Nouel D, Gaudriault G, Houle M, Reisine T, Vincent J P, Mazella J, Beaudet A
Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Quebec, Canada.
Endocrinology. 1997 Jan;138(1):296-306. doi: 10.1210/endo.138.1.4834.
A growing body of evidence suggests that neuropeptide binding to G protein-linked receptors may result in internalization of receptor-ligand complexes, followed by intracellular mobilization and degradation of the ligand into its target cells. Because of discrepant results in the literature concerning the occurrence of such a mechanism for the tetradecapeptide somatostatin (SRIF), we have reinvestigated this question by comparing the binding and internalization of iodinated and fluorescent derivatives of the metabolically stable analog of SRIF, [D-Trp8]SRIF, in COS-7 cells transfected with complementary DNA encoding the sst1 or sst2A receptor subtype. A series of fluoresceinyl and Bodipy fluorescent derivatives of [D-Trp8]SRIF-14 was purified by HPLC, analyzed for purity by mass spectrometry, and tested for biological activity in a membrane binding assay. Of the six compounds tested, fluoresceinyl and Bodipy derivatives labeled in position alpha (fluo-SRIF) retained high affinity for SRIF receptors. COS-7 cells transfected with complementary DNA encoding either sst1 or sst2A receptors both displayed specific, high affinity binding of iodinated and fluo-SRIF. At 4 C, the labeling was confined to the cell surface in both cell types, as indicated by the fact that it was entirely removable by a hypertonic acid wash and assumed a pericellular distribution in the confocal microscope. At 37 C, the fate of specifically bound ligand varied markedly according to the type of receptor transfected. In cells encoding the sst1 receptor, approximately 20% of specifically bound ligand was recovered in the acid-resistant (i.e. intracellular) fraction. This fraction remained clustered at the periphery of the cell, suggesting that it was being sequestered either within or immediately beneath the plasma membrane. By contrast, in cells transfected with sst2A receptors, up to 75% of specifically bound ligand was recovered inside the cells, where it clustered into small endosome-like particles. These particles increased in size and moved toward the nucleus with time, suggestive of receptor-ligand complexes proceeding down the endocytic pathway. These results demonstrate that neuropeptides may be processed differently depending on the subtype of receptor expressed in their target cells and suggest that these different processing patterns may reflect different modes of sensitization/desensitization and recycling of the receptors, and thereby of transmembrane signaling.
越来越多的证据表明,神经肽与G蛋白偶联受体结合可能导致受体 - 配体复合物内化,随后配体在其靶细胞内进行转运和降解。由于文献中关于十四肽生长抑素(SRIF)是否存在这种机制的结果存在差异,我们通过比较代谢稳定的SRIF类似物[D - Trp8]SRIF的碘化和荧光衍生物在转染了编码sst1或sst2A受体亚型互补DNA的COS - 7细胞中的结合和内化情况,重新研究了这个问题。通过高效液相色谱法(HPLC)纯化了一系列[D - Trp8]SRIF - 14的荧光素和Bodipy荧光衍生物,通过质谱分析其纯度,并在膜结合试验中测试其生物活性。在所测试的六种化合物中,在α位标记的荧光素和Bodipy衍生物(fluo - SRIF)对SRIF受体保持高亲和力。转染了编码sst1或sst2A受体互补DNA的COS - 7细胞均显示出碘化和fluo - SRIF的特异性、高亲和力结合。在4℃时,两种细胞类型中的标记都局限于细胞表面,这一事实表明通过高渗酸洗可以完全去除标记,并且在共聚焦显微镜下呈现细胞周围分布。在37℃时,特异性结合配体的命运根据转染的受体类型而有明显差异。在编码sst1受体的细胞中,约20%的特异性结合配体在耐酸(即细胞内)部分中回收。该部分仍聚集在细胞周边,表明它被隔离在质膜内或紧邻质膜下方。相比之下,在转染sst2A受体的细胞中,高达75%的特异性结合配体在细胞内回收,在那里它聚集形成小的类似内体的颗粒。这些颗粒随着时间推移尺寸增大并向细胞核移动,提示受体 - 配体复合物沿着内吞途径进行。这些结果表明,神经肽的处理方式可能因靶细胞中表达的受体亚型而异,并表明这些不同的处理模式可能反映受体的不同致敏/脱敏和再循环模式,从而反映跨膜信号传导的不同模式。