Advertisement
JBC

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


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M405335200 on July 12, 2004

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 279, Issue 37, 38386-38394, September 10, 2004
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
279/37/38386    most recent
M405335200v1
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 Wietfeld, D.
Right arrow Articles by Berger, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wietfeld, D.
Right arrow Articles by Berger, H.
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?

Regulation of the Coupling to Different G Proteins of Rat Corticotropin-releasing Factor Receptor Type 1 in Human Embryonic Kidney 293 Cells*

Doreen Wietfeld, Nadja Heinrich, Jens Furkert, Klaus Fechner, Michael Beyermann, Michael Bienert, and Hartmut Berger{ddagger}

From the Institute of Molecular Pharmacology, Robert-Rössle-Strasse 10, Berlin 13125, Germany

Received for publication, May 13, 2004 , and in revised form, July 1, 2004.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The regulation of G protein activation by the rat corticotropin-releasing factor receptor type 1 (rCRFR1) in human embryonic kidney (HEK)293 (HEK-rCRFR1) cell membranes was studied. Corresponding to a high and low affinity ligand binding site, sauvagine and other peptidic CRFR1 ligands evoked high and low potency responses of G protein activation, differing by 64-fold in their EC50 values as measured by stimulation of [35S]GTP{gamma}S binding. Contrary to the low potency response, the high potency response was of lower GTP{gamma}S affinity, pertussis toxin (PTX)-insensitive, and homologously desensitized. Distinct desensitization was also observed in the adenylate cyclase activity, when its high potency stimulation was abolished and the activity became low potently inhibited by sauvagine. From these results and immunoprecipitation of [35S]GTP{gamma}S-bound G{alpha}s and G{alpha}i subunits it is concluded that the high and low potency [35S]GTP{gamma}S binding stimulation reflected coupling to Gs and Gi proteins, respectively, only Gs coupling being homologously desensitized. Immunoprecipitation of [35S]GTP{gamma}S-bound G{alpha}q/11 revealed additional coupling to Gq/11, which also was homologously desensitized. Although G{alpha}q/11 coupling was PTX-insensitive, half of the sauvagine-stimulated accumulation of inositol phosphates in the cells was PTX-sensitive, suggesting involvement of Gi in addition to Gq/11in the stimulation of inositol metabolism. It is concluded that CRFR1 signals through at least two different ways, one leading to Gs- and Gq/11-mediated signaling steps and desensitization and another leading to Gi -mediated signals without being desensitized. Furthermore, the concentrations of the stimulating ligand and GTP and desensitization may be part of a regulatory mechanism determining the actual ratio of the coupling of CRFR1 to different G proteins.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The hypothalamic peptide corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF)1 not only regulates the stress response in mammals by activation of the pituitary adrenal axis (1) but is also involved in the control of the immune response, cardiovascular, reproductive, and cognitive function, ingestive behavior, pregnancy and labor (for a review, see Refs. 2 and 3). The multiple actions of CRF are mediated by two classes of specific CRF receptors, CRFR1 (4–6) and CRFR2 (7, 8), which are encoded by unique genes and of which some variants exist, produced by alternative processing of the transcripts from each of the genes (for review, see Ref. 3). Further mammalian endogenous ligands of the receptors, urocortin (9), stresscopin-related peptide/urocortin II (10, 11), and stresscopin/urocortin III (10, 12), were detected. The different expressions of the CRF receptor types and their ligands in tissues (for review, see Ref. 3) suggest that they are involved differently in the manifold physiological functions of the CRF receptor system.

The CRF receptors belong to the G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). So far, CRFR1 and CRFR2 have been shown to couple to Gs proteins, leading to the stimulation of adenylate cyclase in native tissues and cells, in various brain-derived and peripheral cell lines, and in cells transfected with the receptors (for review, see Refs. 2 and 3). Additionally, by using the nonhydrolyzable GTP analog [{alpha}-32P]GTP{gamma}-azidoanilide to label the G proteins when activated by the receptor, followed by immunoprecipitation with specific G protein antibodies, it was shown that the human CRFR1 is able to activate, in addition to Gs, also Gi and Gq in HEK293 and Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing the receptor (13, 14) as well as in the rat cerebral cortex (15). From these results second messengers other than cAMP or even inhibition of cAMP levels might be additionally implicated in CRF signaling. Indeed, urocortin was found to activate the Gq/phospholipase C/inositol triphosphate/protein kinase C pathway in HEK293 cells expressing the human subtype CRFR1{alpha} (14).

From the above mentioned findings it is suggested that the CRFR1 adds to the growing list of GPCRs that simultaneously couple to unrelated G proteins and show multiple signaling (16). To come to conclusions on the regulation of the G protein coupling of CRFR1, in this investigation we studied the conditions for the coupling of the CRFR1 to different G protein classes as well as the functional consequences and relations to the receptor activation, using HEK cells stably transfected with the rat receptor as cellular model.


   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Materials—All peptidic ligands of CRFR1 used (sauvagine, 3-I-Tyr0,Gln1-sauvagine, urocortin, urotensin I, oCRF, r/hCRF, {alpha}-helical CRF(9–41)) were synthesized in our laboratory. [35S]GTP{gamma}S (1,250 Ci/mmol), [125I]Tyr0-sauvagine (2200 Ci/mmol), and [3H]cAMP were purchased from PerkinElmer Life Sciences. [{alpha}-32P]ATP and myo-[2-3H]inositol were from Amersham Biosciences. cDNA encoding for rCRFR1 was a gift of U. B. Kaupp (Jülich, Germany). LipofectAMINE was obtained from Invitrogen; G418 from Calbiochem; and Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium, PTX, and protein A-Sepharose CL-4B from Sigma. Three affinity-purified rabbit polyclonal anti-G protein antibodies from Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc. (Santa Cruz, CA) were used: G{alpha}s/olf (C-18), raised against a peptide mapping at the carboxyl terminus of G{alpha}s of rat origin; G{alpha}i3 (C-10), raised against a peptide mapping at the carboxyl terminus of G{alpha}i3 of rat origin, which reacts with G{alpha}i3, G{alpha}i1, and to a lesser extent with G{alpha}i2 of mouse, rat, human, and bovine origin; and G{alpha}q/11 (C-19), raised against a peptide mapping within a domain common to G{alpha}q and G{alpha}11 of mouse origin which reacts with G{alpha}q and G{alpha}11 of mammalian origin.

HEK293 Cell Culture and Transfection with rCRFR1—HEK293 cells were maintained at 37 °C under 5% CO2 in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum, 100 IU/ml penicillin, and 100 µg/ml streptomycin. For stable expression, HEK293 cells were plated in 60-mm culture dishes at a density of 4 x 105 cells/dish, grown overnight, and transfected with cDNA encoding for rCRFR1 in the expression vector pcDNA3, using LipofectAMINE. G418-resistant cells were selected in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium containing 400 µg/ml G418. Clones of G418-resistant cells were examined for [125I]Tyr0-sauvagine binding to detect cells that expressed CRFR1.

Nontransfected and stably transfected HEK293 cells were seeded in 100-mm culture dishes at a density of 1–2 x 106 cells/dish and grown at 37 °C to about 90% confluence in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium, containing additionally 400 µg/ml G418 for the stably transfected cells. The cells were harvested 96 h after seeding. In some cases, 100–200 ng/ml PTX was added to part of the stably transfected cells 24 h before harvesting the cells to inactivate the Gi proteins. When desensitization of the receptor was studied, the cells were incubated with 1 µM sauvagine for 24 h followed by extensive washing (eight times with cell culture medium over 2 h at 37 °C) to allow for total clearance of the ligand.

HEK Cell Membrane Preparation—Cells were washed with and collected by scraping into phosphate-buffered saline (8.1 mM Na2HPO4, 1.5 mM KH2PO4, 137 mM NaCl, 2.7 mM KCl, pH 7.4). After centrifugation at 400 x g for 5 min, the cells were suspended in buffer A (20 mM HEPES, pH 7.8, containing 1 mM EDTA and 27% sucrose) and homogenized by a Teflon-glass homogenizer (10 strokes, 750 rpm). The homogenate was centrifuged at 20,000 x g for 10 min, and the membrane pellet was resuspended in buffer B (20 mM HEPES, pH 7.8, 1 mM EDTA) and stored at –70 °C. Protein concentrations were determined according to Bradford (17). Membranes obtained from HEK293 cells stably transfected with rCRFR1 are designated HEK-rCRFR1 cell membranes.

Receptor/G Protein Coupling Estimated by Binding of [35S]GTP{gamma}S to HEK-rCRFR1 Cell Membranes—3–10 µg of membrane protein was incubated in triplicate at 25 °C with generally 100 pM [35S]GTP{gamma}S in a total volume of 500 µl of medium consisting of 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.4, 100 mM NaCl, 0.1 µM GDP, 10 mM MgCl2, 0.2 mM EGTA, 1 mg/ml bovine serum albumin, and 0.15 mM bacitracin (binding medium) for usually 120 min. The reaction was terminated by filtration through Whatman GF/B filters using a Brandel harvester (Gaithersburg, MD), and the filters were counted for 35S activity.

Concentration-response curves for the stimulation of [35S]GTP{gamma}S binding by activation of the CRF receptor by the peptide ligands sauvagine, 3-I-Tyr0,Gln1-sauvagine, urocortin, urotensin I, r/hCRF, and oCRF were fitted by nonlinear regression using the program PRISM 4 (GraphPad Software, San Diego). From response curves of sauvagine in the absence and presence of the CRFR antagonist {alpha}-helical CRF(9–41), Schild plots were constructed to characterize the influence of the antagonist on the ligand-evoked [35S]GTP{gamma}S binding. The affinities and capacities (Bmax) of the basal binding of [35S]GTP{gamma}S (in the absence of stimulating ligand) and of the binding maximally stimulated by sauvagine were determined by displacement curves of the tracer binding by unlabeled GTP{gamma}S and fitting the curves by the program KELL 6 (BIOSOFT, Cambridge, UK). In dissociation experiments the membranes were incubated with [35S]GTP{gamma}S and with and without sauvagine for 90 min at 25 °C. After chilling in ice, the membranes were centrifuged, resuspended in fresh medium containing 1 µM unlabeled GTP{gamma}S, and incubated at 25 °C to initiate the dissociation for different times at 25 °C. It was checked that in ice no dissociation at all occurred.

Receptor/G Protein Coupling Estimated by Immunoprecipitation of [35S]GTP{gamma}S-bound G{alpha}s, G{alpha}i, and G{alpha}q Subunits—Essentially, the protocol given in Ref. 18 was followed. About 75 µg of HEK-rCRFR1 cell membrane protein was incubated with [35S]GTP{gamma}S in the absence (basal) or presence (stimulated) of 1 µM sauvagine in 110 µl of the above binding medium containing 1 µM GDP at 25 °C for 30 min. 10 µg/ml saponin was included in the incubations, which increased the stimulation over the basal signal. The incubation was terminated by adding 900 µl of ice-cold medium, and the membranes were pelleted by centrifugation at 20,000 x g for 6 min. Membrane proteins were solubilized in 50 µl of precipitation buffer consisting of 1% (w/v) deoxycholate, 1% (v/v) Triton X-100, 0.5% (w/v) SDS, 150 mM NaCl, 1 mM DTT, 1 mM EDTA, and 10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.4, on ice for 1 h. After adding an equal volume of precipitation buffer, insoluble material was removed by centrifugation at 25,000 x g for 15 min. 10 µl of the anti-G{alpha}s, anti-G{alpha}i3, or anti-G{alpha}q/11 subunit antibody was added to 100 µl of the supernatant and incubated overnight at 4 °C. 100 µl of the antibody-G protein reaction mixture was incubated under shaking at 4 °C for 4 h with 3.3 mg of protein A-Sepharose CL-4B, which had been swollen and washed with precipitation buffer before. Then the beads were pelleted at 13,000 x g for 1 min, washed with precipitation buffer, mixed with scintillation mixture, and counted for 35S.

CRFR1 Binding Assay in HEK-rCRFR1 Cell Membranes—Hot [125I]Tyr0-sauvagine saturation binding curves were obtained from incubations of the tracer with 7–17 µg of membrane protein at 25 °C for 2 h in 300 µl of medium exactly the same as used in the [35S]GTP{gamma}S binding assay (see above). To cover the wide ligand concentration range from about 5 x 10–12 up to 2 x 10–7 M, two tracer stock solutions were prepared in which the specific radioactivities were reduced from originally 2,200 Ci/mmol to 5–46 and 243–361 Ci/mmol with unlabeled 3-I-Tyr0,Gln1-sauvagine. In five experiments, each eight experimental points were determined in the low and high ligand concentration range using the high and low activity tracer, respectively. Nonspecific binding for all tracer concentrations was determined by adding 1 µM 3-I-Tyr0,Gln1-sauvagine. The samples were filtered through GF/C filters (Whatman) in a Brandel harvester. From the data of the two separate binding curves a common curve was calculated and fitted by the program KELL 6.

