We tested the interactions with four different G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) of arrestin-3 mutants with substitutions in the four loops, three of which contact the receptor in the structure of the arrestin-1-rhodopsin complex. Point mutations in the loop at the distal tip of the N-domain (Glu157Ala), in the C-loop (Phe255Ala), back loop (Lys313Ala), and one of the mutations in the finger loop (Gly65Pro) had mild variable effects on receptor binding. In contrast, the deletion of Gly65 at the beginning of the finger loop reduced the binding to all GPCRs tested, with the binding to dopamine D2 receptor being affected most dramatically. Thus, the presence of a glycine at the beginning of the finger loop appears to be critical for the arrestin-receptor interaction.

Arrestins bind active phosphorylated G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Among the four mammalian subtypes, only arrestin-3 facilitates the activation of JNK3 in cells. In available structures, Lys-295 in the lariat loop of arrestin-3 and its homologue Lys-294 in arrestin-2 directly interact with the activator-attached phosphates. We compared the roles of arrestin-3 conformational equilibrium and Lys-295 in GPCR binding and JNK3 activation. Several mutants with enhanced ability to bind GPCRs showed much lower activity towards JNK3, whereas a mutant that does not bind GPCRs was more active. The subcellular distribution of mutants did not correlate with GPCR recruitment or JNK3 activation. Charge neutralization and reversal mutations of Lys-295 differentially affected receptor binding on different backgrounds but had virtually no effect on JNK3 activation. Thus, GPCR binding and arrestin-3-assisted JNK3 activation have distinct structural requirements, suggesting that facilitation of JNK3 activation is the function of arrestin-3 that is not bound to a GPCR.

Dietary intake of omega-3 fatty acids found in fish has been reported to reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD). Stearidonic acid (SDA), a plant-based omega-3 fatty acid, has been targeted as a potential surrogate for fish-based fatty acids. However, its role in neuronal degeneration is unknown. This study was designed to evaluate effects of SDA on Amyloid-β(A-β)-induced neurotoxicity in rat hippocampal cells. Results showed that SDA effectively converted to eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) in hippocampal cells. Aβ-induced apoptosis in H19-7 cells was protected by SDA pretreatment as evidenced by its regulation on the expression of relevant pro- and anti-apoptotic genes, as well as the inhibition on caspase activation. SDA also protected H19-7 cells from Aβ-induced oxidative stress by regulating the expression of relevant pro- and anti-oxidative genes, as well as the improvement in activity of catalase. As for Aβ/LPS-induced neuronal inflammation, SDA pretreatment reduced the release of IL-1β and TNFα. Further, we found that the anti-Aβ effect of SDA involves its inhibition on the expression of amyloid precursor protein and the regulation on MAPK signaling. These results demonstrated that SDAs have neuroprotective effect in Aβ-induced H19-7 hippocampal cells. This beneficial effect of SDA was attributed to its antiapoptotic, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory properties.

Arrestin-1, or visual arrestin, exhibits an exquisite selectivity for light-activated phosphorylated rhodopsin (P-Rh*) over its other functional forms. That selectivity is believed to be mediated by two well-established structural elements in the arrestin-1 molecule, the activation sensor detecting the active conformation of rhodopsin and the phosphorylation sensor responsive to the rhodopsin phosphorylation, which only active phosphorylated rhodopsin can engage simultaneously. However, in the crystal structure of the arrestin-1–rhodopsin complex there are arrestin-1 residues located close to rhodopsin, which do not belong to either sensor. Here we tested by site-directed mutagenesis the functional role of these residues in wild type arrestin-1 using a direct binding assay to P-Rh* and light-activated unphosphorylated rhodopsin (Rh*). We found that many mutations either enhanced the binding only to Rh* or increased the binding to Rh* much more than to P-Rh*. The data suggest that the native residues in these positions act as binding suppressors, specifically inhibiting the arrestin-1 binding to Rh* and thereby increasing arrestin-1 selectivity for P-Rh*. This calls for the modification of a widely accepted model of the arrestin–receptor interactions.

Excessive signaling by various GPCRs underlies a variety of human disorders. Suppression of GPCRs by “enhanced” arrestin mutants was proposed as therapy. We hypothesized that GPCR binding of endogenous arrestins can be increased by small molecules stabilizing pre-activated conformation. Using molecular dynamics, we identified potentially druggable pockets in pre-activated conformation of arrestin-3 and discovered a compound targeting one of these pockets. Saturation-transfer difference NMR data showed that the compound binds at the back loop of arrestin-3. FRET- and NanoBiT-based assays in living cells showed that the compound increased in-cell arrestin-3, but not arrestin-2, binding to basal β2-adrenergic receptor and its phosphorylation-deficient mutant, but not to muscarinic M2 receptor. These experiments demonstrated the feasibility of enhancing the binding of endogenous wild type arrestin-3 to GPCRs in a receptor-specific and arrestin-subtype selective manner.

Arrestin-1, or visual arrestin, exhibits an exquisite selectivity for light-activated phosphorylated rhodopsin (P-Rh*) over its other functional forms. That selectivity is believed to be mediated by two well-established structural elements in the arrestin-1 molecule, the activation sensor detecting the active conformation of rhodopsin and the phosphorylation sensor responsive to the rhodopsin phosphorylation, which only active phosphorylated rhodopsin can engage simultaneously. However, in the crystal structure of the arrestin-1-rhodopsin complex there are arrestin-1 residues located close to rhodopsin, which do not belong to either sensor. Here we tested by site-directed mutagenesis the functional role of these residues in wild type arrestin-1 using direct binding assay to P-Rh* and light-activated unphosphorylated rhodopsin (Rh*). We found that many mutations either enhanced the binding only to Rh* or increased the binding to Rh* much more than to P-Rh*. The data suggest that the native residues in these positions act as binding suppressors, specifically inhibiting the arrestin-1 binding to Rh* and thereby increasing arrestin-1 selectivity for P-Rh*. This calls for the modification of a widely accepted model of the arrestin-receptor interactions.