Quaternary structure of a G-protein-coupled receptor heterotetramer in complex with G i and G s

Gemma Navarro; Arnau Cordomí; Monika Zelman-Femiak; Marc Brugarolas; Estefania Moreno; David Aguinaga; Laura Perez-Benito; Antoni Cortés; Vicent Casadó; Josefa Mallol; Enric I. Canela; Carme Lluís; Leonardo Pardo; Ana J. García-Sáez; Peter J. McCormick; Rafael Franco

doi:10.1186/s12915-016-0247-4

Research article

Open Access

Quaternary structure of a G-protein-coupled receptor heterotetramer in complex with G_i and G_s

Gemma Navarro†^{1, 2, 3},
Arnau Cordomí†⁴,
Monika Zelman-Femiak†^{5, 6},
Marc Brugarolas^{1, 2, 3},
Estefania Moreno^{1, 2, 3},
David Aguinaga^{1, 2, 3},
Laura Perez-Benito⁴,
Antoni Cortés^{1, 2, 3},
Vicent Casadó^{1, 2, 3},
Josefa Mallol^{1, 2, 3},
Enric I. Canela^{1, 2, 3},
Carme Lluís^{1, 2, 3},
Leonardo Pardo†⁴,
Ana J. García-Sáez†^{5, 6, 7},
Peter J. McCormick†^{1, 2, 3, 8}Email author and
Rafael Franco†^{1, 2, 3}Email author

†Contributed equally

BMC Biology201614:26

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-016-0247-4

Received: 26 September 2015

Accepted: 16 March 2016

Published: 5 April 2016

Abstract

Background

G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), in the form of monomers or homodimers that bind heterotrimeric G proteins, are fundamental in the transfer of extracellular stimuli to intracellular signaling pathways. Different GPCRs may also interact to form heteromers that are novel signaling units. Despite the exponential growth in the number of solved GPCR crystal structures, the structural properties of heteromers remain unknown.

Results

We used single-particle tracking experiments in cells expressing functional adenosine A₁-A_2A receptors fused to fluorescent proteins to show the loss of Brownian movement of the A₁ receptor in the presence of the A_2A receptor, and a preponderance of cell surface 2:2 receptor heteromers (dimer of dimers). Using computer modeling, aided by bioluminescence resonance energy transfer assays to monitor receptor homomerization and heteromerization and G-protein coupling, we predict the interacting interfaces and propose a quaternary structure of the GPCR tetramer in complex with two G proteins.

Conclusions

The combination of results points to a molecular architecture formed by a rhombus-shaped heterotetramer, which is bound to two different interacting heterotrimeric G proteins (G_i and G_s). These novel results constitute an important advance in understanding the molecular intricacies involved in GPCR function.

Keywords

GPCRHeterotetramerHeterotrimeric G proteinSingle-particle trackingBRETMolecular modeling

Background

G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) oligomerization is heavily supported by recent biochemical and structural data [1–6]. Optical-based techniques are instrumental in studying the dynamics and organization of receptor complexes in living cells [7]. For instance, total internal reflection fluorescence microscopy shows that 30 % of muscarinic M1 receptors exist as dimers (with no evidence of higher oligomers) that undergo interconversion with monomers on a timescale of seconds [8]. Similarly, the β₁-adrenergic receptors (β₁-AR) are expressed as a mixture of monomers and dimers whereas β₂-adrenergic receptors (β₂-AR) have a tendency to form dimers and higher-order oligomers [9]. Moreover, the monomer-dimer equilibrium of the chemoattractant N-formyl peptide receptor at a physiological level of expression lies within a timescale of milliseconds [10]. Together, these studies in heterologous systems show that a given GPCR is present in a dynamic equilibrium between monomers, dimers, and higher-order oligomers.

Studies in a broad spectrum of GPCRs [11–14] show that these receptors may form heteromers. GPCR heteromers are defined as novel signaling units with functional properties different from homomers and they represent a completely new field of study [15]. Innovative crystallographic techniques have permitted researchers to obtain crystal structures of GPCR families A, B, C, and F, bound to either agonists, antagonists, inverse agonists or allosteric modulators; in the form of monomers or homo-oligomers; and in complex with a G protein or with a ß-arrestin [16]. However, crystal structures of GPCR heteromers have not yet been obtained. Here, we propose a quaternary structure of a heteromer, taking into account the molecular stoichiometry and the interacting G proteins. Adenosine A₁-A_2A receptor (A₁R-A_2AR) complexes constitute a paradigm in the GPCR heteromer field because A₁R is coupled to G_i and A_2AR to G_s; that is, they transduce opposite signals in cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP)-dependent intracellular cascades. First described as a concentration-sensing device in striatal glutamatergic neurons [17], the A₁R-A_2AR heteromer is thought to function as a G_s/G_i-mediated switching mechanism by which low and high concentrations of adenosine inhibit and stimulate, respectively, glutamate release [17, 18]. The structural basis of this switch is key to understanding heteromer function and the biological advantage behind the GPCR heteromerization phenomenon. Here, we have devised the molecular architecture of the adenosine A₁R-A_2AR heteromer in complex with G proteins using a combination of microscope-based single-particle tracking, molecular modeling, and energy transfer assays in combination with molecular complementation. The results point to A₁ and A_2A receptors organizing into a rhombus-shaped heterotetramer that couples to G_i and G_s. The overall structure is very compact and provides interacting interfaces for GPCRs and for G proteins.

Results and discussion

Reciprocal restriction of adenosine receptor motion in the plasma membrane

To examine the dynamics of A₁R-A_2AR heteromers in the plasma membrane of a living cell, the motion of the receptors tagged with fluorescent proteins (A₁R-green fluorescent protein [GFP] or A_2AR-mCherry) was measured by real-time single-particle tracking (SPT) (Fig. 1). Examples of fluorescent images and individual particle trajectories are shown in Additional file 1: Figure S1. Analysis of data corresponding to 500 A₁R-GFP particles showed a linear relationship between the mean square displacement (MSD) versus time lag in the trajectories of up to 1600 single fluorescent particles (Fig. 1a, c). This is typical for Brownian diffusion, indicating a lack of restrictions in A₁R-GFP motion. Co-expression of A_2AR-mCherry (Fig. 1b) led to a reduction in the lateral mobility of A₁R-GFP, which became confined to plasma membrane regions of 0.461 ± 0.004 μm in diameter. Its diffusion coefficient decreased from 0.381 ± 0.002 μm²/s to 0.291 ± 0.003 μm²/s (p = 0.002, one-tailed t-test). Similarly, A₁R-GFP also decreased the A_2AR-mCherry diffusion coefficient from 0.317 ± 0.002 μm²/s to 0.143 ± 0.005 μm²/s (p < 0.0001) (Fig. 1d–f). A_2AR moved within a confinement zone of 0.941 ± 0.007 μm in diameter that was reduced to 0.360 ± 0.001 μm (p < 0.0001) when both receptors were co-expressed. We conclude from these mobility comparisons that reciprocally restricted motion of the individual receptor particles must be due to A₁R-A_2AR receptor-receptor interactions.

