Advertisement
JBC

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M309166200 on September 18, 2003

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 278, Issue 48, 48300-48312, November 28, 2003
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
278/48/48300    most recent
M309166200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dong, M.
Right arrow Articles by Miller, L. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dong, M.
Right arrow Articles by Miller, L. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Spatial Approximation between Two Residues in the Mid-region of Secretin and the Amino Terminus of Its Receptor

INCORPORATION OF SEVEN SETS OF SUCH CONSTRAINTS INTO A THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF THE AGONIST-BOUND SECRETIN RECEPTOR*

Maoqing Dong{ddagger}§, Zhijun Li§, Mengwei Zang{ddagger}, Delia I. Pinon{ddagger}, Terry P. Lybrand¶||, and Laurence J. Miller{ddagger}**

From the {ddagger}Cancer Center and the Department of Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, Scottsdale, Arizona 85259 and the Department of Chemistry and Center for Structural Biology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232

Received for publication, August 18, 2003 , and in revised form, September 16, 2003.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Photoaffinity labeling of receptors by bound agonists can provide important spatial constraints for molecular modeling of activated receptor complexes. Secretin is a 27-residue peptide hormone with a diffuse pharmacophoric domain that binds to the secretin receptor, a prototypic member of the Class B family of G protein-coupled receptors. In this work, we have developed, characterized, and applied two new photolabile probes for this receptor, with sites for covalent attachment in peptide positions 12 and 14, surrounding the previously most informative site of affinity labeling of this receptor. The [Tyr10,(BzBz)Lys12]rat secretin-27 probe covalently labeled receptor residue Val6, whereas the [Tyr10,(BzBz)Lys14]rat secretin-27 probe labeled receptor residue Pro38. When combined with previous photoaffinity labeling data, there are now seven independent sets of constraints distributed throughout the peptide and receptor amino-terminal domain that can be used together to generate a new molecular model of the ligand-occupied secretin receptor. The aminoterminal domain of this receptor presented a stable platform for peptide ligand interaction, with the amino terminus of the peptide hormone extended toward the transmembrane helix domain of the receptor. This provides clear insights into the molecular basis of natural ligand binding and supplies testable hypotheses regarding the molecular basis of activation of this receptor.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
A detailed understanding of the molecular basis for agonist binding to receptors and their activation can provide key insights for the rational design and refinement of receptor-active drugs. The Class B family of guanine nucleotide-binding protein (G protein)1-coupled receptors includes several very important potential drug targets, including receptors for parathyroid hormone, calcitonin, vasoactive intestinal polypeptide, and glucagon (1). The secretin receptor was the first member of this family to be cloned and is prototypic of this group of receptors (2). All of the natural ligands for the Class B G protein-coupled receptors, like secretin, represent moderately long linear peptide hormones that, by first principles, are quite flexible and provide substantial challenges for determination of the appropriate conformation for receptor docking. Although several of these ligands have had solution structures established by NMR (3), it is unclear that these are relevant to the conformations of these peptides when bound to the receptor.

Additionally, the amino-terminal domain of receptors in this family are large (greater than 120 residues), with complex topology, including three conserved disulfide bonds that are critical for ligand binding (1, 4). Attempts to gain insight into these structures have come from studies in which the non-glycosylated amino-terminal regions of the parathyroid hormone receptor and the corticotropin-releasing factor receptor have been produced in Escherichia coli, denatured, refolded, and had their disulfide bonds determined directly (5, 6). Of interest, the pattern of disulfide bonding for the amino terminus of the corticotropin-releasing factor receptor determined under these conditions was different from that evaluated previously by mutagenesis of the entire intact receptor (7). The recent analysis by Taylor et al. (8) using ab initio modeling and careful evaluation of all permutations of disulfide bond connectivity identified a number of plausible patterns, with no unique solution. Thus, even the constraints for molecular modeling of disulfide bonding are not as certain as would be optimal.

Using the direct approach of intrinsic photoaffinity labeling, we have previously established five distinct spatial approximations between residues in various positions throughout the pharmacophoric domain of secretin and its receptor (9–13). Of note, four of these five constraints, experimentally established for secretin peptide residues 6, 18, 22, and 26 (of 27 residues), covalently labeled residues within the first 36 residues at the distal end of the amino terminus of the receptor (9–12). Therefore, this extensive set of data was only able to support a very limited and focused molecular model of this most distal region of the secretin receptor, and even that conformation was not firmly established (12). Only the most recent study, labeling through peptide residue 13, established a covalent bond with a distinct region of the amino terminus of the receptor, at residue 103 (13). This provided adequate information to propose a preliminary model of the entire amino-terminal domain of this receptor (13).

As part of the current project, we have extensively refined and expanded that model, and have experimentally tested it by performing two additional series of photoaffinity labeling experiments with new probes on either side of this most informative site. These probes incorporated photolabile residues into positions 12 or 14. Both bound specifically and saturably to the secretin receptor where they stimulated full biological responses. Each of these probes also covalently labeled this receptor in single, unique, and distinct residues. These residues were quite close to the sites predicted by the working model, and were subsequently incorporated into this model to further refine it.

The seven photoaffinity labeling cross-links, together with the three disulfide bonds in the receptor amino-terminal domain, constitute a significant set of topological constraints for the ligand-receptor complex. Although there is still considerable conformational flexibility in both peptide and receptor, this set of ten constraints reduces dramatically the number of viable three-dimensional models for the peptide-receptor complex that must be considered. The resulting models provide additional insight into the nature of the ligand-receptor interaction for Class B G protein-coupled receptors and suggest new experiments to further test the conformation and the molecular basis of agonist-induced activation of this receptor.


   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Materials—The solid-phase oxidant, N-chlorobenzenesulfonamide (IODO-BEADs), cyanogen bromide, and m-maleimidobenzoyl-N-hydroxysulfosuccinimide ester were purchased from Pierce Chemical Co. Phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 3-isobutyl-1-methylxanthine, and N-(2-aminoethyl-1)-3-aminopropyl glass beads were from Sigma. Endoproteinase Lys-C (Lys-C) and the 12CA5 monoclonal antibody against the hemagglutinin (HA) epitope were from Roche Applied Science. Soybean trypsin inhibitor was from Worthington. Endoglycosidase F was prepared in our laboratory, as we described previously (14). All other reagents were of analytical grade.

Peptides—The photolabile secretin probes used in this study were [Tyr10,(BzBz)Lys12]rat secretin-27 ((BzBz)Lys12 probe) and [Tyr10, (BzBz)Lys14]rat secretin-27 ((BzBz)Lys14 probe). They were designed to incorporate a photolabile residue p-benzoylbenzoyl-L-lysine ((BzBz)Lys) to replace Arg12 and Gln14 of secretin, respectively. Like photolabile secretin probes used previously (9–13), they both incorporated a Tyr residue at position 10 as a site for radioiodination. Together with other peptides used in this study, i.e. rat secretin-27, [Tyr10]rat secretin-27, and the HA peptide, they were synthesized by solid-phase techniques and purified to homogeneity by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (15). The expected molecular masses of the probes were verified by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry.

The radioligand used for binding (i.e. [Tyr10]rat secretin-27) and the (BzBz)Lys12 and the (BzBz)Lys14 probes were radioiodinated oxidatively with Na125I (PerkinElmer Life Sciences, Boston, MA). Upon exposure to the solid-phase oxidant, IODO-BEADs, for 15 s, the resulting product was purified by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography to yield specific radioactivities of 2000 Ci/mmol (15).

Receptor-bearing Cell Lines—Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell lines expressing the wild type secretin receptor (SecR) (16), the HA-tagged secretin receptor (SecR-HA37 and SecR-HA79) (9), and various methionine mutants of the secretin receptor (SecR-A41M, SecR-V16M-HA37, and SecR-V13M-HA37) (10, 11) were utilized as sources of receptor for this study, each having been well characterized previously. These stable CHO cell lines were cultured at 37 °C in a 5% CO2 environment on Falcon tissue culture plasticware in Ham's F-12 medium supplemented with 5% Fetal Clone-2 (HyClone Laboratories, Logan, UT). Cells were passaged twice a week and lifted mechanically before use.

