Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Three independent methods were used to block internalization of the TRH receptor: cells were infected with vaccinia virus encoding a dominant negative dynamin, incubated in hypertonic sucrose, or stably transfected with a receptor lacking the C-terminal tail. Internalization was blocked in all three paradigms as judged by microscopy using a fluorescently labeled TRH agonist and biochemically. The initial inositol trisphosphate (IP3) and Ca2+ responses to TRH were normal when internalization was inhibited. The IP3 increase was sustained rather than transient, however, in cells expressing the truncated TRH receptor, implying that the C-terminal tail of the receptor may be important for uncoupling from phospholipase C. After withdrawal of TRH, cells were refractory to TRH until both ligand dissociation and resensitization of the receptor had occurred. When surface-bound TRH was removed by a mild acid wash, which did not impair receptor function, neither wild-type nor truncated receptors were able to generate full IP3 responses for about 10 min. The rate of recovery was not altered by blocking internalization. Recovery of intracellular Ca2+ responses also depended on the rate of Ca2+ pool refilling. In summary, in the continued presence of TRH, phospholipase C activity declines quickly due to receptor uncoupling; this desensitization does not take place for the truncated receptor. After TRH is withdrawn, cells are refractory to TRH. Before cells can respond, TRH must dissociate and a resensitization step, which takes place on the plasma membrane and does not require the C-terminal tail of the receptor, must occur.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yu et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: