Agonist-induced endocytosis is a key regulatory mechanism for controlling the responsiveness of the cell by changing the density of cell surface receptors. In addition to the role of endocytosis in signal termination, endocytosed G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) have been found to signal from intracellular compartments of the cell. Arrestins are generally believed to be the master regulators of GPCR endocytosis by binding to both phosphorylated receptors and adaptor protein 2 (AP-2) or clathrin, thus recruiting receptors to clathrin-coated pits to facilitate the internalization process. However, many other functions have been described for arrestins that do not relate to their role in terminating signaling. Additionally, there are now more than 30 examples of GPCRs that internalize independently of arrestins. Here we review the methods, pharmacological tools and cellular backgrounds used to determine the role of arrestins in receptor internalization, highlighting their advantages and caveats. We also summarize key examples of arrestin-independent GPCR endocytosis in the literature and their suggested alternative endocytosis pathway (e.g. the caveolae-dependent and fast endophilin-mediated endocytosis (FEME) pathways). Finally, we consider the possible function of arrestins recruited to GPCRs that are endocytosed independently of arrestins, including the catalytic arrestin activation paradigm. Technological improvements in recent years have advanced the field further and combined with the important implications of endocytosis on drug responses, this makes endocytosis an obvious parameter to include in molecular pharmacological characterization of ligand-GPCR interactions. Significance Statement GPCR endocytosis is an important means to terminate receptor signaling and arrestins play a central role in the widely accepted classical paradigm of GPCR endocytosis. In contrast to the canonical arrestin-mediated internalization, an increasing number of GPCRs are found to be endocytosed via alternate pathways and the process appears more diverse than the previously defined “one pathway fits all”.

Metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs) are mandatory dimers playing important roles in regulating CNS function. Although assumed to form exclusive homodimers, 16 possible heterodimeric mGluRs have been proposed but their existence in native cells remains elusive. Here, we set up two assays to specifically identify the pharmacological properties of rat mGlu heterodimers composed of mGlu2 and 4 subunits. We used either a heterodimer-specific conformational LRET-based biosensor or a system that guarantees the cell surface targeting of the heterodimer only. We identified mGlu2-4 specific pharmacological fingerprints that were also observed in a neuronal cell line and in lateral perforant path terminals naturally expressing mGlu2 and mGlu4. These results bring strong evidence for the existence of mGlu2-4 heterodimers in native cells. In addition to reporting a general approach to characterize heterodimeric mGluRs, our study opens new avenues to understanding the pathophysiological roles of mGlu heterodimers.

Antibodies have enormous therapeutic and biotechnology potential. G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), the main targets in drug development, are of major interest in antibody development programs. Metabotropic glutamate receptors are dimeric GPCRs that can control synaptic activity in a multitude of ways. Here we identify llama nanobodies that specifically recognize mGlu2 receptors, among the eight subtypes of mGluR subunits. Among these nanobodies, DN10 and 13 are positive allosteric modulators (PAM) on homodimeric mGlu2, while DN10 displays also a significant partial agonist activity. DN10 and DN13 have no effect on mGlu2-3 and mGlu2-4 heterodimers. These PAMs enhance the inhibitory action of the orthosteric mGlu2/mGlu3 agonist, DCG-IV, at mossy fiber terminals in the CA3 region of hippocampal slices. DN13 also impairs contextual fear memory when injected in the CA3 region of hippocampal region. These data highlight the potential of developing antibodies with allosteric actions on GPCRs to better define their roles in vivo.

Binding and signaling kinetics have previously proven important in validation of biased agonism at GPCRs. Here we provide a comprehensive kinetic pharmacological comparison of clinically relevant μ-opioid receptor agonists, including the novel biased agonist oliceridine (TRV130) which is in clinical trial for pain management. We demonstrate that the bias profile observed for the selected agonists is not time-dependent and that agonists with dramatic differences in their binding kinetic properties can display the same degree of bias. Binding kinetics analyses demonstrate that buprenorphine has 18-fold higher receptor residence time than oliceridine. This is thus the largest pharmacodynamic difference between the clinically approved drug buprenorphine and the clinical candidate oliceridine, since their bias profiles are similar. Further, we provide the first pharmacological characterization of (S)-TRV130 demonstrating that it has a similar pharmacological profile as the (R)-form, oliceridine, but displays 90-fold lower potency than the (R)-form. This difference is driven by a significantly slower association rate. Finally, we show that the selected agonists are differentially affected by G protein-coupled receptor kinase 2 and 5 (GRK2 and GRK5) expression. GRK2 and GRK5 overexpression greatly increased μ-opioid receptor internalization induced by morphine, but only had modest effects on buprenorphine and oliceridine-induced internalization. Overall, our data reveal that the clinically available drug buprenorphine displays a similar pharmacological bias profile in vitro compared to the clinical candidate drug oliceridine and that this bias is independent of binding kinetics suggesting a mechanism driven by receptor-conformations. This article is part of the Special Issue entitled 'New Vistas in Opioid Pharmacology'.

Most G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) recruit β-arrestins and internalize upon agonist stimulation. For the μ-opioid receptor (μ-OR), this process has been linked to development of opioid tolerance. GPCR kinases (GRKs), particularly GRK2 and GRK3, have been shown to be important for μ-OR recruitment of β-arrestin and internalization. However, the contribution of GRK2 and GRK3 to β-arrestin recruitment and receptor internalization, remain to be determined in their complete absence. Using CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing we established HEK293 cells with knockout of GRK2, GRK3 or both to dissect their individual contributions in β-arrestin2 recruitment and μ-OR internalization upon stimulation with four different agonists. We showed that GRK2/3 removal reduced agonist-induced μ-OR internalization and β-arrestin2 recruitment substantially and we found GRK2 to be more important for these processes than GRK3. Furthermore, we observed a sustained and GRK2/3 independent component of β-arrestin2 recruitment to the plasma membrane upon μ-OR activation. Rescue expression experiments restored GRK2/3 functions. Inhibition of GRK2/3 using the small molecule inhibitor CMPD101 showed a high similarity between the genetic and pharmacological approaches, cross-validating the specificity of both. However, off-target effects were observed at high CMPD101 concentrations. These GRK2/3 KO cell lines should prove useful for a wide range of studies on GPCR function.

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are key players in cell communication and are encoded by the largest family in our genome. As such, GPCRs represent the main targets in drug development programs. Sequence analysis revealed several classes of GPCRs: the class A rhodopsin-like receptors represent the majority, the class B includes the secretin-like and adhesion GPCRs, the class F includes the frizzled receptors, and the class C includes receptors for the main neurotransmitters, glutamate and GABA, and those for sweet and umami taste and calcium receptors. Class C receptors are far more complex than other GPCRs, being mandatory dimers, with each subunit being composed of several domains. In this review, we summarize our actual knowledge regarding the activation mechanism and subunit organization of class C GPCRs, and how this brings information for many other GPCRs.