MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Receptor Endocytosis as a Mechanism of Biased Agonism at CXCR3

2021· article· en· W3167271619 on OpenAlexaff
Noelia Boldizsar, Dylan Scott Eiger, Cole Honeycutt, Julia Gardner, Sudarshan Rajagopal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsG protein-coupled receptorInternalizationCell biologyEndosomeChemokine receptorFunctional selectivityBiologyEndocytic cycleChemistryArrestinReceptorSignal transductionEndocytosisChemokineBiochemistryIntracellular

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

G Protein Coupled Receptors (GPCRs) are the largest class of receptors in the human genome. They are expressed in virtually every cell type and are implicated in numerous physiological processes. GPCR signaling is highly specific due to biased agonism, in which different ligands, receptors, or cellular systems selectively activate different signaling pathways. The chemokine system, a subfamily of GPCRs primarily present on leukocytes, serves as an endogenous example of biased agonism due to the significant promiscuity between chemokine ligands and receptors. For example, the chemokine receptor CXCR3 and its ligands CXCL9, CXCL10, and CXCL11 have clearly demonstrated bias in vitro and in vivo. GPCRs are conventionally understood to signal exclusively from the plasma membrane. Therefore, the ligand‐induced internalization of receptors is thought to desensitize G Protein‐dependent signaling. However, recent research has shown that numerous GPCRs signal from intracellular membranes, including the endoplasmic reticulum, the golgi, and the endosome. This novel finding has led to the discovery that the subcellular location of a GPCR can affect its functional output. The objective of this study was to evaluate the contribution of receptor endocytosis to CXCR3's biased agonism. We hypothesize that CXCR3 signals from the early endosome, and as CXCL9, CXCL10, and CXCL11 promote different patterns of internalization, endocytic signaling is a mechanism for the functional selectivity of its endogenous ligands. We performed BRET and confocal microscopy on C‐terminal phosphodeficient mutants of CXCR3 to measure their internalization in response to stimulation with CXCL9, CXCL10, or CXCL11. While stimulation with CXCL9 did not induce significant internalization of WT CXCR3 or any CXCR3 mutants, stimulation with CXCL10 or CXCL11 promoted β‐arrestin mediated internalization of CXCR3 that was decreased in the phosphodeficient mutants. Internalization was almost completely eliminated at the CXCR3‐L344X truncation mutant. We also measured the phosphorylation of extracellular‐signal related kinase 1/2 (ERK 1/2) in response to stimulation with CXCL9, CXCL10, or CXCL11. These results showed that the CXCR3 mutants promoted more pERK 1/2 than WT CXCR3 when stimulated with CXCL10 or CXCL11. Notably, CXCR3‐L344X promoted the most pERK 1/2 out of all studied receptors. This negative correlation between receptor internalization and pERK1/2 could suggest that endocytosis has an inhibitory effect on ERK signaling. To further assess the contribution of endocytic signaling to CXCR3's signaling effects, we will inhibit receptor endocytosis through treatment with Barbadin, a selective pharmacological inhibitor of the β‐arrestin/AP2 complex required for endocytosis, or through overexpression of mutant dynamin, a protein responsible for scission of clathrin‐coated endocytic vesicles. We will evaluate how inhibiting endocytosis impacts CXCR3's ligand‐induced G Protein signal, ERK response, transcriptional reporter activation, and chemotaxis. We expect that inhibiting endocytosis will decrease the extent of bias between the three ligands, thus implicating location bias as a factor in CXCR3's functional selectivity.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling→French-language works237,207→