|
|
||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; and 2Department of Histology, Microbiology and Medical Biotechnologies, University of Padova, Centre for Male Gamete Cryopreservation, Padua, Italy
Submitted 12 May 2006 ; accepted in final form 1 August 2006
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
insulin-like 3; cryptorchidism; G protein-coupled receptor
LGR8 is a member of the glycoprotein hormone receptor superfamily, which includes FSHR, LHR, TSHR, and a recently identified relaxin receptor, LGR7 (12). These receptors are characterized by the presence of a large extracellular NH2-terminal part (ectodomain), the seven-helix transmembrane part, characteristic for G protein-coupled receptors, and intracellular COOH-terminal part (Fig. 1). The ectodomain, in turn, contains several imperfect Leu/Ile-rich repeats, believed to form a horseshoe-like structure, where
-strands are connected to the parallel
-helixes (14). The NH2 terminus of LGR7 and LGR8 contains an LDL receptor class A (LDLa) module, stabilized by internal disulfide bonds and coordinating calcium ion (5). Both ectodomain and exoloops of the transmembrane region of LGR7/LGR8 were shown to interact with the ligand (10, 23); however, whereas the LRRs' involvement in ligand binding was actively studied (4), the role of LDLa module is less clear.
|
We show here that the mutant LGR8 allele T222P is exclusively associated with the abnormal testicular phenotype. Functional analysis of mutant T222P protein action showed severely reduced receptor surface expression, suggesting the mechanism of its compromised function. Recognition of such patients would permit family screening and potential early therapeutic intervention.
| RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Mutation analysis of LGR8. The genomic DNA was extracted from peripheral blood obtained from the participants of this study. Analysis was focused on exon 8 of LGR8, where the T222P mutation was localized. This exon was PCR amplified using previously reported conditions (9). Denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography (DHPLC) was carried out on a 2100 WAVE DNA fragment analysis system (Transgenomics, Omaha, NE) as described before (9). For each abnormal elution profile and/or abnormal electrophoretic migration pattern, genomic DNA was reamplified and the PCR products were directly sequenced in both directions. The wild-type and heterozygous for T222P mutation genomic DNA were used as a control in DHPLC analysis.
Expression vectors. The LGR8 cDNA expression vector, containing a prolactin (PRL) signal peptide and the FLAG epitope at the 5' end of the LGR8 cDNA in pcDNA3.1 vector was kindly provided by Dr. Sheau Yu Hsu (Stanford University) (12). The 1.3-kb 5' KpnI/BglII fragment of this construct was used to substitute the 5' end of the LGR8 expression construct in the pCR3.1 vector described previously (9). This construct was used in site-specific mutagenesis (9) to produce various missence mutations within the LGR8 cDNA sequence. To ensure an absence of additional nucleotide substitutions, the mutated cDNA constructs were recloned into an intact pCR3.1 vector (Invitrogen, San Diego, CA) and fully sequenced. All plasmid DNAs were isolated using the High Purity Plasmid System (Marligen Biosciences, Ijamsville, MD).
Cell culture and transfection. The 293T HEK cells were cultured in DMEM, 10% fetal calf serum, and 100 µg/ml penicillin-streptomycin. For transfections, 6080% confluent cells plated into T-25 flask were transfected with 1.6 µg of DNA, using FuGENE 6 transfection reagent (Roche, Indianapolis, IN) according to the manufacturer's instruction.
Total and surface expression of LGR8 mutants. The expression of LGR8 mutants was assessed by cell surface ELISA as described previously (16) with modifications. Briefly, cells plated in the T-25 flask were split after 24-h transfection into 24-well plates coated with 0.1 mg/ml polylysine. Twenty-four hours later, cells were washed with TBS (20 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 2 mM CaCl2) and fixed with 3.7% formaldehyde with or without 0.25% Triton X-100 for the total FLAG or surface FLAG expression analysis. Cells were washed twice with TBS, incubated for 45 min with TBS containing 1% BSA, and then incubated with M1 anti-FLAG (Sigma, 1/5,000 dilution) antibody for 1 h at room temperature. Cells were washed twice with TBS, reblocked with TBS-BSA for 15 min at room temperature, and incubated with secondary antibody [goat anti-mouse antibody conjugated with horseradish peroxidase (HRP), 1/5,000 dilution; Bio-Rad] for 1 h at room temperature. Cells were washed four times with TBS, and then colorimetric HRP substrate TMB (Amersham, Piscataway, NJ) was added. When adequate color was achieved, the reaction was stopped by placing cells on ice, and the supernatants were read at 655 nm with a microplate reader (Bio-Rad). Preliminary calibration experiments with the increasing amount of plasmid used for transfection ensured that surface FLAG expression measurements were conducted in the linear range. The value obtained from vector-transfected cells (nonspecific binding) was subtracted from the values obtained from cells transfected with wild-type or mutant receptor. For each well analyzed for FLAG expression, two parallel measurements were performed. When normalized to the wild-type FLAG expression, the differences in mutant FLAG expressions between independent transfection experiments were no more than 1015%.
Intracellular cAMP determination. Cells plated into a T-25 flask were split after 24-h transfection into 24-well plates coated with 0.1 mg/ml polylysine. Twenty-four hours later, cells were pretreated with 250 µM IBMX for 10 min and stimulated with different INSL3 (Phoenix Pharmaceuticals, Belmont, CA) concentrations for 10 min. Duplicate wells were used for each INSL3 concentration. The reaction was stopped by placing cells on ice. Cells were washed with PBS and lysed with the extraction buffer from the cAMP determination kit (Amersham) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Each sample was analyzed in duplicate. To normalize cAMP accumulation, cells from the same transfection were used to assess surface LGR8 expression. For each mutant, at least three individual experiments were performed. The data presented in Figs. 24 were obtained from one experiment, when all the mutants were analyzed simultaneously for cAMP response (duplicate well for each concentration point) and surface FLAG expression (triplicate well).
|
|
Statistical analysis. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the frequency of T222P mutation in patient and control populations. An ANOVA test was used to analyze the FLAG expression data. cAMP accumulation curve fitting was performed using Origin software.
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
Functional analysis of T222P, T222S, T222A, and R223K mutants.
To analyze the effect of detected missense mutations, LGR8 cDNA constructs containing T222P and R223K substitutions were transiently expressed in 293T cells (Fig. 2). Previously, we reported an almost complete absence of hormone-induced cAMP synthesis when the expression of T222P construct was driven by LGR8 intrinsic signal sequence (6, 9). Here, we examined the cAMP response of T222P constructs containing a PRL signal sequence. The limited accumulation of cAMP (
50% of maximal wild-type response) was observed upon INSL3 stimulation in cells expressing T222P mutant. The analysis of the surface expression of T222P mutant revealed that membrane delivery of this mutant was severely compromised (Fig. 2A). When the cAMP production was normalized to receptor surface expression, the maximal cAMP response of mutant receptor was even higher than that of a wild-type protein (Fig. 2B). However, the T222P mutant showed an increased EC50 value (2.69 ± 0.38 nM) compared with that of wild-type LGR8 (1.61 ± 0.21 nM, P < 0.05), indicative of compromised receptor activation.
To analyze the nature of the deleterious effects of T222P mutation, we created two additional mutants containing T222S and T222A substitutions. Both of these mutants displayed only slightly decreased membrane presentation (Fig. 2C). When normalized to the surface expression level, the concentration-response curves for the cells expressing T222S and T222A variants maintained characteristics similar to those of wild type (Fig. 2D).
The novel R223K mutant, detected in patients with retractile testes, rendered the INSL3-dependent cAMP activation curve with EC50 close to that of the wild-type receptor (1.59 ± 0.38 nM; Fig. 1B). Surface expression of this mutant was not compromised (Fig. 1A); maximal cAMP response after normalization to surface expression was only
20% lower than that of the wild type.
Functional analysis of the L283F mutant. To further analyze the role of LRRs in LGR8 biological properties, we mutated one of the conservative residues in core Leu LRR stretch LxxLxLxxN/CxL. For the substitution of the first Leu of LxxLxLxxN/CxL, we chose the Leu in the 7th LRR of LGR8, as it is highly conserved among all receptors of the family. The substitution of aliphatic Leu283 with more voluminous aromatic Phe sharply impaired cell surface expression. Ligand-induced cAMP response was completely blocked in cells transfected with L283F mutant (Fig. 3).
|
Subcellular localization of mutant receptors. We used anti-FLAG antibody to visualize the localization of the recombinant LGR8 receptors in 293T cells transiently transfected with corresponding LGR8 cDNA expression constructs, encoding the FLAG epitope at the NH2 terminus of the protein. In the absence of agonist, the wild-type receptor was clearly present on the cell surface membrane, although some staining was also observed in the cytoplasm (Fig. 5). Cells transfected with the mutant T222P, D70Y, and L283F receptors demonstrated homogeneous FLAG/LGR8 fluorescence indicative of cytoplasmic localization of the proteins with little, if any, surface expression (Fig. 5).
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
So far, the T222P mutant remains the only naturally occurring variant that severely compromises the INSL3 signaling in vitro. Mutation analysis of the LGR8 gene performed in our and other laboratories indicates that the T222P mutation is specific for the South European populations (France and Italy) (7, 9). The haplotype analysis indicated a common origin of this mutation (7). It is possible, therefore, that this allele originated somewhere in this geographic area. Although the frequency of mutation detected in the current screening was relatively low, all T222P individuals had some forms of testicular maldesent; thus the presence of this mutation appears to be a strong risk factor for the disease. As only heterozygous patients were detected in our screen, we hypothesize that the testicular maldescent may be caused by LGR8 haploinsufficiency. Importantly, cotransfection experiments with wild-type and mutant receptor did not show any effect on the function of the wild-type receptor, suggesting a true loss-of-function nature of the mutation (9). It is interesting to note that the recent estimates indicate that only a very limited number of endogenous LGR8 receptor molecules are expressed in adult Leydig cells (2) and in embryonic gubernaculum (S. Feng and A. I. Agoulnik, unpublished data). Significantly, the presence of only one-half of the functional receptors in heterozygotes appears to be detrimental for INSL3 signaling in humans, contrary to the situation in mice, where the null allele of Lgr8 is fully recessive.
To examine the effect of T222P substitution, two variants of mutant expression construct were created. In earlier studies, we used LGR8 constructs with intrinsic LGR8 signal sequence (6, 9). In this study, we created the FLAG-tagged LGR8 constructs, whose expression was driven by PRL signal sequence. Analogous constructs were successfully used by other researchers to assess LGR7/LGR8 expression and signaling (15, 23). The presence of the FLAG epitope in the receptor construct allowed us to demonstrate that T222P mutation dramatically impairs LGR8 targeting toward the cell membrane. We conclude that the undetectable cAMP response of T222P receptor to hormone stimulation shown in our previous studies (6, 9) is likely to be the result of poor receptor surface expression rather than impaired signaling, as was assumed before (9). Although the T222P mutant shows defective activation (EC50 for INSL3 of the mutant is higher than that of the wild-type LGR8), to our surprise, the mutant possessed even greater activity per receptor expressed on the cell surface. We hypothesize that, in vivo, when the T222P cell surface expression is driven by a "weaker" endogenous signal peptide, the T222P mutant does not contribute to INSL3 signaling, due to its negligible surface presentation. This mechanism appears to be responsible for the abnormal phenotype associated with the presence of this mutation in humans.
Two mutant LGR8 variants detected in humans (T222P, R223K) are located within the ectodomain of LGR8. The fact that one of the substitutions, T222P, leads to a severe impairment of surface expression, suggests a significant role for LRR in the receptor folding and targeting. One can speculate that weakened membrane delivery of LGR8 is caused by altered polypeptide chain processing, implying a critical part taken by Thr222 residue in the structural organization of the receptor. The Thr substitution to Pro is likely to impair polypeptide chain flexibility; in our experiments, we tried to determine whether less dramatic changes in this position would affect functional properties of the receptor. We produced mutant receptors with substitutions of the 222nd Thr with conservative Ser and less conservative Ala. In contrast to T222P substitution, both T222S and T222A only moderately affected LGR8 surface expression, with no distortion of the hormone-dependent receptor activation. We assume that the ability of polypeptide chain to acquire certain conformation, rather than hydrophilic nature of the 222nd residue, is important for the LGR8 proper folding and delivery. As Thr222 is positioned in the region linking the
-strand to the adjacent
-helix (14), the extreme flexibility of the region may be of particular importance for the ectodomain structure. Not surprisingly, the mutation of the neighboring residue, R223K, does not alter receptor properties, as it does not change either flexibility or the charge of the region.
The mutations of LGR8 that apparently result in intracellular retention are not limited to the region connecting LRR
-strands to the
-helixes. To further investigate the role of LRR elements in the receptor function, we mutated the first Leu in the highly conservative stretch L/I XX L/I X L/I. The position homologous to Leu283 (7th LRR in LGR8) is occupied by Leu in mouse and human LGR8, LGR7, and several other related receptors, including snail, nematode, and sea anemone LGRs and all human glycoprotein hormone receptors. We assumed that this position may be highly sensitive to the substitutions. Indeed, a replacement of hydrophobic Leu with also hydrophobic but more voluminous Phe led to the impaired expression of L283F mutant compared with the wild-type receptor. Certain variations in the total expression were experienced with all mutants (Fig. 2) and could be attributed to the variations in transient transfection efficiency. However, significant reduction in total expression of L283F might be associated with mutant protein instability or lower synthesis rate. Importantly, we demonstrated severe impairment of both receptor plasma membrane presentation, detected by cell surface ELISA and deconvolution microscopy, and signal transduction, detected by cAMP response to INSL3. It was reported earlier that the mutation of the first Leu of the L/I XX L/I X L/I stretch in the 4th LRR of gonadotropin receptor results in the dramatic reduction of receptor surface expression and hormone-induced cAMP accumulation (22). Thus the proper folding of LRRs appears to be crucial for the receptor targeting to the cell surface. The dramatic effects of L283F and T222P mutations prove that both hydrophobic core and hydrophilic phase of LRR play an important role in this process. Interestingly, the minor splice variants of LGR7 missing some of the LRRs also failed to be expressed on cell surface membranes in vitro (17).
Next, we focused on the possible role of LDLa module, located at the NH2 terminus of the mature receptor. This module, repeatedly presented in the structure of non-GPCR LDL receptor, is unique to GPCRs LGR8, LGR7, and the orphan snail LGR (3). The role of LDLa module in these GPCRs remains undefined; however, some data indicate that it might be involved in ligand binding (26). LDL receptor modules are thought to be cross-linked with three disulfide bonds and organized around calcium ion, with several residues stabilizing such conformation (5). Naturally occurring substitutions of these residues were linked to the cases of familial hypercholesterolemia, proving the critical role of LDLa modules for LDL receptor function (5). We have created mutations, disrupting the coordination of calcium (D70Y) and disulfide bond formation (C71Y) in LDLa module of LGR8. Our results showed that such LGR8 mutants had drastically reduced surface expression and severely blunted hormone-induced cAMP response. We assume that, similarly to the LDLa module of LDL receptor, LDLa module of LGR8 is stabilized by the disulfide bonds and the coordination of calcium ion, with D70 and C71 residues actively involved in such stabilization.
Intracellular retention of the membrane receptors is a well-known cause of several diseases (11, 20, 24). It is not surprising to see that certain LGR8 mutations also lead to the intracellular trapping of the receptor and the consequent impairment of INSL3/LGR8 signaling. For those naturally occurring mutations that are not affecting hormone binding or coupling with G proteins, a therapeutic intervention facilitating protein folding may be recommended. Consequently, it will be important to understand the process of LGR8 posttranslational processing and the mechanisms of receptor membrane delivery.
In conclusion, we have shown that the T222P mutation is exclusively associated with the testicular maldescent phenotype in males. Severely reduced activity of T222P mutant is caused by poor membrane presentation of mutated receptor rather than impaired signal transduction. A novel mutation of LGR8 receptor has been identified (R223K); however, it does not have significant functional consequences for receptor expression or signaling. We have established that the tertiary organization of both LRRs and LDLa module is critical for the LGR8 expression on the cell surface and its signal transduction.
| GRANTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R. Ivell and R. Anand-Ivell Biology of insulin-like factor 3 in human reproduction Hum. Reprod. Update, July 1, 2009; 15(4): 463 - 476. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Ferlin, D. Zuccarello, B. Zuccarello, M. R. Chirico, G. F. Zanon, and C. Foresta Genetic Alterations Associated With Cryptorchidism JAMA, November 19, 2008; 300(19): 2271 - 2276. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Feng, N. V Bogatcheva, A. Truong, B. Korchin, C. E Bishop, T. Klonisch, I. U Agoulnik, and A. I Agoulnik Developmental Expression and Gene Regulation of Insulin-like 3 Receptor RXFP2 in Mouse Male Reproductive Organs Biol Reprod, October 1, 2007; 77(4): 671 - 680. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Visit Other APS Journals Online |