The human formyl peptide receptor (FPR) is a prototypical G(i) protein-coupled receptor, but little is known about quantitative aspects of FPR-G(i) protein coupling. To address this issue, we fused the FPR to G(i)alpha(1), G(i)alpha(2), and G(i)alpha(3) and expressed the fusion proteins in Sf9 insect cells. Fusion of a receptor to Galpha ensures a defined 1:1 stoichiometry of the signaling partners. By analyzing high affinity agonist binding, the kinetics of agonist- and inverse agonist-regulated guanosine 5'-O-(3-thiotriphosphate) (GTPgammaS) binding and GTP hydrolysis and photolabeling of Galpha, we demonstrate highly efficient coupling of the FPR to fused G(i)alpha(1), G(i)alpha(2), and G(i)alpha(3) without cross-talk of the receptor to insect cell G proteins. The FPR displayed high constitutive activity when coupled to all three G(i)alpha isoforms. The K(d) values of high affinity agonist binding were approximately 100-fold lower than the EC(50) (concentration that gives half-maximal stimulation) values of agonist for GTPase activation. Based on the B(max) values of agonist saturation binding and ligand-regulated GTPgammaS binding, it was previously proposed that the FPR activates G proteins catalytically, i.e. one FPR activates several G(i) proteins. Analysis of agonist saturation binding, ligand-regulated GTPgammaS saturation binding and quantitative immunoblotting with membranes expressing FPR-G(i)alpha fusion proteins and nonfused FPR now reveals that FPR agonist binding greatly underestimates the actual FPR expression level. Our data show the following: (i) the FPR couples to G(i)alpha(1), G(i)alpha(2), and G(i)alpha(3) with similar efficiency; (ii) the FPR can exist in a state of low agonist affinity that couples efficiently to G proteins; and (iii) in contrast to the previously held view, the FPR appears to activate G(i) proteins linearly and not catalytically.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wenzel‐Seifert et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: