Advertisement
JBC

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


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M606946200 on January 15, 2007

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 282, Issue 11, 8332-8342, March 16, 2007
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
282/11/8332    most recent
M606946200v1
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 Roumy, M.
Right arrow Articles by Mollereau, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Roumy, M.
Right arrow Articles by Mollereau, C.
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?

Physical Association between Neuropeptide FF and µ-Opioid Receptors as a Possible Molecular Basis for Anti-opioid Activity*

Michel Roumy{ddagger}, Corinne Lorenzo§, Serge Mazères{ddagger}, Stéphanie Bouchet{ddagger}, Jean-Marie Zajac{ddagger}, and Catherine Mollereau{ddagger}1

From the {ddagger}Institut de Pharmacologie et Biologie Structurale, CNRS UMR 5089, 205 route de Narbonne, 31077 Toulouse cedex 04 and the §Laboratoire de Biologie Cellulaire et Moléculaire du Contrôle de la Prolifération, CNRS UMR 5088, 118 route de Narbonne, 31062 Toulouse cedex 09, France

Received for publication, July 21, 2006 , and in revised form, December 7, 2006.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Neuropeptide FF (NPFF) modulates the opioid system by exerting functional anti-opioid activity on neurons, the mechanism of which is unknown. By using a model of SH-SY5Y cells, we recently postulated that anti-opioid activity likely takes place upstream from the signaling cascade, suggesting that NPFF receptors could block opioid receptors by physical interaction. In the present study, fluorescence techniques were used to monitor the physical association and the dynamic of NPFF2 and µ-opioid (MOP) receptors tagged with variants of the green fluorescent protein. Importantly, cyan fluorescent protein-tagged NPFF2 receptors retained their capacity to antagonize opioid receptors. Fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) and coimmunoprecipitation studies indicate that NPFF and MOP receptors are close enough to generate a basal FRET signal. The opioid agonist Tyr-D-Ala-Gly-NMe-Phe-Gly-ol disrupts by 20-30% this FRET signal, mainly because it concomitantly induces 40% internalization of receptors. In contrast, the NPFF analog 1DMe significantly increases by 10-15% the basal FRET signal, suggesting an association between both receptors. In addition, 1DMe reduces, by half, MOP receptor internalization, indicating that, besides a functional blockade of opioid receptors, the NPFF analog also inhibits their internalization. Finally, as a first report showing the modulation of the mobility of a G-protein-coupled receptor by another one, fluorescence recovery after photobleaching analysis reveals that 1DMe [PDB] modifies the lateral diffusion of MOP receptors in the cell membrane, changing them from a confined to a freely diffusing state. By promoting NPFF-MOP receptor heteromerization, 1DMe could disrupt the domain organization of MOP receptors in the membrane, resulting in a reduction of opioid response.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
NPFF (FLFQPQRFamide)2 is representative of a family of RFamide peptides shown to regulate pain, cardiovascular functions, appetite, thirst, and body temperature (1, 2). NPFF is part of a neuropeptidergic system composed of two precursors, pro-NPFFA and pro-NPFFB, and of two specific G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), NPFF1 and NPFF2 (3). A close relationship between NPFF and opioid systems exists in the central nervous system, because the pharmacological and physiological effects of opioids, especially in pain perception, are modulated (increased or decreased, depending on dose and site of action) by NPFF agonists (4-7). The NPFF system is therefore considered to be an opioid-modulating system involved in homeostasis that counteracts the action of opioids and, thus, plays a role in opiate tolerance (8).

Much data indicate that, at the cellular level, stimulation of NPFF receptors inactivates opioid receptors by a molecular mechanism still not understood (for review, see Ref. 9). For example, the NPFF analog 1DMe blocks presynaptic {delta}-opioid auto-receptors in the spinal cord, leading to an increase in K+-evoked met-enkephalin release (10). 1DMe also inhibits the reduction induced by morphine, but not by noradrenalin, of the electrically evoked acetylcholine release in the guinea pig myenteric plexus (11). Furthermore, on isolated neurons from rat periventricular and dorsal raphe nuclei, that co-express nociceptin receptors and NPFF1 or NPFF2 receptors, respectively, NPFF analogs inhibit the nociceptin-induced reduction of N-type Ca2+ channel conductance (12, 13).

To elucidate the molecular mechanisms responsible for the anti-opioid activity of NPFF on neurons, we have recently developed a suitable cellular model by stably transfecting human NPFF1 or NPFF2 receptors in the neuroblastoma-derived cell line SH-SY5Y (14, 15). The neuroblastoma clone SH-SY5Y, derived from a human sympathetic ganglion tumor, displays many properties of mature sympathetic neurons, in particular the synthesis and depolarization-evoked, Ca2+-dependent, secretion of noradrenalin (16). In these cells, µ-opioid and nociceptin receptor activation leads, as in neurons, to inhibition of adenylyl cyclase and voltage-gated N-type Ca2+ channels. We have demonstrated that activation of NPFF1 and NPFF2 receptors in the recombinant cell lines inhibits the response to opioid agonists in two different paradigms involving Ca2+ signaling, thus reproducing the cellular anti-opioid activity observed with isolated neurons (12, 13). Therefore, this cellular model, in contrast to those generally used (Chinese hamster ovary and COS), exhibits properties and gathers all protagonists of a neuronal cell, allowing a detailed molecular exploration of the opioid and anti-opioid signaling cross-talk that could have physiological significance.

Using this model, we have accumulated data suggesting that classic cross-desensitization between both transduction systems does not occur. Indeed, NPFF and opioid receptors regulate similar effectors (adenylyl cyclase, voltage-gated N-type Ca2+ channel, and activated phospholipase C) and are coupled to essentially the same G-protein {alpha} subunits (14). However, only the pretreatment with NPFF agonists abolishes the opioid response, the reverse being not true (15). This effect is not accompanied by a loss of opioid receptor binding affinity. Moreover, the antagonistic effect of 1DMe on the opioid-induced reduction of Ca2+ transients is not prevented by the addition of protein kinase A and C inhibitors (14). Altogether, these results led us to consider that the anti-opioid activity of NPFF receptors could take place upstream from the signaling cascade, as the result of a physical interaction between NPFF and opioid receptors leading to non-functional complexes. Oligomerization of GPCR has been proposed to play a role in receptor biogenesis and recycling, pharmacological diversity, and regulation of signal transduction (17, 18). Interestingly, the pharmacological and signaling properties of heteromers differ from those of monomers and sometimes lead to inactive receptors as demonstrated for angiotensin receptors AT1 in AT1/AT2 heterodimers (19) or somatostatin sst3 receptors in sst2A·sst3 complexes (20).

In the present study, different cellular, biochemical, and biophysical approaches were used to investigate the possible heteromerization between NPFF2 and µ-opioid (MOP) receptors. Analysis of such an interaction in living cells has been greatly aided by the development of biological fluorescent probes derived from the native green fluorescent protein (GFP) of the jellyfish Aequora victoria, in association with biophysical and fluorescence spectroscopy techniques (21). Therefore, SH-SY5Y cells were stably transfected with NPFF and MOP receptors tagged with the cyan (CFP) and yellow (YFP) fluorescent proteins, respectively, to investigate their possible interaction by fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) and fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP). FRET is a well suited technique to monitor protein-protein interactions or proximity in the 1-10 nm range in living cells and is appropriate for studying GPCR oligomerization (17, 22-24). FRAP has been extensively used to measure lateral diffusion of molecules in biological membranes (25) and has been applied to explore the confinement of GPCR in plasma membrane microdomains (26, 27). In FRAP experiments, a small area of the cell membrane is bleached with a brief pulse of a high intensity laser beam, and recovery of fluorescence into the bleached area is used to measure the membrane diffusion rate of the fluorescent molecule of interest. We used FRAP at variable observation radius (vrFRAP), which allows one to identify the presence of microdomains and to characterize their size (28).

Results presented in this study provide convincing evidence for a close proximity between NPFF2 and MOP receptors in the plasma membrane, which could be considered as heterodimerization. Interestingly, activation of NPFF receptors not only promotes receptor association, as visualized by FRET, but also modifies considerably the lateral mobility of MOP receptors in the plasma membrane by reducing the proportion of MOP receptors confined in microdomains. Upon activation, NPFF receptors could therefore move MOP receptors out of their signaling platform, preventing activation of their associated transduction systems, as well as their subsequent internalization. This hypothesis is proposed to explain the cellular anti-opioid activity of NPFF agonists.


   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Materials—Oligonucleotides were synthesized by Sigma-Genosys (UK). Restriction enzymes were purchased from New England Biolabs (Ozyme, France). Mouse monoclonal anti-GFP antibody was obtained from Invitrogen, rabbit polyclonal anti-GFP antibody was from Santa Cruz Biotechnology (Santa Cruz, CA). Rabbit polyclonal anti-MOP receptor antibody was a generous gift from Drs. Huda Akil and Stanley Watson (University of Michigan), but antibodies from Abcam (United Kingdom) were also tested. NPFF-related peptides were synthesized with an automated synthesizer (Applied Biosystems model 433A). DAMGO (Tyr-D-Ala-Gly-NMe-Phe-gly-ol) was purchased from Bachem (France), and levorphanol was from Hoffmann Laroche (France). [3H]DAMGO (67 Ci/mmol) and [3H]adenine (26 Ci/mmol) were purchased from Amersham Biosciences. The NPFF2 receptor-selective radioligand [125I]EYF was iodinated by electrophilic substitution of EYFSLAAPQRFa (29). Radioiodinated peptides were stored at 4 °C in the presence of 0.1% bovine serum albumin (Sigma, France).

Vector Constructions—pcDNA3 plasmids containing the enhanced cyan (mCFP) and yellow (mYFP) monomeric variants (A206K mutation) of GFP (30) were generous gifts from Dr. Roger Y. Tsien (University of California). Because the stop codon was lacking in these constructions, a short adapter containing two TAA codons was obtained by annealing sense (5'-CTAAGGGTAAT-3') and antisense (5'-CTAGATTACCCTTAGGTAC-3') oligonucleotides. This adapter was then inserted at the 3'-end of each cDNA between KpnI and XbaI restriction sites of pcDNA3, which introduced three additional amino acids (Ala-Gly-Thr) at the C-terminal end of the proteins. cDNA were then transferred into pBluescript II SK- (Stratagene) using HindIII-XbaI sites for further cloning. We took advantage of the presence of an NcoI restriction site in the initiation codon to introduce the GFP cDNAs in-frame with the C-terminal end sequence of NPFF2 and MOP receptors.

The human NPFF2 receptor (NPFF2) cDNA was obtained as previously reported (31), and the human MOP receptor cDNA was kindly provided by Dr. Laurent Emorine (Laboratoire de Biologie Cellulaire et Moléculaire du Contrôle de la Prolifération, Toulouse France). For the construction of NPFF2-CFP fusion protein, receptor cDNA was amplified by PCR with a forward primer containing a BamHI restriction site (5'-CGCGGATCCACCATGAATGAGAAATGGGAC-3'), and a reverse primer (5'-TACACCATGGCAGATTCAATCTCACTGCTGTTAGTAGTTTC-3') designed to both suppress the stop codon and introduce a NcoI restriction site at the 3'-end of the sequence. This construction introduced three additional amino acids (Glu-Ser-Ala) at the C-terminal end of the receptor. The PCR product was ligated into PCR4Blunt-TOPO vector (Invitrogen) and subcloned into pBluesript II SK- using EcoRI. mCFP was ligated to the 3'-end of NPFF2 using NcoI and XbaI sites. The resulting construct contained residues Glu-Ser-Ala between the sequences of NPFF2 and mCFP. The construct was finally inserted into the EcoRI-XbaI sites of the mammalian expression vector pEFIN3 bearing the neomycin selection marker (31). For the construction of MOP-YFP fusion protein, receptor cDNA was amplified with a forward primer designed to replace the NcoI site present in the initiation codon by EcoRV (5'-TCGCGATATCATGGACAGCAGCGCTGCCC-3') and a reverse primer designed to both suppress the stop codon and introduce NcoI and XbaI restriction sites at the 3'-end of the sequence (5'-TAGTTCTAGATTACACCATGGGACCCTGTAAG-3'). The PCR product was ligated to PCRT7/CT-TOPO (Invitrogen) and subcloned into pBluescript II SK- using HindIII-XbaI. mYFP was ligated to the 3'-end of MOP receptor using NcoI and XbaI sites. The resulting construct contained residues Leu-Gln-Gly-Pro between the sequences of MOP receptor and mYFP. The completed construct was finally inserted into the EcoRV-XbaI sites of the mammalian expression vector pEFIB3 bearing the blasticidin selection marker. All constructs were verified by sequencing (Genome Express, France).

Cell Culture and Transfection—Human neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cells, kindly provided by Dr. F. Noble (Université René Descartes, Paris), were grown in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (4.5 g/liter glucose, GlutaMAXI) containing 10% fetal calf serum and 50 µg/ml gentamicin (Invitrogen), in a 37 °C humidified atmosphere containing 5% CO2. Cells were used undifferentiated.

Cells were transfected by using FuGENE 6 according to the manufacturer's instructions (Roche Applied Science). Selection was achieved by adding to the culture medium 400 µg/ml G418 (Invitrogen) for pEFIN3 constructs or 2 µg/ml blasticidin (Cayla, France) for pEFIB3 constructs, or both for double transfected cells. Individual clones were isolated by limit dilution in 96-well plates and grown for at least 6-8 weeks, because scattering strongly slowed down growth of neuroblastoma cells. After amplification, clones were characterized for their binding and functional properties. The NPFF2-CFP (clone B10) cell line was obtained first and then transfected with the MOP-YFP vector to obtain the double transfected cell line NPFF2-CFP/MOP-YFP (clone B8). The MOP-YFP vector was also used to transfect the SH2-D9 clone previously characterized (14) to give the (SH2-D9)MOP-YFP (clone B7) cell line that expresses non-tagged NPFF2 receptors and YFP-tagged MOP receptors.

Binding and Biological Assays—Membrane preparation, binding of [125I]EYF (NPFF2 receptors) or [3H]DAMGO (MOP receptors) and cAMP measurements were performed as previously described (14). Intracellular calcium concentration ([Ca2+]i) was monitored in living, perfused SH-SY5Y cells, by quantitative photometry using the fluorescent Ca2+ indicator Fluo-4 (14).

Coimmunoprecipitation Assay—Cell membranes (300-350 µg), prepared as described previously (14), were suspended and incubated for 1 h at 4 °C with gentle agitation in freshly prepared solubilization buffer consisting of 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.4), 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM EDTA, 0.5% Nonidet P-40 and protease inhibitor mixture (Complete EDTA-free, Roche Applied Science). The homogenate was then centrifuged at 20,000 x g for 2 min at 4 °C. The supernatant was precleared by incubation with 25 µl of EZView red protein A affinity gel (Sigma) for 3 h at 4 °C and centrifugation at 12,000 x g for 30 s. Immunoprecipitation was then performed with 2 µg of mouse monoclonal anti-GFP antibody for 1 h at 4 °C, followed by overnight incubation at 4 °C with protein A-agarose beads. The washing procedure was exactly as described by the manufacturer (Invitrogen). The immunoprecipitate was resuspended in Laemmli sample buffer (Sigma), boiled for 5 min, and subjected to 7.5% SDS-PAGE. Proteins in the gel were transferred to a polyvinylidene difluoride membrane for immunoblotting under standard conditions in Tris-buffered saline (20 mM Tris, pH 7.6, 137 mM NaCl) containing 0.1% Tween and 1% bovine serum albumin. Immunoreactivity was revealed with peroxidase-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (Jackson ImmunoResearch Laboratories) using the ECL Plus Western blotting detection kit (Amersham Biosciences).

Quantitative FRET Imaging—Cells were seeded on glass coverslips in 6-well plates. The following day, cells were rinsed three times with KRH buffer (124 mM NaCl, 5 mM KCl, 1.25 mM MgSO4, 1.5 mM CaCl2, 1.25 mM KH2PO4, 25 mM HEPES, 8 mM glucose, 0.5 mg/ml bovine serum albumin, pH 7.4) and then incubated for 5, 10, or 15 min at room temperature with 2 ml of buffer (control) or 2 ml of buffer plus 1 µM 1DMe or DAMGO. Cells were rinsed one time with KRH, one time with PBS, and were fixed with 3.8% formaldehyde (Sigma) in PBS for 20 min at room temperature. After three washes with 2 ml of PBS, slides were mounted in PBS on CoverWell imaging chambers (Sigma).

Images were captured with a Leica DM 5000B (Germany) upright fluorescence microscope equipped with a 100/1.4 oil immersion objective, a HBO mercury lamp and a cooled charge-coupled device camera (CoolSNAPES, Photometrics, Roper Scientific France). FRET measurements were performed under the "Sensitized FRET" configuration (32-34) of the Metafluor software (Universal Imaging Corp.). Three images of the same field were successively collected at 5-s intervals through three series of filters (Omega Optical Inc.): 1) FRET (Ex: 440AF21; 455DRLP; Em: 535AF26), (2) CFP (Ex: 440AF21; 455DRLP; Em: 480AF30), and 3) YFP (Ex: 500AF25; 525DRLP; Em: 545AF35). The integration time was 800 ms, without binning. Background correction was performed by subtracting an image of an empty field, acquired with the corresponding filter set under the same conditions. In each background-subtracted image, linear region of interest surrounding each cell were selected to quantify the mean fluorescence intensity at the plasma membrane, using Metamorph software (Universal Imaging Corp.).

FRET values were corrected (FRETc) for the contribution of CFP and YFP emission in the FRET channel due to bleed-through of fluorophores, according to Equation 1,

Formula(Eq.1)
where IFRET, ICFP, and IYFP, correspond to the mean fluorescence intensity of a given region of interest in the FRET, CFP, and YFP channels, respectively, and a and b are the ratio values IFRET/ICFP and IFRET/IYFP determined in cell lines expressing only CFP- or YFP-tagged receptors, respectively (32-34). An illustration of the fluorophore contribution in wild-type and transfected cells is given in Fig. 4. Non-transfected SH-SY5Y cells displayed a moderate and non-homogeneous autofluorescence that was only detected in the CFP and FRET channels, giving an IFRET/ICFP ratio of 2 (Fig. 4). In CFP cells, the contribution of CFP bleed-through into the FRET channel was b = 0.67 ± 0.02 (3). No fluorescence was detected at the acceptor excitation wavelength (Fig. 4). In YFP cells, the contribution of YFP fluorescence in the FRET channel was a = 0.54 ± 0.02 (3), calculated with FRET intensity values corrected for the autofluorescence contamination (twice the intensity recorded in the CFP channel). Because fluorescence intensity varied among cells, results were expressed as normalized FRET: FRETN = IFRETc/(ICFP x IYFP)1/2 (34).

Confocal Imaging—Cells seeded on glass coverslips were incubated for 30 min at room temperature with 5 µM agonist, after a 30-min preincubation in KRH buffer or KRH buffer containing 5 µM 1DMe. After fixation, the cells were mounted in Vectashield medium (AbCys, France) and observed on an upright laser scanner confocal microscope (Leica TCS SP2, Germany) with a 40/1 oil immersion objective. The excitation wavelength was 514 nm, and images were acquired without frame average or frame accumulation, with a zoom of 2.97.

vrFRAP Experiments on Living Cells—(SH2-D9)MOP-YFP cells were grown on glass coverslips in 6-well plates for 36 h. Each coverslip was washed with 3 ml of KRH buffer, placed on a homemade stainless steel slide, and left for 5 min at room temperature with 500 µl of KRH buffer (control) or 500 µl of KRH buffer containing 1 µM 1DMe. Cells were then covered with another coverslip and observed for 30-40 min at room temperature (20-22 °C).

A detailed description of the conditions for FRAP experiments with variable observation radius (vrFRAP) has been previously reported (26). The vrFRAP work station consisted of an upright Leitz Ortholux II fluorescence microscope coupled to a photomultiplier detection system and equipped with a 63/1.3 oil immersion objective combined to a set of diaphragms allowing the diameter of the observed field to vary between 1.4 and 3.45 µm. The cell membrane was illuminated with an argon laser beam ({lambda}ex = 488 nm), and the fluorescence was recorded over a period of 30 s, including3sof acquisition before bleaching. Shutter and laser settings were adjusted to prevent photobleaching during recording and to obtain a 40-60% bleaching rate during the 20- to 40-ms bleaching time. For a given observation radius, the measurements were repeated in at least 30 cells. No variation in cell responses was observed over the 30-40 min of observation.

Fluorescence recovery curves were analyzed by fitting experimental data to a mathematical model of diffusion (35) with a customized minimization algorithm. The apparent diffusion coefficient (Dapp) and the mobile fraction (M) corresponding to the fluorescent molecules that can diffuse through the bleached area (25) were deduced from the pool of recovery curves of each examined sample. The radius (r) of the diffusion area of the mobile fraction could be estimated from the relationship between M and the observation radius (R) described by Equation 2 (28),

Formula(Eq.2)

where Mp represents the permanent mobile fraction able to freely diffuse over long distances and which is independent of R. For closed areas, the real diffusion coefficient (Dreal) in the domain can be calculated from Equation 3.

Formula(Eq.3)

Analysis of Data—Non-linear regression and statistical analysis of the data were performed using Prism 4.01 (GraphPad software Inc.).


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Characterization of SH-SY5Y Cells Stably Expressing Receptors Tagged with Spectral Variants of GFP—SH-SY5Y cells transfected with CFP-tagged NPFF2 receptors were selected for an expression level comparable (Bmax = 367 fmol/mg, Fig. 1A) to that of endogenous opioid receptors (100-300 fmol/mg) in SH-SY5Y cells (14). CFP-tagged NPFF2 receptors retained high ligand affinity (Fig. 1A) and were still able to inhibit adenylyl cyclase (Fig. 1B), although with a slightly lower potency compared with non-tagged receptors (Fig. 1, B versus D). Importantly, the anti-opioid activity of NPFF2-tagged receptors was verified (Fig. 2 and text below) to make sure of the validity of the model, and the selected clone was further transfected with YFP-tagged MOP receptors to give the NPFF2-CFP/MOP-YFP cell line. In the doubly transfected clone, the affinity of [3H]DAMGO (KD = 0.34 nM, Fig. 1C) was similar to that measured in SH-SY5Y cells (14), and the MOP receptor density was an order of magnitude larger (Bmax = 1.08 pmol/mg, Fig. 1C). Therefore, the total level of fluorescent receptors in the NPFF2-CFP/MOP-YFP cell line was moderate, which prevented generation of FRET arising from random collision due to overexpression (36). This also yielded an optimal stoichiometry of donor and acceptor (1/2) for measuring FRET (37, 38).

To investigate the effect of the NPFF agonist on the internalization of MOP receptors as well as on their lateral displacement on the membrane surface, MOP-YFP cDNA was also introduced in the SH2-D9 clone expressing NPFF2 receptors, previously characterized as a model for NPFF anti-opioid activity (14). The ability of YFP-tagged MOP receptors to inhibit forskolin-induced cAMP in (SH2-D9)MOP-YFP cells was verified (Fig. 1D). Receptors were functional, with a better efficacy (80% versus 50%) and potency (~3nM versus 0.5-1 µM) than native SH-SY5Y opioid receptors (14).

Anti-opioid Activity of CFP-tagged NPFF2 Receptor—The antagonistic activity of NPFF agonists on the opioid-induced reduction of the Ca2+ transients triggered by depolarization in SH-SY5Y cells has been previously well characterized (14). Although the magnitude of the response to depolarization was unchanged in cells treated for 30 min with 0.1 µM 1DMe ({Delta}(F/F0) = 2.233 ± 0.132, n = 123 in treated cells compared with 2.227 ± 0.167, n = 110 in control cells), the response to DAMGO was reduced by 40-50%. As shown in Fig. 2, the presence of CFP at the C-terminal end of the NPFF2 receptor did not prevent its anti-opioid activity. DAMGO (1 µM) reduced by 40-50% the magnitude of the Ca2+ transients evoked by KCl depolarization in wild-type and in NPFF2- or NPFF2-CFP-transfected SH-SY5Y cells. 1DMe (0.1 µM, for 30 min at room temperature) was inactive in wild-type SH-SY5Y cells but halved the inhibitory effect of DAMGO in NPFF2 as well as in NPFF2-CFP transfected cells, indicating that CFP-tagged receptors retained their ability to functionally antagonize MOP receptors.


Figure 1
View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 1.
Pharmacological characterization of SH-SY5Y cells expressing CFP-tagged NPFF2 receptors (A and B), YFP-tagged MOP receptors (D) or both (C). A and C, saturation curves of three experiments performed in duplicate corresponding to the specific binding of [125I]EYF on the membrane of cells stably expressing NPFF2-CFP receptors (A) or the specific binding of [3H]DAMGO on membrane of cells co-expressing MOP-YFP and NPFF2-CFP receptors (C). B and D, dose-response curves of the inhibition of forskolin-induced intracellular cAMP accumulation by 1DMe (black square) or DAMGO (white square) in cells expressing either NPFF2-CFP receptors (B) or non-tagged NPFF2 receptors together with YFP-tagged MOP receptors (D). Curves correspond to the mean ± S.E. of three experiments performed in duplicate.

 


Figure 2
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 2.
Comparison of the anti-opioid activity of 1DMe in SH-SY5Y wild-type cells or cells transfected with either NPFF2 or NPFF2-CFP receptors. Bars represent the percentage of reduction (mean ± S.E.) of depolarization-induced Ca2+ transients by 1 µM DAMGO in cells preincubated for 30 min (black) or not (gray) with 0.1 µM 1DMe. The number of cells in each condition is indicated in the columns. *, significantly different from its respective control (p < 0.05, Student's t test).

 
Modulation of MOP Receptor Internalization by 1DMe—The effect of 1DMe on the internalization of MOP receptors was explored by quantitative confocal imaging in (SH2-D9)MOP-YFP cells. As described in the literature, MOP receptors were internalized after 30-min stimulation by 5 µM DAMGO (Fig. 3A). The fluorescence intensity measured at the cell membrane was reduced by 40% (Fig. 3B). Neither internalization of MOP receptors (Fig. 3A) nor a significant decrease of membrane fluorescence (Fig. 3B) was observed following a 30-min incubation with 5 µM 1DMe, indicating that stimulation of NPFF receptors does not produce MOP receptor endocytosis and that anti-opioid activity of NPFF is probably not due to a loss of MOP receptors at the cell surface. In contrast, in cells preincubated for 30 min with 5 µM 1DMe before DAMGO stimulation, internalization of MOP receptors was still observable (Fig. 3A), but the reduction of membrane fluorescence was only 20% (Fig. 3B), indicating that stimulation of NPFF receptors prevents internalization of MOP receptors. This experiment describes therefore a novel anti-opioid effect exerted by NPFF on opioid receptor endocytosis.

Visualization of the Interaction between NPFF2 and MOP Receptors by FRET—FRET experiments were carried out to test if receptor interaction or proximity could be involved in the functional blockade of opioid receptors by NPFF. FRET was measured by fluorescence imaging using the three-filter method that allows for correction of FRET (FRETc) for the contribution of fluorophores and autofluorescence in the FRET channel (see details under "Experimental Procedures"). Fig. 4 shows images acquired through the three filter sets (CFP, YFP, and FRET) for wild-type, CFP-transfected, and YFP-transfected SH-SY5Y cells, giving an illustration of the autofluorescence and fluorophore bleed-through in the FRET channel. In preliminary time-lapse experiments on living cells, we noticed that the FRET signal changed over time. However, this was difficult to quantify because of variations in fluorescence due to cell movement, membrane shape fluctuations, and photobleaching. Therefore, FRET was measured on fixed cells, first treated for different times with agonists.

Fig. 5 shows an example of the images obtained in NPFF2-CFP/MOP-YFP SH-SY5Y cells. Corrected FRET was detected at the membrane of control cells, suggesting that basal FRET occurred. FRETc intensity was higher in the membrane of cells treated with 1 µM 1DMe, whereas, conversely, it was lower in cells treated with 1 µM DAMGO. Quantification and analysis of FRETN in control cells showed scattered values, with cells exhibiting more or less FRET (Fig. 6A). However, when cells were treated with 1 µM 1DMe, the proportion of cells giving high FRETN values was significantly increased at 10 min (upper quartile 0.84 versus 0.65) and 15 min (upper quartile 0.74 versus 0.58) but not at 5 min (upper quartile 0.61 versus 0.67). In contrast, incubation of cells with 1 µM DAMGO significantly displaced the population of cells toward low, indeed null, values at 5 min (lower quartile 0.32 versus 0.41) and 10 min (lower quartile 0.14 versus 0.38). These results clearly indicate therefore that basal FRET occurs and is modulated by agonists in a time-dependent fashion in cells cotransfected with GFP-tagged NPFF2 and MOP receptors. Basal FRET significantly increased (10-15%) upon stimulation with the NPFF agonist, whereas it decreased (22-33%) upon stimulation with the opioid agonist (Fig. 6B), probably because of the internalization of MOP receptors as described above.


Figure 3
View larger version (58K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 3.
Internalization of MOP-YFP receptors in (SH2-D9)MOP-YFP cells. A, representative confocal images of transfected SH-SY5Y cells preincubated for 30 min at room temperature in KRH buffer followed by a 30-min incubation with buffer (Control), 5 µM DAMGO (top right), or 5 µM 1DMe (bottom left). The bottom right image corresponds to cells first preincubated with 5 µM 1DMe for 30 min and then incubated in the presence of 5 µM DAMGO for 30 min. After treatment, cells were fixed and observed at {lambda}ex 514 nm with objective X40. B, quantification of MOP-YFP receptor internalization in (SH2-D9)MOP-YFP cells. Bars represent the mean ± S.E. of the fluorescence intensity measured on the membrane of cells treated as above. Control, n = 314; DAMGO, n = 192; 1DMe, n = 272; DAMGO after 1DMe, n = 171. #, significantly different and *, significantly different from its respective control (p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance followed by Bonferroni's multiple comparison test).

 


Figure 4
View larger version (90K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 4.
Fluorescence microscopy in SH-SY5Y wild-type cells (top) or cells transfected with NPFF2-CFP alone (middle) or MOP-YFP alone (bottom) receptors. Cells were fixed, and images from a field were acquired for 800 ms without binning with a x100 objective in the CFP (left), YFP (middle), and FRET (right) channels. Images were corrected for background fluorescence and represented in pseudocolor. Images from wild-type cells show that CFP, but not YFP, excitation wavelength gives rise to intracellular autofluorescence of the highest intensity in the FRET channel. Images from cells transfected with CFP-tagged or YFP-tagged receptors show (i) specific labeling of the membrane at their respective excitation wavelength, (ii) no signal in the other one, except autofluorescence in the CFP channel for MOP-YFP cells, and (iii) bleed-through of fluorophores in the FRET channel. Quantification of the membrane fluorescence intensity was performed on 10-15 images acquired in these conditions (four experiments) to correct FRET images for autofluorescence and contribution of fluorophores in FRET experiments (see details in the "Experimental Procedures").

 
Biochemical Characterization of NPFF2-MOP Receptor Interaction—The presence of heteromeric NPFF2·MOP receptor complexes in the membrane of cells was further investigated by coimmunoprecipitation studies. Anti-GFP antibodies, which recognize both variants of the green fluorescent protein, were used to immunoprecipitate CFP-tagged NPFF2 receptors in NPFF2-CFP cells, and the presence of endogenous MOP receptor in the immunoprecipitate was visualized using anti-MOP receptor antibodies.

Fig. 7A shows that anti-GFP antibodies specifically recognize a band of 110-120 kDa in solubilized membranes from MOP-YFP-transfected cells that corresponds to the fusion of YFP (27 kDa) with MOP receptor. The deduced size for MOP receptor (83-93 kDa) is in accordance with that reported for overexpressed MOP receptors in SH-SY5Y cells (39)3 and indicates that MOP receptor is highly glycosylated in SH-SY5Y. In contrast, no band could be specifically detected in extracts from NPFF2-CFP cells that express 10- to 20-fold less tagged receptors than MOP-YFP cells.


Figure 5
View larger version (101K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 5.
Detection of FRET between NPFF2-CFP and MOP-YFP receptors. Example of images, acquired as in Fig. 4, from NPFF2-CFP/MOP-YFP cells incubated for 10 min at room temperature in KRH buffer (Control) or in KRH buffer with 1 µM NPFF agonist (1DMe) or 1 µM opioid agonist (DAMGO), before fixation. FRETc corresponds to images corrected for background, autofluorescence, and contribution of CFP and YFP bleed-through, as described under "Experimental Procedures," and displayed using quantitative pseudocolor scale. FRET is detected at the membrane of control cells and is increased after incubation with the NPFF agonist. In contrast, no FRET is detectable at the membrane of cells treated with the opioid agonist.

 
After immunoprecipitation with mouse monoclonal anti-GFP antibody, polyclonal anti-GFP antibodies selectively detected bands in extracts from cells expressing tagged receptors, but not in SH2-D9 cells (Fig. 7B, left blot). The major band in the MOP-YFP lane corresponds to that observed in solubilized extract from (SH2-D9)MOP-YFP cells (Fig. 7A), and the band above 72 kDa in the NPFF2-CFP lane corresponds to the expected size of the fusion of NPFF2 receptor (49 kDa) and GFP (27 kDa). This indicates that monoclonal anti-GFP antibodies were able to specifically precipitate GFP-tagged receptors. Immunodetection with anti-MOP receptor antibodies in the immunoprecipitates revealed bands only in cells expressing NPFF2-CFP receptors but not in cells expressing wild-type NPFF2 receptors (Fig. 7B, right). The apparent molecular mass of the band around 90 kDa corresponds to the estimated size of MOP receptor expressed in SH-SY5Y (83-93 kDa), the other bands being not always observed. This result indicates that MOP receptor is coimmunoprecipitated with NPFF2-CFP receptors, suggesting the existence of heteromeric complexes in membranes of doubly transfected cells. We failed to determine if these complexes were increased after treatment with 1DMe, because variation in the yield of coimmunoprecipitation from one experiment to another prevented the necessary accuracy for quantitative analysis.

Modulation of the MOP Receptor Diffusion in the Plasma Membrane by 1DMe—Because receptor interaction was strongly suggested by FRET and coimmunoprecipitation studies, we investigated whether the stimulation of NPFF receptors could modulate the lateral mobility of MOP receptors at the cell surface. FRAP experiments were conducted at different illumination areas with radii (R) ranging from 1.4 to 3.45 µm on membranes of (SH2-D9)MOP-YFP cells that express wild-type NPFF2 receptors in addition to tagged MOP receptors. The apparent diffusion coefficient (Dapp) and the mobile fraction (M) were deduced from the fluorescence recovery curves recorded for each radius on cells treated or not treated by 1 µM 1DMe (Fig. 8A).

For (SH2-D9)MOP-YFP cells in control conditions, the mobile fraction linearly increased with 1/R, giving a straight line that intercepted the y axis at Mp = 46 ± 8% (Fig. 8B). According to Equation 2 ("Experimental Procedures"), this indicates that ~54% of MOP receptors are compartmentalized in areas with a mean radius of 1.03 ± 0.26 µm, as deduced from the slope. Their real diffusion coefficient in these domains, deduced from Equation 3, is estimated to be between 0.02 and 0.07 µm2/s. The other fraction (46%) of receptors freely diffuses either over long distances between closed domains, or through domains with partial permeability. These results are in accordance with a recent report showing that GFP-tagged MOP receptors expressed in SH-SY5Y diffuse (Dreal around 0.03 µm2/s) in a restricted area of 0.7 µm radius, with a 55% permanent mobile fraction (40).

In contrast, when cells were treated with 1DMe, neither the mobile fraction (Fig. 8B) nor the apparent diffusion coefficient varied with the observation radius, indicating that, whatever the bleached area, ~80% of the receptors were freely moving on the cell surface with Dapp = Dreal = 0.2 µm2/s. ~20% of the fluorescence was never recovered, suggesting either compartmentalization of receptors in very small domains with a radius smaller than the observation radius or a total immobilization of receptors.

To make sure that the effect of 1DMe was not due to a non-specific rearrangement of the membrane structure, FRAP experiments were also performed in the GFP-MOP SH-SY5Y cell line (40), which does not express NPFF receptors. In these conditions, the mobile fraction of GFP-tagged MOP receptors at the 3.45-µm observation radius was not significantly different (p > 0.05, unpaired Student's t test) in control (Mp = 66.10 ± 1.72%, n = 3) and 1DMe-treated cells (Mp = 62.60 ± 2.63%, n = 3), whereas it was significantly different in (SH2-D9)MOP-YFP cells (Mp = 56.23 ± 4.15% in control versus 82.43 ± 5.48% in 1DMe-treated cells, n = 3). Therefore, these data clearly demonstrate that 1DMe modulates the lateral mobility of opioid receptors by a mechanism that requires the presence of NPFF receptors.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Heteromerization is considered to be a general characteristic of GPCR functioning and is now being targeted in new drug-screening strategies (41). Depending on the type of receptors, dimerization is essential for functional activity (GABAB receptors (42)) or provides new pharmacological entities with enhanced, or reduced, efficiency (17). Heteromeric complexes may either pre-exist at the cell surface or are formed or disrupted, upon agonist stimulation (36). With regard to the opioid field, MOP receptors have been found associated with {delta}-opioid, nociceptin, somatostatin (sst2A), substance P (NK1), chemokine (CCR5), adrenergic ({alpha}2), and cannabinoid (CB1) receptors by using biochemical and/or bioluminescence techniques (43-51). In the particular case of MOP/{delta}-opioid assembly, allosteric modulation by agonists improves the binding and functional activity of the heteromer, revealing important consequences in terms of analgesia, because low doses of {delta} agonists or antagonists increase binding and signaling of µ-selective agonists (44). Our present work provides biochemical and biophysical evidence for a physical interaction between MOP and NPFF2 receptors as a molecular basis for the anti-opioid activity of NPFF agonists in neurons.


