Ion Channels: Communication across Membranes - Biochemical ...

A Focus Topic at BioScience2006, held at SECC Glasgow, U.K., 23–27 July 2006. Edited by G. Banting (Bristol, U.K.), C. Connolly (Dundee, U.K.), A. Dolphin (University College London, U.K.), J. Henley (Bristol, U.K.), A. Lai (Cardiff, U.K.) and C. Taylor (Cambridge, U.K.).

The role of GABAA receptor biogenesis, structure and function in epilepsy S. Mizielinska, S. Greenwood and C.N. Connolly1 Neuroscience Institute, Ninewells Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 9SY, U.K.

Abstract Maintaining the correct balance in neuronal activation is of paramount importance to normal brain function. Imbalances due to changes in excitation or inhibition can lead to a variety of disorders ranging from the clinically extreme (e.g. epilepsy) to the more subtle (e.g. anxiety). In the brain, the most common inhibitory synapses are regulated by GABAA (γ -aminobutyric acid type A) receptors, a role commensurate with their importance as therapeutic targets. Remarkably, we still know relatively little about GABAA receptor biogenesis. Receptors are constructed as pentameric ion channels, with α and β subunits being the minimal requirement, and the incorporation of a γ subunit being necessary for benzodiazepine modulation and synaptic targeting. Insights have been provided by the discovery of several specific assembly signals within different GABAA receptor subunits. Moreover, a number of recent studies on GABAA receptor mutations associated with epilepsy have further enhanced our understanding of GABAA receptor biogenesis, structure and function.

The balance of excitation and inhibition in the brain is a fundamental requirement for the smooth operation of all sensory, cognitive and motor functions. An imbalance in neuronal activity can result in a number of disease states such as anxiety, schizophrenia, autism, Tourette’s syndrome and epilepsy. Indeed, a reduction in the expression of synaptic inhibitory receptors can lead to enhanced anxiety in mice [1]. Importantly, this observation raises the possibility that reduced levels of synaptic GABAA (γ -aminobutyric acid type A) receptors may underlie anxiety disorders and natural variation in response to stress and threat cues in humans. At the extreme, gross imbalances may lead to permanent brain damage, as a result of excitotoxicity, a process that is thought to occur following head trauma and ischaemia and to contribute to neurodegenerative pathology. Glutamate (excitatory) and GABA (inhibitory) are the most common neurotransmitters in the brain that act on ionotropic receptors to initiate rapid changes in membrane Key words: assembly, benzodiazepine, biogenesis, epilepsy, γ -aminobutyric acid type A receptor (GABAA receptor), neurotransmitter. Abbreviations used: ER, endoplasmic reticulum; GABA, γ -aminobutyric acid; GABAA , GABA type A; GEFS, generalized epilepsy with febrile seizures; TM, transmembrane region. 1 To whom correspondence should be addressed (email [email protected]).

Ion Channels: Communication across Membranes


potential. The major classes of ionotropic glutamate receptors are the AMPA (α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methylisoxazole-4propionic acid), kainate and NMDA (N-methyl-D-aspartate) receptors. These receptors are discussed in the accompanying paper by Professor F.A. Stephenson ([1a]; see pp. 877–881) and will not be discussed further. Ionotropic GABA receptors belong to the cysteine-loop family of ligand-gated ion channels, whichs include nicotinic acetylcholine, 5-HT3 (5hydroxytryptamine) and glycine receptors. Only one class of ionotropic GABA receptor (type A) exists in which receptors are constructed as a pentameric ion channel from a choice of 19 distinct subunits (α 1−6 , β 1−3 , γ 1−3 , δ, ε, ρ 1−3 , θ and π ) generating an incredible scope (195 /5, ∼500 000 possibilities) for receptor diversity. However, only 20–30 functionally distinct receptor subtypes are thought to exist in vivo. Although no account has been made for the existence of functionally equivalent receptor subtypes that may exhibit distinct neuronal localization, trafficking itineraries (recycling, re-targeting or degradation following endocytosis) or modulation by second messengers [2], it is still clear that receptor construction is not random. Temporal and spatial restrictions on gene expression contribute to the limiting of receptor diversity. However, multiple GABAA receptor genes C 2006

Biochemical Society

863

864

Biochemical Society Transactions (2006) Volume 34, part 5

are often transcribed simultaneously. Thus a defined pathway(s) must exist at the level of receptor biogenesis, during its assembly into the pentameric ion channel.

Figure 1 GABAA receptor composition and location of GABA/benzodiazepine-binding sites

GABAA receptor composition Using transgenic ‘knock-in’ approaches to disable benzodiazepine modulation of specific GABAA receptor subtypes, it has been possible to dissect the distinct pharmacological (sedative, anxiolytic, anti-convulsant, muscle relaxant and the development of tolerance) contributions of specific α subunits [3,4]. Using similar approaches, specific β subunit contributions can be attributed to the pharmacological (anaesthesia and post-operative ataxia, sedation and hypothermia) responses to the anaesthetic, etomidate [5]. This large body of research has highlighted the importance of receptor composition and opened our eyes to the potential for the development of highly selective therapeutic agents. It is important, therefore, to understand the molecular composition and structure of these distinct GABAA receptor targets. It is known that the co-expression of α and β subunits is sufficient for the production of GABA-gated chloride currents and the incorporation of a γ subunit is required for modulation by benzodiazepines [2,6]. In support of the existence of defined pathways, GABAA receptor assembly appears to be strictly controlled, producing receptors with a fixed stoichiometry of two α, two β and one γ subunit [2,7]. At present, it is not known how the δ, ε, θ or π subunits are incorporated into GABAA receptors [8,9]. GABAA receptor localization to inhibitory synapses is driven by the γ subunit, with δ-containing receptors being found extrasynaptically [10]. Actually, synaptic receptors exist as a dynamic pool that can interchange rapidly with extrasynaptic, γ -containing, receptors [11], a process that may enable rapid changes in synaptic inhibition. Information regarding the order of subunits in the pentamer has been provided by studies elucidating the GABAand benzodiazepine-binding sites in the receptor [12], by the forced assembly of concatenated subunits [13] and by homology to the acetylcholine receptor [14]. The GABAA receptor contains two low-affinity GABA-binding sites, located at the interfaces between α and β subunits, and a single benzodiazepine site formed between the α and γ subunits (Figure 1). Thus the final structural organization of subunits is now established as -γ -(Bz)-α-(GABA)-β-α(GABA)-β- [13] (Figure 1). Particularly intriguing is the observation that αβγ receptors are formed preferentially, at the expense of αβ receptor formation, when all three subunits are co-expressed [15]. Thus not only are there strict minimal requirements for the production of GABAA receptors, but particular subunit combinations may be favoured and dominate receptor assembly.

GABAA receptor biogenesis Achieving such a high fidelity requires a mechanism for rigorous quality control that is provided within the lumen of the ER (endoplasmic reticulum) where chaperone molecules C 2006

Biochemical Society

such as calnexin, BiP (immunoglobulin heavy-chain binding protein) and protein-disulfide isomerase operate [6,16]. Together, these chaperone proteins monitor the fidelity of protein folding and assembly within the ER. On the other side of the membrane, the masking of ER retention signals during assembly ensures the cytoplasmic fidelity and transport competence of receptors [17,18]. Receptor biogenesis is facilitated by the use of assembly signals that direct specific subunit interactions [19–29]. Unassembled subunits fail to gain transport competence and are retained in the ER where they are degraded. A tantalizing glimpse into the potential for subunit specificity is provided by the α 1 assembly signal, RQS (Arg-Gln-Ser), where a single amino acid (Arg66 ) has been shown to discriminate between assembly of α 1 with β 2 and β 3 subunits. The basis for this discrimination appears to be the existence of a second assembly signal within β 3 , GKER (Gly-Lys-Glu-Arg) (see below), but not β 2 , that does not require the α 1 (Arg66 ) for the production of functional α 1 β 3 cell-surface receptors [16]. This is supported by a β 2 construct containing the GKER signal that no longer requires the Arg66 in α 1 . Intriguingly, β 3 lacking this GKER signal is still capable of assembling with α 1 (Arg66 ), suggesting the existence of an alternative signal within β 3 . Likewise, these observations suggest the possibility of a second assembly signal (other than RQS) within α 1 . However, the existence of the QS (Gln-Ser) component of this signal as a prerequisite for the assembly of α 1 with either β 2 or β 3 subunits suggests a differential requirement of the same signal. Thus multiple assembly signals may be available for some, or all, subunits. Speculatively, each signal might express distinct subunit preferences, and some hierarchical selection mechanism to determine which is used preferentially may exist. In this way, the existence of multiple assembly signals may permit plasticity in the construction of GABAA receptors, with the decision being dependent on subunit availability. It may not be possible to hold out for the prince, when surrounded by so many capable frogs that are in demand. If this is true,


