Abstract
Neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) signaling has been implicated in a variety of normal central nervous system (CNS) functions as well as an array of neuropathologies. Previous studies have demonstrated both neurotoxic and neuroprotective actions of peptides derived from apolipoprotein E (apoE). It has been discovered that apoE-derived peptides inhibit native and recombinant α7-containing nAChRs, indicating a direct interaction between apoE peptides and nAChRs. To probe the structure/function interaction between α7 nAChRs and the apoE peptide apoE141–148, experiments were conducted in Xenopus laevis oocytes expressing wild-type and mutated nAChRs. Mutation of Trp55 to alanine blocks apoE peptide-induced inhibition of acetylcholine (ACh)-mediated α7 nAChR responses. Additional mutations at Trp55 suggest that hydrophobic interactions between the receptor and apoE141–148 are essential for inhibition of α7 nAChR function. A mutated apoE peptide also demonstrated decreased inhibition at α7-W55A nAChRs as well as activity-dependent inhibition of both wild-type α7 nAChRs and α7-W55A receptors. Finally, a three-dimensional model of the α7 nAChR was developed based on the recently refined Torpedo marmorata nACh receptor. A structural model is proposed for the binding of apoE141–148 to the α7 nAChR where the peptide binds at the interface between two subunits, near the ACh binding site. Similar to the functional data, the computational docking suggests the importance of hydrophobic interactions between the α7 nAChR and the apoE peptide for inhibition of receptor function. The current data suggest a mode for apoE peptide binding that directly blocks α7 nAChR activity and consequently may disrupt nAChR signaling.
Neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) are members of the Cys-loop ligand-gated ion channel superfamily. These receptors are found throughout the central (CNS) and peripheral nervous systems and are involved in a variety of normal brain functions, including cognitive tasks, neuronal development, and mediating the rewarding effects of nicotine (Jones et al., 1999). The nAChRs are expressed both pre- and postsynaptically, where they influence neuronal signaling (for review, see Berg and Conroy, 2002) and are therefore a significant therapeutic target for many neurode-generative, neurological, and psychiatric disorders such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, epilepsy, and schizophrenia (for review, see Levin, 2002; Picciotto and Zoli, 2002; Raggenbass and Bertrand, 2002).
The nAChRs are pentameric cationic channels in which each subunit has a large extracellular domain, four α helical bundles that traverse the cellular membrane, and one intracellular α helix. In the rodent CNS, nAChRs are either heteromeric (consisting of both α and β subunits) or homomeric (α subunits only; e.g., α7). nAChRs are often considered allosteric proteins because the acetylcholine (ACh) binding site is within the N-terminal domain at the interface between two subunits (principal and complimentary), and some 60 Å from the pore region, where the channel gates and allows the flow of ions through the membrane. Over time, the ligand binding pocket of the nAChR has been defined through a variety of techniques including NMR, site-directed mutagenesis, and kinetic and pharmacological analysis (for review, see Sine, 2002). However, our understanding of the structure and function of the ligand binding pocket of nAChRs has expanded recently because of the solution of several high resolution crystal structures of the ACh binding protein (AChBP; a homolog of the nAChR extracellular domain) from Lymnaea stagnalis, Aplysia californica, and Bulinus truncatus (Brejc et al., 2001; Celie et al., 2005a,b) and the cryoelectron microscopy structure of the Torpedo marmorata nAChR (Unwin, 2005). A variety of small peptide toxins act as nAChR antagonists; for instance, several snake and cone snail toxins are pharmacologically selective for the different nAChRs. Recent crystal structures of the AChBP with different toxins reveal that these peptides bind at the interface between two subunits (Celie et al., 2005a; Hansen et al., 2006; Ulens et al., 2006).
Apolipoprotein E (apoE) has traditionally been studied for its role in lipid metabolism and cholesterol transport. More recently, the inheritance of particular apoE isoforms has been identified as a risk factor in a variety of pathological conditions of the CNS, including Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. The apoE protein has two domains, a receptor-binding N-terminal domain and a lipid-binding C-terminal domain, with a thrombin cleavage site separating these two domains. Proteolytic fragments of apoE have been shown to be increased in the brain of patients with Alzheimer's disease (Marques et al., 1996), whereas some synthetic peptides of apoE have been shown to have neurotoxic effects (Clay et al., 1995; Tolar et al., 1997). In contrast, apoE mimetic peptides from the receptor-binding domain have recently demonstrated a potential therapeutic usefulness in a variety of CNS injury models involving inflammation. After both head trauma and ischemic injury in rodents, administration of apoE peptides improved cognitive recovery (Lynch et al., 2005; McAdoo et al., 2005). In addition, treatment with apoE mimetic peptides reduces the clinical symptoms of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, an animal model of multiple sclerosis, as well as reducing demyelination and inflammation (Li et al., 2006). We have demonstrated that apoE-derived peptides can inhibit nAChRs expressed on interneurons in rat hippocampal slices, as well as α7 receptors expressed in Xenopus laevis oocytes, indicating a possible direct interaction between apoE and nAChRs (Klein and Yakel, 2004; Gay et al., 2006).