Figure 6
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 6.
Temporal variation of the agonist-induced modulation of FRET. NPFF2-CFP/MOP-YFP cells were incubated for different times with buffer or with buffer containing 1 µM agonist, before fixation. CFP, YFP, and FRET intensities were quantified at the plasma membrane of cells from images acquired as in Fig. 5 (20-30 images per condition, at least performed twice). For each measure, FRETc was calculated and normalized to the CFP and YFP intensity in the same region of interest to give FRETN. A, scatter plot representation of individual FRETN values in control cells (black) and in cells treated with 1 µM 1DMe (light gray) or DAMGO (dark gray), as a function of time. The horizontal line indicates the median position. *, significantly different from its respective control (p < 0.05, non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison). B, bars represent mean ± S.E. of the percent change of FRETN in cells treated with 1 µM 1DMe or DAMGO for 5, 10, and 15 min, respectively, compared with the mean of controls at respective times ([(FRETNagonist-FRETNcontrol)/FRETNcontrol] x 100). The number of values in each condition are from left to right: 155, 282, 157, 343, 399, and 336. *, significantly different from its respective control (p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance followed by Bonferroni's multiple comparison test).

 


Figure 7
View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 7.
Western blots and coimmunoprecipitation experiments in SH-SY5Y cell lines. A, Western blot (WB) analysis using anti-GFP antibodies (1/1000 dilution) of solubilized membranes from SH-SY5Y wild type (WT) or transfected with NPFF2 receptor (SH2-D9), with CFP-tagged NPFF2 receptor (NPFF2-CFP), and with both NPFF2 and MOP-YFP receptors ((SH2-D9)MOP-YFP). B, immunoprecipitation (IP) was performed using mouse monoclonal anti-GFP antibody in solubilized membranes from SH2-D9 control cells and from SH-SY5Y cells expressing CFP- or YFP-tagged receptors. Blots were immunolabeled with rabbit polyclonal anti-GFP antibodies (left) and anti-MOP receptor antibodies (right) at 1/1000 dilution. The arrowhead indicates the band corresponding to MOP receptor immunoprecipitated with NPFF2-CFP receptor.

 
Using FRET, we demonstrate that the NPFF analog 1DMe promotes NPFF2·MOP receptor association, whereas the opioid agonist DAMGO disrupts it. The constitutive association suggested by basal FRET is strengthened by immunoprecipitation experiments showing that both receptors are present in interacting complexes. 1DMe gradually increases FRET from 10 to 15 min, which corresponds to the minimal duration of preincubation necessary to observe anti-opioid activity in response to NPFF agonist, suggesting that both phenomena are correlated in time (12-15). Similar kinetics (maximal effect from 5 to 15 min) for FRET or BRET signals upon agonist stimulation have been reported for other receptors (36), indicating that induction of dimeric complexes by agonist is a dynamic process. On the other hand, the reduction of FRET by DAMGO is also time-dependent and could be related to the concomitant opioid-induced receptor endocytosis that removes the acceptor partner in the FRET couple. This has been reported for endothelin ETA/ETB heterodimers (52). A return to the basal FRET level after 15 min could be due to the recycling of receptor in the time course of the internalization process. Therefore, NPFF2·MOP receptor heteromeric complexes exist at the basal level and are differently modulated by NPFF and opioid agonists. This correlates with the fact that NPFF agonists impair the opioid response, whereas opioid agonists are ineffective on NPFF receptor activation in SH-SY5Y cells (14, 15). An inhibition of opioid response by pretreatment or simultaneous addition of the heterologous agonist is also described in cells cotransfected with MOP receptors and {alpha}2 adrenergic (50), nociceptin (45), or cannabinoid (CB1) (51) receptors, but, in contrast to the NPFF-MOP interaction, there is not yet evidence that it occurs in isolated neurons. Moreover, unlike the MOP·NPFF2 receptor association, {alpha}2 adrenergic and CB1 cannabinoid receptors are reciprocally inhibited by opioid agonists, indicating cross-desensitization in these cases and suggesting a different mechanism for NPFF receptors.

1DMe also modulates the trafficking of MOP receptors by reducing (40%) their internalization, likely as a consequence of receptor heteromerization (18). Much data show that receptors in heteromers are co-internalized upon stimulation with one of the two agonists, and this is generally associated with cross-phosphorylation and cross-desensitization, as for MOP·NK1, MOP·sst2A, MOP·CCR5 receptor heteromers (46-48). But it is also described that the receptor showing the slowest endocytosis prevails in the heteromer and acts as a dominant-negative for internalization. This has been demonstrated for the endothelin ETB receptor whose sequestration mediated by the non-selective endothelin-1 agonist is delayed when complexed to ETA receptor (52). Similarly, the non-internalizing beta3-adrenergic receptor blocks the recruitment of beta-arrestin by the beta2 receptor and the subsequent endocytosis of beta2/beta3 heterodimer (53). Such a mechanism could occur in the case of the inhibition of MOP receptor internalization by 1DMe. Although we have no quantitative data on the trafficking of NPFF2 receptors, essentially because the CFP signal is too weak for an accurate quantification under our conditions of confocal microscopy, a clear pattern of NPFF2 receptor endocytosis was not observed after 30-min incubation with NPFF or opioid agonists, suggesting that NPFF receptors do not undergo internalization upon stimulation and could therefore act as a dominant-negative for MOP receptor endocytosis. Whether the blockade of opioid receptor endocytosis is the direct consequence of the physical interaction between each protomer or results from a reduced opioid receptor activity remains to be addressed.


Figure 8
View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 8.
Analysis of the lateral mobility of YFP-tagged MOP receptors at the plasma membrane by vrFRAP. A, representative fluorescence recovery measures from a photobleached membrane area of 3.45-µm radius in (SH2-D9)MOP-YFP living cells incubated with KRH buffer (gray) or KRH buffer containing 1 µM 1DMe (black). The plot corresponds to normalized intensity (It - I1/Io - I1) x 100 versus time, where Io, I1, and It are the fluorescence intensities before bleaching, just after bleaching and at time t postbleaching, respectively. Information from the curve is used to determine the mobile fraction (M) and the apparent diffusion coefficient (Dapp) of the fluorescent receptors. B, plot of the M values in function of the inverse of the illumination radius (R) in control (white) and 1DMe (black)-treated cells. Each point represents the mean ± S.E. of M values determined in 3-4 campaigns of 30 records. For control cells, the slope of the linear regression is 0.66 ± 0.016 µm; whereas, for cells treated with 1 µM 1DMe, the slope is not significantly different from 0, indicating that the NPFF agonist is able to change the dynamic behavior of YFP-MOP receptors.

 
In heteromeric complexes, the modulation of one receptor response does not necessarily require activation of the other. By using AT2 receptors with impaired binding or functional activity, Abdalla et al. (19) have demonstrated that the reduction of the AT1 receptor-mediated signaling in the AT2/AT1 receptor dimer is only produced by the presence of AT2 receptor. Conversely, the presence of adrenergic {alpha}2 receptor is sufficient to improve the efficacy of MOP receptors in the {alpha}2·MOP heteromer (50). The beta3-adrenergic receptor in complex with beta2 blocks beta2 internalization without being activated (53). In the case of NPFF receptors, binding of agonist, not necessarily with activation of the receptor, could be sufficient to produce anti-opioid activity, because (i) in neurons isolated from rat dorsal raphe and periventricular nuclei, NPFF agonists inhibit the effect of nociceptin on the voltage-gated Ca2+ channel without producing measurable activity by themselves (12, 13) and (ii) anti-opioid activity of NPFF1 receptors in SH-SY5Y cells is observed at concentrations of agonist 10-fold lower than that necessary to produce direct modulation of Ca2+ signaling (15).

