Phosphorylation of the PAR2 C-tail is essential for beta-arrestin binding, uncoupling from G-protein signaling, and canonical endocytic trafficking.
PAR2 phosphorylation dictates receptor regulation; leaves open cardiovascular relevance pending disease models and human validation.
Protease-activated receptor 2 (PAR2) is a G protein-coupled receptor irreversibly activated by extracellular proteases. Activated PAR2 couples to multiple heterotrimeric G-protein subtypes including G alpha(q), G alpha(i), and G alpha(12/13). Most activated G protein-coupled receptors are rapidly desensitized and internalized following phosphorylation and beta-arrestin binding. However, the role of phosphorylation in regulation of PAR2 signaling and trafficking is not known. To investigate the function of phosphorylation, we generated a PAR2 mutant in which all serines and threonines in the C-tail were converted to alanines and designated it PAR2 0P. In mammalian cells, the addition of agonist induced a rapid and robust increase in phosphorylation of wild-type PAR2 but not the 0P mutant, suggesting that the major sites of phosphorylation occur within the C-tail domain. Moreover, desensitization of PAR2 0P signaling was markedly impaired compared with the wild-type receptor. Wild-type phosphorylated PAR2 internalized through a canonical dynamin, clathrin- and beta-arrestin-dependent pathway. Strikingly, PAR2 0P mutant internalization proceeded through a dynamin-dependent but clathrin- and beta-arrestin-independent pathway in both a constitutive and agonist-dependent manner. Collectively, our studies show that PAR2 phosphorylation is essential for beta-arrestin binding and uncoupling from heterotrimeric G-protein signaling and that the presence of serine and threonine residues in the PAR2 C-tail hinder constitutive internalization through a non-canonical pathway. Thus, our studies reveal a novel function for phosphorylation that differentially regulates PAR2 desensitization and endocytic trafficking.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ricks et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: