 |
The Journal of Neuroscience, August 31, 2005, 25(35):8056-8065; doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0348-05.2005
 Previous Article | Next Article 
Cellular/Molecular
Structural Determinants of Benzodiazepine Allosteric Regulation of GABAA Receptor Currents
Dorothy M. Jones-Davis,1
Luyan Song,2
Martin J. Gallagher,2 and
Robert L. Macdonald2,3,4
1Neuroscience Graduate Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-1687, and Departments of 2Neurology, 3Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, and 4Pharmacology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37212
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
Benzodiazepine enhancement of GABAA receptor current requires a  subunit, and replacement of the subunit by the  subunit abolishes benzodiazepine enhancement. Although it has been demonstrated that benzodiazepines bind to GABAA receptors at the junction between  and subunits, the structural basis for the coupling of benzodiazepine binding to allosteric enhancement of the GABAA receptor current is unclear. To determine the structural basis for this coupling, the present study used a chimera strategy, using 2L- GABAA receptor subunit chimeras coexpressed with1 and 3 subunits in human embryonic kidney 293T cells. Different domains of the 2L subunit were replaced by subunit sequence, and diazepam sensitivity was determined. Chimeric subunits revealed two areas of interest: domain 1 in transmembrane domain 1 (M1) and domain 2 in the C-terminal portion of transmembrane domain 2 (M2) and the M2–M3 extracellular loop. In those domains, site-directed mutagenesis demonstrated that the following two groups of residues were involved in benzodiazepine transduction of current enhancement: residues Y235, F236, T237 in M1; and S280, T281, I282 in M2 as well as the entire M2–M3 loop. These results suggest that a pocket of residues may transduce benzodiazepine binding to increased gating. Benzodiazepine transduction involves a group of residues that connects the N terminus and M1, and another group of residues that may facilitate an interaction between the N terminus and the M2 and M2–M3 loop domains.
Key words: GABAA receptors; benzodiazepines; ion channel structure–function; binding–gating transduction; coupling; receptor chimera
|
Introduction
|
|---|
Benzodiazepines are antiepileptic and anxiolytic drugs that act by binding to GABAA receptors and enhancing GABA-evoked chloride current. GABAA receptors, the primary mediators of fast inhibitory neurotransmission in the CNS (Macdonald and Olsen, 1994 ; Smith and Olsen, 1995), are members of the ligand-gated ion channel (LGIC) superfamily, which includes the acetylcholine receptor (AChR), serotonin receptor (5HT-3), and glycine receptor (GlyR). GABAA receptors form pentamers composed of combinations of subunit types, (1–6), (1–3), (1–3), ,  ,  , and  , each of which determine the pharmacological properties of the receptor. Most GABAA receptors are composed of , , and subunits in a 2:2:1 ratio (Chang et al., 1996; Baumann et al., 2002), although the subunit may replace the subunit to form receptors in a subpopulation of neurons (Korpi et al., 2002). GABAA receptor subunits have a  200 aa extracellular N-terminal domain that contains the GABA and benzodiazepine binding sites, an extracellular loop (M2–M3 loop), a large cytoplasmic loop (M3–M4 loop), and four transmembrane domains (M1–M4) (see Fig. 1). GABA binds at the interface of and subunits, whereas benzodiazepines bind at a homologous site at the interface of and subunits (Sigel and Buhr, 1997).
Benzodiazepine binding is only the first step in enhancing GABAA receptor current. The second step is a conformational change in the receptor (Boileau and Czajkowski, 1999) that couples benzodiazepine binding to an increase in GABAA receptor single-channel opening frequency (Rogers et al., 1994). Using chimeric - receptors, the N-terminal 161 aa of the 2S subunit were shown to bind benzodiazepines with wild-type affinity when coexpressed in Xenopus oocytes with 1 and 2 subunits (Boileau et al., 1998). However, although the chimeric receptor bound benzodiazepines normally, the N-terminal residues were not sufficient to couple binding to modulation of the receptor. The chimeric receptor had reduced GABAA receptor current enhancement by benzodiazepines, suggesting a role for non-N-terminal domains in the coupling of benzodiazepine binding to enhancement of current.
To study the structural basis of benzodiazepine coupling, we used a chimera strategy, using 2L- chimeras coexpressed with 1 and 3 subunits. We chose 2L- chimeras because the subunit can replace the subunit in GABAA receptors (Quirk et al., 1994) but does not contribute to either benzodiazepine binding (Quirk et al., 1995) or modulation (Saxena and Macdonald, 1994). We used 2L- chimeras that contained the 2L N terminus to preserve the benzodiazepine binding site and replaced each domain of the remaining 2L subunit with subunit sequence. We revealed two 2L subunit domains, the distal portion of M1 (domain 1) and the distal portion of M2 and the M2–M3 loop (domain 2), that play critical roles in the coupling of benzodiazepine binding to potentiation of the GABAA receptor current. Our findings, in addition to studies that demonstrate the involvement of these structural areas in gating (O'Shea and Harrison, 2000; Lynch et al., 2001; Bera et al., 2002; Kash et al., 2003) and allosteric regulation of LGICs (Kucken et al., 2000), suggest common transduction machinery in the LGIC superfamily.
|
Materials and Methods
|
|---|
Construction of GABAA receptor subunits, chimeras, and mutants. Rat GABAA receptor wild-type 1, 3, , 2L, and chimeric subunits were individually subcloned into the mammalian expression vector pCMV-neo through the BglII restriction site. Chimeras were constructed using restriction fragments at engineered sites, a PCR-based overlap-extension method, or by site-directed mutagenesis using the QuikChange kit (Stratagene, La Jolla, CA) in existing chimeric or wild-type subunits. The transition point of the subunit amino acid sequence is listed for each chimera as the N-terminal parent subunit with the last amino acid of that segment, followed by the C-terminal parent subunit with the first amino acid of that segment [- M1e (G234–V233), - M1 pre-iso (F236–I235), - M1q (Q239–S238), and - M1i (I257–S256)] (Fig. 1). The placement of an "e" at the end of the construct name represents a chimera splice site at the extracellular membrane interface (e.g., - M1e refers to a chimera with the subunit sequence until the extracellular membrane interface of M1, with subunit sequence after the extracellular membrane interface of M1), whereas "i" similarly refers to a chimera splice site at the intracellular membrane interface. Other letters used (e.g., "q" in M1q) refer to the given subunit amino acid in which the splice site occurred. The numbering refers to the mature peptide. Specifically, chimeras - M1e, - M2e, - M1q, and - M1i were generated progressively by replacing the wild-type rat 2L with the rat sequence or replacing the wild-type rat with the rat 2L sequence through site-directed mutagenesis by using existing chimera - M1 pre-iso as a template. Rat 2Ls with domain swaps (-____) were also made progressively through site-directed mutagenesis by using the rat 2L subunit as a template and are as follows: - M1 (Y235–I257 was replaced by V233–I255), - M2 (A261–A283 was replaced by A259–A281), - M1–M2 (Y235–A283 was replaced by V233–A281), - M2–M3 loop (R284–T294 was replaced by R282–K292), - M1 to M2–M3 loop (Y235–T294 was replaced by V233–K292). Mutant constructs were designed using site-directed mutagenesis (QuikChange; Stratagene) in a 2L subunit backbone and contained a homologous subunit sequence in place of a 2L subunit sequence. Alignments between 2L and subunit sequences were obtained using the Align X program of the Vector NTI Suite 8.0 (Informax, Frederick, MD). Sequence validity was verified by sequencing the full-length coding sequence of the final constructs. In experiments in which chimeras or mutants were used, chimeric or mutant 2L subunits were transfected in place of wild-type 2L subunits at the same relative concentrations.
Expression of recombinant GABAA receptors in cultured human embryonic kidney 293T cells. For electrophysiological recordings, human embryonic kidney (HEK) 293T fibroblast cells at a density of 200,000–400,000 cells/60 mm culture dish were maintained in DMEM (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA), supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum and 100 IU/ml each of penicillin and streptomycin (Invitrogen) at 37°C in 5% CO2/95% O2. On day 1, cells were transfected with 4 µg of each subunit plasmid (ratio, 1:1:1), along with 2 µg of pHook-1 (Invitrogen) for immunomagnetic bead selection on day 2 (Greenfield et al., 1997), using a previously established calcium phosphate precipitation technique (Angelotti et al., 1993). After immunomagnetic bead selection, the cells were plated on 35 mm dishes, and recordings were made on day 3, 18–32 h after selection.
For radioligand binding experiments, four 10 cm culture dishes of HEK293T cells were plated at a density of 500,000 cells/10 cm culture dish 3 d before transfection and maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum and 100 IU/ml each of penicillin and streptomycin at 37°C in 5% CO2/95% O2. On the day of transfection, 10 cm dishes of cells were transfected with 5.6 µg of each subunit cDNA plasmid using Fugene 6 (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN) transfection reagent (at a ratio of 2.67 µl of Fugene/µg of cDNA). Cells remained plated for 48 h after transfection before use in the radioligand binding assay.
Radioligand binding. For benzodiazepine radioligand binding experiments, a solution consisting of (in mM) 142 NaCl, 1 CaCl2, 8 KCl, 6 MgCl2, 10 glucose, and 10 HEPES, pH 7.4, was used as a buffer throughout the duration of the experiment. Four milliliters of buffer solution were added to each 10 cm dish, and cells were scraped from the dishes. Cells were manually homogenized and then sonicated for 15 s at an amplitude of 100 using a VibroCell ultrasonic processor (model VC-130; Sonics and Materials, Danbury, CT). The homogenates were then centrifuged at 30,000 x g for 20 min at 4°C. The resulting pellet was resuspended in buffer followed by trituration to break up the pellet. After full homogenous resuspension of the pellet, duplicate membrane samples were incubated at room temperature with seven increasing concentrations of [3H]flunitrazepam (74 Ci/mmol; PerkinElmer, Boston, MA) in the presence of either nonradioactive 100 µM flurazepam (flurazepam dihydrochloride; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) or an equivalent concentration of DMSO (final DMSO concentration, 0.1%; Sigma-Aldrich) to determine nonspecific and total binding, respectively. Samples were incubated at room temperature for 2h.
After incubation, the membrane suspensions were applied to glass-fiber filters (Whatman GF/B; Brandel, Gaithersburg, MD) that were pretreated with 0.3% polyethylenimine (Sigma-Aldrich), vacuum-filtered using a cell harvester (model MPR-24T; Brandel), and then washed with 2 ml of buffer. For each experiment, the nonspecific [3H]flunitrazepam binding at each concentration point was fit using a least-squares method to a linear function. Average nonspecific binding was 22% of total binding at KD concentrations of [3H]flunitrazepam. Specific [3H]flunitrazepam binding was calculated as the total [3H]flunitrazepam bound in the absence of flurazepam minus the fit value of nonspecific binding. Specific binding was fit to the one-site competitive binding equation: Bound = (Bmax x [flunitrazepam])/(KD + [flunitrazepam]) (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA). Relative maximal [3H]flunitrazepam binding of the 13-M1e chimeric receptor was calculated by normalizing the specifically bound [3H]flunitrazepam counts per minute obtained from the 13-M1e chimera at each [3H]flunitrazepam concentration to specifically bound [3H]flunitrazepam counts per minute obtained from the 132L receptor at the same [3H]flunitrazepam concentration. The normalized values were then fit to the above one-site competitive binding equation.
Electrophysiological recording. Whole-cell voltage-clamp recordings were performed on transfected HEK293T fibroblast cells. All experiments were performed using at least two separate transfected batches of cells from at least two separate days of recording. Cells were bathed in an external solution consisting of (in mM) 142 NaCl, 1 CaCl2, 8 KCl, 6 MgCl2, 10 glucose, and 10 HEPES, pH 7.4, 320–335 mOsm, throughout the duration of the experiment. Glass microelectrodes were formed from thin-walled borosilicate glass with a filament (World Precision Instruments, Sarasota, FL) using a P-87 Flaming-Brown or P2000 laser electrode puller (Sutter Instruments, San Rafael, CA) and fire polished with a microforge (Narishige, East Meadow, NY). Microelectrodes had resistances of 1–4 m when filled with an internal solution consisting of the following (in mM): 153 KCl, 1 MgCl2, 10 HEPES, 5 EGTA, 2 Mg2+-ATP, pH 7.3, 300–310 mOsm. This combination of external and internal solutions produced a chloride equilibrium potential (ECl) of 0 mV.
Membrane voltages were usually clamped at –10 to –75 mV using an EPC7 (List-Electronic, Darmstadt-Eberstadt, Germany) or an Axon 200B (Molecular Devices, Foster City, CA) amplifier. No voltage dependence of diazepam modulation was observed in this study.
The same concentration of GABA (1 µM) was applied to most chimeras. This was a concentration that was determined to correspond to an effective concentration (EC) of GABA of EC15 ± 10 for each chimera, using a two-point concentration–response method. In this method, the response of a given construct to 1 µM GABA was compared with the maximal response of the given construct (1 mM GABA). The percentage of the maximal response elicited by 1 µM GABA was determined to be the ECx value (supplemental table, available at www.jneurosci.org as supplemental material). Complete concentration–response curves were obtained for chimeras when the response to 1 µM GABA deviated from 20% of the maximal current evoked by 1 mM GABA by >10%. The EC20 GABA concentration determined from the concentration–response curve was applied for those chimeras (e.g., for 13-M1, 10 µM GABA was used, and for 13V290A plus Y292A plus V293I plus T294K, 3 µM GABA was used). GABA (EC15 ± 10) and GABA (EC15 ± 10) plus diazepam (1 µM) were applied to the cells via hand-pulled triple-barreled square glass attached to the Warner SF-77B Perfusion Fast-Step (Warner Instruments, Hamden, CT), allowing for rapid solution changes. The application system provided for simultaneous flow of all solutions to which the cells were exposed through three parallel glass square barrels. All step protocols began with a cell positioned in the flow of external bath solution from which the multibarreled array was repositioned such that the unmoved cell and electrode were now exposed to a drug (e.g., GABA). The drug application was initiated by an analog pulse triggered by the pClamp 8.1 software, which caused the motor of the Warner Fast-Step to reposition the multibarrel array from one barrel to another (e.g., external solution to GABA). Exchange times were measured to be 1–5 ms at an open electrode tip. These exchange times may be slower around an intact cell, although this was not explicitly measured.
For generation of concentration–response relationships, peak GABAA receptor currents evoked by multiple increasing concentrations of GABA were fitted to a sigmoidal function using a four-parameter logistic equation (sigmoidal concentration–response) with a variable slope to generate concentration–response curves. The equation used to fit the concentration–response relationship was the following:
 | (1) |
where I was the peak current at a given GABA concentration and Imax was the maximal peak current.
Signals were acquired simultaneously on a WR7400 chart recorder (Graphtec, Irvine, CA) and on a computer. Current amplitudes were measured on a computer using the Molecular Devices pClamp 8.1 software package.
Data analysis. Peak current was determined using Clampfit of the Axoclamp software suite (Molecular Devices). Percentage enhancement (control, 0%) was determined using Microsoft Excel 2000 for Windows. Percentage enhancement of control is defined as follows: [|(IGABA + DRUG–IGABA)/(IGABA)| x 100] + 100. Statistical significance was assessed with unpaired Student's t test: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, or ***p < 0.001, using GraphPad Prism version 4.00 for Windows (GraphPad Software). The data for each construct were always distributed normally, although Welch's correction was applied to unpaired Student's t test when variances were found to be unequal.
|
Results
|
|---|
Subunit-dependent differences in diazepam modulation of GABAA receptor currents
GABA-evoked currents were recorded from all chimeric and mutant receptors expressed in HEK293T cells, confirming that they yielded functional receptor channels. 132L receptor currents evoked by 1 µM GABA were enhanced by a maximal (1 µM) diazepam concentration (mean, 139.3 ± 22.9%; n = 13) (Fig. 2A). In contrast, 13 receptor currents evoked by 1 µM GABA were insensitive to 1 µM diazepam (mean, –4.7 ± 5.1%; n = 9) (Fig. 2A). A higher diazepam concentration (5 µM) was also tested on all receptors to confirm that the lack of effect of nonresponsive receptors was not concentration dependent (data not shown).
Functional characterization of chimeric subunits
Several studies have implicated amino acids within the N-terminal domains of and subunits of the GABAA receptor in the binding of diazepam and other benzodiazepines (Mihic et al., 1994; Amin et al., 1997; Sigel and Buhr, 1997). Because N-terminal subunit residues are necessary for benzodiazepine binding, it was expected that replacement of the 2L subunit N terminus with sequence would prevent benzodiazepine binding; thus, we used - (rather than -) chimeras with the intact 2L subunit N-terminal sequence. To determine the structural domains in the 2L subunit that couple benzodiazepine binding to enhancement of GABA-evoked currents, we constructed a series of 2L- subunit chimeras ( s). The wild-type 2L, , and - chimeric subunits were coexpressed with 1 and 3 subunits to form 132L, 13, and 13 receptors.
If binding of diazepam to the receptor was sufficient for current enhancement, it was possible that all subunit sequence distal to the N terminus could be replaced by subunit sequence without altering coupling. However, an alternative hypothesis is that the 2L subunit has additional domains C-terminal to the N-terminal domains that are important for transduction of benzodiazepine binding to enhancement of current. If this is correct, it would allow the use of multiple - chimeras to identify these 2L subunit domains. To test the hypothesis that the 2L subunit has additional domains C-terminal to the N-terminal domain that are important for transduction, we constructed a - chimera that retained the 2L subunit N-terminal sequence but replaced 2L with subunit sequence from the extracellular end of the M1 domain to the C terminus (- M1e) (Fig. 2B). The - M1e chimera was insensitive to diazepam (mean, 4.3 ± 6.9%; n = 8; p < 0.0001), similar to the 13 receptor.
This result has two alternative interpretations. First, diazepam did not bind to the 13- M1e receptor, and second, diazepam bound to the receptor but was unable to allosterically alter receptor-channel gating, suggesting the presence of additional structural requirements for diazepam allosteric regulation of the GABAA receptor. If the first interpretation was correct, then it would be likely that no - receptor chimera would be modulated by diazepam. However, 13- M1e receptors were inhibited by DMCM (0.3 µM) (data not shown), an inverse agonist of the benzodiazepine binding site, suggesting that the benzodiazepine binding site was substantially intact. To further confirm that the 13- M1e receptor could bind benzodiazepines, 132L and 13- M1e receptors were expressed in HEK293T cells and specific binding of [3H]flunitrazepam was measured. Radioligand binding experiments demonstrated that the 13- M1e receptor bound benzodiazepines (KD = 15.14 ± 4.466 nM; Bmax = 1.098 ± 0.093; relative Bmax = 0.12 ± 0.02) (Fig. 3), indicating that the lack of diazepam enhancement of the 13- M1e receptor was not the result of a lack of diazepam binding.
If the second interpretation was correct, then chimeric receptors containing the appropriate transmembrane 2L subunit domains should respond to diazepam. To distinguish between these two alternative interpretations, we tested the diazepam sensitivity of a chimera that preserved the 2L subunit sequence from the N terminus through M2, with subunit sequence C-terminal to M2 (- M2e) (Fig. 2B). The diazepam sensitivity of this chimera was slightly reduced (mean, 61.5 ± 32.3%; n = 6); however, the reduction was not significantly different from wild-type 2L subunit-containing receptors (p = 0.07). This result confirms the importance of the 2L N terminus in the binding of diazepam and suggests that the M1 and M2 domains participate in the coupling of benzodiazepine binding to enhancement of GABA-evoked currents. The slight reduction in enhancement further suggests a possible small contribution of structures distal to the M2 domain in the coupling of benzodiazepine binding to gating of the GABAA receptor.
Functional characterization of chimeric subunits: importance of multiple domains
To identify the specific domains C-terminal to the N terminus involved in benzodiazepine transduction, we constructed a series of chimeras that replaced 2L subunit domains with subunit sequence and expressed them with 1 and 3 subunits. These constructs substituted subunit sequence for the 2L subunit sequence in the N terminus (- M1e), the M1 domain (- M1), the M2 domain (- M2), and the M2–M3 loop (- M2–M3 loop) (Fig. 4A). As anticipated, the (- M1e) chimera, lacking the N-terminal 2L subunit residues necessary for benzodiazepine binding, did not display enhancement, presumably because of a lack of binding (mean, –4.5 ± 1.5%; n = 8) (Fig. 4A, top row). Surprisingly, none of the other constructs significantly altered diazepam potentiation compared with wild-type 132L subunit-containing receptors (- M1: mean, 88.0 ± 17.9%, n = 5; - M2: mean, 235.6 ± 40.2%, n = 6; - M2–M3 loop: mean, 86.7 ± 17.2%, n = 6) (Fig. 4A, bottom three rows). However, our previous results, showing that extension of the N-terminal 2L subunit sequence to include the M2 domain (- M2e) restored benzodiazepine sensitivity (see above) (Fig. 2B) to an insensitive subunit (- M1e), offer a possible explanation.
This result can be explained by the hypothesis that more than one structural domain is involved in benzodiazepine potentiation. For example, although a subunit may have subunit sequence in the M1 domain, the 2L subunit M2 domain would be sufficient for transduction, and vice versa. Therefore, it would be expected that replacement of both 2L domains by the subunit sequence would be necessary to abolish potentiation. To test this hypothesis, we replaced both M1 and M2 domains of the wild-type 2L subunit with subunit sequence (- M1–M2) (Fig. 4B, top row). Expression of the - M1–M2 chimera resulted in a significant reduction (mean, 35.9 ± 5.9%; n = 6; p = 0.0007) in diazepam potentiation of GABA-evoked currents (Fig. 4B, top row), suggesting that M1 and M2 each contained structures that were sufficient to support benzodiazepine enhancement. Yet the presence of the two structural domains in concert was necessary for full wild-type 132L levels of potentiation. Nevertheless, the potentiation obtained with the - M1–M2 construct was also significantly different (p = 0.0002) from the lack of potentiation seen with wild-type subunit-containing receptors, suggesting the presence of additional structural areas that may contribute to subunit responsiveness to benzodiazepines.
The N terminus has previously been shown to interact with the M2–M3 loop to regulate the gating of LGICs (Akabas and Karlin, 1995; Kash et al., 2003). Given this finding and our observation that the - M2e chimera did not completely restore full benzodiazepine potentiation, we hypothesized that the M2–M3 loop might also be involved in the coupling of benzodiazepine binding to enhancement of GABAA receptor currents. To determine whether the M2–M3 loop was important for and could augment enhancement by diazepam in the context of the M1–M2 swap, we created an additional construct that contained a sequence from the M1 domain through the M2–M3 loop in a 2L subunit (-M1-M2–3 loop). This construct completely abolished benzodiazepine enhancement (mean, 4.9 ± 2.3%; n = 5; p < 0.0001) (Fig. 4B, bottom row) and was indistinguishable from subunit enhancement levels (p = 0.1170). These data suggested that there were three domains in the 2L subunit that were necessary, although not individually sufficient, for benzodiazepine enhancement: M1, M2, and the M2–M3 loop.
M1 residues relevant for the coupling of benzodiazepine binding to current enhancement
In comparing the sequence of the 2L and subunits in the M1 region, several differences were noted (Fig. 5A). Based on these differences, we created two additional M1 domain chimeras in an attempt to discern the specific structural area in M1 responsible for benzodiazepine transduction. Chimeras with progressive extension of the 2L subunit sequence toward the intracellular end of M1 (- M1pre-iso and - M1q) (Fig. 5B, third and fourth rows, respectively) were compared with the wild-type 2L subunit. Extension of the 2L subunit sequence by two amino acids from - M1e (- M1pre-iso) significantly increased benzodiazepine sensitivity compared with the subunit-containing receptors (mean, 23.4 ± 2.7%; n = 5; p = 0.0005) (Fig. 5B, third row). However, diazepam potentiation of - M1pre-iso receptors was also significantly different from 2L subunit levels of enhancement (p = 0.0003). Interestingly, subsequent extension of the 2L sequence by one additional residue (- M1q) resulted in a receptor with diazepam enhancement that was not significantly different from that of the 2L subunit-containing receptors (mean, 80.5 ± 28.7%; n = 8; p = 0.1267) (Fig. 5B, fourth row). This suggested that a domain responsible for the benzodiazepine enhancement in 2L subunit-containing receptors resides in the N-terminal region of the M1 domain. Our previous results, demonstrating a lack of enhancement in the - M1e chimera, suggested that this difference in enhancement was attributable to the structural differences between the - M1e and - M1q chimeras.
To test this hypothesis, we constructed a series of M1 mutations, substituting subunit M1 residues into the 2L subunit (Fig. 6). The aligned sequence in M1 revealed a triplet set of residues that differed between the - M1e and - M1q chimeras, namely, YFT-VYI (Fig. 6A, region A). However, because the M1 domain swap did not alter diazepam enhancement of GABAA receptor current, it was unlikely that point mutations in the distal M1 domain identified above would alter current enhancement by diazepam. As expected, these residues did not attenuate benzodiazepine enhancement (T237I: mean, 165.4 ± 30.2%, n = 5; Y235V plus F236Y: mean, 182.6 ± 24.1%, n = 5; Y235V plus F236Y plus T237I: mean, 103.9 ± 13.5%, n = 6), consistent with the hypothesis that this M1 sequence was necessary but not sufficient for enhancement of GABA-evoked currents by diazepam.
View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 7. Coordinate regulation by 2L subunit M1 YFT, M2 STI, and the M2–M3 loop are necessary for transduction of benzodiazepine binding to GABAA receptor gating. A, Sequence homology between the GABAA receptor 2L subunit and the GABAA receptor subunit. Regions delineated by black bars indicate transmembrane regions as previously described based on hydrophobicity; the M2–M3 loop is indicated by a dotted bar. Shaded regions indicate nonconservation of the sequence between the 2L and subunits. Mutation locations are indicated by boxed A, B, C, and D areas. B, Replacement of2L subunit residues in both the M1 and M2 domains for subunit sequence (dots) significantly reduces potentiation of ECequivalent GABA-evoked currents by 1 µM diazepam (DZP); however, full abolishment of potentiation is achieved only when the 2L subunit M1 YFT, M2 STI, and the M2–M3 loop sequence is replaced with subunit sequence (mean, –3.9 ± 10.8%; p < 0.0001). Open circles indicate current evoked by GABA; closed circles indicate current evoked by GABA plus DZP. The dotted lines indicate wild-type132L receptor levels of enhancement. *, **, ***Statistical significance between chimera and 132L subunit. ^, ^^^Significance between chimera and 13 subunit, as determined by Student's t test. Welch's correction was applied to unpaired Student's t test when variances were found to be unequal. N-term, N-terminal. C, Sequence homology between the GABAA receptor 2L subunit and the GABAA receptor subunit based on sequence alignment and structural data. Regions delineated by gray bars indicate transmembrane regions based on sequence alignment and structural data; the M2–M3 loop is indicated by a dotted bar. Shaded regions indicate nonconservation of the sequence between the 2L and subunits. The black bars indicate extracellular regions of transmembrane domains. Error bars indicate SEM.
|
|
M2 residues relevant for the coupling of benzodiazepine binding to current enhancement
Similar point mutations were made in the M2 domain. There are only four amino acid differences between the 2L and subunits in M2 (Fig. 6A). Of these four differences, three (STI-MVS) (Fig. 6A, region B) were of particular interest because they have been implicated in allosteric coupling of both enhancement and inhibition of the GABAA receptor (Boileau and Czajkowski, 1999; Nagaya and Macdonald, 2001; Hosie et al., 2003). Interestingly, two of the amino acids in this area, T281 and I282, have been previously identified as areas of interest in coupling benzodiazepine binding to GABAA gating using - chimeras (Boileau and Czajkowski, 1999). We therefore mutated the three 2L residues to the homologous residues in a 2L subunit (S280M plus T281V plus I282S). Because the M2 domain swap did not attenuate diazepam enhancement of GABAA receptor current, we did not expect that isolated mutations in M2 would alter the enhancement. As expected, we found that these three mutations did not abolish potentiation; this mutant was not significantly different from 2L subunit levels of benzodiazepine enhancement (mean, 183.0 ± 52.8%; n = 5; p = 0.3840) (Fig. 6B, bottom row).
Combined M1 and M2 residues relevant for the coupling of benzodiazepine binding to current enhancement
Based on our previous finding that substituting both the M1 and the M2 domain of a 2L subunit with subunit sequence resulted in a significant decrease in diazepam enhancement, we investigated a combination of M1 and M2 mutations. We combined the M1 and M2 mutants to create a double (triplet) mutant (Y235V plus F236Y plus T237I plus S280M plus T281V plus I282S) (Fig. 7A, regions A and B). The Y235V plus F236Y plus T237I plus S280M plus T281V plus I282S mutant displayed a significant reduction in diazepam potentiation compared with wild-type 132L receptors (mean, 57.4 ± 18.6%; n = 6; p = 0.0375) (Fig. 7B, top row). The potentiation exhibited by this mutant was not significantly different from that noted in the - M1–M2 swap construct (mean, 35.9 ± 5.9%; n = 6; p = 0.3121) (Fig. 4B, top row). However, similar to the M1–M2 swap construct, diazepam potentiation of currents recorded from the double-mutant receptor construct was also significantly different from potentiation of currents from the 13 receptor (p = 0.0233) (Fig. 2A), further suggesting involvement of another structural domain in the enhancement of GABA-evoked currents by diazepam.
M2–M3 loop residues relevant for the coupling of benzodiazepine binding to current enhancement
Based on the similarity between our mutant data and the swap construct data, we speculated that the third area of interest would be the M2–M3 loop. We focused on the amino acid sequence of the M2–M3 loop to look for potential areas for mutagenesis (Fig. 7A, regions C and D). The M2–M3 loop varies at six amino acid positions between the 2L and subunits. Five of these variations are nonconservative and were therefore of interest. We created mutant constructs in the context of the previously identified M1 and M2 residues, investigating the differences between the 2L and subunits. We constructed two M2–M3 loop mutant constructs, K285S (Fig. 7A, region C) and V290A plus Y292A plus V293I plus T294K (Fig. 7A, region D) combined with the Y235V plus F236Y plus T237I plus S280M plus T281V plus I282S mutations. Expression of either M2–M3 loop mutation (K285S or V290A plus Y292A plus V293I plus T294K) with the M1 and M2 triplet mutations (Y235V plus F236Y plus T237I plus S280M plus T281V plus I282S) (Fig. 7B, second and third rows, respectively) did not further affect benzodiazepine sensitivity compared with the M1 and M2 triplet mutations alone (Y235V plus F236Y plus T237I plus S280M plus T281V plus I282S plus K285S: mean, 77.4 ± 12.2%, n = 6; Y235V plus F236Y plus T237I plus S280M plus T281V plus I282S plus V290A plus Y292A plus V293I plus T294K: mean, 62.9 ± 9.4%, n = 5). However, when both M2–M3 loop regions were mutated (i.e., the entire M2–M3 loop of 2L was replaced with subunit sequence) and combined with the M1 and M2 triplet mutations (Y235V plus F236Y plus T237I plus S280M plus T281V plus I282S plus M2–M3 loop) (Fig. 7B, bottom row), enhancement was completely abolished (mean, –3.9 ± 10.8%; n = 5), and currents obtained in the presence of diazepam were indistinguishable from 13 receptor currents (p = 0.9341).
The previously identified areas of the distal M2 domain and the M2–M3 loop are adjacent and continuous, suggesting that they form a single transduction domain (Bera et al., 2002; Miyazawa et al., 2003; Trudell and Bertaccini, 2004). Structurally, previous studies indicate that, although hydropathy analysis indicates that M2 ends as indicated in our study, sequence analysis and structural modeling indicate that the M2 -helix extends further, to at least P288. These findings again suggest that our M2 and M2–M3 loop domains may be part of a single functional domain modulating benzodiazepine transduction. Our data suggest that there are two functional areas in the 2L subunit that are responsible for enhancement of GABAA receptor current in response to benzodiazepines: 235–237 in the N-terminal M1 domain (Fig. 7A, area A) and 280–294 (the C-terminal M2 domain and M2–M3 loop) (Fig. 7A, areas B–D).
|
Discussion
|
|---|
Agonist transduction is mediated by distinct structural domains
Positive allosteric regulation of LGICs consists of at least three components: ligand binding to the receptor (binding), a subsequent receptor conformational change (transduction or coupling), and enhancement of channel opening and ion flux (gating). It has previously been suggested that these processes are coupled together functionally and structurally (Boileau and Czajkowski, 1999; Thompson et al., 1999; Carlson et al., 2000; Kash et al., 2003; Miyazawa et al., 2003). In the nicotinic AChR (nAChR), as in all other members of the cys-loop superfamily of LGICs, the ligand-binding domain is located between two subunit interfaces (/ and / for nAChRs) in the extracellular N termini, and gating occurs in the pore-lining M2 segment.
Crystallization of the AChBP (acetylcholine binding protein) and x-ray diffraction studies have advanced understanding of the structural basis of the coupling between binding and gating of the nAChR and, by extension, of other members of the LGIC superfamily. It is thought that opening of the nAChR works via a "pin-into-socket" mechanism, resulting in two transduction events. After agonist binding, the ligand-binding domain transduces a rotation via the N-terminal 1/2 loop (pin) to the subunit M2 helices (socket). The rotation of these subunit inner sheets forces rotation of the extracellular end of M2, causing the gate to open (Miyazawa et al., 2003). Similarly, binding of GABA is thought to occur at the / subunit interfaces in the distal N terminus, whereas receptor gating involves movement of the pore-lining M2 segment. Kash et al. (2003) investigated two flexible loops in the GABAA receptor (loops 2 and 7) that interact with the extracellular region of M2 and the M2–M3 loop. In their model, loop 7 of the 2 subunit acts as the N-terminal pin that fits into the M2–M3 loop socket, allowing rotations caused by N-terminal agonist binding to be communicated to the pore. Electrostatic interactions among these regions may strengthen with activation, coupling binding and gating events for the receptor.
We show that there are two functional domains responsible for transduction of benzodiazepine binding to modulation of the GABAA receptor. Each of these determinants, located in M1 (domain 1) and the M2 and M2–M3 loop regions (domain 2), has been previously implicated in the gating and modulation of LGICs; however, we implicate these domains as a functional unit regulating benzodiazepine modulation.
Benzodiazepine transduction mediated by domain 1
The pre-M1 area is important for transduction of benzodiazepine binding to the M2 gate. Given that it is physically connected to both the N terminus and the M2 gate region, M1 seemed a likely candidate for the transduction of binding to gating. Additional support comes from a GABAA receptor model (Trudell and Bertaccini, 2004), indicating that the N-terminal region of M1 before the conserved P243 lines the receptor pore by intercalating between M2 channel-lining domains. The - M1q chimera, which extends the N-terminal 2L subunit sequence through the extracellular end of M1 in a 13 receptor, exhibited robust diazepam potentiation of GABA-evoked currents, in contrast to the nonresponsive - M1e chimera, which contained only the 2L subunit N-terminal binding domain. This result suggested that major structural determinants of benzodiazepine transduction lie in domain 1, the N-terminal region of M1, in which we identified three critical residues, Y235, F236, and T237.
Benzodiazepine transduction mediated by domain 2
Residues in M2 have also been shown to be involved in the modulation of the gating of the receptor by allosteric modulators. In particular, a residue located at the extracellular edge of M2, 3H267, homologous to I282, is involved in zinc modulation (Nagaya and Macdonald, 2001; Hosie et al., 2003). Additionally, this residue and the residue preceding it, T281, have been implicated in coupling benzodiazepine binding to GABAA receptor gating (Boileau and Czajkowski, 1999). Our results implicate these two residues as well as S280, also identified as part of the anesthetic binding pocket (Jenkins et al., 2001) in benzodiazepine transduction. Although these three residues alone were not required for benzodiazepine enhancement of GABAA receptor current, when combined with the three M1 mutations (Y235V plus F236Y plus T237I), potentiation was significantly reduced. This suggested a mechanism of transduction involving the physically adjacent and intercalated extracellular M1 and M2 domains of the receptor, acting in concert to increase GABAA receptor gating by benzodiazepines. Although either domain was sufficient to support diazepam potentiation, "full" enhancement required both domains.
Recently, the M2–M3 loop has been implicated in LGIC gating [nAChR (Bera et al., 2002); GABAA receptor (O'Shea and Harrison, 2000; Kash et al., 2003, 2004; Trudell and Bertaccini, 2004); glycine receptor (Lynch et al., 2001)]. The N-terminal portion of the M2–M3 loop in GABAA and glycine receptors has been shown to undergo a conformational change during gating [GABA (Bera et al., 2002); glycine (Lynch et al., 1997)], suggesting that it may interact with other receptor areas. In particular, it has been shown that coupling between N-terminal loops 2 and 7 and the M2–M3 loop results in efficient gating of LGICs. Furthermore, mutations of residues in the M2–M3 loop have been shown to alter agonist efficacy of LGICs (Campos-Caro et al., 1996; Lynch et al., 1997; O'Shea and Harrison, 2000; Davies et al., 2001; Kash et al., 2003) and have been implicated in human channelopathies (Gomez et al., 1997; Lewis and Schofield, 1999; Baulac et al., 2001).
Additionally, the M2–M3 loop has been implicated in the coupling of benzodiazepine binding to gating (Kucken et al., 2000), suggesting a similar transduction pathway for both agonists and allosteric modulators. In this study, replacement of the M2–M3 lo |
Top
Abstract
Introduction