A modification of the diffusion properties of MOP receptors could be proposed as another consequence of the physical interaction with NPFF receptors. Lateral diffusion of proteins in the membrane has been studied extensively, especially in the context of the organization of the neuronal synapse, where it appears to play a key role in the regulation of synapse function during resting conditions or in plasticity (54, 55). Receptors can diffuse over long distances or within constrained domains and can be transiently trapped at specific loci by factors such as scaffolding proteins, obstacles, lipid organization, attractive potentials, etc. that restrict their movement. This has led to the notion that membranes are compartmentalized in microdomains, the nature of which is still debated. Along this line, some but not all GPCR are thought to be present together with signaling molecules in structures enriched in saturated lipids and cholesterol called rafts or detergent-resistant membrane. In this regard, analysis of the lateral mobility of MOP receptors by FRAP shows that 54% of receptors at the surface of SH-SY5Y cells diffuse in restricted domains of ~1-µm radius, with a diffusion coefficient in the range (0.01-0.1 µm2/s) described for GPCR or other proteins in membranes (55). This result is consistent with previous studies of single-particle tracking (56) or FRAP experiments (40) in cells expressing MOP receptors. Upon application of the NPFF agonist 1DMe, nearly all MOP receptors become freely moving with a 10-fold increased diffusion coefficient, suggesting that activation of NPFF2 receptors removes MOP receptors from their domain anchoring. This effect is in total opposition with that of DAMGO, which increases MOP receptor compartmentalization in SH-SY5Y cells (40)4 and with that of agonists in general. Stimulation by agonist slows down the diffusion of chemokine CXCR1 (57) and luteinizing hormone receptors (58), even leading to immobilization in the case of neurokinin NK2 receptors (26), and/or accentuates receptor confinement by increasing the immobile fraction (57, 58) or by reducing the size of the diffusion domain (26). In contrast, the effect of 1DMe rather looks like the action of an antagonist, which produces no effect in the case of serotonin receptors (59) or increases the mobile fraction in the case of N-formyl peptide receptors (60), suggesting therefore that the functional blockade and the mobility change of opioid receptors by NPFF could be linked.

To our knowledge, the study presented here provides the first report showing the influence of a GPCR on the mobility of another one, although this type of interaction has been recently described for the dopaminergic D1 receptor and the N-methyl-D-aspartic acid receptor channel (27). In this study, by measuring FRAP in organotypic culture from rat striatum transfected with fluorescent D1 receptors, the authors have clearly demonstrated that D1 receptors, which laterally diffuse in dendritic membranes, are recruited in spines by a diffusion trap mechanism upon 30-s exposure to N-methyl-D-aspartic acid. This does not require activation of the channel but only allosteric modulation by the ligand. By analogy, we could postulate that agonist occupation of NPFF receptors reduces the opioid response by moving opioid receptors out of their signaling platform, or at least, by decreasing their affinity for effectors or scaffolding partners. In this sense, a close association of opioid receptors with transduction effectors is supported by the fact that nociceptin and MOP receptors have been found localized and active within rafts together with G-proteins (39, 61) and that voltage-dependent inhibition of N-type Ca2+ channels by opioids is mediated by a membrane-delimited pathway involving a direct interaction of the beta{gamma} subunits of the heterotrimeric G protein on the {alpha}1 subunit of the channel (62, 63). Therefore, by increasing the mobility of MOP receptors, NPFF could weaken their association with G-protein and channel subunits, resulting in a reduced inhibition of the Ca2+ channel by the opioid agonist, i.e. an anti-opioid effect.

In conclusion, the present study shows that a physical interaction between NPFF2 and MOP receptors could explain the anti-opioid activity of NPFF2 receptors. By promoting a heteromeric association with MOP receptors, NPFF agonists change the lateral diffusion of MOP receptors from a constrained to a free state, likely moving them away from their signaling partners. As a consequence, the response to opioids is reduced. The modulation of the delivery and trafficking of {delta}-opioid receptors at the cell surface is assumed to be a means for regulating MOP receptor function, hence opioid analgesia and tolerance (64). Likewise, the molecular mechanism described here for NPFF, comparable to the diffusion-trap system of the synapse, could represent another way to modulate the opioid response.


   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

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed: Tel.: 33-56-117-5922; Fax: 33-56-117-5994; E-mail: catherine.mollereau-manaute{at}ipbs.fr.

2 The abbreviations used are: NPFF, neuropeptide FF; GPCR, G-protein-coupled receptor; MOP, µ-opioid; GFP, green fluorescent protein; CFP, cyan fluorescent protein; YFP, yellow fluorescent protein; FRET, fluorescence resonance energy transfer; FRAP, fluorescence recovery after photobleaching; vrFRAP, FRAP at variable observation radius; DAMGO, Tyr-D-Ala-Gly-NMe-Phe-gly-ol; FRETc, FRET with values corrected; 1DMe, D-Tyr-Leu-(NMe)Phe-Gln-Pro-Gln-Arg-Phe-NH2. Back

3 L. Moulédous, personal communication. Back

4 Saulière, A., Varela-Chavez, C., Favarel, S., Mazères, S., Millot, C., Lopez, A., and Salomé, L. (2007) Biophysical Society, 51st Meeting, March 3-7, 2007, Baltimore, MD. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Bernard Ducommun for free access to FRET equipment, Aude Saulière for providing us with the GFP-MOP SH-SY5Y cell line, Lionel Moulédous for critical review of the manuscript, and John Miller for proofreading the text.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Zajac, J. M., and Mollereau, C. (2006) Peptides 27, 941-942[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Panula, P., Aarnisalo, A. A., and Wasowicz, K. (1996) Prog. Neurobiol. 48, 461-487[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Zajac, J. M. (2001) Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 22, 63[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Harrison, L. M., Kastin, A. J., and Zadina, J. E. (1998) Peptides 19, 1603-1630[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Cesselin, F. (1995) Fundam. Clin. Pharmacol. 9, 409-433[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Panula, P., Kalso, E., Nieminen, M., Kontinen, V. K., Brandt, A., and Pertovaara, A. (1999) Brain Res. 848, 191-196[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Roumy, M., and Zajac, J. M. (1998) Eur. J. Pharmacol. 345, 1-11[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Rothman, R. B. (1992) Synapse 12, 129-138[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Mollereau, C., Roumy, M., and Zajac, J. M. (2005) Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 5, 341-355[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Mauborgne, A., Bourgoin, S., Polienor, H., Roumy, M., Simonnet, G., Zajac, J. M., and Cesselin, F. (2001) Eur. J. Pharmacol. 430, 273-276[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Takeuchi, T., Fujita, A., Roumy, M., Zajac, J. M., and Hata, F. (2001) Jpn. J. Pharmacol. 86, 417-422[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Roumy, M., and Zajac, J. (1999) Brain Res. 845, 208-214[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Roumy, M., Garnier, M., and Zajac, J. M. (2003) Neurosci. Lett. 348, 159-162[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Mollereau, C., Mazarguil, H., Zajac, J. M., and Roumy, M. (2005) Mol. Pharmacol. 67, 965-975[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Kersante, F., Mollereau, C., Zajac, J. M., and Roumy, M. (2006) Peptides 27, 980-989[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Vaughan, P. F., Peers, C., and Walker, J. H. (1995) Gen. Pharmacol. 26, 1191-1201[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Devi, L. A. (2001) Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 22, 532-537[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Terrillon, S., and Bouvier, M. (2004) EMBO Rep. 5, 30-34[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. AbdAlla, S., Lother, H., Abdel-tawab, A. M., and Quitterer, U. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 39721-39726[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Pfeiffer, M., Koch, T., Schroder, H., Klutzny, M., Kirscht, S., Kreienkamp, H. J., Hollt, V., and Schulz, S. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 14027-14036[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Tsien, R. Y. (1998) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 67, 509-544[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. Pollok, B. A., and Heim, R. (1999) Trends Cell Biol. 9, 57-60[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Marshall, F. H. (2001) Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 1, 40-44[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Sekar, R. B., and Periasamy, A. (2003) J. Cell Biol. 160, 629-633[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Lippincott-Schwartz, J., Snapp, E., and Kenworthy, A. (2001) Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2, 444-456[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Cezanne, L., Lecat, S., Lagane, B., Millot, C., Vollmer, J. Y., Matthes, H., Galzi, J. L., and Lopez, A. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 45057-45067[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Scott, L., Zelenin, S., Malmersjo, S., Kowalewski, J. M., Markus, E. Z., Nairn, A. C., Greengard, P., Brismar, H., and Aperia, A. (2006) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 103, 762-767[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Salome, L., Cazeils, J. L., Lopez, A., and Tocanne, J. F. (1998) Eur. Biophys. J. 27, 391-402[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Gouarderes, C., Quelven, I., Mollereau, C., Mazarguil, H., Rice, S. Q., and Zajac, J. M. (2002) Neuroscience 115, 349-361[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Zacharias, D. A., Violin, J. D., Newton, A. C., and Tsien, R. Y. (2002) Science 296, 913-916[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Kotani, M., Mollereau, C., Detheux, M., Le Poul, E., Brezillon, S., Vakili, J., Mazarguil, H., Vassart, G., Zajac, J. M., and Parmentier, M. (2001) Br. J. Pharmacol. 133, 138-144[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Gordon, G. W., Berry, G., Liang, X. H., Levine, B., and Herman, B. (1998) Biophys. J. 74, 2702-2713
  33. Sorkin, A., McClure, M., Huang, F., and Carter, R. (2000) Curr. Biol. 10, 1395-1398[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Xia, Z., and Liu, Y. (2001) Biophys. J. 81, 2395-2402
  35. Lopez, A., Dupou, L., Altibelli, A., Trotard, J., and Tocanne, J. F. (1988) Biophys. J. 53, 963-970
  36. Pfleger, K. D., and Eidne, K. A. (2005) Biochem. J. 385, 625-637[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  37. Berney, C., and Danuser, G. (2003) Biophys. J. 84, 3992-4010
  38. Vogel, S. S., Thaler, C., and Koushik, S. V. (2006) Sci. STKE 2006, RE2
  39. Mouledous, L., Neasta, J., Uttenweiler-Joseph, S., Stella, A., Matondo, M., Corbani, M., Monsarrat, B., and Meunier, J. C. (2005) Mol. Pharmacol. 68, 467-476[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Saulière, A., Gaibelet, G., Millot, C., Mazères, S., Lopez, A., and Salomé, L. (2006) FEBS Lett. 580, 5227-5231[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Gupta, A., Decaillot, F. M., and Devi, L. A. (2006) AAPS J. 8, E153-E159[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  42. White, J. H., Wise, A., Main, M. J., Green, A., Fraser, N. J., Disney, G. H., Barnes, A. A., Emson, P., Foord, S. M., and Marshall, F. H. (1998) Nature 396, 679-682[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  43. Gomes, I., Jordan, B. A., Gupta, A., Trapaidze, N., Nagy, V., and Devi, L. A. (2000) J. Neurosci. 20, RC110[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Gomes, I., Gupta, A., Filipovska, J., Szeto, H. H., Pintar, J. E., and Devi, L. A. (2004) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 101, 5135-5139[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Wang, H. L., Hsu, C. Y., Huang, P. C., Kuo, Y. L., Li, A. H., Yeh, T. H., Tso, A. S., and Chen, Y. L. (2005) J. Neurochem. 92, 1285-1294[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  46. Pfeiffer, M., Koch, T., Schroder, H., Laugsch, M., Hollt, V., and Schulz, S. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 19762-19772[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Pfeiffer, M., Kirscht, S., Stumm, R., Koch, T., Wu, D., Laugsch, M., Schroder, H., Hollt, V., and Schulz, S. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 51630-51637[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Chen, C., Li, J., Bot, G., Szabo, I., Rogers, T. J., and Liu-Chen, L. Y. (2004) Eur. J. Pharmacol. 483, 175-186[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  49. Suzuki, S., Chuang, L. F., Yau, P., Doi, R. H., and Chuang, R. Y. (2002) Exp. Cell Res. 280, 192-200[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  50. Jordan, B. A., Gomes, I., Rios, C., Filipovska, J., and Devi, L. A. (2003) Mol. Pharmacol. 64, 1317-1324[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Rios, C., Gomes, I., and Devi, L. A. (2006) Br. J. Pharmacol. 148, 387-395[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  52. Gregan, B., Jurgensen, J., Papsdorf, G., Furkert, J., Schaefer, M., Beyermann, M., Rosenthal, W., and Oksche, A. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 27679-27687[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Breit, A., Lagace, M., and Bouvier, M. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 28756-28765[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Choquet, D., and Triller, A. (2003) Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 4, 251-265[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  55. Triller, A., and Choquet, D. (2005) Trends Neurosci. 28, 133-139[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  56. Daumas, F., Destainville, N., Millot, C., Lopez, A., Dean, D., and Salome, L. (2003) Biophys. J. 84, 356-366
  57. Jiao, X., Zhang, N., Xu, X., Oppenheim, J. J., and Jin, T. (2005) Mol. Cell Biol. 25, 5752-5762[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  58. Horvat, R. D., Nelson, S., Clay, C. M., Barisas, B. G., and Roess, D. A. (1999) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 255, 382-385[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  59. Pucadyil, T. J., Kalipatnapu, S., Harikumar, K. G., Rangaraj, N., Karnik, S. S., and Chattopadhyay, A. (2004) Biochemistry 43, 15852-15862[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  60. Johansson, B., Wymann, M. P., Holmgren-Peterson, K., and Magnusson, K. E. (1993) J. Cell Biol. 121, 1281-1289[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  61. Butour, J. L., Corbani, M., and Meunier, J. C. (2004) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 325, 915-921[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  62. Toselli, M., Tosetti, P., and Taglietti, V. (1997) Pflugers Arch. 433, 587-596[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  63. Strock, J., and Diverse-Pierluissi, M. A. (2004) Mol. Pharmacol. 66, 1071-1076[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  64. Zhang, X., Bao, L., and Guan, J. S. (2006) Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 27, 324-329[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
 BloodHome page
B. Lagane, K. Y. C. Chow, K. Balabanian, A. Levoye, J. Harriague, T. Planchenault, F. Baleux, N. Gunera-Saad, F. Arenzana-Seisdedos, and F. Bachelerie
CXCR4 dimerization and {beta}-arrestin-mediated signaling account for the enhanced chemotaxis to CXCL12 in WHIM syndrome
Blood, July 1, 2008; 112(1): 34 - 44.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
282/11/8332    most recent
M606946200v1
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 Roumy, M.
Right arrow Articles by Mollereau, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Roumy, M.
Right arrow Articles by Mollereau, C.
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 © 2007 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Advertisement
spacer
Advertisement
Advertisement