Fig. 1
Cell surface mobility of A₁R-GFP and A_2AR-mCherry. Individual trajectories of particles containing GFP fused to the C-terminus of A₁R (A₁-GFP) (a and b) or mCherry fused to the C-terminus of A_2AR (A_2A-mCherry) (d and e) on HEK-293T cells expressing A₁-GFP (a), A_2A-mCherry (d) or both (b and e). The trajectory and the fluorescence intensity of the individual particles were recorded over time using total internal reflection microscopy (TIRFM) and an electron multiplying charged-coupled device (EMCCD) camera recording. Receptor motion was determined by plotting (versus time lag) the mean square displacement (*MSD*) of A₁-GFP (c) in the absence (*black line*) or presence of A_2A-mCherry (*blue line*), or A_2A-mCherry (f) in the presence (*black line*) or presence of A₁-GFP (*blue line*). Data sets were fitted to mathematical models of free and confined diffusion for A₁R and A_2AR respectively. g Co-localization of A₁-GFP and A_2A-mCherry is observed (*yellow dots*). Scale bar: 100 nm. h Distribution of the fluorescence signal of A₁-GFP (*left*) and A_2A-mCherry (*right*) within co-localized receptors (*yellow dots* in g). Curves approximately delineate the number of monomers, dimers, or trimers within the co-localized complex. i Stoichiometry analysis performed for co-localized A₁-GFP and A_2A-mCherry receptor particles co-expressed in HEK-293T cells (*yellow dots* in g). *Green* corresponds to A₁-GFP and *red* to A_2A-mCherry

Stoichiometry of A₁ and A_2A receptor heterocomplexes

The stoichiometry of the fluorescent receptors on the cell surface can be calculated from the brightness distribution of the individual particles [19] (see “Methods”). In cells expressing A₁R-GFP, we found the majority of clusters to consist of either two (~47 %) or four (~34 %) receptors, and clusters with one or three receptors were scarce (~10 % and ~9 %, respectively) (Additional file 2: Figure S2A and black bars in Additional file 2: Figure S2C). In the case of A_2AR-mCherry, the stoichiometry analysis showed that the clusters mostly expressed trimers (45 %), with dimers (29 %) and tetramers (12 %) the second and third most common populations (Additional file 2: Figure S2D and black bars in Additional file 2: Figure S2F). Remarkably, this stoichiometry for either A₁ or A_2A receptors was altered when the partner receptor was also expressed. In cells co-expressing A₁R-GFP and A_2AR-mCherry, the dimer population increased (57 % for A₁R-GFP and 49 % for A_2AR-mCherry, blue bars in Additional file 2: Figures S2C, F) and became the predominant species (Additional file 2: Figures S2B, C, E, F).

In order to focus the analysis on heteromer complexes, we identified clusters containing both receptors (individual yellow dots in Fig. 1g, displaying both GFP and mCherry fluorescence). In ~1000 analyzed co-localized clusters that consisted of a mixture of A₁-GFP and A_2A-Cherry (yellow dots in Fig. 1g), we found a similar high amount of dimers of A₁R (75 %, left panel in Fig. 1h and green bar in Fig. 1i) and A_2AR (74 %, right panel in Fig. 1h and red bar in Fig. 1i). Trimers and tetramers of A₁R, and monomers and tetramers of A_2AR, were in the minority or negligible (see Fig. 1h, i). In summary, given that the percentage of dimers of either A₁R-GFP or A_2AR-mCherry in the yellow dots (which show co-localization of the two receptors) was similar and high (~75 %), the heterotetramer containing two A₁Rs and two A_2ARs must have been the most predominant species. To our knowledge, this is the first stoichiometry data for a GPCR heteromer in living cells.

Arrangement of G proteins interacting with A₁ and A_2A receptors

Monomeric GPCRs are capable of activating G proteins [20]. However, recent findings suggest that one GPCR homodimer bound to a single G protein may be a common functional unit [21]. Thus, an emerging question is how G proteins couple to GPCR heteromers. Because A₁R selectively couples to G_i and A_2AR to G_s [22], the working hypothesis was that both G_i and G_s proteins may couple to the A₁R-A_2AR heterotetramer. To test this hypothesis, we used bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) assays [23]. In agreement with the SPT experiments (see above), homodimers and heterodimers were detected by BRET assays in cells expressing A₁R fused with Renilla luciferase (A₁R-Rluc) or yellow fluorescent protein (A₁R-YFP) (Fig. 2a), A_2AR-Rluc and A_2AR-YFP (Fig. 2b), or A₁R-Rluc and A_2AR-YFP (Fig. 2e). Neither A₁R-Rluc nor A_2AR-YFP interacted with the ghrelin receptor 1a fused to YFP (GHS1a-YFP), used as a control as a protein unable to directly interact with these adenosine receptors (Fig. 2a, b). In order to test the presence of the two G proteins in the heterotetramer, we transfected cells with minigenes that code for peptides blocking either G_i or G_s binding to GPCRs [24]. In addition, cells were treated with pertussis or cholera toxins that catalyze ADP-ribosylation of G_i or G_s. Clearly, treating cells with pertussis toxin, or expressing the minigene-coded peptide that blocks α_i coupling, reduced the value of BRET_max for A₁R-A₁R homodimers (Fig. 2a) and for A₁R-A_2AR heterodimers (Fig. 2e) but not for A_2AR-A_2AR homodimers (Fig. 2b). This indicates that G_i is coupled to A₁R in both the homodimer and the heterodimer. Similarly, blocking G_s-receptor interaction using cholera toxin or a minigene-coded peptide that blocks α_S coupling reduced BRET_max for A_2AR-A_2AR homodimers (Fig. 2b) and for A₁R-A_2AR heterodimers (Fig. 2e) but not for A₁R-A₁R homodimers (Fig. 2a). Interestingly, BRET curves showed sensitivity to both cholera and pertussis toxins in cells expressing either A₁R-Rluc-A₁R-YFP and A_2AR (Fig. 2c) or A_2AR-Rluc-A_2AR-YFP and A₁R (Fig. 2d). Functionality of constructs and controls in cells expressing minigenes, and in cells expressing the ghrelin GHS1a receptor instead of one of the adenosine receptors, are shown in Additional file 3: Figure S3. To further confirm that G_i binds A_2AR in the receptor heteromer, the energy transfer between Rluc fused to the N-terminal domain of the α-subunit of G_i (G_i-Rluc) and A_2AR-YFP was analyzed in cells co-expressing or not co-expressing A₁R (Fig. 2f). A hyperbolic BRET curve was observed in the presence of A₁R, but not in its absence, indicating that G_i and G_s are bound to their respective receptor homodimers within the A₁R-A_2AR heteromer.

Fig. 2
Influence of G proteins on A₁R and A_2AR homodimerization and heterodimerization. B Bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) saturation curves were performed in HEK-293T cells 48 h post-transfection with (a, c) 0.3 μg of cDNA corresponding to A₁R-Rluc and increasing amounts of A₁R-YFP (0.1–1.5 μg cDNA) or GHS1a-YFP (0.25–2 μg cDNA) as negative control (a, *purple line*), without (a) or with (c) 0.15 μg of cDNA corresponding to A_2AR; (b, d) 0.2 μg of cDNA corresponding to A_2AR-Rluc and increasing amounts of A_2AR-YFP (0.1–1.0 μg cDNA) or GHS1a-YFP (0.25–2 μg cDNA) as negative control (b, *purple line*), without (b) or with (d) 0.5 μg of cDNA corresponding to A₁R; (e) 0.3 μg of cDNA corresponding to A₁R-Rluc and increasing amounts of A_2AR-YFP (0.1–1.0 μg cDNA); and (f) 0.5 μg of cDNA corresponding to A₁R (except control *blue curves* that were obtained in cells not expressing A₁R), 2 μg of cDNA corresponding to G_i-Rluc, and increasing amounts of A_2AR-YFP (0.1–0.5 μg cDNA). In panels a, b, and e, cells were also transfected with 0.5 μg of cDNA corresponding to the G_i-related (*orange curves*) or G_s-related (*blue curves*) minigenes. Cells were treated for 16 h with medium (*black curves*), with 10 ng/ml of pertussis toxin (*green curves*), or with 100 ng/ml of cholera toxin (*red curves*) prior to BRET determination. To confirm similar donor expressions (approximately 100,000 bioluminescence units) while monitoring the increase in acceptor expression (1000–40,000 fluorescence units), the fluorescence and luminescence of each sample were measured before energy transfer data acquisition. MiliBRET unit (*mBU*) values are the mean ± standard error of the mean of four to six different experiments grouped as a function of the amount of BRET acceptor. In each panel (*top*) a cartoon depicts the proteins to which Rluc and YFP were fused and the presence or not of partner receptors and/or G_s or G_i proteins [schemes in c to f are not intended to illustrate on stoichiometry because the predominant form in cells expressing the two receptors was the heterotetramer containing two A₁ and two A_2A receptors (see “Results”)]

Further, two complementary BRET experiments were performed to determine the orientation of G_i and G_s within the A₁R-A_2AR heterocomplex. First, Rluc and YFP were respectively fused to the N-terminal domains of the α-subunit of G_i (α_i-Rluc) and G_s (α_s-YFP) (Fig. 3, bar a); second, they were fused to the N-terminal domain of the γ-subunit (γ-Rluc and γ-YFP) (Fig. 3, bar b). We observed significant energy transfer between γ-Rluc and γ-YFP in cells co-expressing A₁R and A_2AR (Fig. 3, bar b) but minimal amounts in negative-control cells (Fig. 3, bars c and d). In cells expressing either A₁R or A_2AR, the energy transfer between γ-Rluc and γ-YFP was also low (Fig. 3, bars e and f), suggesting that dimers but not tetramers were the most prevalent form of surface receptors in single-transfected cells. These results in co-transfected cells corroborate the 2:2 stoichiometry obtained from analysis of the fluorescence in single particles and are consistent with G_i and G_s binding to these A₁R-A_2AR heterotetramers.

Fig. 3
G_s and G_i coupling to adenosine A₁R-A_2AR heterocomplexes. Bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) experiments were performed in HEK-293T cells 48 h post-transfection with (a, b) 0.2 μg of cDNA corresponding to A₁R and 0.15 μg of cDNA corresponding to A_2AR; (c, d) 0.2 μg of cDNA corresponding to A₁R or 0.15 μg of cDNA corresponding to A_2AR and 0.4 μg of cDNA corresponding to growth hormone secretagogue receptor GHS1a; (e) 0.2 μg of cDNA corresponding to A₁R; or (f) 0.15 μg of cDNA corresponding to A_2AR. Cells were also transfected with 2 μg of cDNA corresponding to the α-subunit of G_i fused to Rluc and increasing amounts of cDNA corresponding to the α-subunit of G_s fused to YFP (a) or 0.3 μg of cDNA corresponding to the γ-subunit fused to Rluc and increasing amounts of cDNA corresponding to the γ-subunit fused to YFP (b–f). Maximum miliBRET unit (*mBU*) values are the mean ± standard error of the mean of four different experiments. A scheme showing the protein to which Rluc and YFP were fused is provided (*top*). ***p < 0.001 by one-way ANOVA with post - hoc Dunnett’s test

Molecular model of G_i and G_s bound to the A₁R-A_2AR heterotetramer

To identify the orientation of the G protein in the receptor homodimer, we combined energy transfer assays between α_s-Rluc (Rluc at the N-terminus of the G protein α-subunit) and A_2AR-YFP (Fig. 4a) with information on transmembrane (TM) interfaces based on crystal structures of GPCRs [3, 4], which have been recently summarized [25]. The observed high-energy transfer using α_s-Rluc and A_2AR-YFP indicated close proximity between the N-tail of the α-subunit of G_s and the C-tail of A_2AR. Interestingly, Rluc and YFP in the “monomeric” A_2AR-G_s complex (see “Methods”) point toward distant positions in space (Fig. 4b). Therefore, the observed BRET should occur between Rluc in the G protein α-subunit and a second A_2AR-YFP protomer. Among all described TM interfaces for receptor homodimerization (see Additional file 4: Figure S4), we propose the TM4/5 interface, which is observed in the oligomeric structure of β₁-AR [4] and in structures derived from coarse-grained molecular dynamics (MD) simulations [26]. In fact, this is the only interface that favors BRET between α_s-Rluc and a second A_2AR-YFP protomer in a homodimer (Fig. 4c). The homologous A₁R homodimer was built using the same TM4/5 interface as for A_2AR (see Additional file 4: Figure S4 and its legend).

Fig. 4
Orientation of a G protein in a receptor homodimer. Bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) saturation experiments were performed in HEK-293T cells transfected with 2 μg of cDNA corresponding to the α-subunit of G_s fused to Rluc and increasing amounts of A_2AR-YFP (0.1–0.5 μg) cDNA. a BRET measurements in cells pretreated for 16 h with medium (*black line*) or with 100 ng/ml of cholera toxin (*red line*). Both fluorescence and luminescence of each sample were measured before every experiment to confirm similar donor expressions (approximately 50,000 bioluminescence units) while monitoring the increase in acceptor expression (1000–10,000 fluorescence units). miliBRET unit (*mBU*) values are the mean ± standard error of the mean of four to five different experiments grouped as a function of the amount of BRET acceptor. A scheme of the placement of donor and acceptor BRET moieties is provided (*top*). b Molecular model of the A_2AR-G_s complex. Rluc (*blue*) is attached to the N-terminal αN helix of G_s (*gray*), and YFP (*yellow*) is attached to the C-terminal domain of A_2AR (*light green*) (see Additional file 9: Figure S9 for details). c Arrangement of A_2AR homodimers modeled via the TM4/5 interface as observed in the oligomeric structure of β₁-AR [4]. The A_2AR protomer bound to α_s is shown in *light green*, whereas the second A_2AR-YFP protomer is shown in *dark green*. The molecular model in panel c (BRET between Rluc in G_s α subunit and YFP in a second A_2AR protomer; center-to-center distance between Rluc and YFP of 6.5 nm), in contrast to the model shown in panel B (BRET between Rluc in G_s α subunit and YFP in the G-protein bound A_2AR protomer; center-to-center distance between Rluc and YFP of 8.3 nm), would favor the observed high-energy transfer (see panel a) between α_s-Rluc and A_2AR-YFP

The remaining possible TMs able to form heteromeric interfaces are TM1 and TM5/6 (Fig. 5). Both are possible inter-GPCR interfaces as observed in the structure of the μ-opioid receptor (μ-OR) [3]. To discern between these two possibilities, a bimolecular fluorescence complementation strategy was undertaken. For this purpose, the N-terminal fragment of Rluc8 was fused to A₁R (A₁R-nRluc8) and its C-terminal domain to A_2AR (A_2AR-cRluc8), which only upon complementation can act as a BRET donor (Rluc8). The BRET acceptor protein was obtained upon complementation of the N-terminal fragment of YFP Venus protein fused to A₁R (A₁R-nVenus) and its C-terminal domain fused to A_2AR (A_2AR-cVenus). When all four receptor constructs were transfected, we obtained a positive and saturable BRET signal (BRET_max of 35 ± 2 mBU and BRET₅₀ of 16 ± 3 mBU) that was not obtained for negative controls (Additional file 5: Figure S5). Figure 5a, b shows that the hemi-donor (A₁R-nRluc8 and A_2AR-cRluc8) and the hemi-acceptor (A₁R-nVenus and A_2AR-cVenus) moieties, placed at the C-terminus of the receptors, can only complement if A₁R-A_2AR heterodimerization occurs via the TM5/6 interface. The TM4/5 interface for homodimerization and the TM5/6 interface for heterodimerization give a rhombus-shaped tetramer organization (Fig. 5a). Remarkably, cell pre-incubation with either pertussis or cholera toxins decreased the BRET_max by 35 % (Fig. 5c), further suggesting that both G_s and G_i proteins bind to the A₁R-A_2AR heterotetramer.

Fig. 5.
Bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET)-aided construction of a model consisting of G_i and G_s bound to an A₁R-A_2AR heterotetramer. a, b A₁R-A_2AR tetramer built using TM5/6 (a) or TM1 (b) inter-receptor interfaces modeled as in the structure of the μ opioid receptor [3]. TM helices 1, 4, and 5, involved in receptor dimerization, are highlighted in *dark blue*, *light blue*, and *gray*, respectively. nRluc8 and cRluc8 are shown in *blue* and nVenus and cVenus in *dark yellow*. c BRET and bimolecular fluorescence complementation experiments were performed in HEK-293T cells transfected with 1.5 μg of cDNA corresponding to A₁R-cRluc8 and A_2AR-nRluc8, and 1.5 μg of cDNA corresponding to A₁R-nVenus and A_2AR-cVenus. As the negative control, cells were transfected with 1 μg of cDNA corresponding to nRluc8 and 1.5 μg of cDNA corresponding to A_2AR-nRluc8, A₁R-nVenus, and A_2AR-cVenus. Cells were treated for 16 h with medium (*– toxins*), 10 ng/ml of pertussis toxin (*+ pertussis*), or 100 ng/ml of cholera toxin (*+ cholera*) prior to BRET determination. The relative amount of BRET is given as in Fig. 4 and values are the mean ± standard error of the mean of three different experiments. Student’s t-test showed statistically significant differences with respect to the control (^# p < 0.05, ^## p < 0.01) and a significant effect in the presence of either toxin over BRET in the absence of toxins (*p < 0.05). A schematic representation at the *top* shows the protein to which the hemi luminescent or fluorescent proteins were fused. d Molecular model of the A₁R-A_2AR tetramer in complex with G_i and G_s. A₁R bound to G_i is shown in *red*, G_i-unbound A₁R is shown in *orange*, A_2AR bound to G_s is shown in *dark green*, G_s-unbound A_2AR is shown in *light green*, and the α, β-, and γ-subunits of G_i and G_s are shown in *dark gray*, *light gray*, and *purple*, respectively. Transmembrane helices 4 and 5 are highlighted in *light blue* and *gray*, respectively

We next evaluated, using computational tools, whether the proposed A₁R-A_2AR heterotetramer could couple to both G_i and G_s proteins. Clearly, the external protomers of the proposed A₁R-A_2AR heterotetramer can bind to G_i and G_s proteins (Fig. 5d). This model positions the α-subunits of G_i and G_s in close contact, facing the interior of the tetrameric complex, while the N-terminal α-helices of α_i and α_s point outside the complex. The N-terminal α-helices of the γ-subunits are in close proximity, facing the inside (Additional file 6: Figure S6), which explains the significant energy transfer observed between γ-Rluc and γ-YFP (Fig. 3, bar b). The model provides experimental insights into the structural arrangement of heteromers consisting of two GPCRs and coupled to two G proteins, the possibility of which has recently been discussed [25]. We used MD simulations to study the stability of this complex. Additional file 7: Figure S7 shows root-mean-square deviations (rmsd) on protein α-carbons throughout the MD simulation, as well as key intermolecular distances among protomers and G proteins. Clearly, both the A₁R protomer bound to G_i and the A₁R protomer that does not interact with it maintained a close structural similarity (rmsd ≈ 0.3 nm) relative to the initial structures. Similar results were obtained for the A_2AR protomers (bound and unbound to G_s) (Additional file 7: Figure S7A). The fact that rmsd values of the whole system, formed by the A₁R-A_2AR heterotetramer bound to G_i and G_s, are of the order of 0.6 nm indicates that the initial structural model is maintained during the MD simulation (Additional file 7: Figure S7A). As a consequence, selected intermolecular distances among protomers and G proteins remain constant during the MD simulation (Additional file 7: Figure S7B). A key aspect in the assembly of the heterotetramer is the TM interfaces for homodimerization (TM4/5) and heterodimerization (TM5/6). Additional file 8: Figure S8B shows rmsd values of the four-helix bundle forming the TM4/5 and TM5/6 interfaces, the initial and final snapshots of these bundles, and the evolution of the A₁R-A_2AR heterotetramer during the MD simulation. Clearly, the rather small structural variations of these four-helix bundles, also reflected by rmsd <0.3 nm, suggest a stable complex. Notably, the TM5/6 four-helix bundle seems more stable than the TM4/5 bundles, as shown by its lower rmsd value. Additional file 8: Figure S8B, C depicts contact maps of the TM4/5 and TM5/6 interfaces, as well as the evolution of the network of hydrophobic interactions within these interfaces during the MD simulation.

Conclusions

For more than a decade, experimental evidence has supported the occurrence of homo-oligomers and hetero-oligomers of GPCRs [21]. However, our basic understanding of what makes heteromers different from homomers remains unknown. Our results, studying adenosine receptors as a model heteromer, point to three important new findings. First, the predominant stoichiometry in cells expressing A₁R-A_2AR heteromers is 2:2; that is, a dimer of dimers (tetramer). Second, two different heterotrimeric G proteins can couple to heteromers, the overall complex constituting a functional unit. Third, the molecular orientation within the heteromer complex affords various qualitatively different interfaces; the two more relevant are the inter-protomer heteromeric interface and the inter-G-protein interface. Presumably, the two interfaces provide the key characteristic of heteromers: the ability of one protomer/G-protein complex to influence the signaling of the other. Surely, allosteric effects occurring between heteroreceptors and between G_s and G_i proteins are due to conformational changes transmitted along the intimately interacting molecules in the complex. In our controlled cell transfection system, which expressed a low density of receptors, minor species formed by monomers and trimers were found in addition to a predominance of tetramers in the plasma membrane, strongly supporting the occurrence of an in vivo dynamic distribution of receptors.

Adenosine was, from an evolutionary point of view, one of the first extracellular regulators given that it is involved in energy and nucleic acid metabolisms. Adenosine A₁ and A_2A receptors are expressed in almost every mammalian organ and tissue. In the heart, where adenosine plays a key role in both inotropic and chronotropic regulation, A₁R-mediated cardioprotection did not occur in A_2AR knockout mice, suggesting an interaction between A₁ and A_2A receptors. In neurons, A₁ and A_2A receptors show co-localization, leading to inter-receptor interactions unveiled by pharmacological treatments. For instance, Okada et al. [27] showed that cAMP-dependent protein kinase A plays a role in the regulation of hippocampal serotonin release mediated by both A₁ and A_2A receptors. Similarly, the control of γ-amino butyric acid transport in astrocytes was attributed to the expression of A₁R-A_2AR heteromers and to a specific mechanism by which the heteromer signals via G_i or G_s depending on the concentration of adenosine [28]. The structural basis of the differential signaling by the heteromer/G-protein macromolecular complex likely implies communication at the receptor-receptor level but also between G_s and G_i. Because the binding of two G proteins to a heterodimer is not feasible due to steric clashes [25], our finding that the A₁R-A_2AR heterotetramer may bind to both G_s and G_i provides a structural framework to interpret experimental data.

Methods

Total internal reflection microscopy and single-particle data analysis

Single-particle imaging and tracking were performed on a Nikon Total Internal Reflection Fluorescence (TIRF) system, as detailed in Additional file 11: Supplementary Methods. Typically, 500 readouts of a 512 × 512-pixel region, the full array of the CCD chip, were acquired. For single-particle data analysis, parameters were calculated by applying the equations described in Additional file 11: Supplementary Methods.