Development of a new secretin receptor mutant that incorporated an additional site for CNBr cleavage in a key position was necessary for the current work. This represented mutation of Pro8 to Met (P8M), prepared using an oligonucleotide-directed approach with the Quik-ChangeTM site-directed mutagenesis kit from Stratagene. The P8M secretin receptor construct was subcloned into the eukaryotic expression vector, pcDNA3 (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA), and its sequence was confirmed by direct DNA sequencing (17). The P8M secretin receptor construct was expressed transiently in COS cells (American Type Cell Collection, Manassas, VA) after transfection using a modification of the DEAE-dextran method (18). These cells were harvested mechanically 72 h after transfection. Plasma membranes from receptor-bearing cells were prepared using a procedure that has been well described, which included cell disruption by Dounce homogenization and sucrose gradient ultracentrifugation (19).

Ligand Binding—This assay was used for characterization of the newly synthesized photolabile probes that were used in the current study. Briefly, increasing concentrations of the (BzBz)Lys12 or (BzBz)Lys14 probe (from 0 to 1 µM) were incubated with a constant amount of radioligand 125I-[Tyr10]rat secretin-27, and 5 µg enriched CHO-SecR plasma membranes for 1 h at room temperature in Krebs-Ringer-HEPES (KRH) medium (25 mM HEPES, pH 7.4, 104 mM NaCl, 5 mM KCl, 1 mM KH2PO4, 1.2 mM MgSO4, 2 mM CaCl2) containing 0.01% soybean trypsin inhibitor, and 0.2% bovine serum albumin. After incubation, bound and free radioligand were separated using a Skatron cell harvester (Molecular Devices, Sunnyvale, CA) with receptor-binding glass-fiber filter mats that had been soaked in 0.3% Polybrene for 1 h, with the bound radioactivity being quantified in a {gamma}-spectrometer. Non-specific binding was determined in the presence of 1 µM secretin and represented less than 20% of total radioligand in the incubation.

The same assay was also utilized to characterize the binding activity of the COS cells transiently expressing the P8M secretin receptor construct. Binding curves were analyzed and plotted using the non-linear regression analysis program in the Prism software package (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA). Binding kinetics were determined by analysis with the LIGAND program of Munson and Rodbard (20). Data are reported as the means ± S.E. of duplicate determinations from a minimum of three independent experiments.

Biological Activity Assay—This was done by measuring the intracellular cAMP accumulation in CHO-SecR cells in response to stimulation by secretin or the photolabile analogues, representing either the (BzBz)Lys12 or the (BzBz)Lys14 probes, using reagents provided by Diagnostic Products Corp. (Los Angeles, CA). Briefly, Cells grown in 24-well plates were washed in ice-cold phosphate-buffered saline and stimulated by increasing concentrations (0–1 µM) of peptide for 30 min at 37 °C in KRH medium containing 1 mM 3-isobutyl-1-methylxanthine, 0.01% soybean trypsin inhibitor, 0.1% bacitracin, and 0.2% bovine serum albumin. After incubation, cells were lysed by 6% perchloric acid, and cell lysates were then adjusted to pH 6.0 by adding 30% KHCO3 and cleared by centrifugation before being introduced into the assay tubes, as described previously (21). Radioactivity was quantified by scintillation counting in a liquid scintillation Beckman LS6000 counter. Assays were performed in duplicate and repeated in at least three independent experiments.

Receptor Photoaffinity Labeling—Covalent labeling of the secretin receptor was achieved as described previously (9). In brief, 50 µg of enriched receptor-bearing plasma membranes were incubated with 0.1 nM 125I-[Tyr10,(BzBz)Lys12]rat secretin-27 or 125I-[Tyr10,(BzBz)Lys14]rat secretin-27 in the presence of increasing concentrations of secretin (from 0 to 1 µM) in KRH buffer in the dark for 1 h at room temperature. This was then photolyzed for 30 min at 4 °C in a Rayonet photochemical reactor (Southern New England Ultraviolet Company, Hamden, CT) equipped with 3500-Å lamps. Membranes were then washed, solubilized in Laemmli SDS sample buffer, and resolved by 10% SDS-polyacrylamide gels (22). Labeled proteins were visualized by autoradiography. To scale up labeled receptor for further purification and peptide mapping, larger amounts of receptor-bearing membranes (200 µg) and 125I-[Tyr10,(BzBz)Lys12]rat secretin-27 or 125I-[Tyr10,(BzBz)Lys14]rat secretin-27 (0.5 nM) were incubated in the absence of competing secretin prior to photolysis.

Peptide Mapping of the Site of Covalent Labeling—After gel electrophoresis, labeled bands prepared in large scale were cut out, eluted, lyophilized, and ethanol-precipitated, before being used for deglycosylation and peptide mapping by chemical and enzymatic cleavage.

Deglycosylation of labeled secretin receptor was performed with endoglycosidase F under the conditions we previously reported (19). CNBr and endoproteinase Lys-C were used separately and in sequence to cleave the labeled secretin receptor and its fragments, following procedures described previously (9). Products of cleavage were resolved on 10% NuPAGE gels using MES buffer system (Invitrogen), with labeled products being visualized by autoradiography. The apparent molecular masses of labeled receptor fragments were determined by interpolation on a plot of the mobility of MultimarkTM protein standards (Invitrogen) versus the log values of their apparent masses.

Immunoprecipitation of labeled intact and digested HA-tagged receptor constructs using anti-HA monoclonal antibody was performed to determine the identities of some of the labeled fragments using procedures that we described previously (13).

Identification of the Covalently Labeled Residues—Purified CNBr and endoproteinase Lys-C fragments from the radiolabeled secretin receptor were utilized for identification of the residues labeled with the (BzBz)Lys12 and the (BzBz)Lys14 probes by radiochemical Edman degradation sequencing. Receptor fragments containing cysteine residues were immobilized through their sulfhydryl groups utilizing the bifunctional cross-linker, m-maleimidobenzoyl-N-hydroxysulfosuccinimide ester, and N-(2-aminoethyl-1)-3-aminopropyl glass beads. Edman degradation was manually repeated up to eight cycles, in a manner that has been previously reported in detail (23, 24), and the radioactivity released in each cycle was quantified in a {gamma}-spectrometer.

Molecular Modeling of the Receptor Amino-terminal Region—Multiple sequence alignment was performed for Class B G protein-coupled receptors to ascertain those family members with significant sequence identity (>30%) and sequence similarity (>50%) to the amino-terminal domain of the secretin receptor. The NCBI, SwissProt, and EMBL databases were then searched for homologues of each of the closely related Class B family amino-terminal domains. Homologues with experimentally determined three-dimensional structures were assessed for suitability as templates in a homology modeling exercise using structure-based sequence alignment of the secretin receptor amino terminus. Three-dimensional homology models for the rat secretin receptor amino terminus were then built.

Multiple sequence alignments were generated using the AMPS package (25), and FASTA3 was used for all sequence data base searches (26). Structure-based sequence alignments were generated using the program MOE with the Blossum62 scoring matrix (27). Homology models were created using Modeler (28). Final models were assessed for stereochemical quality and side-chain packing profiles using the PROCHECK (29) and QPACK programs (30).

Ligand Docking to the Receptor Amino-terminal Domain—The NMR-derived solution structure of secretin (3) was manually docked close to its putative binding site in the three-dimensional model, guided by our previous photoaffinity labeling data (9–13). The docked complex model was then subjected to 100 steps of in vacuo energy minimization with no constraints, followed by brief (5 ps), low temperature (40 K) molecular dynamics simulations using a generalized Born model. Five constraints (Table I) were applied to impose peptide-receptor contacts determined from previous photoaffinity labeling experiments during the MD simulation, using a harmonic restraining potential with a 20 kcal/mol/Å force constant. The last configuration from the simulation was then energy minimized to generate a final structure for the complex. This same protocol was used to refine additional models that included the three putative disulfide bonds as extra topological constraints (5, 6).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE I
Docking constraints derived from secretin receptor photoaffinity labeling studies

 
Finally, distance geometry calculations were used to search for alternate three-dimensional structures for the ligand-receptor complex that might also satisfy the photoaffinity labeling cross-links and disulfide bond constraints equally well. Both metric matrix and random embedding methods were used to generate three-dimensional structures. For the random embedding procedure, 75,000 iterations were employed for the embedding process, and 500 independent structures were generated by varying the initial seed value. To test the dependence of final structures on starting model conformations, fully extended and various random, compact initial conformations were used for both the receptor amino-terminal and peptide hormone fragments. After embedding, resultant structures were refined with 200 steps of energy minimization. In addition to the ten experimental constraints from cross-linking and disulfide binding patterns, empirical distance constraints were included to impose trans peptide bond conformations for the entire structure. Control calculations were performed without the ten experimental constraints included. All distance geometry calculations were performed using the NAB package (31). The cluster analysis package OC was used to group similar final structures into conformational subfamilies (32).

Molecular Modeling of the Ligand-receptor Complex—The transmembrane helix sequences of the rat secretin receptor were aligned with those of bovine rhodopsin based on the previously reported alignment derived using the "cold spot" method (33). The end of each helix was adjusted based on the recent x-ray crystal structure of bovine rhodopsin (34). The final three residues of helix 6 and the first three residues of helix 7 as indicated by the sequence alignment were unwound to create the third extracellular loop. A homology model for the transmembrane domain was built with systematic replacement of rhodopsin side chains, followed by optimization search to remove steric clashes and distortions in geometry. Extracellular and cytosolic loops were built by first defining anchoring residues located at each helix terminus, then searching a database of protein loops for a proper template to model them. The last carboxyl-terminal helix of the amino-terminal domain model described above was treated as the beginning of transmembrane helix 1, these fragments were superimposed, and the two domains connected to create an intact secretin receptor model.

The ligand-intact receptor models were further refined with additional energy minimization and low temperature molecular dynamics, using weak harmonic constraints (2.0 kcal/mol/Å) to maintain transmembrane helix backbone atoms close to their initial positions, and stronger harmonic constraints as described above to impose the seven photoaffinity labeling cross-links.

The transmembrane domain homology model was generated using Sybyl 6.9 (35). All energy minimization and molecular dynamics calculations were carried out with the AMBER 7 program (36). Interactive molecular graphics model building and analyses were performed using PSSHOW (37). All molecular views were drawn with the MOLSCRIPT program (38).


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Characterization of [Tyr10,(BzBz)Lys12]Rat Secretin-27 and [Tyr10,(BzBz)Lys14]Rat Secretin-27—Both probes bound to the secretin receptor saturably and specifically, with high affinity. This was demonstrated by their ability to compete for the binding of the radioligand, 125I-[Tyr10]rat secretin-27, to the secretin receptor (Fig. 1) (secretin, Ki = 12 ± 3 nM; (BzBz)Lys12 probe, Ki = 20 ± 3.3 nM; (BzBz)Lys14 probe, Ki = 31 ± 4.1 nM). Both probes were also full agonists, stimulating cAMP accumulation in secretin receptor-bearing CHO-SecR cells in a concentration dependent manner (Fig. 1). Both probes had potency similar to that of secretin (Secretin, EC50 = 79 ± 9 pM; (BzBz)Lys12 probe, EC50 = 147 ± 17 pM; (BzBz)Lys14 probe, EC50 = 131 ± 30 pM).



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1.
Binding and biological activity of the (BzBz)Lys12 and (BzBz)Lys14 probes. The left panel demonstrates the abilities of increasing concentrations of secretin or the (BzBz)Lys12 and (BzBz)Lys14 probes to compete for binding of the radioligand 125I-[Tyr10]rat secretin-27 to secretin receptor-bearing CHO-SecR membranes. Values illustrated represent saturable binding as a percentage of maximal binding observed in the absence of competing peptide. Data points represent the means ± S.E. of three independent experiments performed in duplicate. The absolute values (cpm) for maximal and non-saturable binding were 5404 ± 146 and 677 ± 32 for secretin, 5399 ± 140 and 682 ± 40 for the (BzBz)Lys12 probe, and 5412 ± 155 and 666 ± 43 for the (BzBz)Lys14 probe. The right panel shows intracellular cAMP responses to these peptides in the CHO-SecR cells. Values are expressed as the means ± S.E. of data from three assays performed in duplicate, normalized relative to maximal responses. Basal levels of cAMP were 3.5 ± 0.7 pmol/million cells, and maximal levels reached 201 ± 18 pmol/million cells.

 
Photoaffinity Labeling of the Secretin Receptor—The (BzBz)-Lys12 and (BzBz)Lys14 probes were further examined for their ability to covalently photoaffinity label the secretin receptor. Fig. 2 shows that they both labeled this receptor, with labeling inhibited by secretin in a concentration-dependent manner ((BzBz)Lys12, IC50 = 15 ± 3 nM; (BzBz)Lys14, IC50 = 14 ± 3 nM). The bands specifically labeled with each of the probes migrated at approximate Mr = 70,000 and shifted to approximate Mr = 42,000 after deglycosylation with endoglycosidase F, similar to those labeled by each of the other photolabile secretin receptor probes used previously (9–13). They did not saturably label any protein in membranes prepared from non-receptor-bearing CHO cells. These data indicated that both probes were able to label the secretin receptor efficiently and specifically. Thus, we proceeded with identification of their regions of labeling by peptide mapping.



View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 2.
Photoaffinity labeling of the secretin receptor. Shown are typical autoradiographs of 10% SDS-polyacrylamide electrophoresis gels used to separate the products of affinity labeling of CHO-SecR cell membranes by the (BzBz)Lys12 (top panel) and (BzBz)Lys14 (bottom panel) probes in the presence of increasing concentrations of secretin (from 0 to 1 µM). Both probes labeled the secretin receptor migrating at approximate Mr = 70,000 and shifting to approximate Mr = 42,000 after endoglycosidase F treatment. No radioactive bands were observed in affinity labeled non-receptor bearing CHO cell membranes. Shown also are the densitometric analyses of such receptor competition labeling by the (BzBz)Lys12 (top right panel) and (BzBz)Lys14 (bottom right panel) probes, performed in three similar experiments (means ± S.E.).

 
Identification of the Regions of Labeling—To gain an initial indication of regions of labeling with the (BzBz)Lys12 and (BzBz)Lys14 probes, we first chose cleavage of the labeled receptor utilizing CNBr that cleaves at the carboxyl side of Met residues. As shown in Fig. 3, CNBr cleavage of the secretin receptor labeled with either the (BzBz)Lys12 or (BzBz)Lys14 probe resulted in a single band migrating at approximately Mr = 19,000 that shifted to approximately Mr = 10,000 after deglycosylation. Considering the molecular masses of the attached probes (3258 and 3286 Da for the (BzBz)Lys12 and (BzBz)Lys14 probes, respectively), and the presence of glycosylation, the two glycosylated fragments at the amino terminus of the receptor (highlighted in black circles in Fig. 3) represent the best candidates for the domain of labeling with each of the probes.



View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 3.
CNBr cleavage of the labeled secretin receptor. The left panel is a diagram illustrating the theoretical fragments resulting from CNBr cleavage of the secretin receptor. Shown in the middle and right panels are representative autoradiographs of 10% NuPAGE gels used to separate the products of CNBr cleavage of the secretin receptor labeled with the (BzBz)Lys12 (middle panel) and (BzBz)Lys14 (right panel) probes. CNBr cleavage patterns were identical for both probes, with the fragment from the labeled native receptor migrating at approximate Mr = 19,000, and that from the labeled deglycosylated receptor shifting to approximate Mr = 10,000. This is representative of at least 10 experiments. The two glycosylated fragments (bold circles) at the receptor amino terminus are the best candidates to represent the domain of labeling for each of the probes.

 
To definitively identify which of the two fragments represented the region of labeling, two previously well-characterized HA-tagged secretin receptor-bearing cell lines (CHO-SecR-HA37 and CHO-SecR-HA79) were used for immunoprecipitation studies (9). Fig. 4 shows that both HA-tagged secretin receptors labeled with the (BzBz)Lys12 or (BzBz)Lys14 probe were immunoprecipitated by the anti-HA antibody, which was competed by excess HA peptide. These data indicated that the labeled HA-tagged receptors were well recognized by the anti-HA antibody. However, after CNBr cleavage, only the immunoprecipitated fragment from the deglycosylated SecR-HA37 receptor labeled with either the (BzBz)Lys12 or (BzBz)Lys14 probe was radioactive. This indicated that both probes labeled residues within the distal amino-terminal CNBr fragment (Ala1-Met51) of the secretin receptor.



View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 4.
Immunoprecipitation of labeled HA-tagged secretin receptor fragments. The upper panel shows a diagram illustrating the theoretical sites of CNBr cleavage of the amino terminus of the HA-tagged secretin receptor constructs (SecR-HA37 and SecR-HA79). The bottom panels represent the results of immunoprecipitations of the intact HA-tagged secretin receptor and their CNBr fragments labeled with the (BzBz)Lys12 (bottom left panel) and (BzBz)Lys14 (bottom right panel) probes using anti-HA monoclonal antibody in the absence and presence of the competing HA peptide. The patterns of immunoprecipitation of the intact HA-tagged receptor and their deglycosylated CNBr fragments were identical for both probes. Both intact HA-tagged SecR-HA37 and SecR-HA79 constructs labeled with (BzBz)Lys12 (bottom left panel) and (BzBz)Lys14 (bottom right panel) probes were well recognized by the anti-HA antibody, but immunoprecipitation of the CNBr fragments from cleavage of deglycosylated HA-tagged receptors demonstrated that only the immunoprecipitated CNBr fragment (Mr = 10,000) from SecR-HA37 was radioactive when performed in the absence of the competing HA peptide. These data are representative of three independent experiments. This indicated that both the (BzBz)Lys12 and (BzBz)Lys14 probes labeled the amino-terminal CNBr fragment of the receptor (Ala1-Met51) (bold circles).

 
Endoproteinse Lys-C, which cleaves at the carboxyl side of Lys residues, was used to further narrow the domain of labeling for each of the probes. As shown in Fig. 5, Lys-C cleavage of the CNBr fragment from the SecR-HA37 receptor labeled with the (BzBz)Lys12 probe resulted in a non-glycosylated fragment migrating at approximate Mr = 6,000, representing the receptor segment Ala1-Lys30 at the amino-terminal distal end of the secretin receptor. In contrast, Lys-C cleavage of the CNBr fragment from the SecR-HA37 receptor labeled with the (BzBz)Lys14 probe resulted in a glycosylated fragment migrating at approximate Mr = 15,000, which shifted to Mr = 6,500 after deglycosylation. This indicated that the (BzBz)Lys14 probe labeled a distinct domain within the amino terminus of the secretin receptor that represented the segment Gly34-Met51 (Fig. 5).



View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 5.
Endoproteinase Lys-C cleavage of the labeled CNBr fragments. Shown are sequential endoproteinase Lys-C cleavage of the CNBr fragment from the SecR-HA37 receptor mutant labeled with the (BzBz)Lys12 (left panel) and the (BzBz)Lys14 (right panel) probes, as well as diagrams illustrating the predicted cleavage sites. As shown in left panel, Lys-C cleavage of the Mr = 19,000 CNBr fragment from the SecR-HA37 receptor mutant labeled with the (BzBz)Lys12 probe resulted in a band migrating at approximate Mr = 6,000 that did not shift further after treatment with endoglycosidase F. This identified fragment Ala1-Lys30 at the distal amino terminus of the receptor (bold circles) as the domain labeled with the (BzBz)Lys12 probe. As shown in right panel, Lys-C cleavage of the Mr = 19,000 CNBr fragment from cleavage of the SecR-HA37 labeled with the (BzBz)Lys14 probe yielded a band migrating at approximate Mr = 15,000 that shifted to Mr = 6,500 after treatment with endoglycosidase F. This indicated that the (BzBz)Lys14 probe labeled a distinct segment spanning Gly34 and Met51 of the secretin receptor. All above data are representative of five independent experiments.

 
To further localize the site of labeling with the (BzBz)Lys12 probe, a series of Met secretin receptor mutants were used. Among these were SecR-HA37-V16M (V16M) and SecR-HA37-V13M (V13M) that were characterized previously (10, 11). A new receptor mutant SecR-HA37-P8M (P8M) was prepared for this study. It bound secretin with similar affinity to the wild type secretin receptor (Ki = 1.7 ± 0.5 nM) and had a normal cAMP response to secretin (EC50 = 101 ± 19 pM). Fig. 6 shows that the (BzBz)Lys12 probe was able to efficiently and specifically label V16M, V13M, and P8M. CNBr cleavage of the labeled V16M, V13M, and P8M secretin receptor constructs resulted in non-glycosylated bands migrating at approximately Mr = 5000 (Ala1-Met16), 4500 (Ala1-Met13), and 4000 (Ala1-Met8), respectively. These data clearly indicated that the eight-residue segment Ala1-Pro8 at the distal amino terminus of the secretin receptor contained the site of labeling of the (BzBz)Lys12 probe.



View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 6.
CNBr cleavage of the labeled secretin receptor mutants. Shown in the upper panel are the results of CNBr cleavage of the V16M, V13M, and P8M receptor mutants labeled with the (BzBz)Lys12 probe. CNBr cleavage of the labeled V16M, V13M, and P8M receptor constructs resulted in non-glycosylated fragment bands migrating at Mr = 5,000, 4,500, and 4,000, respectively. This progressively identified the segment Ala1-Pro8 at the amino terminus of the receptor as the region of labeling with the (BzBz)Lys12 probe. Shown in the bottom panel are the results of CNBr cleavage of the A41M receptor mutant labeled with the (BzBz)Lys14 probe. This cleavage resulted in a band migrating at Mr = 7,500 that did not shift further after endoglycosidase F treatment. This indicated that the site of labeling was within the non-glycosylated amino-terminal fragment (Ala1-Met41). Taken together with the data in Fig. 5, the segment Gly34-Ala41 was the region of labeling with the (BzBz)Lys14 probe.

 
A previously well characterized Met secretin receptor mutant, A41M (11), was utilized to further localize the site of labeling with the (BzBz)Lys14 probe. Fig. 6 shows that the (BzBz)Lys14 probe efficiently and specifically labeled the A41M receptor mutant. CNBr cleavage of the labeled A41M receptor yielded a non-glycosylated band migrating at approximately Mr = 7500, representing the segment Ala1-Met41. Taken together with above identification of the segment Gly34-Met51 as the domain of labeling, the (BzBz)Lys14 probe labeled a residue within an eight-residue segment, representing Gly34-Ala41.

Identification of the Sites of Labeling—The radiochemically pure CNBr fragment (Ala1-Met51) from the labeled secretin receptor was utilized for manual Edman degradation sequencing to identify the specific residue labeled with the (BzBz)Lys12 probe. Of note, we previously demonstrated that the postulated signal sequence in the mature secretin receptor is cleaved as was predicted by Ishihara et al. (2, 10). As shown in Fig. 7, the eluted radioactive peak was found in cycle 6, corresponding to the labeling of residue Val6.



View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 7.
Identification of labeled receptor residues by radiochemical Edman degradation sequencing. Shown in the upper panel is the radioactive elution profile of Edman degradation sequencing of the purified CNBr fragment (Ala1-Met51) resulting from cleavage of the secretin receptor labeled with the (BzBz)Lys12 probe. There was a consistent peak in cycle 6 that corresponds with covalent labeling of residue Val6 of the secretin receptor. Shown in the bottom panel is the elution profile of sequencing of the purified Lys-C fragment (Gly34-Met51) from the secretin receptor labeled with the (BzBz)Lys14 probe. A radioactive peak consistently eluted in cycle 5 that represents covalent labeling of residue Pro38 of the secretin receptor with this probe.

