Filtern
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (1)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- ja (1) (entfernen)
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2012 (1)
Dokumenttyp
- Dissertation (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (1)
Schlagworte
- Glyzinrezeptor (1) (entfernen)
Institut
- Graduate School of Life Sciences (1) (entfernen)
γ-Aminobutyric acid type A receptors (GABAARs) and glycine receptors (GlyRs) are the major mediators of fast synaptic inhibition in the central nervous system. For proper synaptic function their precise localization and exact concentration within the neuronal surface membrane is essential. These properties are mediated by scaffolding proteins which directly contact the large intracellular loops of the receptors and tether them to cytoskeletal elements of the neuronal cells. In my thesis I deciphered the molecular details of several underlying protein-protein interactions, namely the interaction of a subset of GABAAR and GlyR subunits with the scaffolding proteins gephyrin, radixin and collybistin. I determined short linear motifs within the large intracellular loops of the receptors that directly engage in subunit specific scaffold protein interactions. My quantitative binding studies revealed that gephyrins E domain primarily recognizes the GABAAR α1 (Kd = 17 M) and α3 (Kd = 5 M) subunits, in contrast, the SH3 domain of collybistin mainly interacts with the GABAAR α2 subunit (Kd = 1 µM), while the FERM domain of radixin tightly binds to the GABAAR α5 subunit (Kd = 8 µM). My work additionally demonstrated that this simple relationship is complicated by (i) missing or (ii) overlapping binding specificities between the scaffold proteins and the receptor subunits. Moreover, this thesis addressed the possibility of (iii) posttranslational negative regulation as well as amplification generated by (iv) avidity effects as summarized below. (i) First, using biochemical methods I mapped the radixin-GABAAR α5 interaction in detail. My structural analysis and competition assays suggest that radixin mediates the receptor subunit binding via a universal binding site within the F3 subdomain of its FERM domain. This binding site is formed by an α-helix that offers a large hydrophobic pocket, which accepts a variety of different hydrophobic residues adopting different conformations, and a β-strand that readily engages in peptide backbone interactions. Not surprisingly, this binding site has been implicated in a wide variety of different scaffold interactions, thus emphasizing the importance of the essential FERM activation mechanism described earlier and suggesting additional pathways to allow tight regulation of this interaction. (ii) Next, I analyzed in detail the process of gephyrin-mediated GABAAR clustering. My X-ray crystallographic studies and binding assays revealed that gephyrin mediates binding of the GABAAR α1, α2 and α3 subunit via a universal binding site that also mediates the interactions with the GlyR β subunit. Using structure-guided mutagenesis I identified key residues within gephyrin and the receptor subunits that act as major contributors to the overall binding strength. Namely, two conserved aromatic residues within the N-terminal half of the receptor binding region engage in crucial hydrophobic interactions with gephyrin. Accordingly, J. Mukherjee from the group of our collaborator Steven J. Moss verified a substantial decrease in GABAAR cluster number and size in primary hippocampal neurons upon exchange of these residues within the GABAAR α2 subunit. Extension of my studies to collybistin (CB) revealed an overlapping but reciprocal subunit preference for this protein in comparison to gephyrin. The GABAAR α3 subunit exclusively binds gephyrin, in contrast the GABAAR α1 subunit mainly targets gephyrin (Kd = 17 µM) but additionally displays a moderate affinity (Kd ≈ 400 µM) towards the SH3 domain of CB. The GABAAR α2 subunit binds tightly to the SH3 domain of CB (Kd = 1 µM) and additionally displays a weak gephyrin affinity (Kd ≈ 500 µM). Notably, I could exclude the possibility of synergistic effects between gephyrins E domain, the SH3 domain of CB and the GABAAR α2 subunit. Instead, I found that the GABAAR α2 subunit binds gephyrin and CB in a mutually exclusive manner. These results suggest that CBs role in receptor clustering is solely determined by competing binding events of its constituting domains. Namely, the intra-molecular association between the PH/DH domain and the SH3 domain within CB competes with different inter-molecular interactions of CB: GABAAR α2 binding to the SH3 domain, PIP2 binding to the PH domain and gephyrin presumably binding to the PH and DH domain of CB. (iii) Interestingly, the receptor motifs, which have been mapped in my thesis to directly interact with the scaffold proteins, were shown in earlier studies to be posttranslationally modified in vivo. In particular, the GABAAR α1 and GlyR β subunits have been implicated as targets of the ERK/MAPK and PKC phosphorylation-pathways, respectively, while the GABAAR α5 subunit motif was shown to be ubiquitinated. In this dissertation, I analyzed Thr348, a possible ERK phosphorylation site within GABAAR α1. My binding assays verified a severe reduction of the direct gephyrin binding strength upon introduction of the respective phosphomimetic residue. The relevance of this in vitro result was highlighted by J. Mukherjee who confirmed a significant reduction in GABAAR cluster number and size upon introduction of the same mutation. The ERK/MAPK pathway is therefore a promising candidate for regulation of GABAergic transmission. (iv) In vivo, gephyrin presumably forms a multivalent scaffold, which is based on the self-association of its G (GephG) and E domains (GephE). Given the multimeric nature of gephyrin and the pentameric receptor architecture, I tested the possibility of avidity in the clustering of inhibitory neurotransmitter receptors. Cocrystallization of selected minimum peptides with GephE and their crystal structure analyses enabled me to define a receptor-derived peptide that offers a maximized gephyrin affinity. The structure of the GephE-GlyR receptor complex reveals two receptor-binding sites in close spatial vicinity (15 Å). I therefore designed bivalent peptides that enable to target both GephE sites at the same time and, as expected, a variety of biophysical methods verified an avidity-potentiated and unmatched high gephyrin affinity for these bidentate compounds. Notably, I could extend the dimerization approach to low affinity gephyrin ligands, namely short GABAAR-derived peptides that could not be studied using conventional monomeric ligands. Additionally, I verified that this compound specifically targets GephEs receptor binding site, and that it thereby inhibits its receptor binding activity. Further development of this molecule may offer the possibility to specifically analyze the effect of uncoupling the gephyrin-receptor interaction in cell culture-based assays, without altering protein function or expression level that accompanies conventional methods such as protein knock-out, RNA interference or the usage of antibodies.