Cell culture and transient transfection

HEK-293T cells were grow at 37 °C in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) (Gibco, Thermo Fischer Scientific, Madrid, Spain) supplemented with 2 mM L-glutamine, 100 U/ml penicillin/streptomycin, and 5 % (v/v) heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS) (all supplements were from Invitrogen, Paisley, UK). Cells were transiently transfected with cDNA corresponding to receptors, fusion proteins, A_2AR mutants, or G-protein minigene vectors obtained as detailed in an expanded view by the polyethylenimine (PEI; SigmaAldrich, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain) method. Sample protein concentration was determined using a Bradford assay kit (Bio-Rad, Munich, Germany) using bovine serum albumin dilutions as standards. For single-particle imaging, cells were seeded into six-well plates containing glass coverslips (No. 1, round, 24 mm; Assistent, Sondheim, Germany) or into the Lab-Tek Chambered #1.0 Borosilicate Coverglass System (Nunc, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Schwerte, Germany). Cell transient transfections were performed with Lipofectamine™ 2000 (Invitrogen, Life Technologies, Darmstadt, Germany) or FuGENE 6 (Roche Applied Science, Indianapolis, IN, USA) and the application of 0.1–0.2 μg plasmid DNA per well. Before each experiment, cells were washed three times with 200 μL phenol red-free DMEM.

Plasmids

DNA sequences encoding amino acid residues 1–155 and 155–238 of YFP Venus protein, and amino acids residues 1–229 and 230–311 of RLuc8 protein were subcloned in the pcDNA3.1 vector to obtain the YFP Venus and RLuc8 hemi-truncated proteins. The human cDNAs for adenosine receptors, A_2AR and A₁R, cloned into pcDNA3.1, were amplified without their stop codons using sense and antisense primers harboring unique EcoRI and BamHI sites to clone receptors into the pcDNA3.1RLuc vector (pRLuc-N1; PerkinElmer, Wellesley, MA, USA), and EcoRI and KpnI to clone A_2AR, A₁R, or GHS1a into the pEYFP-N1 vector (enhanced yellow variant of GFP; Clontech, Heidelberg, Germany). G_αs cloned into the SFV1 vector, G_αi cloned into the pcDNA3.1 vector, or G_γ cloned into the pEYFP-C1 vector were amplified without their stop codons using sense and antisense primers harboring unique HindIII and BamHI sites to clone them into the pcDNA3.1-Rluc vector, or EcoRI and KpnI to clone G_αs into the pEYFP-N1 vector. The amplified fragments were subcloned to be in-frame with restriction sites of the pcDNA3.1RLuc or pEYFP-N1 vectors to give plasmids that expressed proteins fused to RLuc or YFP on the N-terminal end (G_αs-RLuc, G_αi-RLuc, G_γ-RLuc, G_αs-YFP, and G_γ-YFP) or the C-terminal end (A₁R-RLuc, A_2AR-RLuc, A₁R-YFP, A_2AR-YFP, and GHS1a-YFP). The human cDNAs for A₁R or GHS1a were subcloned into pcDNA3.1-nRLuc8 or pcDNA3.1-nVenus to give plasmids that expressed A₁R or GHS1a fused to either nRLuc8 or nYFP Venus on the C-terminal end of the receptor (A₁R-nRLuc8 and A₁R-nVenus or GHS1a-nRLuc8 and GHS1a-nVenus). The cDNAs for human A_2A or GHS1a receptors were subcloned into pcDNA3.1-cRLuc8 or pcDNA3.1-cVenus to give plasmids that expressed receptors fused to either cRLuc8 or cYFP Venus on the C-terminal end of the receptor (A_2AR-cRLuc8 and A_2AR-cVenus or GHS1a-cRLuc8 and GHS1a-cVenus). Expression of constructs was tested by confocal microscopy and the receptor-fusion protein functionality by measuring ERK1/2 phosphorylation and cAMP production, as described previously [13, 14, 17, 29].

“Minigene” plasmid vectors are constructs designed to express relatively short polypeptide sequences following their transfection into mammalian cells. Here, we used minigene constructs encoding the carboxyl-terminal 11-amino acid residues from G_α subunits of G_i1/2 (G_i minigene) or G_s (G_s minigene) G proteins; the resulting peptides inhibit G-protein coupling to the receptor and consequently inhibit the receptor-mediated cellular responses as previously described [24]. The cDNA encoding the last 11 amino acids of human G_α subunit corresponding to G_i1/2 (I K N N L K D C G L F) or G_s (Q R M H L R Q Y E L L), inserted in a pcDNA3.1 plasmid vector, were generously provided by Dr Heidi Hamm.

Energy transfer assays

For BRET and complementation BRET assays, HEK-293T cells were transiently cotransfected with a constant amount of cDNA encoding for proteins fused to RLuc, nRLuc8, or cRLuc8, and with increasing amounts of the cDNA corresponding to proteins fused to YFP, nYFP Venus, or cYFP Venus (see figure legends). To quantify protein-YFP expression or protein-reconstituted YFP Venus expression, cells (20 μg protein) were distributed in 96-well microplates (black plates with a transparent bottom) and fluorescence was read in a FLUOstar OPTIMA Fluorimeter (BMG Labtechnologies, Offenburg, Germany) equipped with a high-energy xenon flash lamp, using a 10 nm bandwidth excitation filter at 400 nm reading. Protein fluorescence expression was determined as the fluorescence of the sample minus the fluorescence of cells expressing the BRET donor alone. For BRET measurements, the equivalent of 20 μg of cell suspension were distributed in 96-well microplates (Corning 3600, white plates; Sigma) and 5 μM coelenterazine h (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR, USA) was added. After 1 min for BRET or after 5 min for BRET with bimolecular fluorescence complementation, the readings were collected using a Mithras LB 940 that allows the integration of the signals detected in the short-wavelength filter at 485 nm (440–500 nm) and the long-wavelength filter at 530 nm (510–590 nm). To quantify protein-RLuc or protein-reconstituted RLuc8 expression, luminescence readings were also performed 10 min after adding 5 μM coelenterazine h. The net BRET was defined as [(long-wavelength emission)/(short-wavelength emission)] – Cf, where Cf corresponds to [(long-wavelength emission)/(short-wavelength emission)] for the donor construct expressed alone in the same experiment. BRET is expressed as miliBRET units (mBU; net BRET × 1000).

Computational model of the A₁R-A_2AR tetramer in complex with G_i and G_s

The crystal structure of inactive A_2AR [PDB:4EIY] [30] was used for the construction of human A_2AR [UniProt:P29274] and A₁R [UniProt:P30542] homology models using Modeller 9.12 [31]. These receptors share 51 % of sequence identity and 62 % of sequence similarity, excluding the C-terminal after helix 8. Intracellular loop 3 (ICL3) of A_2AR (Lys209–Gly218) and A₁R (Asn212–Ser219) were modeled using Modeller 9.12 [31] using ICL3 of squid rhodopsin [PDB:2Z73] as a template. The C-terminus tails of A₁R, containing 16 amino acids (Pro311–Asp326), and of A_2AR, containing 102 amino acids (Gln311–Ser412), were modeled as suggested for the oxoeicosanoid receptor (OXER) [32] (see Additional file 9: Figure S9 for details). The N-terminus of A₁R and A_2AR were not included in the model. The “active” conformations of A₁R bound to G_i and A_2AR bound to G_s were modeled using the crystal structure of β₂-AR in complex with G_s [PDB:3SN6] [33]. The globular α-helical domain of the α-subunit was modeled in the “closed” conformation [34], using the crystal structure of [AlF₄ ⁻]-activated G_i [PDB:1AGR]. The location of YFP [PDB:2RH7] attached to the C-tail of A_2AR was determined as suggested for the OXER [32] (see Additional file 9: Figure S9 for details). Rluc [PDB:2PSD] and YFP were fused to the to the N-terminus of the α-subunits and γ-subunits of G_i and G_s by a covalent bond. The structures of adenosine receptor oligomers were modeled via the TM4/5 interface for homodimerization, using the oligomeric structure of the β₁-AR [PDB:4GPO] [4], or via the TM5/6 interface for heterodimerization, using the structure of the μ-OR [PDB:4DKL] [3]. The G_i-bound A₁R and G_s-bound A_2AR protomers were rotated 10° to avoid the steric clash of the N-terminal helix of G_i and G_s with the C-terminal helix (Hx8) of G_s-unbound A_2AR and G_i-unbound A₁R, respectively. This computational model, without Rluc and YFP, was placed in a rectangular box containing a lipid bilayer (814 molecules of 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine - POPC -) with explicit solvent (102,973 water molecules) and a 0.15 M concentration of Na⁺ and Cl⁻ (1762 ions). This initial complex was energy-minimized and subsequently subjected to a 10 ns MD equilibration, with positional restraints on protein coordinates. These restraints were released and 500 ns of MD trajectory were produced at constant pressure and temperature (see Additional file 10: Movie M1). Computer simulations were performed with the GROMACS 4.6.3 simulation package [35], using the AMBER99SB force field as implemented in GROMACS and Berger parameters for POPC lipids. This procedure has been previously validated [36].

Availability of data and materials

The crystal structures 4EIY, 2Z73, 3SN6, 1AGR, 2RH7, 2PSD, 4GPO, and 4DKL are available from PDB (http://www.rcsb.org). All other relevant data are within the paper and its Additional files.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the technical help provided by Jasmina Jiménez (CIBERNED, University of Barcelona). This study was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (SAF2009-07276, SAF2010-18472, SAF2011-23813, SAF2013-48271-C2-2-R; those grants may include FEDER funds), the Max Planck Society, the German Cancer Research Center, and the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF). PJM and LP participate in the European COST Action CM1207 (GLISTEN). Authors gratefully acknowledge the computer resources provided by the Barcelona Supercomputing Center - Centro Nacional de Supercomputación.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Additional files

Additional file 1: Figure S1. Examples of receptor trajectories in HEK-293T cells. Images of cells expressing A₁R-GFP (A) and of particular trajectories of A₁R-GFP-containing (B) or A_2AR-mCherry-containing (C) particles. (TIF 1164 kb)

Additional file 2: Figure S2. Graphical description of the stoichiometry of A₁R-GFP, A_2AR-mCherry or both A₁-GFP and A_2A-mCherry. The fluorescence intensity signal distribution (gray area) detected for more than 7000 independent observations is given for HEK-293T cells expressing A₁-GFP (A), A_2A-mCherry (D), or both A₁-GFP and A_2A-mCherry (B, E). The stoichiometry analysis was performed for A₁-GFP (A, B) and A_2A-mCherry (D, E). Curves approximately delineating the amount of monomers, dimers, trimers, and tetramers are displayed in green for A₁-GFP (A, B) and in red for A_2A-mCherry (D-E). The occurrence on the cell surface of monomers, dimers, trimers, and tetramers for A₁-GFP (C) expressed alone (black bars) or in the presence of A_2A-mCherry (blue bars) and for A_2A-mCherry (F) expressed alone (black bars) or in the presence of A₁-GFP (blue bars) was calculated by stoichiometry analysis from results shown in A, B, D, and E. (TIF 455 kb)

Additional file 3: Figure S3. Controls of cAMP production and BRET assays in cells expressing minigenes and in cells expressing the ghrelin GHS1a receptor instead of one of the adenosine receptors. (A,B) cAMP determination in HEK-293T cells transfected with (A) 0.3 μg of cDNA corresponding to A₁R or (B) with 0.2 μg of cDNA corresponding to A_2AR with (control) or without 0.5 μg of cDNA corresponding to minigenes coding for peptides blocking either Gi or Gs binding. Cells were stimulated with the A₁R agonist N⁶-Cyclopentyladenosine (CPA) (10 nM, red bars) in the presence of 0.5 μM forskolin (Fk) or with the A_2AR agonist 4-[2-[[6-Amino-9-(N-ethyl-β-D-ribofuranuronamidosyl)-9H-purin-2-yl]amino]ethyl]benzenepropanoic acid hydrochloride (CGS-21680) (200 nM, blue bars). Values expressed as % of the forskolin-treated cells (CPA reduces forskolin-induced cAMP levels, red bars) or of the basal (CGS 21680 per se enhances cAMP levels, blue bars) are given as mean ± SD (n = 4–8). One-way ANOVA followed by a Bonferroni post - hoc test showed a significant effect of CPA when compared with that of forskolin (red bars, ***p < 0.001) or of CGS 21680 when compared to basal cAMP levels (blue bars, ^## p < 0.01, ^### p < 0.001). (C, D) BRET saturation curves were performed in HEK-293T cells transfected with (C) 0.3 μg cDNA coding for A₁R-Rluc, increasing amounts of cDNA coding for A₁R-YFP (0.1–1.5 μg cDNA), and 0.4 μg cDNA coding for GHS1a, or (D) with 0.2 μg of cDNA coding for A_2AR-Rluc, increasing amounts of cDNA coding for A_2AR-YFP (0.1–1.0 μg cDNA), and 0.5 μg cDNA coding for to GHS1a. Prior to BRET determination, cells were treated for 16 h with medium (black curves), with 10 ng/ml of pertussis toxin (green curves), or with 100 ng/ml of cholera toxin (red curves). mili BRET units (mBU) are given as the mean ± SD (n = 4–6 different experiments grouped as a function of the amount of BRET acceptor). (TIF 1418 kb)

Additional file 4: Figure S4. Possible interfaces in A_2AR homodimers in complex with G_s. In A–E, the A_2AR homodimer was modeled through TM4 using the H₁-receptor structure as template (A), through TM5 using the structure of squid rhodopsin (B), through TM4/5 using the β₁-receptor structure (C), and via TM5/6 (D) and TM1 (E) using the μ-OR structure. TM helices 1, 4, and 5 involved in receptor dimerization are highlighted in dark blue, light blue, and gray, respectively. A_2AR protomers bound to G_s (in gray) are shown in light green, whereas G_s-unbound A_2AR protomers are shown in dark green. Rluc (blue) is attached to the N-terminal αN helix of G_s, and YFP (yellow) is attached to the C-terminal domain of the G_s-unbound A_2AR protomer (light green). It is important to note that the position of YFP is highly dependent on the orientation of the long and highly flexible C-tail of A_2AR (102 amino acids, Gln311–Ser412), which was modeled as described for the OXER [32] (see Additional file 9: Figure S9 for details). Despite these limitations, we can crudely estimate the approximate distances between the center of mass of Rluc and YFP as 4.6, 10.1, 6.5, 11.6, and 8.3 nm for panels A–E, respectively. Thus, among all these possible dimeric interfaces, only the molecular models depicted in panels A (TM4 interface) and C (TM4/5 interface) would favor the observed high-energy transfer between G_s-Rluc and A_2AR-YFP (Fig. 4a in main paper). However, there is a steric clash between the N-terminal helix of Gs and the dark-green protomer in the TM4 interface. Accordingly, we have modeled A_2AR homodimerization via the TM4/5 interface. Unfortunately, similar experiments with cells transfected with G_i-Rluc and A₁R-YFP could not be accomplished because of a lack of receptor expression (not shown); it is likely that the shorter C-tail of A₁R (16 amino acids, Pro311–Asp326) could not accommodate YFP in the presence of G_i in the right three-dimensional structure. The A₁R homodimer was built using the same TM4/5 interface as for A_2AR. (TIF 3135 kb)

Additional file 5: Figure S5. BRET assays in cells expressing fusion proteins containing hemi-Rluc8 and hemi-Venus moieties fused to adenosine receptors or containing the ghrelin GHS1a receptor instead of one of the adenosine receptors. (A) Saturation BRET curve in HEK-293T co-transfected with 1.5 μg of the two cDNAs corresponding to A₁R-cRLuc8 and A_2AR-nRLuc8 and with increasing amounts of cDNAs corresponding to A₁R-nVenus and A_2AR-cVenus (equal amounts of the two cDNAs). BRET_max was 35 ± 2 mBU and BRET₅₀ was 16 ± 3 mBU. BRET in cells expressing cRluc8 instead of A₁R-cRluc8 gave a linear, non-saturable signal. (B) Comparison of BRET responses using complementary and non-complementary pairs, or replacing one adenosine receptor with the ghrelin GHS1a (gn) receptor. Data are mean ± SD of three different experiments grouped as a function of the amount of BRET acceptor. ***p < 0.001 with respect to BRET in cells expressing adenosine receptors and hemi-Rluc8 and hemi-Venus proteins. (TIF 398 kb)

Additional file 6: Figure S6. Details of the relative position of Rluc and YFP in a receptor heterotetramer interacting with two G proteins. Computational-based model of G_s and G_i bound to the adenosine A₁R-A_2AR heterotetramer. Rluc and YFP fused to the N-terminal domain of the G_α-subunits point toward different positions in space (A), whereas Rluc and YFP fused to G_γ-subunits are close (B). The color code of the proteins is depicted in the adjacent schematic representations (TM4 and TM5 of GPCR protomers are in light blue and gray, respectively). (TIF 6445 kb)

Additional file 7: Figure S7. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulation of the adenosine A₁R-A_2AR heterotetramer in complex with G_i and G_s. (A) Root-mean-square deviations (rmsd) on protein α-carbons of the whole system (black solid line), of the two A₁Rs (orange and red solid lines), of the two A_2ARs (light and dark green solid lines), of G_i (gray solid line), and of G_s (gray dotted line) throughout the MD simulation. This color scheme matches with the color of the different proteins depicted in the two adjacent schematic representations. (B) Intermolecular distances between the N-terminal helices of the γ-subunit of Gi and Gs (magenta line), the N-terminal helices of the α-subunit of G_i and G_s (gray line), the N-terminal helix of the α-subunit of G_i and the C-terminal helix (Hx8) of inactive A₁R (orange line), the N-terminal helix of the α-subunit of G_s and the C-terminal Hx8 of inactive A_2AR (green line), the C-terminal Hx8 of A₁R and A_2AR (blue lines). These computed intermolecular distances are depicted as double arrows in the two adjacent schematic representations. (TIF 6973 kb)

Additional file 8: Figure S8. Evolution of TM4/5 and TM5/6 interfaces as devised from MD simulations of the adenosine A₁R-A_2AR heterotetramer in complex with G_i and G_s. (A) Representative snapshots (20 structures collected every 25 ns) of the TM domains of A₁R bound to G_i (red), G_i-unbound A₁R (orange), A_2AR bound to G_s (dark green), and G_s-unbound A_2AR (light green). TM helices 4 and 5 are highlighted in light blue and gray, respectively. Initial (at 0 ns, transparent cylinders) and final (at 500 ns, solid cylinders) snapshots of TM interfaces are shown for homodimerization (TM4/5, within rectangles) and heterodimerization (TM5/6, within a circle) bundles. TM helices 4 (light blue), 5 (gray), and 6 (orange and green) are highlighted. (B) Root-mean-square deviations (rmsd) on protein α-carbons of the four-helix bundles forming the TM5/6 interface (orange solid line), TM4/5 interface of A₁R (blue dotted line), and TM4/5 interface of A_2AR (blue solid line) throughout the MD simulation. (C) Contact maps of the TM4/5 interface (rectangles in panel A) in the A₁R or A_2AR homodimer (left and right panels) and of the TM5/6 interface (circle in panel A) in the A₁R-A_2AR heterodimer (middle panel). Darker dots show more frequent contacts. (D) Detailed view of the extensive network of hydrophobic interactions (mainly of aromatic side chains) within the TM4/5 (left and right panels) and TM5/6 (middle panel) interfaces. The amino acids are numbered following the generalized numbering scheme of Ballesteros and Weinstein [37, 38]. This allows easy comparison among residues in the 7TM segments of different receptors. (TIF 4004 kb)

Additional file 9: Figure S9. Positioning YFP in the C-tail of A_2AR. The complex between the A_2AR protomer (in light green) and G_s (α-subunit in dark grey and yellow, β-subunit in light gray, and γ-subunit in purple) was constructed from the crystal structure of β₂ in complex with G_s [33]. Although the exact conformation of the A_2AR C-tail (102 amino acids, Gln311–Ser412) cannot unambiguously be determined, its orientation was modeled as in the C-tail of squid rhodopsin [39], which contains the conserved amphipathic helix 8 that runs parallel to the membrane and an additional cytoplasmic helix 9. Thus, the C-tail of A_2AR expands (see solid light green line) and points intracellularly toward the N-termini of the γ-subunit as suggested for OXER [32]. The laboratory of Kostenis has shown that the C-terminal of OXER, labeled with Rluc (OXER-Rluc), gets close to the N-terminal of the γ-subunit, labeled with GFP (γ-GFP) [32]. Analogously, we propose that YFP attached to the C-tail of A_2AR is positioned near the N-termini of the γ-subunit (in purple). (TIF 2395 kb)

Additional file 10: Movie M1.

Assembly of adenosine A₁ and A_2A receptors in complex with two G proteins and MD simulation of the system. The assembly of G_s and G_i bound to the adenosine A₁R-A_2AR heterotetramer was subjected to 500 ns of MD simulation in a rectangular box containing the system, the lipid bilayer, explicit solvent, and ions. A₁R protomers are in orange and red, A_2AR protomers in light and dark green, G_α in white, G_β in gray, and G_γ in purple. For easier visualization of protomer-protomer interfaces, TMs 4 and 5 are highlighted in blue and white, respectively. (MPEG 87870 kb)

Additional file 11: Supplementary methods. (DOCX 72 kb)

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)

Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobre Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED), Madrid, Spain

(2)

Institute of Biomedicine of the University of Barcelona (IBUB), Barcelona, Spain

(3)

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biomedicine, Faculty of Biology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

(4)

Laboratori de Medicina Computacional, Unitat de Bioestadística, Facultat de Medicina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain

(5)

Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Stuttgart, Germany

(6)

German Cancer Research Center, Bioquant, Heidelberg, Germany

(7)

Interfaculty Institute of Biochemistry, Tübingen, Germany

(8)

