X. M., Pak, M., Wang, Z., and Fishman, P. H. (1995) Cell. Signal. 7, 207–217[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
27. Dunigan, C. D., Hoang, Q., Curran, P. K., and Fishman, P. H. (2002) Biochemistry 41, 8019–8030[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
28. McLean, A. J., and Milligan, G. (2000) Br. J. Pharmacol. 130, 1825–1832[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
29. Levin, M. C., Marullo, S., Muntaner, O., Andersson, B., and Magnusson, Y. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 30429–30435[Abstract/Free Full Text]
30. Rathz, D. A., Brown, K. M., Kramer, L. A., and Liggett, S. B. (2002) J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacol. 39, 155–160[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
31. Green, S. A., and Liggett, S. B. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 26215–26219[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Shiina, T., Kawasakii, A., Nagao, T., and Kurose, H. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 29082–29090[Abstract/Free Full Text]
33. Trejo, J., and Coughlin, S. R. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 2216–2224[Abstract/Free Full Text]
34. Cao, T. T., Deacon, H. W., Reczek, D., Bretscher, A., and von Zastrow, M. (1999) Nature 401, 286–290[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
35. Innamorati, G., Le Gouill, C., Balamotis, M., and Birnbaumer, M. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 13096–13103[Abstract/Free Full Text]
36. Gage, R. M., Kim, K. A., Cao, T. T., and von Zastrow, M. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 44712–44720[Abstract/Free Full Text]
37. Dunigan, C. D., Curran, P. K., and Fishman, P. H. (2000) Methods Mol. Biol. 126, 329–343[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
38. Santini, F., Penn, R. B., Gagnon, A. W., Benovic, J. L., and Keen, J. H. (2000) J. Cell Sci. 113, 2463–2470[Abstract]
39. Ferguson, S. S. G., Downey, W. E., III, Colapietro, A.-M., Barak, L. S., Ménard, L., and Caron, M. G. (1996) Science 271, 363–366[Abstract]
40. Goodman, O. B., Jr., Krupnick, J. G., Santini, F., Gurevich, V. V., Penn, R. B., Gagnon, A. W., Keen, J. H., and Benovic, J. L. (1996) Nature 383, 447–450[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
41. Mahan, L. C., McKernan, R. M., and Insel, P. A. (1987) Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 27, 215–235[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
42. Zhang, L. J., Lachowicz, J. E., and Sibley, D. R. (1994) Mol. Pharmacol. 45, 878–889[Abstract]
43. Neve, K. A., and Molinoff, P. B. (1986) Mol. Pharmacol. 30, 104–111[Abstract]
44. Jasper, J. R., Motulsky, H. J., Mahan, L. C., and Insel, P. A. (1990) Am. J. Physiol. 259, C41–C46[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
45. Schwencke, C., Okumura, S., Yamamoto, M., Geng, Y. J., and Ishikawa, Y. (1999) J. Cell. Biochem. 75, 64–72[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
46. Henley, J. R., Krueger, E. W., Oswald, B. J., and McNiven, M. A. (1998) J. Cell Biol. 141, 85–99[Abstract/Free Full Text]
47. Campbell, P. T., Hnatowich, M., O'Dowd, B. F., Caron, M. G., Lefkowitz, R. J., and Hausdorff, W. P. (1991) Mol. Pharmacol. 39, 192–198[Abstract]
48. Hu, L. A., Tang, Y., Miller, W. E., Cong, M., Lau, A. G., Lefkowitz, R. J., and Hall, R. A. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 38659–38666[Abstract/Free Full Text]
49. Xu, J., Paquet, M., Lau, A. G., Wood, J. D., Ross, C. A., and Hall, R. A. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 41310–41317[Abstract/Free Full Text]
50. Xiang, Y., Devic, E., and Kobilka, B. K. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 33783–33790[Abstract/Free Full Text]
51. Rousseau, G., Nantel, F., and Bouvier, M. (1996) Mol. Pharmacol. 49, 752–760[Abstract]
52. Shiina, T., Arai, K., Tanabe, S., Yoshida, N., Haga, T., Nagao, T., and Kurose, H. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 33019–33026[Abstract/Free Full Text]
53. Tang, Y., Hu, L. A., Miller, W. E., Ringstad, N., Hall, R. A., Pitcher, J. A., DeCamilli, P., and Lefkowitz, R. J. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 12559–12564[Abstract/Free Full Text]
54. Curran, P. K., and Fishman, P. H. (1996) Cell. Signal. 8, 355–364[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
55. Whistler, J. L., Enquist, J., Marley, A., Fong, J., Gladher, F., Tsuruda, P., Murray, S. R., and Von Zastrow, M. (2002) Science 297, 615–620[Abstract/Free Full Text]
56. Wang, Y., Zhou, Y., Szabo, K., Haft, C. R., and Trejo, J. (2002) Mol. Biol. Cell 13, 1965–1976[Abstract/Free Full Text]
57. Menard, L., Ferguson, S. S., Zhang, J., Lin, F. T., Lefkowitz, R. J., Caron, M. G., and Barak, L. S. (1997) Mol. Pharmacol. 51, 800–808[Abstract/Free Full Text]
58. Shenoy, S. K., McDonald, P. H., Kohout, T. A., and Lefkowitz, R. J. (2001) Science 294, 1307–1313[Abstract/Free Full Text]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. Liang and P. H. Fishman Resistance of the Human {beta}1-Adrenergic Receptor to Agonist-induced Ubiquitination: A MECHANISM FOR IMPAIRED RECEPTOR DEGRADATION J. Biol. Chem., November 5, 2004; 279(45): 46882 - 46889. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Debaigt, H. Hirling, P. Steiner, J.-P. Vincent, and J. Mazella Crucial Role of Neuron-enriched Endosomal Protein of 21 kDa in Sorting between Degradation and Recycling of Internalized G-protein-coupled Receptors J. Biol. Chem., August 20, 2004; 279(34): 35687 - 35691. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 278/41/39773    most recent M304482200v1 Submit a Letter to Editor Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Liang, W. Articles by Fishman, P. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Liang, W. Articles by Fishman, P. H. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?