To understand the binding interaction between apoE-derived peptides and the α7 nAChR on a molecular level, we used a combination of binding experiments, site-directed mutagenesis of the α7 nAChR, electrophysiological recordings, and molecular modeling. Point mutations were made in nAChR amino acids that line the interface between subunits. Mutant α7 nAChRs were characterized using two-electrode voltage-clamp in X. laevis oocytes. The ability of various apoE peptides to inhibit the different mutant receptors was tested. Finally, a three-dimensional molecular model of the α7 nAChR was developed based on the recently refined 4-Å T. marmorata ACh receptor structure (Unwin, 2005). ApoE peptides were docked within the computational model, and the results were used to suggest a possible interaction between the apoE peptide and the nAChR that corresponds with the functional data. The current data suggest a mode for apoE peptide binding that directly blocks α7 nAChR activity and consequently disrupts nAChR signaling.
Materials and Methods
Peptide Synthesis. ApoE-derived peptides were synthesized by Sigma-Genosys (The Woodlands, TX) at a purity of 95% and reconstituted in either sterile, deionized water or dimethyl sulfoxide yielding stock concentrations of 15 mM. Stock solutions were stored at -20°C and diluted to desired concentrations on the day of the experiment. The peptides used in this study were acetylated at the amino terminus and amide-capped at the carboxyl terminus.
Oocyte Preparation. Female X. laevis frogs were anesthetized in ice-cold water containing 0.3% Tricaine methanesulfonate. Oocytes were dissected and defolliculated by treatment with collagenase B (2 mg/ml; Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN) and trypsin inhibitor (1 mg/ml; Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) for 2 h. Primers were designed containing the desired mutations in the α7 nAChR. Mutations were made in the α7 nAChR DNA as directed using the QuikChange II XL site-directed mutagenesis kit (Stratagene, La Jolla, CA). The T7 mMessage mMachine kit (Ambion, Austin, TX) was used to prepare capped RNA from the mutated plasmid linearized using XbaI. The total amount of RNA injected for α7 nAChR subunits and mutant α7 nAChRs was ∼75 ng for binding experiments and ∼50 ng for functional experiments.
125I-α-Bungarotoxin Competition Binding. For binding assays, oocytes injected with wild-type α7 nAChRs were incubated for 30 min with various concentrations of either apoE141–148 or methyllycaconitine (MLA) in bath solution (96 mM NaCl, 2 mM KCl, 1.8 mM CaCl2, 1 mM MgCl2, and 5 mM HEPES) plus 1 mg/ml bovine serum albumin. After the addition of 5 nM 125I-α-bungarotoxin (α-BgTx), oocytes were incubated at room temperature with shaking for 1 h. The reaction was stopped by washing oocytes three times with bath solution. Each condition was run in triplicate, and oocytes were counted individually. Bound 125I-α-BgTx was measured by gamma-counting. Nonspecific binding was determined in the presence of 1 μM MLA and was similar to binding in oocytes not injected with the α7 nAChR.
Oocyte Electrophysiology. Current responses were obtained by two-electrode voltage-clamp recording at a holding potential of -60 mV using a Geneclamp 500 and pClamp 8 software (Molecular Devices, Sunnyvale, CA). Electrodes contained 3 M KCl and had a resistance of <1MΩ. ACh and peptides were prepared daily in bath solution (96 mM NaCl, 2 mM KCl, 1.8 mM CaCl2, 1 mM MgCl2, and 5 mM HEPES) from frozen stocks. ACh was applied for various periods using a synthetic quartz perfusion tube (0.7 mm i.d.) operated by a computer-controlled valve. Peptides were bath applied. Data were analyzed using pClamp 8, Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA), and Prism 4 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA). Data for ACh dose-response curves were normalized to the peak current response at 1 or 10 mM ACh for each receptor mutant. Peak current responses to each dose of ACh were averaged, and then the mean ± S.E.M were analyzed by nonlinear regression using a logistic equation (Prism 4). ACh EC50 values were compared using a two-tailed t test with a Bonferroni correction for α inflation. Activity dependence of apoE peptide block was tested as follows: ACh was rapidly applied (250–500 ms) every 2 min to obtain control data, then apoE peptide was bath-applied for 10 min in the absence of ACh stimulation. Finally, in the continued presence of apoE peptide, ACh was again rapidly applied every 2 min for up to 10 min. The peak ACh current response was compared among 1) control, 2) the first rapid application of ACh after apoE peptide (10 min) bath application and 3) after 10 min of apoE peptide and repetitive ACh application (this was considered maximal inhibition). Multiple group comparisons were performed by one-way analysis of variance followed by a Dunnett's multiple comparison test to make specific comparisons between individual values (Prism 4).
Development of the Rat α7 Model. A molecular model of the complete rat α7 nAChR, including the extracellular, intracellular, and transmembrane domains, was developed based on the solved 4-Å resolution experimental T. marmorata nAChR structure (PDB code 2BG9, Unwin, 2005). The model was developed based on the sequence alignment shown in supplemental Fig. 1. The α chain of the T. marmorata nAChR shares 43% identity and 65% similarity with the rat α7 protein sequence. The model of a single chain was developed using Prime v. 1.5 (Schrodinger LLC, New York, NY) protein homology modeling software package. The model for the complete pentameric structure was constructed from the single chain coordinates and the symmetry relationship between the monomers as in the solved T. marmorata nAChR structure. The quality of the model structure was verified using ProCheck (Morris et al., 1992; Laskowski et al., 1993), examining the Ramachandran plot, and comparing the rat α7 model structure with the original Torpedo structure (PDB code 2BG9), with the AChBP structure (PDB code 1UW6; Celie et al., 2004) and with other model structures (Le Novère et al., 2002).
Docking Studies. The starting α-helical structures of the apoE peptides used for computational docking were taken from the structure of this peptide segment in the intact apoE protein (PDB code 1GS9; Segelke et al., 2000). A fragment of the complete model consisting of a dimer model of two extracellular subunits of the α7 nAChR was used for the docking studies to constrain the computational problem to a reasonable time limit. Peptides were docked using a dimer corresponding to the α and β subunits of the T. marmorata nAChR. Peptides were docked using the ZDOCKpro program (Accelrys, San Diego, CA) (Chen et al., 2003; Li et al., 2003) consisting of a two-phase docking procedure. The ZDOCK/RDOCK method has been validated by multiple independent protein-protein docking studies and has been found to be a reliable method for the prediction of protein-protein interactions (Wiehe et al., 2005). The program ZDOCK initially identifies the docking positions possible within the receptor for the peptides based on shape, steric, and electrostatic complementarities. Once docking positions are identified, they are ranked and refined by the second program, RDOCK, which is based on the CHARMM forcefield and calculates the energetics between the protein and docked peptides and ranks the docked poses. RDOCK calculations were performed on the top 5000 ZDOCK-docked structures. The top RDOCK results were clustered to identify and characterize the top potential peptide binding sites. However, because the ZDOCKpro program was not parameterized to handle acetylated and amidated peptides, the docked peptides from the top RDOCK poses that were missing N-terminal acetylation and C-terminal amidation had these termini added. The peptide/protein system with amidation and acetylation was then minimized using the CHARMM forcefield, and the system was subjected to limited molecular dynamics to remove bad contacts and then reminimized. The same treatment and conditions were applied for docking each of the apoE peptides, as well as docking apoE141–148 with the α7-W55A nAChR mutant.
Results
Competition Binding between α-Bungarotoxin and apoE141–148. Previous studies indicated that a synthetic apoE peptide, containing the low-density lipoprotein receptor binding region, can inhibit α7 nAChR-mediated ACh-induced currents through a direct interaction. In addition, previous functional data suggest that this peptide/receptor interaction is noncompetitive with α-BgTx blockade and possibly ACh gating of the receptor (Gay et al., 2006). Direct binding experiments using α-BgTx were carried out to determine whether apoE141–148 binds competitively with the toxin. Increasing concentrations of apoE141–148 did not compete for the binding of 125I-α-BgTx, whereas MLA was able to dose-dependently block 125I-α-BgTx binding to α7 nAChRs expressed in X. laevis oocytes (K0.5 = 1.8 ± 0.6 nM, Hill slope = 0.91 ± 0.13, n = 3; Fig. 1).
Inhibition of Mutant α7 nAChRs by apoE-Derived Peptides. Various point mutations in amino acids that line the interface between subunits of the α7 nAChR were generated. These were expressed in X. laevis oocytes, and α7 nAChR-mediated responses were elicited by application of ACh to generate dose-response curves for each mutant receptor that functionally expressed (Table 1). All mutations except E19A, G152A, E189D, and K192A demonstrated a significantly different EC50 value compared with wild type. Several mutant receptors that we generated were not functional, including N16A, E19K, D25K, W67A, W67T, D89A, D89K, D97A, Y188A, E193A, E193K, Y195A, and Y195T.
As previously reported (Gay et al., 2006), the eight-amino-acid peptide apoE141–148 (3 μM, near maximal inhibition) significantly reduced the amplitude of wild-type α7 nAChR-mediated responses by 78 ± 3% (Table 1, Fig. 2A). It is noteworthy that apoE141–148 had a dramatically decreased ability to inhibit only the α7-W55A mutant nAChR (inhibition = 10 ± 2%, Table 1, Fig. 2B), whereas the inhibition of the other functional mutant receptors was not considerably reduced (Table 1, Fig. 2C). In addition, the longer 17 amino acid fragment, apoE133–149, also demonstrated a significantly decreased inhibition of ACh-induced responses at the α7-W55A mutant receptor (51 ± 15%; n = 6), although this block of inhibition was less than for the shorter apoE141–148 peptide.
Additional mutations were made at position 55 of the α7 nAChR to probe the chemical and structural requirements of this W residue for the interaction between apoE141–148 and the receptor. The Trp at position 55 was also mutated to Cys, Val, Tyr, Phe, Leu, Thr, and Arg. The Trp-to-Leu, -Thr, and -Arg mutations were nonfunctional. For the rest, the ability of the apoE141–148 peptide to block these mutant receptors was similar to wild-type α7 receptors (Fig. 3A). Dose-response curves were generated, and both the α7-W55A and α7-W55Y receptors displayed an increased potency for ACh (compared with wild type), whereas the α7-W55V and α7-W55C receptors displayed a decreased ACh potency (Fig. 3B, Table 1).
Activity-Dependent Block of Modified apoE141–148 Peptide. It had been demonstrated (Gay et al., 2006) that when the two positively charged lysines (at positions 143 and 146) of apoE141–148 were substituted with leucines (which will be referred to as apoE141–1482K/2L), this new peptide was able to inhibit ACh-induced current responses similarly to apoE141–148. However, this change dramatically decreased the rate of block (Gay et al., 2006). In the current study, we tested the ability of apoE141–1482K/2L to inhibit the α7-W55A nAChR. ApoE141–1482K/2L (3 μM) showed a significantly decreased ability to block ACh-mediated responses at the α7-W55A nAChR (inhibition = 26 ± 7%, n = 9) compared with the wild-type α7 nAChR (inhibition = 70 ± 3%, n = 9, Fig. 4A&B).
Based on the earlier data showing a decreased rate of block with apoE141–1482K/2L, the activity dependence of this peptide was tested at both the wild-type α7 nAChR and the mutant α7-W55A nAChR (see Materials and Methods). For the wild-type α7 nAChR, the first application of ACh after bath application of apoE141–1482K/2L for 10 min had an average inhibition of 18 ± 2% compared with maximal inhibition after 10 min of repetitive ACh application of 67 ± 10% (n = 4). Therefore, 76% of the maximal inhibition of 3 μM apoE141–1482K/2L at α7 nAChRs was activity-dependent (i.e., was not present without activation of the channel). The average inhibition for apoE141–148 was 77 ± 4% after 10-min bath application (n = 5, data not shown). At the α7-W55A nAChR, the first application of ACh after bath application of apoE141–1482K/2L had an average inhibition of 2 ± 1% compared with maximal inhibition after repetitive ACh application of 31 ± 8% (n = 4). Compared with wild-type α7 receptors, inhibition of α7-W55A nAChRs by apoE141–1482K/2L (3 μM) was 94% activity-dependent (Fig. 4, C and D). In addition, the voltage-dependence of the apoE141–1482K/2L peptide was tested. The ability of apoE141–1482K/2L to inhibit α7-mediated ACh responses was not significantly different at holding potentials of -60 mV versus +30 mV (inhibition = 63 ± 2%, n = 10, Fig. 4E).