School of Pharmacy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

References

Fung JJ, Deupi X, Pardo L, Yao XJ, Velez-Ruiz GA, Devree BT, et al. Ligand-regulated oligomerization of beta(2)-adrenoceptors in a model lipid bilayer. EMBO J. 2009;28:2384–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Albizu L, Cottet M, Kralikova M, Stoev S, Seyer R, Brabet I, et al. Time-resolved FRET between GPCR ligands reveals oligomers in native tissues. Nat Chem Biol. 2010;6:587–94.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Manglik A, Kruse AC, Kobilka TS, Thian FS, Mathiesen JM, Sunahara RK, et al. Crystal structure of the micro-opioid receptor bound to a morphinan antagonist. Nature. 2012;485:321–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Huang J, Chen S, Zhang JJ, Huang XY. Crystal structure of oligomeric β1-adrenergic G protein-coupled receptors in ligand-free basal state. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2013;20:419–25.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Lane JR, Donthamsetti P, Shonberg J, Draper-Joyce CJ, Dentry S, Michino M, et al. A new mechanism of allostery in a G protein-coupled receptor dimer. Nat Chem Biol. 2014;10:745–52.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Vinals X, Moreno E, Lanfumey L, Cordomi A, Pastor A, de La Torre R, et al. Cognitive impairment induced by delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol occurs through heteromers between cannabinoid cb1 and serotonin 5-ht2a receptors. PLoS Biol. 2015;13:e1002194.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Kasai RS, Kusumi A. Single-molecule imaging revealed dynamic GPCR dimerization. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2014;27:78–86.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Hern JA, Baig AH, Mashanov GI, Birdsall B, Corrie JE, Lazareno S, et al. Formation and dissociation of M1 muscarinic receptor dimers seen by total internal reflection fluorescence imaging of single molecules. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:2693–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Calebiro D, Rieken F, Wagner J, Sungkaworn T, Zabel U, Borzi A, et al. Single-molecule analysis of fluorescently labeled G-protein-coupled receptors reveals complexes with distinct dynamics and organization. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110:743–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Kasai RS, Suzuki KG, Prossnitz ER, Koyama-Honda I, Nakada C, Fujiwara TK, et al. Full characterization of GPCR monomer-dimer dynamic equilibrium by single molecule imaging. J Cell Biol. 2011;192:463–80.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Vilardaga JP, Nikolaev VO, Lorenz K, Ferrandon S, Zhuang Z, Lohse MJ. Conformational cross-talk between alpha2A-adrenergic and mu-opioid receptors controls cell signaling. Nat Chem Biol. 2008;4:126–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Fribourg M, Moreno JL, Holloway T, Provasi D, Baki L, Mahajan R, et al. Decoding the signaling of a GPCR heteromeric complex reveals a unifying mechanism of action of antipsychotic drugs. Cell. 2011;147:1011–23.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez S, Moreno-Delgado D, Moreno E, Perez-Capote K, Franco R, Mallol J, et al. Circadian-related heteromerization of adrenergic and dopamine D(4) receptors modulates melatonin synthesis and release in the pineal gland. PLoS Biol. 2012;10:e1001347.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Navarro G, Ferre S, Cordomi A, Moreno E, Mallol J, Casado V, et al. Interactions between intracellular domains as key determinants of the quaternary structure and function of receptor heteromers. J Biol Chem. 2010;285:27346–59.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Ferre S, Baler R, Bouvier M, Caron MG, Devi LA, Durroux T, et al. Building a new conceptual framework for receptor heteromers. Nat Chem Biol. 2009;5:131–4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Venkatakrishnan AJ, Deupi X, Lebon G, Tate CG, Schertler GF, Babu MM. Molecular signatures of G-protein-coupled receptors. Nature. 2013;494:185–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Ciruela F, Casado V, Rodrigues RJ, Lujan R, Burgueno J, Canals M, et al. Presynaptic control of striatal glutamatergic neurotransmission by adenosine A1-A2A receptor heteromers. J Neurosci. 2006;26:2080–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Orru M, Bakesova J, Brugarolas M, Quiroz C, Beaumont V, Goldberg SR, et al. Striatal pre- and postsynaptic profile of adenosine A(2A) receptor antagonists. PLoS One. 2011;6:e16088.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Harms GS, Cognet L, Lommerse PH, Blab GA, Kahr H, Gamsjager R, et al. Single-molecule imaging of l-type Ca(2+) channels in live cells. Biophys J. 2001;81:2639–46.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Whorton MR, Bokoch MP, Rasmussen SG, Huang B, Zare RN, Kobilka B, et al. A monomeric G protein-coupled receptor isolated in a high-density lipoprotein particle efficiently activates its G protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:7682–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Ferre S, Casado V, Devi LA, Filizola M, Jockers R, Lohse MJ, et al. G protein-coupled receptor oligomerization revisited: functional and pharmacological perspectives. Pharmacol Rev. 2014;66:413–34.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Fredholm BB, IJzerman AP, Jacobson KA, Linden J, Muller CE. International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. LXXXI. Nomenclature and classification of adenosine receptors--an update. Pharmacol Rev. 2011;63:1–34.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Carriba P, Navarro G, Ciruela F, Ferre S, Casado V, Agnati L, et al. Detection of heteromerization of more than two proteins by sequential BRET-FRET. Nat Methods. 2008;5:727–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Gilchrist A, Li A, Hamm HE. G alpha COOH-terminal minigene vectors dissect heterotrimeric G protein signaling. Sci STKE. 2002;2002:pl1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Cordomi A, Navarro G, Aymerich MS, Franco R. Structures for G-protein-coupled receptor tetramers in complex with G proteins. Trends Biochem Sci. 2015;40:548–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Mondal S, Johnston JM, Wang H, Khelashvili G, Filizola M, Weinstein H. Membrane driven spatial organization of GPCRs. Sci Rep. 2013;3:2909.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Okada M, Nutt DJ, Murakami T, Zhu G, Kamata A, Kawata Y, et al. Adenosine receptor subtypes modulate two major functional pathways for hippocampal serotonin release. J Neurosci. 2001;21:628–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Cristovao-Ferreira S, Navarro G, Brugarolas M, Perez-Capote K, Vaz SH, Fattorini G, et al. A1R-A2AR heteromers coupled to Gs and G i/0 proteins modulate GABA transport into astrocytes. Purinergic Signal. 2013;9:433–49.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Canals M, Marcellino D, Fanelli F, Ciruela F, de Benedetti P, Goldberg SR, et al. Adenosine A2A-dopamine D2 receptor-receptor heteromerization: qualitative and quantitative assessment by fluorescence and bioluminescence energy transfer. J Biol Chem. 2003;278:46741–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Liu W, Chun E, Thompson AA, Chubukov P, Xu F, Katritch V, et al. Structural basis for allosteric regulation of GPCRs by sodium ions. Science. 2012;337:232–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Marti-Renom MA, Stuart AC, Fiser A, Sanchez R, Melo F, Sali A. Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct. 2000;29:291–325.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Blattermann S, Peters L, Ottersbach PA, Bock A, Konya V, Weaver CD, et al. A biased ligand for OXE-R uncouples Gα and Gβγ signaling within a heterotrimer. Nat Chem Biol. 2012;8:631–8. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.962. Epub 2012 May 27.
Rasmussen SG, DeVree BT, Zou Y, Kruse AC, Chung KY, Kobilka TS, et al. Crystal structure of the β2 adrenergic receptor-Gs protein complex. Nature. 2011;477:549–55.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Chung KY, Rasmussen SG, Liu T, Li S, DeVree BT, Chae PS, et al. Conformational changes in the G protein Gs induced by the β2 adrenergic receptor. Nature. 2011;477:611–5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Pronk S, Pall S, Schulz R, Larsson P, Bjelkmar P, Apostolov R, et al. GROMACS 4.5: a high-throughput and highly parallel open source molecular simulation toolkit. Bioinformatics. 2013;29:845–54.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Cordomi A, Caltabiano G, Pardo L. Membrane protein simulations using AMBER force field and Berger lipid parameters. J Chem Theory Comput. 2012;8:948–58.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Ballesteros JA, Weinstein H. Integrated methods for the construction of three dimensional models and computational probing of structure-function relations in G-protein coupled receptors. Methods Neurosci. 1995;25:366–428.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Isberg V, de Graaf C, Bortolato A, Cherezov V, Katritch V, Marshall FH, et al. Generic GPCR residue numbers - aligning topology maps while minding the gaps. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2015;36:22–31.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Murakami M, Kouyama T. Crystal structure of squid rhodopsin. Nature. 2008;453:363–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

BMC Biology

Quaternary structure of a G-protein-coupled receptor heterotetramer in complex with G_i and G_s