Adenylate Cyclase Activity in HEK-rCRFR1 Cell Membranes—About 20 µg of membrane protein from HEK-rCRFR1 cells was incubated in duplicate in a reaction mixture consisting of 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.4, 4 mM MgCl2, 2 mM EDTA, 1 mM isobutylmethylxanthine, 1 mM cAMP, 100 µM ATP, 10 µM GTP, 1 mM DTT, 0.75 µCi [32P]ATP, 5.1 mg/ml phosphocreatine, 1.32 mg/ml creatine phosphokinase, and 12 mg/ml bovine serum albumin in a final volume of 100 µl for 20 min at 32 °C. Sauvagine at the indicated concentrations was added to determine concentration-response curves. The incubations were stopped by the addition of 500 µl of a solution that contained 4 mM ATP, 1.4 mM cAMP, 2% SDS, and 1 mM [3H]cAMP (about 10,000 cpm). [32P]cAMP was isolated by sequential chromatography on columns of Dowex cation exchange resin and aluminum oxide and corrected for [3H]cAMP recovery (19). Concentration-response curves were fitted by nonlinear regression using the program PRISM.

Inositol 1,4,5-Triphosphate Accumulation in HEK-rCRFR1 Cells— The assay was performed according to Ref. 20. Briefly, HEK-rCRFR1 cells (100,000/well) were grown in 24-well plates in culture medium. After preincubation with 74 kBq/ml myo-[2-3H]inositol for 20 h in the absence and presence of 200 ng/ml PTX, the cells were stimulated with different concentrations of sauvagine for 60 min in culture medium without fetal calf serum containing additionally 10 mM HEPES, 0.5% bovine serum albumin, and 10 mM LiCl. The cells were lysed with 150 µl/well 0.1 N NaOH, and subsequently 50 µl of 0.2 M formic acid, 1,000 µl of 5 mM sodium tetraborate, and 1,000 µl 0.5 mM EDTA were added. The lysates were centrifuged, and the supernatants were subjected to anion exchange chromatography on SepPak Vac 3-ml Waters AccelTM Plus QMA cartridges. [3H]Inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate was eluted with 0.1 M formic acid and 0.4 M ammonium formate and counted. Concentration-response curves were fitted by nonlinear regression using the program PRISM.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Optimum Conditions for rCRFR1-activated [35S]GTP{gamma}S Binding to HEK-rCRFR1 Cell Membranes—Stimulation by sauvagine of [35S]GTP{gamma}S binding to HEK-rCRFR1 cell membranes, used as a measure of total G protein activation, was systematically optimized by examining the effects of factors known to be critical in GPCR-evoked GTP binding, GDP, MgCl2, NaCl, DTT, [35S]GTP{gamma}S, temperature, and time. The optimum incubation conditions for a maximum ratio of stimulated:basal binding and, at the same time, high bound activities, were selected to be 0.1 µM GDP, 10 mM MgCl2, 100 mM NaCl, and 100 pM [35S]GTP{gamma}S tracer, without DTT, which decreased at low concentrations (0.1–1 mM) selectively the stimulation of binding by sauvagine and at higher concentration basal and stimulated binding uniformly. The influence of DTT is in line with findings showing that disulfide bonds in the extracellular amino-terminal part of the CRFR1 are important for the formation of the active receptor state (21). Basal and stimulated binding increased time-dependently both with halflives of about 30 min at, consequently, constant relative stimulation over basal at 25 °C. Under the optimum conditions, during incubation over 2 h about 230 fmol [35S]GTP{gamma}S/mg of protein was bound in the absence of a stimulating CRF agonist, and this amount bound was increased by 80–160% by the CRF agonists. No stimulation of [35S]GTP{gamma}S binding by sauvagine to membranes obtained from nontransfected HEK cells was observed.

rCRFR1/G Protein Coupling Estimated by CRFR1 Agonist-stimulated [35S]GTP{gamma}S Binding to HEK-rCRFR1 Cell Membranes and to G{alpha}s, G{alpha}i, and G{alpha}q Subunits in the Membranes— Using intact membranes, concentration-response curves of all peptidic CRFR1 agonists studied were clearly biphasic, resulting in two EC50 values corresponding to high potency and low potency responses around EC50(h) 5 x 10–11M and EC50 (l) 3 x 10–9 M, respectively (Fig. 1 and Table I). On average, low and high potencies differed in their EC50 values by 64.2 ± 9.3-fold, and the part of high potency response was calculated to be 27.76 ± 1.54% of the maximum activity for the sum of both response phases at 100 pM tracer (from all peptides, n = 21). All agonists stimulated the binding to the same maximum activity (Fig. 2). When the concentration of [35S]GTP{gamma}S was increased from 100 to 1,000 pM, the EC50 values for sauvagine did not significantly change; however, the part of high potency phase increased from 27.8% to more than 50% (inset in Fig. 1), at a reduced stimulation over basal of 35.2% compared with about 105% at 100 pM tracer.



View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1.
Concentration-response curves for the stimulation of [35S]-GTP{gamma}S binding by CRF receptor ligands to membranes obtained from HEK-rCRFR1 cells without and after pretreatment with PTX. About 100 pM [35S]GTP{gamma}S was incubated in binding medium (see "Experimental Procedures") with 5–10 µg of membrane protein obtained from cells without and after pretreatment with PTX and with increasing concentrations of peptide ligands at 25 °C for 2 h. Data points were normalized with the maximum and basal response taken 100 and 0%, respectively, and represent the mean ± S.D. of triplicate experiments. Data for the membranes from PTX-treated cells were related to the maximum response of those from untreated cells. Curves were fitted according to a two-site and one-site response model for untreated and PTX-treated cells, respectively. The inset shows the increase in the portion of the high potency phase of sauvagine-evoked binding to untreated cell membranes with increasing [35S]GTP{gamma}S concentrations.

 


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE I
Potencies of CRF receptor agonists for stimulation of [35S]GTP{gamma}S binding to HEK-rCRFR1 cell membranes

Concentration-response curves as given in Fig. 1 (untreated cells) were fitted according to a two-site response model, resulting in EC50(h) and EC50(l) for the high and low potency coupling to Gs and Gi proteins, respectively. Results are expressed as the mean ± S.E. of more than three independent experiments performed in triplicate.

 



View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 2.
Maximum stimulation over basal of [35S]GTP{gamma}S binding to HEK-rCRFR1 cell membranes by CRF receptor ligands. Data were estimated from the concentration-response curves as given in Fig. 1. Data are the means ± S.D. calculated from a series of more than three curves; data for PTX-treated cells were combined from all curves obtained (three for sauvagine and each one for the other agonists).

 
The antagonist {alpha}-helical CRF(9–41) showed no activity on its own (Figs. 1 and 2) but competitively antagonized the stimulated binding as shown for sauvagine in Fig. 3. The Schild plot (not shown) from these data resulted in Schild constants Ka (1) of 9.21 x 10–9 M (±2.98 x 10–9) and Ka (2) of 4.77 x 10–9 M (±1.25 x 10–10) for the high and low potency responses, respectively, which showed that the compound antagonized both responses equally.



View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 3.
Effect of {alpha}-helical CRF(9–41) on the concentration-response curves for sauvagine-stimulated binding of [35S]GTP{gamma}S to HEK-rCRFR1 cell membranes. The response curves were determined in the absence and presence of fixed concentrations of {alpha}-helical CRF(9–41), using 11 µg of protein and 113 pM [35S]GTP{gamma}S. For incubation conditions, see Fig. 1. Data points represent the mean ± S.D. of triplicate experiments.

 
As expected from the biphasic concentration-response curves obtained with the membranes, CRFR1 did not couple only to Gs protein as generally functionally observed. Anti-G{alpha}s, anti-G{alpha}i3, and anti-G{alpha}q/11 antibodies precipitated solubilized [35S]-GTP{gamma}S-bound protein obtained from the membranes in significantly higher amounts after stimulation with sauvagine as well as compared with native HEK cell membranes (Fig. 4).



View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 4.
Immunoprecipitation of [35S]GTP{gamma}S-bound G{alpha}s, G{alpha}i, and G{alpha}q subunits in solubilized membranes obtained from native HEK and HEK-rCRFR1 cells. The membranes were incubated with [35S]GTP{gamma}S in the absence (basal) and presence of 1 µM sauvagine (stimulated) and solubilized (for conditions, see "Experimental Procedures"). The G{alpha}·[35S]GTP{gamma}S complexes were immunoprecipitated using antibodies directed against G{alpha}s, G{alpha}i, and G{alpha}q/11 and the [35S]GTP{gamma}S in were activities in the precipitates were determined. Included are data gained with membranes obtained from HEK-rCRFR1 cells after treatment with PTX or sauvagine for 24 h at 37 °C. Data are shown as the mean ± S.E. of the values for the stimulation over basal for at least three separate experiments carried out at least twice. Statistically significant changes in [35S]GTP{gamma}S binding caused by sauvagine are indicated as *, p < 0.05; significant changes in the stimulation of the binding after cell treatment with sauvagine or PTX as ~p < 0.05.

 
Affinity and Dissociation of [35S]GTP{gamma}S Binding to HEK-rCRFR1 Cell Membranes—GTP{gamma}S binding isotherms for basal binding and binding stimulated by sauvagine were fitted according to a one-site and two-site binding model, respectively (Fig. 5A and Table II). The results show clearly that sauvagine stimulated binding by increasing the apparent affinity of the nucleotide binding site to GTP{gamma}S by more than 10-fold (Kd 5 x 10–10 M). This increase in affinity should not only be the result of accelerated dissociation of GDP from the binding site but also because of a real increase in affinity of the site because even in the absence of GDP the affinity was increased by receptor stimulation (data not shown). Nevertheless, the nonstimulated binding sites had a rather high affinity (Kd about 1 x 10–8 M), discriminating them from any nonspecific binding. It must be noted that the parameters given in Table II (including those after pretreatment of the cells with PTX, see below) are, although exact with respect to the models used, rather rough because the continuous displacement curves (Fig. 5) did not allow a clear definition of nonspecific binding for calculations. For this reason, the nonspecific binding had to be tested to give good fits. More realistically, the binding curves seem to reflect a continuum of several binding sites, which is deduced further from the dissociation experiments (Fig. 6). Dissociation of [35S]GTP{gamma}S from basal and stimulated binding sites proceeded similarly, but the basal activity dissociated more rapidly. The curves could not be fitted to simple models, and, furthermore, after a relatively rapid dissociation phase about 70% of occupied sites remained dissociating only very slowly after more than 2 h.



View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 5.
Competitive inhibition curves by unlabeled GTP{gamma}S of [35S]GTP{gamma}S binding to membranes obtained from HEK-rCRFR1 cells without and after pretreatment with PTX. Competition of unlabeled GTP{gamma}S for basal and 0.1 µM sauvagine-stimulated binding was determined in incubations of about 100 pM [35S]GTP{gamma}S with membranes obtained from the cells without (A) and after pretreatment (B) with PTX. For incubation conditions, see Fig. 1. Data points represent the mean ± S.D. of triplicate experiments (bars are within the symbols).

 


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE II
Affinities (Kd) and capacities (Bmax) of basal and sauvagine-stimulated binding of [35S]GTP{gamma}S to HEK-rCRFR1 cell membranes without (total G protein binding) and after pretreatment of the cells with PTX (Gs protein binding)

The inhibition curves given in Fig. 5 were fitted according to a one-site and two-site model for the basal and stimulated binding, respectively. Given are the Kd (M) and Bmax (pmol/mg of protein) as the mean ± S.E. from three experiments. Kd1 and Bmax1 refer to the stimulated part of the binding isotherms in presence of sauvagine.

 



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 6.
Dissociation kinetics of [35S]GTP{gamma}S binding to HEK-rCRFR1 cell membranes. About 100 pM [35S]GTP{gamma}S was incubated with the membranes at 25 °C for 90 min in binding medium without (basal) and with 0.1 µM sauvagine (stimulated). Dissociation was initiated after centrifuging the membranes from the chilled preincubations by resuspending them with 1 µM GTP{gamma}Sat25 °C. Data points represent the percentage of remaining bound activity (mean ± S.D. of triplicate experiments).

 
Influence of Pretreatment of HEK-rCRFR1 Cells with PTX on the rCRFR1-activated [35S]GTP{gamma}S Binding to Their Membranes and to Different G{alpha} Subunits in the Membranes—PTX pretreatment of the cells, known to inactivate Gi proteins, totally abolished the low potency response to all peptides seen with untreated cell membranes (Fig. 1), and the curves could only be fitted according to a normal one-site fit. At 100 pM [35S]GTP{gamma}S, the remaining activity comprised 23.9 ± 0.94% (Fig. 2) of that obtained with untreated cells (from three experiments with sauvagine and each one with the other peptides), which closely corresponded to 27.76% activity as found for the portion of high potency response in untreated cells (see above). Furthermore, the EC50 values closely corresponded to those obtained for the high potency response with untreated cell membranes, being, on average from all peptide curves, 0.55 ± 0.07-fold (for sauvagine from three experiments EC50 1.63 x 10–11± 5.74 x 10–12 M compared with 3.11 x 10–11 M in untreated membranes). These results suggested that the low potency PTX-sensitive phase represented coupling to Gi proteins, and the high potency phase coupling to Gs. PTX treatment also abolished the sauvagine-evoked increase of G{alpha}i-[35S]GTP{gamma}S immunoprecipitate, but not that of G{alpha}s and G{alpha}q/11 (Fig. 4).

From GTP{gamma}S binding isotherms as shown in Fig. 5 it was calculated that the affinity of the stimulated binding sites after PTX pretreatment of the cells was decreased from Kd1 5 x 10–10 to 1.25 x 10–9 M and that the amounts of stimulated binding sites before and after PTX treatment did not significantly differ (Bmax1 1.90 and 2.07 pmol/mg protein, respectively, Table II). The last fact may be explained by the limitations of the fits of the binding curves (Fig. 5) as discussed above.