Modeling. A molecular model of the rat α7 nAChR was developed to suggest potential interactions between apoE peptides and the rat α7 nAChR (Fig. 5). The quality of the α7 nAChR model was verified using a variety of methods. The ProCheck validation gave the structure an overall final Gfactor score well above -0.50. The Ramachandran plot illustrated that the majority of residues fall within permitted regions; 97.4% of the residues were in the most favored and allowed regions. Only 4 residues were in disallowed regions (0.7%), and those were near the amino and carboxyl termini and not near the region of interest for probing docking interactions. The ProStat Structure Check program within the Accelrys software identified no bad contacts within the model structure.
The RMS deviations between the model structure developed and other experimentally solved structures, as well as hydrogen bonding pattern around the active site of the model and other experimentally similar structures, compared favorably. Within the identified apoE141–148 binding site from our docking computations, our rat α7 model had seven hydrogen bonds, five of which were identical to the hydrogen bonds found in the T. marmorata nAChR, and five of which were identical to the AChBP structure (PDB code 1UW6; Celie et al., 2004). Comparison of the complete rat α7 model developed with the original T. marmorata nAChR (PDB code 2BG9; Unwin, 2005) yielded an RMS deviation from a DALI (Holm and Sander, 1995; Holm and Park, 2000) structural comparison and overlay of 362 aligned Cα residues = 0.60 Å. A comparison with the published model of the chick α7 nAChR yielded an RMS deviation = 3.2 Å (Le Novère et al., 2002). There is 80% sequence identity between the rat and chick α7 nAChR over the 194 aligned residues of the extracellular domain.
Because our model is based on the T. marmorata nAChR structure, it has the C-loop in the open configuration (Fig. 5A), which is probably equivalent to the closed/resting state of the nAChR (Dutertre and Lewis, 2006). It was noted in the T. marmorata nAChR structure that all the monomers are not conformationally equivalent with respect to their twist and orientation relative to the central axis (Unwin, 2005). Our model is consistent with this structure and preserves the asymmetry in packing between the monomeric subunits.
The rotations in the α subunits of the T. marmorata nAChR have been described as “distorted” conformations, which convert to nondistorted conformations upon ligand binding and channel opening (Unwin, 2005). It is important to note that the modeling data presented here represents the interaction of apoE peptides at one of five possible interfaces. It is likely that potential interactions at the other interfaces would include some binding sites similar to those described here, as well as others that are unique for a given interface. Future studies will explore computational docking within the other dimeric interfaces of the homopentameric structure.
ApoE141–148, apoE141–1482K/2L and an inactive mutated apoE peptide, apoE141–1482K/2E (Gay et al., 2006), were computationally docked with the molecular model of the rat α7 nAChR to identify their putative binding site(s) and mode of interaction. ApoE141–148 was additionally docked with a model of the α7-W55A nAChR mutant. The top 10 docked poses for apoE141–148 with the least energy clustered in several well defined sites (Fig. 6A) classified to be 1) at the level of the C-loop at or near the ligand binding pocket, 2) just above the level of the C-loop on the pore side, and 3) near the α helix at the top of the receptor. The lowest energy docked apoE141–148 peptide pose was found at position 2. The second lowest energy docked conformer of apoE141–148 was located at position 1 and complemented the experimental results in which the W55A mutation significantly decreased the apoE peptide-receptor interaction. Mutation of amino acids (Asn16, Glu19, Asp25, and Trp67) within position 3 did not affect the ability of apoE141–148 to inhibit α7 nAChRs. Those potential docking sites that were not at the interface between two subunits were not considered because they were suspect as a result of the lack of additional subunits that would have created another interface. The lowest energy docked confirmation of apoE141–148 at position 1 was used for further evaluation with this model because it corresponded with the functional data suggesting a potential key interaction between Trp55 and the apoE peptide. However, the ability of apoE141–148 to interact at other identified sites has not been ruled out.
In the apoE141–148-docked model (Fig. 7A), Trp55 of the α7 nAChR was less than 5 Å from each of the three leucine residues (apoE Leu141, Leu144, and Leu148) within the docked peptide, suggesting the major interaction between peptide and receptor may be hydrophobic in nature. In addition, apoE Leu141 is buried in a hydrophobic pocket surrounded by residues Leu35, Trp55, and Leu119 of the α7 nAChR, whereas apoE Leu148 is buried in a hydrophobic pocket surrounded by Trp55, Tyr93, Trp149, Tyr188, and Tyr195 (Fig. 7C). Hydrogen bonds that stabilize interactions between apoE141–148 and the α7 nAChR involve receptor residues Leu37, Leu38, Met160, Glu162, Ser167, and Lys186 (Fig. 7, A and B). The majority of the hydrogen bond interactions with the active peptide occur between the receptor and the apoE Arg145 residue. In addition, upon apoE141–148 docking in the model, the tip of the C-loop (Cys191) moves outward from the binding pocket approximately 1.4 Å in a manner similar to that of other known antagonists (Dutertre and Lewis, 2006). All potential molecular interactions between apoE141–148 and the α7 nAChR are summarized in Table 2.
Similarly to apoE141–148 at the wild-type α7 nAChR, when apoE141–148 is docked with the mutant α7-W55A nAChR, the majority of the top 10 conformers with the least energy are clustered at position 1 of the receptor (Fig. 6B). However, in contrast to interactions with the wild-type receptor, apoE141–148 loses two of the three predicted hydrophobic interactions with Trp55 when it is mutated to Ala (Fig. 7D). The C-loop also appears less bent away from the ligand-binding pocket. These data suggest a loss of the hydrophobic environment that serves to stabilize the interaction between the peptide and receptor. In the apoE141–148 with α7-W55A nAChR docking simulation, hydrophobic interactions are replaced with more hydrophilic interactions, and hydrogen bonds between hydrophilic charged residues in the peptide apoE Arg142, Lys143, Arg145, Lys146, and Arg147 and surrounding receptor residues. With the α7-W55A nAChR, many of these receptor residues can participate in interactions with the peptide that were prevented in the wild-type α7 nAChR by the presence of the larger hydrophobic residue, W55.
When docking simulations were run with the activity dependent apoE141–1482K/2L peptide, there was an increase in the spread of peptide conformers at the interface between the extracellular subunits around the C-loop (Fig. 6C). When the lowest energy peptide position most similar to apoE141–148 was investigated more thoroughly (first position), it was observed that apoE141–1482K/2L preserves two of the three hydrophobic interactions between Trp55 and apoE Leu143 and apoE Leu146. In addition, apoE141–1482K/2L has more potential hydrophilic hydrogen bond interactions between the peptide and receptor than apoE141–148. Finally, when the inactive apoE141–1482K/2E peptide was docked to the α7 nAChR, 50% of the top 10 ranked conformers did not interact at the level of the C-loop at or near the ACh binding site or Trp55 (Fig. 6D). These data are consistent with previous functional results suggesting that this peptide is unable to effectively block α7 nAChR responses in a manner similar to apoE141–148.
Discussion
Previous studies have demonstrated that peptides derived from the LDLR binding domain of apoE inhibit α7-containing nAChRs both in hippocampal interneurons, and those expressed in X. laevis oocytes (Klein and Yakel, 2004; Gay et al., 2006). In addition, inhibition of ACh-induced current responses at the α7 nAChR is voltage- and activity-independent as well as noncompetitive for α-bungarotoxin and possibly ACh gating of the receptor (Gay et al., 2006). The current study employed direct binding studies, site-directed mutagenesis of the α7 nAChR, mutated apoE peptides, as well as molecular modeling to characterize the binding interaction between apoE141–148 and the α7 nAChR responsible for channel inhibition.
When the ability of apoE141–148 to inhibit ACh responses at each mutant receptor was tested, only the mutation of Trp55 to Ala blocked apoE141–148-mediated inhibition. Inhibition by apoE133–149 was partially blocked at the α7-W55A nAChR mutant, suggesting that Trp55 seems critical for inhibition of ACh responses by both apoE peptides. Trp55 of the rat α7 nAChR lies within the β2 strand and is projected to be in or near the ligand binding pocket (Corringer et al., 2000; Brejc et al., 2001; Celie et al., 2004; Young et al., 2007). Mutation of the homologous residue to Trp55 in related receptors has a variety of effects, including decreases in agonist and antagonist affinity and/or decreases in ACh potency (Corringer et al., 1995; Spier and Lummis, 2000; Xie and Cohen, 2001; Fruchart-Gaillard et al., 2002).
The combined experimental and computational data suggest that the interaction of apoE141–148 and the α7 nAChR is dependent on Trp55, and occurs at the interface between two subunits at the level of the C-loop. Additional mutations of Trp55 to Cys, Val, Tyr, Phe, Leu, Thr, and Arg were used to test the importance of size, charge, polarity, and hydrophobicity of the position 55 side chain in the ability of apoE141–148 to inhibit α7 nAChR responses. The finding that the W55R mutation was nonfunctional suggests that a positively charged side chain at position 55 disrupts channel gating, which could be due to a variety of mechanisms, including incorrect folding or trafficking of the protein and inability of ACh to bind and/or gate the receptor. The presence of both nonpolar (Trp, Phe, Val, Ala, Cys) and polar (Tyr) side-chains did not change the ability of apoE141–148 to inhibit α7 nAChR signaling, suggesting that polarity of the side chain is not critical in the peptide/receptor interaction.