 
To identify the specific residue labeled with the (BzBz)Lys14 probe, the purified endoproteinase Lys-C fragment (Gly34-Met51) from the labeled secretin receptor was used in radiochemical sequencing experiments. Shown also in Fig. 7 is the profile of eluted radioactivity in which a peak was found in cycle 5. This identified Pro38 of the secretin receptor as the site of labeling with the (BzBz)Lys14 probe.

Three-dimensional Model of the Amino Terminus of the Secretin Receptor—The amino-terminal domain of the rat secretin receptor has a predicted length of about 120 residues and is regarded as large enough to be folded as an independent domain. Database searches revealed a few structurally well characterized sequence homologues for the secretin receptor amino-terminal domain having greater than 50% sequence similarity. However, none of these candidates satisfied our standards for the comparative modeling template. For example, the homologous region was either a fragment of a larger protein domain or else spanned two separate folding domains within a protein. Hence, we decided to expand our homology template search using amino-terminal domain sequences from other closely related Class B G protein-coupled receptors. This homologue search strategy has been proposed previously and is based on the rationale that if sequence A is homologous to sequence B, and B is homologous to C, then A must be homologous to C, even if the sequence similarity between their sequences is low (39).

Using this database search strategy, the amino-terminal fragment of ribonuclease Mc1 from the seeds of bitter gourd (PDB code: 1BK7 [PDB] ) was identified, with ~27% sequence identity and 54% sequence similarity to the amino-terminal domain of the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor. Further analysis of the ribonuclease Mc1 three-dimensional structure confirmed that the amino terminus is an independent folding domain, making it suitable as a homology modeling template. Sequence alignment between the amino termini of ribonuclease Mc1 and rat secretin receptor showed that, although there is only 19% sequence identity between the two sequences, the total sequence similarity is about 50% (Fig. 8, upper panel). Therefore, ribonuclease Mc1 was chosen as a reasonable template for modeling the rat secretin receptor amino-terminal domain.



View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 8.
Sequence alignments. Upper panel, sequence alignment between 9 and 108 amino-terminal sequence of the rat secretin receptor and the 3 and 94 amino-terminal region of ribonuclease Mc1. The six conserved cysteines in the amino-terminal domain of the secretin receptor are highlighted in italic. Lower panel, sequence alignment for each transmembrane segment of the secretin receptor and bovine rhodopsin. In both alignments, identical residues are shaded in black and conserved residues are shaded in gray. The alignments were drawn with ALSCRIPT (61).

 
The three-dimensional structure of rat secretin receptor residues 9–108 was modeled by direct homology with the amino-terminal domain of ribonuclease Mc1 (Fig. 9). The first eight residues of the secretin receptor amino-terminal domain were built in extended conformation, and the final fourteen residues were modeled as two {alpha}-helices approximately perpendicular to each other, as suggested by previous NMR studies on the corresponding fragment of the amino-terminal sequence of the parathyroid hormone receptor (40). The final helical segment in this secretin receptor amino-terminal domain model corresponds to the top of transmembrane helix 1 in the intact receptor structure. Structural analysis of the final, refined amino-terminal domain model with PROCHECK indicates that 97.6% of the {phi}, {Psi} angles are in the energetically allowed regions, and the structure has an overall G-factor of -0.18, indicating good stereochemistry. The side-chain packing profile computed with QPACK is ~101, indicating a well packed structure.



View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 9.
Comparative three-dimensional models of the amino-terminal domain. Left panel, ribbon representation of the three-dimensional model of the amino-terminal (9–108) domain of the rat secretin receptor built in Modeler 6V1. Right panel, ribbon representation of the three-dimensional structure of ribonuclease Mc1 from the Protein Data Bank (PDB code: 1BK7 [PDB] ). The region (3–94) of ribonuclease Mc1, which is used as the template for comparative modeling of rat secretin receptor (9–108) domain, is shown in cyan. Amino (NH2)- and carboxyl (COOH)-terminal ends are labeled in both figures.

 
Docking Model of the Receptor Amino-terminal Domain with an Agonist—Using the NMR-derived solution conformation of secretin as a starting structure, the peptide was docked into its binding site in the receptor amino terminus model, based on previous photoaffinity cross-linking data. During refinement, the secretin peptide adopted a more extended conformation, and the final complex satisfied all original cross-linking constraints (Fig. 10, upper left panel). This model also accommodates the new photoaffinity labeling data reported here quite well, even though these most recent two cross-links were not included as constraints in the homology model construction. This is most encouraging, because these cross-links involve receptor residue positions well separated in the primary sequence (peptide position 12 to receptor residue 6; peptide position 14 to receptor residue 38) and thus impose meaningful constraints on the ligand-receptor complex three-dimensional structure.



View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 10.
Molecular modeling of the ligand-bound secretin receptor. Upper panels, side views of a complex of secretin bound to the amino terminus of the secretin receptor. The amino-terminal domain of the receptor was modeled without (left panel) and with (right panel) three disulfide bond constraints (C24-C53, C44-C85, and C67-C101). The three disulfide bonds are colored purple. The receptor backbone is shown in blue, with key residues involved in photoaffinity labeling studies highlighted in red. The secretin peptide backbone is shown in cyan, with key residues that have been involved in photoaffinity labeling studies displayed in yellow. Bottom panel, side view of a complex model of secretin bound to the secretin receptor. The receptor amino-terminal domain is shown in purple, with two newly found key residues involved in photoaffinity labeling studies highlighted in red. The peptide hormone is displayed in cyan, with two newly found key residues that have been involved in photoaffinity labeling studies displayed in yellow. The receptor transmembrane domain is shown in blue. The extracellular loops have been removed in this view to facilitate visualization of the peptide contacts with the amino terminus of the receptor.

 
Disulfide Bond Pattern in the Amino-terminal Domain—A reliable model should agree well with all the available experimental data. One of the striking characteristics of the amino-terminal domains of Class B G protein-coupled receptors is the six conserved Cys residues forming three disulfide bonds (5, 6, 41). However, the disulfide bond pattern for this domain has not been established definitively. The most compelling experimental data has come from refolding of denatured, non-glycosylated peptides corresponding to the amino-terminal regions of the parathyroid hormone and corticotrophin-releasing factor receptors (5, 6). Interestingly, the reported disulfide bond pattern is consistent in both proteins, where the first conserved Cys forms a disulfide bond with the third, the second Cys with the fifth, and the fourth Cys with the sixth. The final refined receptor amino-terminal domain model incorporating all five photoaffinity labeling cross-links and the three disulfide bonds is shown in Fig. 10 (upper right panel).

Assessment of Model Variability—Our three-dimensional docking model for the secretin receptor amino-terminal domain complex is based primarily on the ribonuclease Mc1 structure, with modest influence from the photoaffinity labeling cross-links and disulfide bond constraints. Although these ten constraints do impose significant topological restrictions on the final three-dimensional structure for the ligand-receptor complex, ten well characterized distance constraints are clearly not sufficient to uniquely define the three-dimensional structure for a complex comprised of 148 residues. We performed distance geometry calculations, using only these ten distance constraints from photoaffinity labeling cross-links and disulfide bonds, to explore other three-dimensional structures for the ligand-receptor complex that might satisfy these constraints equally well. The random embedding procedure generally yielded better results, with smaller error function violations and more compact, globular structures. Alteration of starting structure had little impact on final results. The root mean square deviation (r.m.s.d.) between the backbones of embedded structures starting from unique initial conformations ranged from 8.6 to 16.9 Å, whereas the r.m.s.d. results between embedded structures derived from a single, extended starting conformation, but with varying initial seed numbers, ranged from 4.7 to 19.7 Å.

As expected, embedded structures generated without imposing the ten cross-linking and disulfide bond constraints displayed great variability, with pairwise r.m.s.d. values as large as 22 Å. In these models, the peptide hormone was not maintained in an intact complex with the amino-terminal domain, and there was no obvious correspondence or similarities between any of the structures. In contrast, the 500 structures generated with inclusion of the ten experimental constraints yielded pairwise r.m.s.d. values ranging from 4.7 to 19.7 Å. Cluster analysis results indicated that these 500 structures could be grouped into ten distinct conformational subfamilies. Although these calculations are not exhaustive, they do suggest that there may be only a finite number of three-dimensional models that possess reasonable compact, globular structures and satisfy the ten experimentally determined distance constraints. Several of the conformational subfamilies generated in the distance geometry calculations exhibit folding topology quite similar to our homology-generated model structure, and most of the other conformational subfamilies differ from the homology model topology in anticipated ways, such as placing a helical segment on top of the packing core rather than below it, etc.

Three-dimensional Model of the Ligand-Receptor Complex—Given a three-dimensional homology model for the secretin receptor amino-terminal domain with bound peptide ligand, we next attempted to construct a model for the intact receptorligand complex to explore possible aspects of receptor activation as a function of ligand complex formation.

Despite the fact that the sequence identity between Class A and Class B G protein-coupled receptors is quite low, <20%, it is generally believed that both families share a similar seven-helical bundle domain structure. Because the recently published x-ray structure of bovine rhodopsin is the only experimentally determined high resolution structure for the entire superfamily (34), its coordinates were used to construct a comparative model for the transmembrane domain of the rat secretin receptor (42).

Given the generally low sequence identity between Class A and Class B, it is quite difficult to obtain a reliable alignment between the transmembrane domains of bovine rhodopsin and rat secretin receptor using standard sequence alignment tools. Over the years, various methods have been proposed to tackle this challenge, including a novel "cold spot" method (33). This method aligns protein sequences based on residue conservation rather than sequence similarity, because it is believed that structure and function are generally more conserved than sequences, and highly conserved residues are usually strongly associated with important structural and functional details. We therefore used this approach to construct an alignment between bovine rhodopsin and the rat secretin receptor.

The homology model for the secretin receptor transmembrane domain exhibited good stereochemical quality (G-factor = 0.0) and side-chain packing. It should be noted, however, that the helix bundle topology and conformations for the Class B family of G protein-coupled receptors are likely rather different from the Class A family (43, 44). Therefore, the helix bundle domain of the secretin receptor model reported here should be regarded as a rough approximation at this stage. The amino-terminal receptor domain was attached to the transmembrane domain model as described above, yielding the intact receptorligand complex (Fig. 10, bottom panel). The resulting model suggests that the bound peptide hormone is positioned with its amino terminus quite close to the top of the transmembrane helix bundle. Although there are no experimental data yet available for the secretin receptor, photoaffinity labels placed at the amino-terminal residue of parathyroid hormone do, in fact, covalently label the top of the transmembrane helix bundle in the parathyroid hormone receptor (45, 46), consistent with the model proposed here for the secretin receptor.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
In this series of studies, we have generated two additional agonist ligand-receptor cross-links that serve as further constraints for modeling secretin docked to its receptor. These are particularly important, because we now have three consecutive residues in the peptide ligand (positions 12, 13, and 14) that label three highly dispersed residues in the receptor amino terminus. These seven photoaffinity labeling constraints, spread throughout the diffuse pharmacophoric domain of this important peptide hormone and the receptor amino terminus, together with the three highly conserved disulfide bonds, impose considerable topological and conformational constrictions on the ligand-receptor complex, as suggested by distance geometry calculations reported here. All of these spatial constraints are well accommodated in the current molecular model of the secretin-receptor complex.

The rationale for developing the first iteration of this model and its subsequent refinement has been carefully developed under "Experimental Procedures." Using a series of homology searches with a set of Class B G protein-coupled receptor sequences that are homologous to the amino-terminal domain of the secretin receptor, the amino-terminal domain from ribonuclease Mc1 (PDB code: 1BK7 [PDB] ) was established as the most logical structural template for the homology modeling exercises.

The remainder of the receptor amino terminus, representing the first eight residues of the receptor and the fourteen residues closest to the plasma membrane were added, based on existing complementary information. The distal tail residues were attached in an extended conformation, and the residues adjacent to the membrane were added in conformation analogous to that determined by NMR for the corresponding region of the parathyroid hormone receptor (40). The latter was felt to be reasonable, based on a series of observations: (i) there is greater than 30% sequence identity and 50% sequence similarity between the amino-terminal domains of the secretin receptor and the parathyroid hormone receptor; (ii) both domains have six conserved Cys residues and the pattern of disulfide bonds within them is likely similar (5); and (iii) mutation of a single amino acid in the second transmembrane segment of the secretin receptor to the corresponding residue in the parathyroid hormone receptor (I234N) results in a receptor that can bind and signal in the presence of parathyroid hormone and the reciprocal mutation on the parathyroid hormone receptor produces the analogous response to secretin (47).

After manual docking of secretin in the receptor amino-terminal domain, guided by the previously published affinity labeling data (9–13), and subsequent structure refinement by energy minimization and molecular dynamics, the peptide hormone adopted an extended conformation. This extended conformation of the amino-terminal region of a ligand for a Class B G protein-coupled receptor is consistent with previous NMR studies of a pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide agonist, which assumed an extended conformation in this region upon receptor binding (48).

It is noteworthy that this model easily accommodated the two new photoaffinity labeling cross-links generated in the current work. These were ultimately utilized to further refine the molecular model. It was also fully consistent with the recently proposed disulfide bonding pattern established for refolded, non-glycosylated peptides corresponding to the amino-terminal domains of the parathyroid hormone receptor and of the corticotrophin releasing factor receptor (5, 6). It is reassuring that establishment of those bonds did not disrupt the experimentally derived spatial constraints coming from the photoaffinity labeling experiments, and continued to be consistent with all of the published mutagenesis data for this receptor.

There is always a hierarchy of data to be accommodated into molecular models. One tries to rely most heavily on the data that are most informative and unambiguous, assigning relative value to each type of observation. The best such data would come from a high resolution structure of a biologically active, high affinity receptor or domain of that receptor. Unfortunately, such data are not yet available for the secretin receptor or for any closely related Class B G protein-coupled receptor. The next most direct type of data that is currently available for this receptor comes from photoaffinity labeling studies utilizing probes, like those in the present study, that are fully biologically active and that bind to the receptor with appropriate specificity and affinity. These are capable of providing useful spatial approximation constraints.

It is also important that the molecular model be consistent with all existing structure-activity data and mutagenesis data. Indeed, in the current work, residues such as Asp98 and Lys173 are found to be in regions of tight packing or in regions closely associated with the docked peptide. However, building models solely on the basis of such observations is extremely difficult. Specific mechanisms and explanations will have to be developed for each of these natural or engineered receptor mutations or polymorphisms that might be described in the future. For example, previous secretin receptor mutagenesis studies supported the possibility of receptor loop residues interacting with Asp3 of secretin during ligand binding and receptor activation (49, 50). Indeed, this specific contact is quite feasible in the current model.

Of note, all seven constraints derived from photoaffinity labeling studies involve the amino terminus of the secretin receptor, a region known to be important for natural peptide agonist binding, based on deletions, site mutagenesis, chimeric receptor analysis, and photoaffinity labeling studies (9, 18, 51, 52). It is also the site of a deletion that has been recently described in certain neoplasms associated with a non-functional secretin receptor that can actually act as a dominant-negative inhibitor of wild type secretin receptor (53, 54). The amino-terminal domain has been shown to be critically important for ligand binding throughout the Class B family of G protein-coupled receptors (1, 41). Because many class B receptors also have peptide ligands that are similar to secretin, it is likely that many details of peptide-receptor interactions and receptor activation defined for the secretin receptor will be applicable to other members of the family as well. This is quite important, because many of the Class B G protein-coupled receptors represent potentially important drug targets.

One area of great interest in the current work is the placement of the amino-terminal region of secretin in the docked ligand-receptor model, because it provides insight into the possible molecular basis of receptor activation. Our current model places the amino terminus of the peptide ligand adjacent to the transmembrane domain of the secretin receptor, in the area of the sixth transmembrane segment. Indeed, that is precisely the area that was photoaffinity labeled through the amino-terminal residue of parathyroid hormone, a natural ligand for another important member of this receptor family (45, 46). Tethering of the peptide between its major docking site within the receptor amino terminus and the top of the transmembrane domain has been proposed as a molecular mechanism for transduction of the activated state of the parathyroid hormone receptor (55–57). Of note, the adjacent third exoloop may also be involved in this by a cooperative process involving a ligand sandwiched between the exodomain and a core domain of the receptor (58–60). This has yet to be directly studied for the secretin receptor, but our current model suggests this hypothesis merits further experimental investigation.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants DK46577 (to L. J. M.) and NS-33290 (to T. P. L.) and the Fiterman Foundation (to L. J. M.). 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. Back

§ Both authors contributed equally to this work. Back

|| To whom correspondence may be addressed: Dept. of Chemistry and Center for Structural Biology, Vanderbilt University, 5142 Biosciences/MRB III, Nashville, TN 37232. Tel.: 615-343-1247; Fax: 615-936-2211; E-mail: lybrand{at}structbio.vanderbilt.edu. ** To whom correspondence may be addressed: Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, 13400 E. Shea Blvd., Scottsdale, AZ 85259. Tel.: 480-301-6650; Fax: 480-301-4596; E-mail: miller{at}mayo.edu.

1 The abbreviations used are: G protein, guanine nucleotide-binding protein; Lys-C, endoproteinase Lys-C; HA, hemagglutinin; (BzBz)Lys, p-benzoylbenzoyl-L-lysine; CHO, Chinese hamster ovary; SecR, secretin receptor; MES, 4-morpholineethanesulfonic acid; r.m.s.d., root mean square deviation. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We acknowledge the excellent technical assistance of E. Holicky and thank E. M. Hadac for her help with the artwork.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Ulrich, C. D., Holtmann, M. H., and Miller, L. J. (1998) Gastroenterology 114, 382-397[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Ishihara, T., Nakamura, S., Kaziro, Y., Takahashi, T., Takahashi, K., and Nagata, S. (1991) EMBO J. 10, 1635-1641[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Clore, G. M., Nilges, M., Brunger, A., and Gronenborn, A. M. (1988) Eur. J. Biochem. 171, 479-484[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Asmann, Y. W., Dong, M. Q., Ganguli, S., Hadac, E. M., and Miller, L. J. (2000) Mol. Pharmacol. 58, 911-919[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Grauschopf, U., Lilie, H., Honold, K., Wozny, M., Reusch, D., Esswein, A., Schafer, W., Rucknagel, K. P., and Rudolph, R. (2000) Biochemistry 39, 8878-8887[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Perrin, M. H., Fischer, W. H., Kunitake, K. S., Craig, A. G., Koerber, S. C., Cervini, L. A., Rivier, J. E., Groppe, J. C., Greenwald, J., Moller, N. S., and Vale, W. W. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 31528-31534[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Qi, L. J., Leung, A. T., Xiong, Y., Marx, K. A., and Abou-Samra, A. B. (1997) Biochemistry 36, 12442-12448[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Taylor, W. R., Munro, R. E. J., Petersen, K., and Bywater, R. P. (2003) Comput. Biol. Chem. 27, 103-114[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Dong, M., Wang, Y., Pinon, D. I., Hadac, E. M., and Miller, L. J. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 903-909[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Dong, M., Wang, Y., Hadac, E. M., Pinon, D. I., Holicky, E., and Miller, L. J. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 19161-19167[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Dong, M., Asmann, Y. W., Zang, M., Pinon, D. I., and Miller, L. J. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 26032-26039[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Dong, M., Zang, M. W., Pinon, D. I., Li, Z., Lybrand, T. P., and Miller, L. J. (2002) Mol. Endocrinol. 16, 2490-2501[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Zang, M. W., Dong, M. Q., Pinon, D. I., Ding, X. Q., Hadac, E. M., Li, Z. J., Lybrand, T. P., and Miller, L. J. (2003) Mol. Pharmacol. 63, 993-1001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Pearson, R. K., Miller, L. J., Hadac, E. M., and Powers, S. P. (1987) J. Biol. Chem. 262, 13850-13856[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Powers, S. P., Pinon, D. I., and Miller, L. J. (1988) Int. J. Pept. Protein. Res. 31, 429-434[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Ulrich, C. D., Pinon, D. I., Hadac, E. M., Holicky, E. L., Chang-Miller, A., Gates, L. K., and Miller, L. J. (1993) Gastroenterology 105, 1534-1543[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Sanger, F., Nicklen, S., and Coulson, A. R. (1977) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 74, 5463-5467[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Holtmann, M. H., Ganguli, S., Hadac, E. M., Dolu, V., and Miller, L. J. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 14944-14949[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Hadac, E. M., Ghanekar, D. V., Holicky, E. L., Pinon, D. I., Dougherty, R. W., and Miller, L. J. (1996) Pancreas 13, 130-139[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Munson, P. J., and Rodbard, D. (1980) Anal. Biochem. 107, 220-239[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Ganguli, S. C., Park, C. G., Holtmann, M. H., Hadac, E. M., Kenakin, T. P., and Miller, L. J. (1998) J. Pharm. Exp. Ther. 286, 593-598[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Laemmli, U. K. (1970) Nature 227, 680-685[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Ji, Z., Hadac, E. M., Henne, R. M., Patel, S. A., Lybrand, T. P., and Miller, L. J. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 24393-24401[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Hadac, E. M., Pinon, D. I., Ji, Z., Holicky, E. L., Henne, R. M., Lybrand, T. P., and Miller, L. J. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 12988-12993[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Livingstone, C. D., and Barton, G. J. (1993) Comput. Appl. Biosci. 9, 745-756[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Pearson, W. R., and Lipman, D. J. (1988) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 85, 2444-2448[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Chemical Computing Group (2001) MOE 2001.01, Chemical Computing Group, Inc., Montreal, Canada
  28. Sali, A., and Blundell, T. L. (1993) J. Mol. Biol. 234, 779-815[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Laskowski, R. A., MacArthur, M. W., Moss, D. S., and Thornton, J. M. (1993) J. Appl. Crystallogr. 26, 283-291[CrossRef]
  30. Gregoret, L. M., and Cohen, F. E. (1990) J. Mol. Biol. 211, 959-974[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Macke, T., and Case, D. A. (1998) in Molecular Modeling of Nucleic Acids, (Leontes, N. B., and SantaLucia, J., Jr., eds) pp. 379-393, American Chemical Society, Washington, D. C.
  32. Barton, G. J. (1994) Methods Mol. Biol. 25, 327-347[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Frimurer, T. M., and Bywater, R. P. (1999) Proteins 35, 375-386[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Palczewski, K., Kumasaka, T., Hori, T., Behnke, C. A., Motoshima, H., Fox, B. A., Le Trong, I., Teller, D. C., Okada, T., Stenkamp, R. E., Yamamoto, M., and Miyano, M. (2000) Science 289, 739-745[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Tripos, Inc. (2003) Sybyl 6.9, Tripos, Inc., St. Louis, MO
  36. Case, D. A., Pearlman, D. A., Caldwell, J. W., Cheatham, T. E., Wang, J., Ross, W. S., Simmerling, C., Darden, T., Merz, K. M., Stanton, R. V., Cheng, A., Vincent, J. J., Crowley, M., Tsui, V., Gohlke, H., Radmer, R., Duan, Y., Pitera, J., Massova, I., Seibel, G. L., Singh, U. C., Weiner, P., and Kollman, P. A. (2002) Amber 7, University of California, San Francisco, CA
  37. Swanson, E. (1995) PSSHOW: Silicon Graphics 4D version, Seattle, WA
  38. Kraulis, P. J. (1991) J. Appl. Crystallogr. 24, 946-950[CrossRef]
  39. Pearson, W. R. (1996) Methods Enzymol. 266, 227-258[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  40. Pellegrini, M., Bisello, A., Rosenblatt, M., Chorev, M., and Mierke, D. F. (1998) Biochemistry 37, 12737-12743[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Dong, M. Q., and Miller, L. J. (2002) Receptors & Channels 8, 189-200[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  42. Ballesteros, J. A., Shi, L., and Javitch, J. A. (2001) Mol. Pharmacol. 60, 1-19[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Donnelly, D. (1997) FEBS Lett. 409, 431-436[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  44. Horn, F., Bywater, R., Krause, G., Kuipers, W., Oliveira, L., Paiva, A. C. M., Sander, C., and Vriend, G. (1998) Receptors & Channels 5, 305-314[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  45. Bisello, A., Adams, A. E., Mierke, D. F., Pellegrini, M., Rosenblatt, M., Suva, L. J., and Chorev, M. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 22498-22505[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Behar, V., Bisello, A., Bitan, G., Rosenblatt, M., and Chorev, M. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 9-17[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Turner, P. R., Bambino, T., and Nissenson, R. A. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 9205-9208[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Berger, A. C., Gibril, F., Venzon, D. J., Doppman, J. L., Norton, J. A., Bartlett, D. L., Libutti, S. K., Jensen, R. T., and Alexander, H. R. (2001) J. Clin. Oncol. 19, 3051-3057[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Vilardaga, J. P., Di Paolo, E., De Neef, P., Waelbroeck, M., Bollen, A., and Robberecht, P. (1996) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 218, 842-846[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  50. Di Paolo, E., Petry, H., Moguilevsky, N., Bollen, A., De Neef, P., Waelbroeck, M., and Robberecht, P. (1999) Receptors & Channels 6, 309-315[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  51. Holtmann, M. H., Hadac, E. M., and Miller, L. J. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 14394-14398[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Park, C. G., Ganguli, S. C., Pinon, D. I., Hadac, E. M., and Miller, L. J. (2000) J. Pharm. Exp. Ther. 295, 682-688[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Ding, W. Q., Kuntz, S., Bohmig, M., Wiedenmann, B., and Miller, L. J. (2002) Gastroenterology 122, 500-511[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  54. Ding, W. Q., Cheng, Z. J., McElhiney, J., Kuntz, S. M., and Miller, L. J. (2002) Cancer Res. 62, 5223-5229[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  55. Gardella, T. J., Jüppner, H., Wilson, A. K., Keutmann, H. T., Abou-Samra, A.-B., Segre, G. V., Bringhurst, F. R., Potts, J. T., Jr., Nussbaum, S. R., and Kronenberg, H. M. (1994) Endocrinology 135, 1186-1194[Abstract]
  56. Gardella, T. J., Luck, M. D., Fan, M. H., and Lee, C. W. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 12820-12825[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  57. Bergwitz, C., Jusseaume, S. A., Luck, M. D., Juppner, H., and Gardella, T. J. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 28861-28868[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  58. Ryu, K. S., Gilchrist, R. L., Ji, I., Kim, S. J., and Ji, T. H. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 7301-7304[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Chauvin, S., Berault, A., Lerrant, Y., Hibert, M., and Counis, R. (2000) Mol. Pharmacol. 57, 625-633[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. Sohn, J., Ryu, K., Sievert, G., Jeoung, M., Ji, I., and Ji, T. H. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 50165-50175[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  61. Barton, G. J. (1993) Protein Eng. 6, 37-40[Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Mol. Pharmacol.Home page
M. Dong, P. C.-H. Lam, D. I. Pinon, P. M. Sexton, R. Abagyan, and L. J. Miller
Spatial Approximation between Secretin Residue Five and the Third Extracellular Loop of Its Receptor Provides New Insight into the Molecular Basis of Natural Agonist Binding
Mol. Pharmacol., August 1, 2008; 74(2): 413 - 422.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
S. Runge, H. Thogersen, K. Madsen, J. Lau, and R. Rudolph
Crystal Structure of the Ligand-bound Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Extracellular Domain
J. Biol. Chem., April 25, 2008; 283(17): 11340 - 11347.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
K. G. Harikumar, P. C.-H. Lam, M. Dong, P. M. Sexton, R. Abagyan, and L. J. Miller
Fluorescence Resonance Energy Transfer Analysis of Secretin Docking to Its Receptor: MAPPING DISTANCES BETWEEN RESIDUES DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE LIGAND PHARMACOPHORE AND DISTINCT RECEPTOR RESIDUES
J. Biol. Chem., November 9, 2007; 282(45): 32834 - 32843.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
K. G. Harikumar, D. I. Pinon, and L. J. Miller
Transmembrane Segment IV Contributes a Functionally Important Interface for Oligomerization of the Class II G Protein-coupled Secretin Receptor
J. Biol. Chem., October 19, 2007; 282(42): 30363 - 30372.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Endocrinol.Home page
C. S. Lisenbee, K. G. Harikumar, and L. J. Miller
Mapping the Architecture of Secretin Receptors with Intramolecular Fluorescence Resonance Energy Transfer Using Acousto-Optic Tunable Filter-Based Spectral Imaging
Mol. Endocrinol., August 1, 2007; 21(8): 1997 - 2008.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Pharmacol.Home page
M. Dong, P. C.-H. Lam, F. Gao, K. Hosohata, D. I. Pinon, P. M. Sexton, R. Abagyan, and L. J. Miller
Molecular Approximations between Residues 21 and 23 of Secretin and Its Receptor: Development of a Model for Peptide Docking with the Amino Terminus of the Secretin Receptor
Mol. Pharmacol., August 1, 2007; 72(2): 280 - 290.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Endocrinol.Home page
M. Dong, K. Hosohata, D. I. Pinon, N. Muthukumaraswamy, and L. J. Miller
Differential Spatial Approximation between Secretin and Its Receptor Residues in Active and Inactive Conformations Demonstrated by Photoaffinity Labeling
Mol. Endocrinol., July 1, 2006; 20(7): 1688 - 1698.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Pharmacol.Home page
M. Dong, D. I. Pinon, Y. W. Asmann, and L. J. Miller
Possible Endogenous Agonist Mechanism for the Activation of Secretin Family G Protein-Coupled Receptors
Mol. Pharmacol., July 1, 2006; 70(1): 206 - 213.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
K. G. Harikumar, K. Hosohata, D. I. Pinon, and L. J. Miller
Use of Probes with Fluorescence Indicator Distributed throughout the Pharmacophore to Examine the Peptide Agonist-binding Environment of the Family B G Protein-coupled Secretin Receptor
J. Biol. Chem., February 3, 2006; 281(5): 2543 - 2550.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Endocrinol.Home page
M. Dong, D. I. Pinon, and L. J. Miller
Insights into the Structure and Molecular Basis of Ligand Docking to the G Protein-Coupled Secretin Receptor Using Charge-Modified Amino-Terminal Agonist Probes
Mol. Endocrinol., July 1, 2005; 19(7): 1821 - 1836.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
C. S. Lisenbee, M. Dong, and L. J. Miller
Paired Cysteine Mutagenesis to Establish the Pattern of Disulfide Bonds in the Functional Intact Secretin Receptor
J. Biol. Chem., April 1, 2005; 280(13): 12330 - 12338.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
M. Dong, D. I. Pinon, R. F. Cox, and L. J. Miller
Molecular Approximation between a Residue in the Amino-terminal Region of Calcitonin and the Third Extracellular Loop of the Class B G Protein-coupled Calcitonin Receptor
J. Biol. Chem., July 23, 2004; 279(30): 31177 - 31182.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
M. Dong, Z. Li, D. I. Pinon, T. P. Lybrand, and L. J. Miller
Spatial Approximation between the Amino Terminus of a Peptide Agonist and the Top of the Sixth Transmembrane Segment of the Secretin Receptor
J. Biol. Chem., January 23, 2004; 279(4): 2894 - 2903.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
M. Dong, D. I. Pinon, R. F. Cox, and L. J. Miller
Importance of the Amino Terminus in Secretin Family G Protein-coupled Receptors: INTRINSIC PHOTOAFFINITY LABELING ESTABLISHES INITIAL DOCKING CONSTRAINTS FOR THE CALCITONIN RECEPTOR
J. Biol. Chem., January 9, 2004; 279(2): 1167 - 1175.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
278/48/48300    most recent
M309166200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dong, M.
Right arrow Articles by Miller, L. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dong, M.
Right arrow Articles by Miller, L. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 All ASBMB Journals   Molecular and Cellular Proteomics 
 Journal of Lipid Research   ASBMB Today 
Copyright © 2003 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Advertisement
spacer
Advertisement
Advertisement