Pajonczyk Denise, Sternschulte Merle F, Soehnlein Oliver, Bermudez Marcel, Raabe Carsten A, Rescher Ursula
Research Group Cellular Biochemistry - Regulatory Mechanisms of Inflammation, Institute of Molecular Virology, Center of Molecular Biology of Inflammation and "Cells in Motion" Interfaculty Centre, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Institute of Experimental Pathology, Center of Molecular Biology of Inflammation, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Br J Pharmacol. 2024 Sep 18. doi: 10.1111/bph.17334.
The pattern recognition receptors, formyl peptide receptors, FPR1 and FPR2, are G protein-coupled receptors that recognize many different pathogen- and host-derived ligands. While FPR1 conveys pro-inflammatory signals, FPR2 is linked with pro-resolving outcomes. To analyse how the two very similar FPRs exert opposite effects in modulating inflammatory responses despite their high homology, a shared expression profile on immune cells and an overlapping ligand repertoire, we questioned whether the signalling profile differs between these two receptors.
We deduced EC and E values for synthetic, pathogen-derived and host-derived peptide agonists for both FPR1 and FPR2 and analysed them within the framework of biased signalling. We furthermore investigated whether FPR isoform-specific agonists affect the ex vivo lifespan of human neutrophils.
The FPRs share a core signature across signalling pathways. Whereas the synthetic WKYMVm and formylated peptides acted as potent agonists at FPR1, and at FPR2, only WKYMVm was a full agonist. Natural FPR2 agonists, irrespective of N-terminal formylation, displayed lower activity ratios, suggesting an underutilized signalling potential of this receptor. FPR2 agonism did not counteract LPS-induced neutrophil survival, indicating that FPR2 activation per se is not linked with a pro-resolving function.
Activation of FPR1 and FPR2 by a representative agonist panel revealed a lack of a receptor-specific signalling texture, challenging assumptions about distinct inflammatory profiles linked to specific receptor isoforms, signalling patterns or agonist classes. These conclusions are restricted to the specific agonists and signalling pathways examined.
模式识别受体甲酰肽受体FPR1和FPR2是G蛋白偶联受体,可识别许多不同的病原体衍生和宿主衍生配体。FPR1传递促炎信号,而FPR2与促消退结果相关。为分析这两种非常相似的FPR尽管具有高度同源性、在免疫细胞上有共同的表达谱以及重叠的配体库,但如何在调节炎症反应中发挥相反作用时,我们质疑这两种受体的信号谱是否不同。
我们推导了FPR1和FPR2的合成、病原体衍生和宿主衍生肽激动剂的EC和E值,并在偏向信号传导的框架内对其进行分析。我们还研究了FPR亚型特异性激动剂是否会影响人中性粒细胞的体外寿命。
FPR在信号通路中具有共同的核心特征。合成的WKYMVm和甲酰化肽在FPR1上是有效的激动剂,而在FPR2上,只有WKYMVm是完全激动剂。天然FPR2激动剂,无论N端是否甲酰化,活性比都较低,表明该受体的信号传导潜力未得到充分利用。FPR2激动作用并未抵消LPS诱导的中性粒细胞存活,表明FPR2激活本身与促消退功能无关。
用一组代表性激动剂激活FPR1和FPR2,结果显示缺乏受体特异性的信号特征,这对与特定受体亚型、信号模式或激动剂类别相关的不同炎症特征的假设提出了挑战。这些结论仅限于所研究的特定激动剂和信号通路。