The preservation of the hydrophobic (and not just aromatic) nature of the amino acid at position 55 with Val, Cys, Phe, and Tyr suggests that the hydrophobicity of this position is key to the ability of apoE141–148 to block ACh responses. Computational docking of apoE141–148 with both the α7 nAChR and the α7-W55A nAChR also indicates that hydrophobic interactions between the three leucines of apoE141–148 and the tryptophan at position 55 could be important to the peptide/receptor interaction. Although alanine is considered hydrophobic, the predicted loss of interaction with the leucines of apoE141–148 is not surprising, considering both its low ranking on hydrophobicity scales and its smaller size (Nozaki and Tanford, 1971; Zamyatnin, 1972), indicating that both hydrophobicity and the size of the amino acid at position 55 are critical for the inhibition of ACh current responses by apoE141–148.
The 125I-α-BgTx binding data indicate that apoE141–148 is noncompetitive at the α-BgTx binding site, similar to previous functional data suggesting the peptide and toxin were noncompetitive (Gay et al., 2006). This finding suggests that if apoE141–148 is interacting directly with Trp55 and binding at the interface between two subunits at the level of the C-loop, the peptide is binding to a unique microdomain that does not exclude α-BgTx binding to the receptor. Recent crystal structure work has demonstrated that traditional noncompetitive nAChR ligands, such as galanthamine and cocaine, bind at the level of the C-loop and interact with aromatic amino acids within the ligand binding domain (Hansen and Taylor, 2007). However, these findings are with the heteromeric AChBP instead of a homomeric nAChR. As mentioned earlier, the binding data may also support the hypothesis that apoE141–148 may be interacting with the α7 nAChR at a site remote from Trp55, and we cannot rule out the possibility that the loss of apoE peptide inhibition at the α7-W55A mutant receptor is due to a more global conformational change in the receptor.
Several additional peptide/receptor interactions are predicted from the molecular modeling. Some of these were tested functionally by single-point mutations of the α7 nAChR including: Ser34 with apoE Leu141, Glu184 with apoE Arg145, Trp149 with apoE Leu148, Lys208 with apoE Lys146 and Arg147, and Leu148. However, mutation of each of these amino acids to alanine did not block the ability of apoE141–148 to inhibit ACh-mediated functional responses. These data are somewhat surprising; however, because each of these was a single-point mutation and because the peptide is predicted to make multiple contacts with the receptor, it could be that the loss of one of these individual interactions is not enough to disrupt the functional effects of apoE141–148. These findings might also suggest that the hydrophobic interaction between the apoE peptide and Trp55 may be particularly critical to the peptide's ability to block α7 nAChR function.
ApoE141–1482K/2L demonstrated activity-dependent block of α7 nAChR function at both the wild-type and the α7-W55A mutant receptors. The current data suggest that the vast majority of block by apoE141–1482K/2L at α7-W55A nAChRs was activity-dependent (> 90%), whereas ∼75% of the block at wild-type α7 nAChRs was activity-dependent. This is in contrast to apoE141–148, which undergoes activity-independent block of α7 nAChRs (Gay et al., 2006). In addition, apoE141–1482K/2L inhibition of α7 nAChRs is voltage-independent, indicating that this activity-dependent peptide is most likely not acting as an open channel blocker and is binding somewhere within the extracellular portion of the receptor.
When the overall pattern of the top 25 ranked peptide/receptor interactions are considered for apoE141–1482K/2L, this mutated apoE peptide demonstrated a much broader range of suggested interaction sites than apoE141–148. Although some of the predicted docking sites include Trp55, others are at the interface between the two subunits but removed from Trp55. This spread may indicate why the functional activity of apoE141–1482K/2L at the α7 nAChR was different from apoE141–148. However, the docked peptide conformer position with the least energy was similar in location to the apoE141–148 peptide-docked position. This supports the experimental observation that apoE141–1482K/2L preserves the majority of nAChR inhibition with a slightly different mechanism of blockade. Both the modeling and functional data suggest that apoE141–148 and apoE141–1482K/2L may have unique modes of interaction with α7 nAChRs that partially overlap.
Characterization of the mutated α7 nAChRs revealed that the majority of functional mutations demonstrated slight to moderate increases or decreases in ACh potency. For the majority of mutant α7 nAChRs, there is an increase in Hill slope (while a few have decreases), suggesting that these mutations may cause a change in either the cooperativity of binding and/or the cooperativity of gating the receptor (Colquhoun, 1998). High-affinity desensitization could affect dose-response curves, causing them to appear steeper than in reality; in contrast, however, fast desensitization of α7 nAChRs may clip the true peak amplitude, leading to an underestimate of the Hill coefficient. Differences in maximal ACh responses between mutant receptors were not compared because of variations in peak current from day to day and across batches of oocytes, as well as possible disparities in receptor expression levels. Several of the single-point mutations resulted in nonfunctional channels. It was not determined whether these mutant receptors were nonfunctional because they were not expressed, because they could not bind ACh, or because the channel could not be gated. However previously, similar mutations in the chick α7 nAChR for W55R, D89K, Y188A, E193K, and Y195A resulted in channels that were expressed in human embryonic kidney 293 cells and bound α-bungarotoxin (Fruchart-Gaillard et al., 2002).
Other naturally occurring small peptides are known to inhibit nAChR activity, including the heavily studied conotoxins. The small α-conotoxin ImI selectively binds α7/α2β3-containing nAChRs. Independent crystal structures of this peptide have recently been solved with the A. californica AChBP (Hansen et al., 2005; Ulens et al., 2006). This α-helical peptide interacts at the interface between two subunits near the ACh binding site, similar to the proposed interaction site of apoE141–148. Some of the contacts described in the crystal structures are similar to those for the apoE peptide, including interactions with most of the aromatic amino acids within the ligand binding pocket (Ac-AChBP Tyr91, Trp145, Tyr186, and Tyr193). Although both crystal structures indicate that AChBP Tyr55 is near the binding site for this α-conotoxin, neither suggests a stabilizing interaction between Tyr55 and the peptide. This is in contrast to the functional and modeling data presented for apoE141–148, which predicts a key role for Trp55 in peptide inhibition of ACh responses. However, the interaction between α7 nAChRs and apoE141–148 seems distinct from that for α-conotoxin ImI because the former does not compete for α-bungarotoxin binding, whereas the latter is competitive (Ellison et al., 2003; Gay et al., 2006).
The therapeutic potential of apoE mimetic peptides in a variety of disease states has been demonstrated, including: improved cognitive recovery after head injury and ischemia, as well as decreasing symptoms in an animal model of multiple sclerosis (Lynch et al., 2005; McAdoo et al., 2005; Li et al., 2006). The therapeutic effects of apoE mimetic peptides are thought to occur through an anti-inflammatory mechanism (Laskowitz et al., 2006). It is noteworthy that α7 nAChRs are expressed peripherally in immune cells, where they are thought to play a role in the suppression of the pro-inflammatory cytokine, tumor necrosis factor (Pavlov and Tracey, 2006). However, activation, not inhibition, of α7 nAChR seems key to this anti-inflammatory response. The current findings may have considerable implications in the development of novel therapeutics through the use of apoE-derived peptides to regulate nAChR signaling in terms of understanding both the potential mechanism of action and possible side effects of the peptides.
In conclusion, the current study engaged both physiological and molecular modeling data to characterize the probable structure/function relationship between an apoE peptide and the α7 nAChR. These data suggest that hydrophobic interactions between apoE141–148 and the α7 nAChR are key to peptide inhibition of receptor function. In addition, this study identifies for the first time an activity-dependent antagonist for α7 nAChRs, the apoE141–1482K/2L peptide, which may interact with α7 nAChRs in a manner somewhat different from apoE141–148. The current findings propose a mode for apoE peptide binding that directly blocks α7 nAChR activity, and therefore may disrupt normal nAChR signaling both in the peripheral and central nervous system.
Acknowledgments
We thank L. Pedersen and S. Gentile for advice in preparing the manuscript.
Footnotes
-
This research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health.
-
Article, publication date, and citation information can be found at http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org.
-
doi:10.1124/mol.107.035527.
-
ABBREVIATIONS: nAChR, nicotinic acetylcholine receptor; CNS, central nervous system; ACh, acetylcholine; apoE, apolipoprotein E; MLA, methyllycaconitine; α-BgTx, α-bungarotoxin; PDB, Protein Data Bank; RMS, root-mean-square; AChBP, acetylcholine binding protein.
-
↵ The online version of this article (available at http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org) contains supplemental material.
- Received February 26, 2007.
- Accepted July 3, 2007.
- The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics