ACCELERATED PUBLICATION
The Fourth Transmembrane Segment Forms the Interface of the Dopamine D2 Receptor Homodimer*

Wen GuoDagger , Lei ShiDagger , and Jonathan A. JavitchDagger §

From the Dagger  Center for Molecular Recognition, § Departments of Psychiatry and Pharmacology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York 10032

Received for publication, December 6, 2002

    ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Considerable evidence suggests that G-protein-coupled receptors form homomeric and heteromeric dimers in vivo. Unraveling the structural mechanism for cross-talk between receptors in a dimeric complex must start with the identification of the presently unknown dimer interface. Here, by using cysteine cross-linking, we identify the fourth transmembrane segment (TM4) as a symmetrical dimer interface in the dopamine D2 receptor. Cross-linking is unaffected by ligand binding, and ligand binding and receptor activation are unaffected by cross-linking, suggesting that the receptor is a constitutive dimer. The accessibility of adjacent residues in TM4, however, is affected by ligand binding, implying that the interface has functional significance.

    INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs)1 comprise a large superfamily of receptors that couple binding of a diverse group of ligands to activation of heterotrimeric G-proteins (1). A number of class C GPCRs have been shown to form dimers in the plasma membrane, including the calcium-sensing receptor (2), the GABAB receptor (3-5), and the metabotropic glutamate receptors (6). In the case of the GABAB receptor, heterodimerization is essential for proper trafficking to the cell surface (7). Furthermore, the evidence supports a scenario in which the binding of GABA to the R1 subunit causes the R2 subunit to bind to and activate G-protein (8, 9). In addition, mounting evidence supports the hypothesis that many class A rhodopsin-like receptors, including the dopamine D2 receptor (D2R) (10-13), in membrane and in some cases in detergent, are dimeric as well (reviewed in Refs. 14-16).

Unraveling the structural mechanism for cross-talk between receptors in a dimeric complex must start with the identification of the presently unknown dimer interface. Two hypotheses have been proposed for GPCR dimerization: domain swapping and contact dimerization (17, 18), although recent experimental results seem inconsistent with domain swapping being the dominant form of dimerization (19, 20).

Synthetic peptides of TM6 block dimerization and activation of the beta 2-adrenergic receptor (21), and it has been suggested that the GXXXG motif in TM6 may be involved in dimerization of this receptor, although this motif is not highly conserved in other family A GPCRs. Synthetic peptides of TM6 and of TM7 also blocked dimerization of the D2 receptor (D2R) (12). Although these findings were specific to these particular synthetic peptides, the data do not necessarily establish TM6 and/or TM7 as the dimer interface, as the peptide-receptor interactions might modulate the ability of the receptor to form dimers at a different interface. In addition, if the receptors form higher order oligomers, multiple interfaces must exist.

Computational studies have proposed a number of different potential interfaces (22-24), but these have not yet been experimentally verified. By using cysteine cross-linking, we have now explored the possibility that the D2R exists as a dimer or higher order oligomer in the plasma membrane. We show that the D2R is at least a homodimer, with the extracellular end of TM4 at a symmetrical dimer interface.

    EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Numbering of Residues and Site-directed Mutagenesis-- Residues are numbered according to their positions in the human dopamine D2short receptor sequence. We also index residues relative to the most conserved residue in the TM in which it is located (32). The most conserved residue is assigned the position index "50," e.g. Trp-1604.50, and therefore Val-1594.49 and Val-1614.51. Mutations were generated as described previously (30) and were confirmed by DNA sequencing. Mutants are named as (wild-type residue)-(residue number)position index (mutant residue), where the residues are given in the single-letter code.

Transfection-- The cDNA encoding the dopamine D2short receptor or the appropriate cysteine mutant was epitope-tagged at the amino terminus with the cleavable influenza-hemagglutinin signal sequence followed by the FLAG epitope (DYKDDDK) and inserted into the bicistronic expression vector pcin4 (30), creating SFD2-pcin4. Cells were maintained, and stable transfections were performed as described previously (30). For coimmunoprecipitation studies, an NH2-terminal signal sequence Myc epitope-tagged D2R was created and subcloned in the bicistronic vector pCIhyg (33), creating SMD2-pcihyg. Double stable cells were created by transfecting stable cells expressing SFD2-pcin4 with the SMD2-pcihyg construct and selecting with 250 µg/ml hygromycin. EM4 cells, an adherent clonal line of HEK 293 cells, were maintained as described (33) and were used for cAMP experiments (34).

Cross-linking-- HEK 293 cells or EM4 cells stably transfected with the appropriate D2R construct were washed and then reacted for 10 min at room temperature with the stated concentrations of copper sulfate and 1,10-phenanthroline (CuP) as described previously (35). Phenanthroline was used at a 4-fold molar excess over copper. After removal of the CuP solution, the cells were washed twice with 4 ml of PBS and reacted for 20 min at room temperature with 10 mM N-ethylmaleimide (NEM) in PBS++ buffer (11 mM Na2HPO4, 154 mM NaCl, 2.7 mM KCl, 1 mM MgCl2, 0.1 mM CaCl2) to block free sulfhydryl groups. The cells were scraped into PBS++/PI buffer (PBS++ supplemented with 2 µg/ml Pefabloc, 2 µg/ml aprotinin, 1 µg/ml leupeptin, 1 µg/ml pepstatin A, and 10 mM NEM) and pelleted at 800 × g for 5 min at 4 °C. The pellet was suspended and incubated in 0.5% dodecyl maltoside (DM) for 60 min at 4 °C. The mixture was centrifuged at 20,000 × g for 30 min at 4 °C. Twenty µl of extract was mixed with an equal volume of 4× Laemmli sample buffer without reducing agent.

Coimmunoprecipitation-- HEK 293 cells, stably transfected with SFD2 or SMD2 or both were reacted with CuP and solubilized in DM as above. To 0.3 ml of DM extracts was added 1.5 µl anti-FLAG M1 mouse monoclonal antibody (Sigma), and the mixture was incubated for 1 h on ice. Thirty µl of prewashed rec-protein G-Sepharose (Zymed Laboratories Inc.) were added, and the mixture was incubated 1 h at 4 °C, washed four times in 1 ml of lysis buffer, and eluted at room temperature for 30 min in 50 µl of 2× Laemmli sample buffer without reducing agent.

Immunoblotting-- Samples were applied to 1.5-mm, 10-well 7.5% acrylamide gels prepared and run according to Laemmli (36). The bands were transferred to a polyvinylidene difluoride membrane (Millipore), which was blocked for 1 h at room temperature in 5% nonfat milk, 1% bovine serum albumin, 0.1% Tween 20 in TBS (50 mM Tris-HCl, 150 mM NaCl, pH 7.4). To detect FLAG-D2R, we typically incubated the blot with an anti-FLAG rabbit polyclonal antibody (Sigma) diluted 1:10,000 in blocking buffer for 1 h at room temperature. For Myc-D2R we incubated with an anti-Myc rabbit polyclonal (Santa Cruz Biotechnology) diluted 1:400 in blocking buffer for 1 h at room temperature. The membranes were washed three times for 10 min in TBS containing 0.1% Tween 20, incubated in horseradish peroxidase-conjugated anti-rabbit-antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnology), diluted 1:15,000 in blocking buffer for 1 h at room temperature, washed three times for 10 min with TBS containing 0.1% Tween, and reacted with ECL-Plus reagent (Amersham Biosciences). Luminescence was detected and quantitated on a FluorChem 8000 (Alpha Innotech Corporation).

[3H]N-Methylspiperone Binding and cAMP Assay-- Intact cells were harvested for binding and [3H]N-methylspiperone (PerkinElmer Life Sciences) binding was performed as described previously (30). EM4 cells stably expressing the D2R mutants were used for assay of cAMP accumulation as described previously (37) except that 10 µM forskolin was used to stimulate adenylyl cyclase, and increasing concentrations of dopamine were used to activate the D2R and inhibit the forskolin-stimulated cyclase.

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Our strategy to identify residues forming the dimer interface in the D2R was to use cysteine cross-linking. Thus, it was essential to develop a system that would allow non-cross-linked receptor to run as a monomer on non-reducing SDS-PAGE. In preliminary experiments using transient transfection of D2R, we found, consistent with previous reports (12), that a substantial amount of receptor migrated as dimer or higher-order oligomer (data not shown). Stably expressed D2R produced substantially less of higher-order species on SDS-PAGE. Moreover, we found that mutation to Ser of Cys-3716.61 and Cys-3736.63 in the third extracellular loop, between TM6 and TM7, which leaves only two extracellular cysteines (the highly conserved disulfide-bonded Cys-1073.25 and Cys-182E2) further decreased oligomeric SDS-resistant species (data not shown). The resulting background construct (C1183.36S/C3716.61S/C3736.63S) ran almost exclusively as a heterogeneously glycosylated monomer of ~65 kDa on non-reducing SDS-PAGE (Fig. 1A). (As shown below, this background construct, subsequently referred to as D2R, was fully functional and bound multiple ligands normally.) Thus, if the D2R is oligomeric, the oligomer dissociates in SDS. In addition, the D2R is not an obligatory disulfide-linked dimer in the plasma membrane, unlike some class C receptors (2, 6).


View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   Cross-linking of D2R to a homodimer by copper phenanthroline. A, treatment of FLAG-D2R with 0, 10/40, 40/160, 100/400, 400/1600, and 1000/4000 µM CuP (lanes 1-6, respectively). B, exponential association fit of dimer/total density plotted against CuP from A. C, anti-Myc blot of anti-FLAG immunoprecipitation of FLAG-D2R, Myc-D2R, and coexpressed FLAG-D2R and Myc-D2R (see "Experimental Procedures"). The sharp ~130-kDa band present in each of the extract lanes is a nonspecific band labeled by the anti-Myc antibody. The molecular masses of protein standards are given in kDa. Representative data from n = 3 experiments are shown.

Using cells stably coexpressing two D2R constructs, one FLAG-tagged and the other Myc-tagged, we attempted to coimmunoprecipitate Myc-D2R with an anti-FLAG monoclonal antibody and protein G. After solubilization with DM we detected no or only trace coimmunoprecipitation of Myc-D2R under these conditions (Fig. 1C), although the FLAG-D2R was immunoprecipitated as expected (data not shown). Thus, if the D2R is oligomeric in the membrane, the oligomer does not survive DM solubilization.

As a control before introducing engineered cysteines into FLAG-D2R for disulfide cross-linking experiments we reacted FLAG-D2R in intact cells with copper phenanthroline (CuP), an oxidizing reagent that promotes the formation of disulfide bonds directly between cysteines (25, 26). Reaction with CuP produced a new band of ~133 kDa (Fig. 1A), approximately twice that of monomer. The fraction of total density that was present in the ~133 kDa band was plotted against increasing CuP (Fig. 1, A and B), giving half-maximal cross-linking at 60 ± 10 µM CuP and maximal cross-linking of 80 ± 14% (n = 3).

The cross-linked species size was consistent with it being a homodimer of D2R, but it was possible that it might represent D2R cross-linked to another protein of similar size. The partners in the cross-linked species were definitively identified by coimmunoprecipitation of Myc-D2R stably coexpressed with FLAG-D2R. After reaction with CuP, immunoprecipitation with anti-FLAG antibody produced an ~133-kDa band that was recognized by anti-Myc antibody (Fig. 1C). In contrast when FLAG-D2R and Myc-D2R were expressed separately and then cross-linked, precipitation with anti-FLAG antibody did not produce a ~133-kDa species recognized by anti-Myc antibody (Fig. 1C), demonstrating the specificity of the antibodies. These results establish that the ~133-kDa band is a D2R homodimer that is disulfide cross-linked via one of the remaining endogenous cysteines.

Mutation of Cys-1684.58 in the fourth transmembrane segment (TM4) to Ser (as well as to Ala or Phe, data not shown), but not mutation of Cys-561.54, Cys-1263.44, or Cys-3566.47, completely prevented CuP-induced cross-linking (Fig. 2A), demonstrating that this Cys at the extracellular end of TM4 forms the disulfide cross-link at a symmetrical homodimer interface.


View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   Effects of mutation and ligand binding on D2R cross-linking. A, cross-linking of Cys mutants by 100/400 µM CuP in FLAG-D2R. B, treatment with buffer (lane 1), 10 µM sulpiride (lanes 2 and 3), 1 µM butaclamol (lanes 4 and 5), 10 µM bromocriptine (lane 6), or 10 µM quinpirole (lane 7) for 15 min (lanes 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7) or 24 h (lanes 2 and 4) prior to and during cross-linking by 1000/4000 µM CuP. Representative data from n = 3 experiments are shown.

To assess ligand binding effects on the dimerization state of the receptor, we treated cells expressing the background construct with the agonists, quinpirole or bromocriptine, or the antagonists, sulpiride or butaclamol. Neither acute nor 24-h treatment with these ligands significantly impacted cross-linking under conditions in which nearly all the receptor was cross-linked (Fig. 2B). This suggests that the receptor is a constitutive dimer (or possibly a higher order oligomer) in the plasma membrane and that ligand interaction does not lead to dissociation of the dimer.

To study the effects of cross-linking Cys-1684.58 on ligand binding, we oxidized with 1 mM/4 mM CuP to ensure that essentially all D2R was cross-linked (see Fig. 1). We observed no change in the KD or Bmax for the antagonist [3H]N-methylspiperone (Fig. 3C), or in the KI for sulpiride or dopamine (Fig. 3, A and B). We also assessed the effects of cross-linking Cys-1684.58 on dopamine-mediated inhibition of adenylyl cyclase by the D2R. In the absence of D2R, treatment with 1 mM/4 mM CuP significantly inhibited forskolin-stimulated adenylyl cyclase through a direct effect on adenylyl cyclase (data not shown). This resulted in an apparent decrease in the potency and efficacy of dopamine in both the Cys-1684.58 and C1684.58S constructs after treatment with CuP (Fig. 3D). Nonetheless, after treatment with CuP, dopamine was equally efficacious at inhibiting cyclase in a Cys-1684.58 construct that was highly cross-linked and in a C1684.58S construct that did not cross-link. We observed no dopamine-mediated inhibition of cAMP levels in untransfected EM4 cells. This argues that the dopamine-mediated inhibition of cyclase occurred only via the stably expressed D2R.


View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3.   Effects of cross-linking on ligand binding and activation of the D2R. In A-D, treatment with 1000/4000 µM CuP is shown in solid symbols or filled bars, whereas control treatment is shown in open symbols or bars. A and B, competition of [3H]N-methylspiperone binding by sulpiride (squares) or dopamine (circles) in the FLAG-D2R (A) (KI = 2.0 ± 0.2 nM and 2.4 ± 0.4 nM for sulpiride and 2.7 ± 0.4 µM and 2.0 ± 0.3 µM for dopamine without and with CuP, respectively (mean and S.E., n = 3)) or FLAG-D2R-C1684.58S (B) (KI = 1.4 ± 0.2 µM and 1.8 ± 0.3 µM for sulpiride and 2.0 ± 0.4 µM and 2.2 ± 0.3 µM for dopamine without and with CuP, respectively (mean and S.E., n = 3)). C, [3H]N-methylspiperone saturation to FLAG-D2R (squares) (KD = 88 ± 12 pM and 84 ± 6 pM and Bmax = 7.6 ± 0.3 pmol/mg protein and 7.2 ± 0.3 pmol/mg protein without and with CuP, respectively (mean and S.E., n = 3)) or FLAG-D2R-C1684.58S (circles) (KD = 74 ± 5 pM and 75 ± 2 pM and Bmax = 5.7 ± 0.4 pmol/mg protein and 6.1 ± 0.8 pmol/mg protein without and with CuP, respectively (mean and S.E., n = 3)). D, inhibition of forskolin-stimulated cAMP accumulation by 1 µM dopamine in FLAG-D2R and FLAG-D2R-C1684.58S (mean and S.E., n = 3).

Because cross-linking requires that only one of the two cysteines involved is modified initially by the reagent, and the derivatized cysteine then reacts by collision with the second unmodified cysteine, the rate of collision must be much faster than the rate of initial modification. This is consistent with the cysteines being very close initially. The very high fraction of receptor that can be cross-linked, the apparent specificity of the cross-linking, based on the appearance of a single homodimer band, and the lack of cross-linking of Cys-561.54, which based on the bovine rhodopsin structure has a similar lipid accessibility as Cys-1684.58, all argue for the proximity of the TM4 cysteines in the native state. Thus, it is likely that in the membrane, untreated with CuP, D2R exists as a homodimer but that this dimer does not survive detergent solubilization.

Cross-linking does not impair the ability of dopamine to inhibit cyclase via the D2R (Fig. 3), demonstrating that the receptor can bind dopamine and activate Gi with a disulfide between Cys-1684.58 in each "subunit" of the dimer. Thus, significant movement of the dimer interface at the Cys-1684.58 position is not necessary for function. Moreover, ligand recognition was unaltered by cross-linking, and the extent of cross-linking was unaltered by treatment with agonists or antagonists, suggesting that the receptor is a constitutive dimer. These results are consistent with the recent findings of Mercier et al. (27). Using quantitative bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET), they showed that more than 82% of beta 2-adrenergic receptor in the plasma membrane exists as a constitutive dimer (or higher order oligomer) over a broad range of expression levels. They also failed to observe a change in BRET upon addition of ligand and suggested that the dimer does not form or dissociate upon activation.

Bovine rhodopsin was crystallized in detergent as a non-physiological dimer in which the cytoplasmic face of one molecule is in the same plane as the extracellular face of the second molecule (28). It is possible, however, that the native oligomeric structure of rhodopsin is disrupted in detergent and is therefore not seen in the crystal structure. Indeed, our findings that the dopamine receptor is a dimer in the plasma membrane but cannot be immunoprecipitated from a DM extract argues that the D2 receptor native quaternary structure is not preserved in this detergent. Interestingly, squid rhodopsin in detergent forms two-dimensional crystals that show a TM4 dimer interface (29) (Fig. 4A). These results suggest that the TM4 dimer interface may be common to other GPCRs as well as the D2R.


View larger version (97K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4.   The TM4 homodimer interface. A, an extracellular view of the squid rhodopsin projection structure, modified from Ref. 29. The TMs from two molecules are numbered, with one dimer subunit shaded green. The position of retinal within the binding site crevice is indicated by R. The TM4 dimer interface is indicated by arcs. B, three-dimensional molecular representation of the transmembrane domain, viewed extracellularly in the orientation of the green dimer subunit from A, showing the Calpha ribbon of the high resolution structure of bovine rhodopsin with the aligned accessible and protected positions in the D2 receptor shown in yellow and accessible but not protected positions shown in orange. The D2R side chains from TM4 that were accessible and protected by ligand but face outward in rhodopsin are shown in purple, and the cross-linked Cys-1684.58 side chain is shown in white.

Using the substituted cysteine accessibility method in the D2R, we found that cysteines in TM4 substituted for the highly conserved Trp-1604.50 as well as for Phe-1644.54 and Leu-1714.61 were accessible to charged sulfhydryl reagents and that this reaction was protected by the antagonist sulpiride (30). We originally inferred that these residues in TM4 faced the binding site crevice. Surprisingly, in the bovine rhodopsin structure, the aligned residues Trp-1614.50, Leu-1654.54, and Leu-1724.61 face outward and not into the binding site crevice (28). Our observations regarding the anomalous conservation and accessibility of this "back face" of TM4 suggested to us the possibility that this surface might be at the interface between two D2R subunits (31). Our finding that the site of cross-linking in D2R is Cys-1684.58 at the extracellular end of TM4 directly adjacent to these accessible residues (Fig. 4B) is consistent with this hypothesis that TM4 forms a symmetrical dimer interface. We are currently extending these studies to include other residues in TM4 in an attempt to map the entire interface and to assess whether conformational changes occur at this interface in different functional states of the receptor. Given that cysteines substituted for Trp-1604.50, Phe-1644.54, and Leu-1714.61 were protected from reaction by sulpiride, we think it likely that such conformational changes do occur and may mediate cross-talk between receptor subunits.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Myles Akabas, Juan A. Ballesteros, Marta Filizola, Arthur Karlin, and Harel Weinstein for helpful discussion and Gebhard F. X. Schertler and Helen R. Saibil for providing the photograph used to create Fig. 4A.

    FOOTNOTES

* This work was supported in part by National Institutes of Health Grants MH57324 and MH54137 and by the Lebovitz Trust.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.

To whom correspondence should be addressed: Center for Molecular Recognition, Columbia University, P & S 11-401, 630 West 168th St., Box 7, New York, NY 10032. Tel.: 212-305-7308; Fax: 212-305-5594; E-mail: jaj2@columbia.edu.

Published, JBC Papers in Press, December 19, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.C200679200

    ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations used are: GPCR, G-protein-coupled receptor; TM, transmembrane segment; D2R, dopamine D2 receptor; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline; NEM, N-ethylmaleimide; DM, dodecyl maltoside; BRET, bioluminescence resonance energy transfer; CuP, copper phenanthroline.

    REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

1. Gether, U. (2000) Endocr. Rev. 21, 90-113[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Bai, M., Trivedi, S., and Brown, E. M. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 23605-23610[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. White, J. H., Wise, A., Main, M. J., Green, A., Fraser, N. J., Disney, G. H., Barnes, A. A., Emson, P., Foord, S. M., and Marshall, F. H. (1998) Nature 396, 679-682[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
4. Jones, K. A., Borowsky, B., Tamm, J. A., Craig, D. A., Durkin, M. M., Dai, M., Yao, W. J., Johnson, M., Gunwaldsen, C., Huang, L. Y., Tang, C., Shen, Q., Salon, J. A., Morse, K., Laz, T., Smith, K. E., Nagarathnam, D., Noble, S. A., Branchek, T. A., and Gerald, C. (1998) Nature 396, 674-679[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
5. Kaupmann, K., Malitschek, B., Schuler, V., Heid, J., Froestl, W., Beck, P., Mosbacher, J., Bischoff, S., Kulik, A., Shigemoto, R., Karschin, A., and Bettler, B. (1998) Nature 396, 683-687[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
6. Romano, C., Yang, W. L., and O'Malley, K. L. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 28612-28616[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Margeta-Mitrovic, M., Jan, Y. N., and Jan, L. Y. (2000) Neuron 27, 97-106[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8. Havlickova, M., Prezeau, L., Duthey, B., Bettler, B., Pin, J. P., and Blahos, J. (2002) Mol. Pharmacol. 62, 343-350[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Duthey, B., Caudron, S., Perroy, J., Bettler, B., Fagni, L., Pin, J. P., and Prezeau, L. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 3236-3241[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Armstrong, D., and Strange, P. G. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 22621-22629[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Lee, S. P., O'Dowd, B. F., Ng, G. Y., Varghese, G., Akil, H., Mansour, A., Nguyen, T., and George, S. R. (2000) Mol. Pharmacol. 58, 120-128[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Ng, G. Y., O'Dowd, B. F., Lee, S. P., Chung, H. T., Brann, M. R., Seeman, P., and George, S. R. (1996) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 227, 200-204[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13. Zawarynski, P., Tallerico, T., Seeman, P., Lee, S. P., O'Dowd, B. F., and George, S. R. (1998) FEBS Lett. 441, 383-386[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Rios, C. D., Jordan, B. A., Gomes, I., and Devi, L. A. (2001) Pharmacol. Ther. 92, 71-87[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
15. George, S. R., O'Dowd, B. F., and Lee, S. P. (2002) Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 1, 808-820[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
16. Angers, S., Salahpour, A., and Bouvier, M. (2002) Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 42, 409-435[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
17. Gouldson, P. R., Higgs, C., Smith, R. E., Dean, M. K., Gkoutos, G. V., and Reynolds, C. A. (2000) Neuropsychopharmacology 23, S60-S77[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
18. Gouldson, P. R., Snell, C. R., Bywater, R. P., Higgs, C., and Reynolds, C. A. (1998) Protein Eng. 11, 1181-1193[Abstract]
19. Schulz, A., Grosse, R., Schultz, G., Gudermann, T., and Schoneberg, T. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 2381-2389[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. Hamdan, F. F., Ward, S. D., Siddiqui, N. A., Bloodworth, L. M., and Wess, J. (2002) Biochemistry 41, 7647-7658[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
21. Hebert, T. E., Moffett, S., Morello, J. P., Loisel, T. P., Bichet, D. G., Barret, C., and Bouvier, M. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 16384-16392[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22. Gouldson, P. R., Dean, M. K., Snell, C. R., Bywater, R. P., Gkoutos, G., and Reynolds, C. A. (2001) Protein Eng. 14, 759-767[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. Filizola, M., Olmea, O., and Weinstein, H. (2002) Protein Eng. 15, in press
24. Filizola, M., and Weinstein, H. (2002) Biopolymers (Peptide Science) 66, 317-325
25. Careaga, C. L., and Falke, J. J. (1992) J. Mol. Biol. 226, 1219-1235[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
26. Wu, J., and Kaback, H. R. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 14498-14502[Abstract/Free Full Text]
27. Mercier, J. F., Salahpour, A., Angers, S., Breit, A., and Bouvier, M. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 44925-44931[Abstract/Free Full Text]
28. Palczewski, K., Kumasaka, T., Hori, T., Behnke, C. A., Motoshima, H., Fox, B. A., Le, Trong, I., Teller, D. C., Okada, T., Stenkamp, R. E., Yamamoto, M., and Miyano, M. (2000) Science 289, 739-745[Abstract/Free Full Text]
29. Davies, A., Gowen, B. E., Krebs, A. M., Schertler, G. F., and Saibil, H. R. (2001) J. Mol. Biol. 314, 455-463[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
30. Javitch, J. A., Shi, L., Simpson, M. M., Chen, J., Chiappa, V., Visiers, I., Weinstein, H., and Ballesteros, J. A. (2000) Biochemistry 39, 12190-12199[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
31. Ballesteros, J. A., Shi, L., and Javitch, J. A. (2001) Mol. Pharmacol. 60, 1-19[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Visiers, I., Ballesteros, J. A., and Weinstein, H. (2002) Methods Enzymol. 343, 329-371[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
33. Saunders, C., Ferrer, J. V., Shi, L., Chen, J., Merrill, G., Lamb, M. E., Leeb-Lundberg, L. M., Carvelli, L., Javitch, J. A., and Galli, A. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 6850-6855[Abstract/Free Full Text]
34. Robbins, A. K., and Horlick, R. A. (1998) BioTechniques 25, 240-244[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
35. Hastrup, H., Karlin, A., and Javitch, J. A. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 10055-10060[Abstract/Free Full Text]
36. Laemmli, U. K. (1970) Nature 227, 680-685[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
37. Liapakis, G., Ballesteros, J. A., Papachristou, S., Chan, W. C., Chen, X., and Javitch, J. A. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 37779-37788[Abstract/Free Full Text]


Copyright © 2003 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.