Influence of Long Term Incubation of HEK-rCRFR1 Cells with Sauvagine on the rCRFR1-activated [35S]GTP{gamma}S Binding to Their Membranes and to Different G{alpha} Subunits in the Membranes—Incubation of the cells for 24 h with 1 µM sauvagine and extensive washing over 2 h to allow for the washout of the peptide from 1 µM to at least 1 pM, totally desensitized the high potency phase of the sauvagine-stimulated [35S]GTP{gamma}S binding but left the low potency Gi-coupled phase unchanged (Fig. 7). In this series of experiments (n = 7) the potencies of sauvagine in stimulating monophasically the binding of [35S]GTP{gamma}Stomembranes obtained from sauvagine-pretreated cells and in stimulating the low potency binding to membranes obtained from control cells were identical (EC503.47 x 10–9± 3.54 versus EC50(l) 3.70 x 10–9 ± 1.32 x 10–9). The combined treatment of the cells with sauvagine and PTX abolished the whole stimulation (Fig. 7). Sauvagine treatment also significantly diminished sauvagine-evoked increase of G{alpha}s- and G{alpha}q/11-[35S]GTP{gamma}S immunoprecipitate, but not that of G{alpha}i (Fig. 4). In conclusion, treatment of the cells with PTX, sauvagine, and PTX/sauvagine led to the selective inhibition of the Gi-, non-Gi-, and total G protein coupling, respectively (Fig. 7).



View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 7.
Influence of pretreatment of HEK-rCRFR1 cells with sauvagine on [35S]GTP{gamma}S binding to their membranes. HEK-rCRFR1 cells were treated for 24 h without and with 1 µM sauvagine or 1 µM sauvagine together with 100 ng/ml PTX, and with PTX alone before membrane preparation. About 10 µg of the membranes were incubated in binding medium (see "Experimental Procedures") with 100 pM [35S]GTP{gamma}S and increasing concentrations of sauvagine at 25 °C for 2 h. Data points were normalized with the maximum and basal response of the control membranes taken 100 and 0%, respectively, and represent the mean ± S.D. of triplicate experiments. Curves were fitted according to a two-site and one-site response model for untreated and sauvagine or PTX-treated cells, respectively.

 
Receptor Binding of I-Tyr0,Gln1-sauvagine in HEK-rCRFR1 Cell Membranes—Binding isotherms using [125I]Tyr0-sauvagine of two different specific radioactivities over the concentration range from about 5 x 10–12 up to 2 x 10–7 M could not satisfactorily be resolved by a single one-site binding model. Instead, two binding sites were revealed with Kd1 and Kd2 3.85 x 10–11 (±2.38 x 10–12) and 1.47 x 10–8 (±2.00 x 10–9) M, respectively, and Bmax1 and Bmax2 0.68 (±0.12) and 44.10 (±6.52) pmol/mg of protein (mean ± S.E.) (Fig. 8). This means that the high affinity site was 380-fold more affine compared with the low affinity site but comprised only about 1.5% of all binding sites.



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 8.
Receptor binding of [125I]Tyr0-sauvagine in HEK-rCRFR1 cell membranes. The membranes were incubated with increasing concentrations of tracer peptide, used at two different specific radioactivities by adding unlabeled 3-I-Tyr0,Gln1-sauvagine, under conditions exactly the same as used for the [35S]GTP{gamma}S binding studies (see "Experimental Procedures") Shown is a repre-sentative example out of five experiments using 17.4 µg of protein and tracer dilutions with specific activities of 334 and 4.8 Ci/mmol for the low and high peptide concentration range, respectively, of each of eight concentrations. A, whole binding curve over the entire concentration range. B, part of the binding curve for the lower and lowest (inset) ligand concentrations. Data are the means ± S.D. (mostly within the symbols) from triplicate experiments.

 
rCRFR1-activated Changes of Adenylate Cyclase Activity in HEK-rCRFR1 Cell Membranes—Sauvagine was found to stimulate the adenylate cyclase activity in a bell-shaped manner with a maximum reached at 3 x 10–9 M sauvagine, independently of whether the cells were pretreated with PTX or not (Fig. 9). However, PTX pretreatment increased the maximum activity by 2.98-fold (±0.13). Fitting the stimulatory limbs of the curves resulted in nearly equal EC50 values for untreated and PTX-treated cell membranes (2.36 x 10–10± 8 x 10–11 M and 3.09 x 10–10± 1.67 x 10–10 M, respectively). When the cells were pretreated with 1 µM sauvagine for 24 h as described above, no activation of the enzyme was observed, but at concentrations of sauvagine higher than 1 x 10–9 the basal activity was decreased (Fig. 9, inset).



View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 9.
Concentration-response curves for activation/inhibition of adenylate cyclase activity by sauvagine in membranes obtained from HEK-rCRFR1 cells without and after pretreatment with PTX or sauvagine. About 20 µg of membrane protein was incubated in duplicate in a reaction mixture consisting of 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.4, 4 mM MgCl2, 2 mM EDTA, 1 mM isobutylmethylxanthine, 1 mM cAMP, 100 µM ATP, 10 µM GTP, 1 mM DTT, 0.75 µCi of [{alpha}-32P]ATP, 5.1 mg/ml phosphocreatine, 1.32 mg/ml creatine phosphokinase, and 12 mg/ml bovine serum albumin in a final volume of 100 µl at 32 °C for 20 min. [{alpha}-32P]cAMP formed was isolated by sequential chromatography. Data are the means ± S.D. Compared were the activities of membranes obtained from cells without and after pretreatment with 200 ng of PTX/ml and, in another set of experiments, without and after pretreatment with 1 µM sauvagine (inset), each for 24 h at 37 °C.

 
rCRFR1-activated Stimulation of Inositol Phosphates in HEK-rCRFR1 Cells—As shown in Fig. 10, sauvagine at concentrations higher than 10 nM stimulated the accumulation of inositol phosphates in the cells more than 2.5-fold with EC50 1.18 x 10–7 ± 2.91 x 10–8. Pretreatment of the cells with PTX did not change the potency of sauvagine (EC50 1.26 x 10–7± 4.15 x 10–8) but decreased the maximum stimulation to 47.92 ± 2.29%.



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 10.
Sauvagine-stimulated accumulation of inositol phosphates in HEK-rCRFR1 cells without and after pretreatment with PTX. Cells (100,000/24-well plate) were preloaded with myo-[2-3H]inositol for 20 h at 37 °C in culture medium in the absence and presence of 200 ng/ml PTX, washed, and stimulated for 60 min with increasing sauvagine concentrations in culture medium containing additionally 10 mM LiCl. After lysis of the washed cells, 3H-labeled inositol phosphates were separated by Dowex chromatography. The accumulation of labeled inositol phosphates is expressed as the percentage of 3H activity (mean ± S.D.) separated by chromatography from the total activity taken up by the cells.

 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
The CRF receptors are generally coupled to Gs proteins (13–15) and stimulate the activity of the adenylate cyclase. However, immunoprecipitation of {alpha} subunits of G proteins after their labeling with [{alpha}-32P]GTP{gamma}-azidoanilide after activation of the CRFR1 led to the conclusion of multiple G protein coupling of CRFR1 (13–15). This study was aimed at investigating the question of whether the coupling of CRFR1 to different G protein classes, Gs,Gi, and Gq is regulated differently. For this purpose we examined, to our best knowledge for the first time, the functional consequences of CRFR1 activation at almost the earliest receptor-mediated event, by measuring the stimulation of the [35S]GTP{gamma}S binding to the G proteins directly in membranes obtained from HEK293 cells that were stably transfected with the rat CRF receptor type 1 (HEK-rCRFR1 cells).

From the biphasic concentration-response curves for the stimulation of [35S]GTP{gamma}S binding to HEK-rCRFR1 cell membranes (Fig. 1), resulting in two ligand activities different by 64-fold in the EC50 values (Table I) but equally potently antagonized by the antagonist {alpha}-helical CRF(9–41) (Fig. 3, Schild constants 9.2 x 10–9 M and 4.8 x 10–9 M, respectively), it was concluded that the rCRFR1 in the HEK cells was coupled to two different G protein pools. The high potency phase was clearly shown to represent coupling of CRFR1 to Gs for the following reasons. Pretreatment of the cells with PTX, widely used as tool to interfere specifically with the coupling of GPCRs to the members of the family of Gi type, left this phase unchanged (Fig. 1), did not change the amount of immunoprecipitated G{alpha}s-bound [35S]GTP{gamma}S (Fig. 4), and increased the stimulatory activity of sauvagine on the activity of the adenylate cyclase activity at low ligand concentrations (Fig. 9). In addition, when it was found that long term stimulation of the cells with sauvagine abolished specifically the high potency phase (Fig. 7) it was shown in parallel that the amount of immunoprecipitated G{alpha}s-bound [35S]GTP{gamma}S stimulated by sauvagine was diminished almost to the level seen with native, nontransfected HEK cell membranes (Fig. 4), and, furthermore, the adenylate cyclase was no longer stimulated (Fig. 9, inset). On the contrary, PTX abolished the low potency phase (Fig. 1) and the stimulation of immunoprecipitated G{alpha}i-bound [35S]GTP{gamma}S by sauvagine (Fig. 4) totally. Therefore it is concluded that the rCRFR1 is coupled to Gi with low ligand potency in addition to Gs with high potency (Table I), which should mean that the ligand concentration has a major regulatory function in the coupling of the receptor to different G proteins. Because the portion of Gs coupling was found to be enhanced when the [35S]GTP{gamma}S concentration was increased (Fig. 1, inset), it is further concluded that cellular GTP is not only substrate for the G proteins but, in addition to the ligand concentration, also regulates the portions of the different G proteins actually coupled to the receptor. The present results parallel in some respects those found for the activation of the h-5-hydroxytryptamine1A receptor in Chinese hamster ovary cells where biphasic response curves for the full agonist-stimulated [35S]GTP{gamma}S binding were also found (22). In the latter case, however, the multiple G protein subtypes involved in activation were restricted to the Gi class, of which a single subunit G{alpha}i3 was the sole component involved in the high potency phase.

The high potency of 3-I-Tyr0,Gln1-sauvagine in Gs coupling closely corresponded to the high affinity binding sites revealed in the HEK-rCRFR1 cell membranes (Fig. 8B, Kd 3.85 x 10–11 versus EC50(h) 3.24 x 10–11, Table I). However, about 98% of the estimated total receptor sites of 45 pmol/mg were in a very low affinity state, Kd 1.47 x 10–8(Fig. 8A), which was close to the potency of Tyr-sauvagine for the low potency stimulation of GTP binding to Gi (EC50(l) in Table I) and which agreed well with the Kd of 3.38 x 10–8 M for sauvagine in competing for [125I]Tyr0-sauvagine binding in presence of GTP{gamma}S to uncouple the receptor from the G proteins (data not shown). GTP{gamma}S binding isotherms (Fig. 5) showed that the activated receptor stimulated the GTP binding to the G proteins by increasing the affinity of some 2 pmol/mg Gs and Gi nucleotide binding sites at least 10-fold (Table II). Even within the limitations of the fits of the GTP{gamma}S binding isotherms as discussed under "Results," the existence of about 2 pmol/mg stimulated GTP{gamma}S binding sites as opposed to 45 pmol/mg receptor binding sites seems clearly to indicate that the overwhelming part of receptors were not coupled to G proteins. This was in line with the splitting of receptor binding sites into about 98% low and 2% high affinity sites. Taken together it is concluded that the low number of high affinity receptor sites evokes the high potency activation of Gs protein, whereas a small number of the low affinity sites couples to Gi.

Because the [35S]GTP{gamma}S assay per se does not differentiate among G protein subtypes, CRFR1 coupling to G proteins other than Gi and Gs could also be involved. Indeed, after receptor activation G{alpha}q/11-bound [35S]GTP{gamma}S was immunoprecipitated in higher amounts, which were not significantly lowered after PTX pretreatment of the cells (Fig. 4). In line with these results, sauvagine stimulated the accumulation of inositol phosphates in HEK-rCRFR1 cells (Fig. 10). The {alpha} subunits of the Gq/11 subfamily have been shown to activate phospholipase C isozymes and to stimulate the inositol phosphate production in a PTX-independent way (23); however, about half of the sauvagine-stimulated production in the HEK-rCRFR1 cells was inhibited after pretreatment of the cells with PTX (Fig. 10). Some receptors were found to activate phospholipase C{beta} isozymes also through G{beta}{gamma} dimers released from heterotrimer Gs or Gi proteins (23, 24). Obviously, the coupling of CRFR1 in the HEK-rCRFR1 cells to Gi proteins leads to the release of {beta}{gamma} subunits that contribute to the stimulation of phospholipase C in a PTX-sensitive manner. This result is contrary to findings showing that G proteins other than Gq/11 were not involved in urocortin-induced mitogen-activated protein kinase in HEK-CRFR1 cells, thought to be mediated by the phospholipase C/inositol phosphate signaling pathway (14).

