Human M3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor protein-protein interactions: roles in receptor signaling and regualation
Muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (mAChRs) have been shown to mediate various functions in the central and peripheral nervous systems. These include modulation of exocrine glandular secretion, vasodilatation and smooth muscle contraction, cell proliferation or survival, neural development and synap...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Doctoral Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya
2008
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10803/22678 http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:isbn:9788469443538 |
| Summary: | Muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (mAChRs) have been shown to mediate various functions in the central and peripheral nervous systems. These include modulation of exocrine glandular secretion, vasodilatation and smooth muscle contraction, cell proliferation or survival, neural development and synaptic plasticity. mAChRs are activated by both endogenously produced acetylcholine and exogenously administered muscarinic compounds. Pharmacological, anatomical and molecular studies have demonstrated the existence of five muscarinic receptor subtypes, denoted as muscarinic M1, M2, M3, M4 and M5, which belong to class I family of heptahelical, transmembrane G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs).
Each receptor subtypes are characterized by a distinct selectivity for heterotrimeric G protein coupling. Thus, M1, M3 and M5 are coupled to Gq/11 proteins and stimulate phospholipase C activity, resulting in the generation of the second messengers inositol (1,4,5)-trisphosphate (IP3) and diacylglycerol (DAG), the mobilization of intracellular Ca2+ and the activation of protein kinase C (PKC). On the other hand, M2 and M4 are coupled to Gi/0 proteins, which results in the inhibition of adenilate cyclase, as well as prolonging potassium channel, non-selective cation channel, and transient receptor potential channel opening. By means of this differential set of G protein partners, mAChRs can initiate distinct signalling pathways within a same cell in order to trigger diverse, even opposed, functional outcomes in response to the same stimuli. It has been proven as well that mAChRs regulate a baste network of signalling intermediates, including small GTPase Rho, phospholipase D, phosphoinositide-3 kinase, non-receptor kinases and mitogenactivated protein kinases.
Although the first proteins found to have functional interactions with mAChRs were, of course, G proteins, an increasing amount of evidence in the field suggests that this simplistic model defined as “one receptor -one G protein -one effector no longer exists. A great number of proteins have been identified as interacting with mAChRs, including GPCRs, kinases, and scaffolding proteins such as arrestin. Determining in part the signalling efficiency/specificity for mAChRs. Thus, receptors are now considered as complex signalling units, or signalosomes, that dynamically couple to multiple G proteins or other molecular entities or scaffold proteins in a temporally and spatially regulated manner, and even can form homodimers or heterodimers with distinct GPCRs or other non-GPCR membrane receptors, resulting in pharmacologically and functionally distinct receptor populations.
In this work “Human M3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor protein-protein interactions: roles in receptor signalling and regulation”, it is discuss novel mAChRs interacting partners that link the receptors to alternative signalling pathways beyond G proteins. Emphases on explaining how mAChRs regulate signal transduction pathways mediated by these proteins, including receptor dimerization have been putting out.
It has been demonstrated by different approach (from resonance energy transfer to tandem affinity purification and mass spectrometry) the active role of interacting protein in mAChRs regulation and signalling. We shown that a particular complex is not necessarily of invariable composition, nor are all its building blocks uniquely associated with that specific complex. One complex may be the result not only of physical interaction between the receptor and the partners’ protein, but also of the participation of many non-“direct” associations resulting in the formation of a network that interconnects the receptor with a number of other pathways, determining receptor specificities. This allows us to address some fundamental questions concerning the importance of molecular mechanisms hidden behind the pharmacology properties for each receptor subtype. |
|---|