The great differences in ligand potencies for the Gs and Gi coupling, EC50 around 5 x 10–11 and 3 x 10–9 M (Table I), respectively, suggest that different active receptor states are responsible for the different coupling or that the affinities of the G proteins to the activated receptor state differ. The peptidic CRF receptor agonists used stimulated with a potency order as generally known for the CRFR1, urocortin, and oCRF being the most and least potent compounds, respectively (Table I). All agonists did not differ significantly in their maximum (Fig. 2) nor in their high and low potency activities, and their ratios of high to low potencies were also identical (Table I). Therefore, all peptides should activate the Gs proteins to the same extent as they should do with respect to the Gi proteins. In other words, all peptides are likely to use or induce almost the same active receptor states and should not differ in their abilities to stimulate separate stimulus-response pathways via different G protein-coupled messenger systems. This conclusion is not in line with results showing that urocortin stimulated cAMP accumulation in HEK-CRFR1 cells with lower potency than oCRF (25) and that urocortin and CRF regulated differently the GRK3 activity in human retinoblastoma Y79 cells (26) and the mitogen-activated protein kinase signal transduction pathway in human pregnant myometrium and transfected cells (14). The reasons for these different results on agonist-specific trafficking of CRFR1 signaling remain unclear.

The bell-shaped concentration-response curve for the stimulation of adenylate cyclase activity (Fig. 9) was first explained by assuming that the stimulation of the enzyme activity via Gs at low sauvagine concentrations became attenuated by inhibition at high peptide concentrations corresponding to the Gi-coupled phase. After inhibition of Gi by PTX the cyclase activity rose 3-fold (Fig. 9), obviously because of the deactivation of inhibitory Gi-coupled activity. However, the bell-shaped response and, therefore, the inhibitory phase remained detectable (Fig. 9), which means that at least part of the inhibition was not caused by coupling of the receptor to Gi. At present there is no explanation for this result. It might be speculated that there is an allosteric site the occupation of which at high agonist concentrations negatively modulates the cyclase stimulation by the orthosteric receptor binding site. Evidence has accumulated that receptor proteins may form dimers especially when overexpressed and that the second binding site to be occupied in the dimer may negatively modulate the response of the active receptor state (27). It could be possible that rCRFR1 in the HEK cells forms dimers, resulting in allosteric inhibition of adenylate cyclase at high ligand concentrations. Indeed, fluorescence resonance energy transfer experiments have shown dimerization of CRFR1 in HEK-rCRFR1 cells2; nevertheless, at present such an explanation remains highly speculative.

One major mode of terminating GPCR signaling is homologous desensitization. Homologous CRFR1 desensitization has already been found in Y79 cells (26, 28, 29) and in the human neuroblastoma cell line IMR-32 (30). Here, we found that in membranes obtained from HEK-rCRFR1 cells that were stimulated by sauvagine for 24 h, the high potency stimulatory phase in [35S]GTP{gamma}S binding (Fig. 7) was abolished, and the amounts of immunoprecipitated [35S]GTP{gamma}S-bound G{alpha}s and G{alpha}q/11 subunits (Fig. 4) were strongly decreased, leaving the Gi response (Figs. 4 and 7) nearly unchanged. Furthermore, the adenylate cyclase was no longer stimulated but showed only inhibition of the basal activity at the sauvagine concentration range of Gi coupling (Fig. 9, inset). From these results it is concluded that the coupling of CRFR1 to Gs and Gq but not to Gi is desensitized. Unfortunately, it was not possible to estimate the part of Gq/11-bound [35S]GTP{gamma}S contributing to the concentration-response curves as shown in Fig. 1 or Fig. 7.

The mechanism behind the differentiated homologous desensitization of the G protein coupling of CRFR1 remains to be resolved. It has been well established that GPCR kinases (GRKs) play a major role in this process. GRKs phosphorylate serine and threonine residues at intracellular domains of the agonist-activated receptor. This phosphorylation interferes with the G protein coupling of the receptor and promotes the interaction of the receptor with intracellular proteins that maintain the inactive state of the receptor and favor its internalization (31, 32). Y-79 and IMR-32 cells were shown to response to CRFR1 activation with loss of receptors (28, 30). Furthermore, CRFR1 was rapidly phosphorylated in response to high CRF concentration in COS-7 cells (33). This phosphorylation was independent of protein kinase A activation, but in Y-79 cells an up-regulation of GRK3 was observed during desensitization of CRFR1 (26). Therefore, a GRK-mediated mechanism is likely to be involved also in the desensitization of CRFR1. In the last years experimental data have accumulated (34–36) to suggest that different active conformational states of one and the same receptor exist and may have differing abilities to produce diverse signaling ways. Based on this concept (37), from our results it may be speculated that activation of the CRFR1 in HEK cells results in receptor states that activate Gs and Gq/11 proteins and are subject in parallel to phosphorylation by a GRK, leading to desensitization, whereas Gi proteins are activated by other receptor states the serines/threonines of which cannot be phosphorylated or if phosphorylated do not interfere with the coupling. In line with this suggestion, there have been already some reports showing that phosphorylation of a receptor through kinases can differently affect the efficiency of coupling of the receptor to different subclasses of G proteins (for review, see Ref. 16). The restriction of desensitization to the stimulatory activities of CRFR1 on the adenylate cyclase may represent a regulatory mechanism that ensures a more rapid decline of the stimulatory effect when at the same time the inhibitory activity, not involved in desensitization, remains unchanged.


   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. Back

{ddagger} To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 49-30-94793-273; Fax: 49-30-94793-159; E-mail: berger{at}fmp-berlin.de.

1 The abbreviations used are: CRF, corticotropin-releasing factor; CRFR1 and CRFR2, CRF receptor type 1 and 2, respectively; DTT, dithiothreitol; EC50(h) and EC50(l) EC50 for high and low potency response phases, respectively GPCR, G protein-coupled receptor; GRK, G protein-coupled receptor kinase ; GTP{gamma}S, guanosine 5'-O-(3-thiotriphosphate); HEK, human embryonic kidney; HEK-rCRFR1 cells, HEK293 cells stably transfected with rCRFR1; PTX, pertussis toxin; rCRFR1, rat CRFR1. Back

2 M. Beyermann, manuscript in preparation. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank U. B. Kaupp (Jülich, Germany) for the gift of rat CRFR1 cDNA and M. Georgi, G. Vogelreiter, and A. Klose for technical assistance.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Vale, W., Spiess, J., Rivier, C., and Rivier, J. (1981) Science 213, 1394–1397[Free Full Text]
  2. Dieterich, K. D., Lehnert, H., and de-Souza, E. B. (1997) Exp. Clin. Endocrinol. Diabetes 105, 65–82[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Dautzenberg, F. M., and Hauger, R. L. (2002) Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 23, 71–77[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Chen, R., Lewis, K. A., Perrin, M. H., and Vale, W. W. (1993) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 90, 8967–8971[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Chang, C. P., Pearse, R. V., O'Connell, S., and Rosenfeld, M. G. (1993) Neuron 11, 1187–1195[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Perrin, M. H., Donaldson, C. J., Chen, R., Lewis, K. A., and Vale, W. W. (1993) Endocrinology 133, 3058–3061[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Lovenberg, T. W., Liaw, C. W., Grigoriadis, D. E., Clevenger, W., Chalmers, D. T., de-Souza, E. B., and Oltersdorf, T. (1995) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92, 836–840[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Liaw, C. W., Lovenberg, T. W., Barry, G., Oltersdorf, T., Grigoriadis, D. E., and de-Souza, E. B. (1996) Endocrinology 137, 72–77[Abstract]
  9. Vaughan, J., Donaldson, C., Bittencourt, J., Perrin, M. H., Lewis, K., Sutton, S., Chan, R., Turnbull, A. V., Lovejoy, D., Rivier, C., Rivier, J., Sawchenko, P. E., and Vale, W. (1995) Nature 378, 287–292[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Hsu, S. Y., and Hsueh, A. J. W. (2001) Nat. Med. 7, 605–611[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Reyes, T. M., Lewis, K., Perrin, M. H., Kunitake, K. S., Vaughan, J., Arias, C. A., Hogenesch, J. B., Gulyas, J., Rivier, J., Vale, W. W., and Sawchenko, P. E. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 2843–2848[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Lewis, K., Li, C., Perrin, M. H., Blount, A., Kunitake, K., Donaldson, C., Vaughan, J., Reyes, T. M., Gulyas, J., Fischer, W., Bilezikjian, L., Rivier, J., Sawchenko, P. E., and Vale, W. W. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 7570–7575[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Grammatopoulos, D. K., Dai, Y. L., Randeva, H. S., Levine, M. A., Karteris, E., Easton, A. J., and Hillhouse, E. W. (1999) Mol. Endocrinol. 13, 2189–2202[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Grammatopoulos, D. K., Randeva, H. S., Levine, M. A., Katsanou, E. S., and Hilhouse, E. W. (2000) Mol. Endocrinol. 14, 2076–2091[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Grammatopoulos, D. K., Randeva, H. S., Levine, M. A., Kanellopoulou, K. A., and Hillhouse, E. W. (2001) J. Neurochem. 76, 509–519[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Hermans, E. (2003) Pharmacol. Ther. 99, 25–44[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Bradford, M. M. (1976) Anal. Biochem. 72, 248–254[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Akam, E. C., Challiss, R. A. J., and Nahorski, S. R. (2001) Br. J. Pharmacol. 132, 950–958[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. Salomon, Y., Londos, C., and Rodbell, M. (1974) Anal. Biochem. 58, 541–548[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Kirk, C. J., Morris, A. J., and Shears, S. B. (1990) in Peptide Hormone Action: A Practical Approach (Siddle, K., and Hutton, J. C., eds) pp. 151–184, IRL Press, Oxford, UK
  21. 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]
  22. Newman, T. A., Cussac, D., Marini, L., and Millan, M. J. (2002) Mol. Pharmacol. 62, 590–601[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Rhee, S. G., and Bae, Y. S. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 15045–15048[Free Full Text]
  24. Herrlich, A., Kuhn, B., Grosse, R., Schmid, A., Schultz, G., and Gudermann, T. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 16764–16772[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Ruhmann, A., Bonk, I., and Kopke, A. K. E. (1999) Peptides 20, 1311–1319[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Dautzenberg, F. M., Wille, S., Braun, S., and Hauger, R. L. (2002) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 298, 303–308[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Dean, M. K., Higgs, C., Smith, R. E., Bywater, R. P., Snell, C. R., Scott, P. D., Upton, G. J. G., Howe, T. J., and Reynolds, C. A. (2001) J. Med. Chem. 44, 4595–4614[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Hauger, R. L., Dautzenberg, F. M., Flaccus, A., Liepold, T., and Spiess, J. (1997) J. Neurochem. 68, 2308–2316[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Hauger, R. L., Olivares-Reyes, J. A., Braun, S., Catt, K. J., and Dautzenberg, F. M. (2003) J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 306, 794–803[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Roseboom, P. H., Urben, C. M., and Kalin, N. H. (2001) Brain Res. Mol. Brain Res. 92, 115–127[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Claing, A., Laporte, S. A., Caron, M. G., and Lefkowitz, R. J. (2002) Prog. Neurobiol. 66, 61–79[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Penela, P., Ribas, C., and Mayor, F., Jr. (2003) Cell. Signal. 15, 973–981[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Hauger, R. L., Smith, R. D., Braun, S., Dautzenberg, F. M., and Catt, K. J. (2000) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 268, 572–576[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Keith, D. E., Murray, S. R., Zaki, P. A., Chu, P. C., Lissin, D. V., Kang, L., Evans, C. J., and von-Zastrow, M. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 19021–19024[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Roettger, B. F., Ghanekar, D., Rao, R., Toledo, C., Yingling, J., Pinon, D., and Miller, L. J. (1997) Mol. Pharmacol. 51, 357–362[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Hunyady, L., Baukal, A. J., Balla, T., and Catt, K. J. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 24798–24804[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Kenakin, T. (2002) Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 1, 103–110[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

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. Alken, A. Schmidt, C. Rutz, J. Furkert, G. Kleinau, W. Rosenthal, and R. Schulein
The Sequence after the Signal Peptide of the G Protein-Coupled Endothelin B Receptor Is Required for Efficient Translocon Gating at the Endoplasmic Reticulum Membrane
Mol. Pharmacol., April 1, 2009; 75(4): 801 - 811.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
M. F. Mesleh, W. A. Shirley, C. E. Heise, N. Ling, R. A. Maki, and R. P. Laura
NMR Structural Characterization of a Minimal Peptide Antagonist Bound to the Extracellular Domain of the Corticotropin-releasing Factor1 Receptor
J. Biol. Chem., March 2, 2007; 282(9): 6338 - 6346.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
C. Rutz, A. Renner, M. Alken, K. Schulz, M. Beyermann, B. Wiesner, W. Rosenthal, and R. Schulein
The Corticotropin-releasing Factor Receptor Type 2a Contains an N-terminal Pseudo Signal Peptide
J. Biol. Chem., August 25, 2006; 281(34): 24910 - 24921.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Endocr. Rev.Home page
E. W. Hillhouse and D. K. Grammatopoulos
The Molecular Mechanisms Underlying the Regulation of the Biological Activity of Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone Receptors: Implications for Physiology and Pathophysiology
Endocr. Rev., May 1, 2006; 27(3): 260 - 286.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
279/37/38386    most recent
M405335200v1
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 Wietfeld, D.
Right arrow Articles by Berger, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wietfeld, D.
Right arrow Articles by Berger, H.
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 © 2004 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Advertisement
spacer
Advertisement
Advertisement