GABAA receptor subunits may not be committed to an innate assembly line, churning out identical copies, but may be required to make best choice decisions. Thus a neuron may select the ‘squad’ and leave the receptor subunits to select the best ‘team(s)’. The existence of a fixed stoichiometry [2,7] and order within the pentamer [13], combined with the observation of hierarchical assembly [15], supports the hypothesis that this process follows a preferred strategy that is influenced by the availability of subunits. Indeed, this has been exemplified in a ‘knock-out’ mouse lacking most of the coding region of the α 6 polypeptide. Interestingly, a part of α 6 , including the region thought to possess an assembly signal, was still expected to be present in the truncated protein and generated non-productive intermediates with the δ subunit, targeting them for degradation [30]. Significant reductions in β 2 (50%) and γ 2 (40%), but not α 1 (0%) or β 3 (20%), were also observed. Thus a strict adherence to the assembly method appears to exist. In contrast, only when γ 2 is unavailable, is γ 3 able to take its place [31], highlighting the existence of plasticity. Consistent with a requirement for these assembly signals to be located at (or near) inter-subunit contact points, the α/γ signals identified to date are located proximal (with respect to the primary structure) to the GABA- and benzodiazepinebinding sites formed at subunit interfaces (in the quaternary structure) between the α–β and α–γ subunits respectively (Figure 1). However, structural predictions of the quaternary structure of GABAA receptors do not predict the α 1 (RQS) signal to be located at subunit interfaces (Figure 2), suggesting that either a transient interaction occurs during receptor assembly, or that this signal plays a conformational role in the presentation of the subunit interface, or both. In contrast, both the β 3 (GKER) [16] and γ 2 (SYGY) [28] signals are located at subunit interface structures (Figure 2). In fact, the β 3 (GKER) signal is opposed to a signal [HDM (HisAsp-Met) in α 1 and INM (Ile-Asn-Met) in γ 2 ] (Figure 2) that is found 11 residues upstream from the RQS signal in α 1 . This is intriguing as this region lies within loop 2 that, along with loop 7 (cysteine-loop), is thought to participate in conformational changes involving their movement with respect to the TMII–TMIII (where TM is transmembrane region) and pre-TMI regions during receptor gating [32]. That these residues, in either α 1 or γ 2 , are required to direct receptor assembly has not been investigated.

GABAA receptors in epilepsy A reduction in GABAergic inhibition has been implicated in epilepsy, with GABAA receptor antagonists promoting epileptic seizures, whereas agonists exhibit anticonvulsant activity [33]. Furthermore, a number of GABAA receptor mutations associated with epilepsy have been discovered, each reported to cause a reduction in GABAergic inhibition [34–40]. These studies have provided valuable information on the involvement of particular residues in receptor biogenesis, structure and function.

Figure 2 Predicted location of identified assembly signals and epilepsy mutations within the GABAA receptor The structural predictions are based on homology with the Torpedo marmorata nicotinic acetylcholine receptor structure, PDB code 2BG9 [44], using RasMac version 2.6 [45]. Alignment of GABAA receptor α (chain C/E, red), β (chain A/D, blue) and γ /δ (chain B, yellow) subunits is depicted. Individual residues are identified as follows. α 1 (RQS): R, white; QS, green; W, black. β 3 (GKER): GK, white; ER, green; and the opposing γ 2 (INM), purple. In all other cases, the identified residue is depicted in green.

Analyses of the extracellularly located γ 2 (R43Q) mutation associated with GEFS (generalized epilepsy with febrile seizures) [35–37,40] revealed an increase in receptor desensitization or a decrease in deactivation, number of ligandbinding sites or current amplitude. Recent studies have revealed a decreased surface expression due to subunit retention within the ER [36,44], suggesting that the primary fault lies in receptor biogenesis. In fact, this mutation leads to a failure to form the β 2 –γ 2 interface, a role shared by this residue at all subunit interfaces [36]. In support of this conserved role in receptor assembly, Arg43 is predicted to be located at each of the five subunit interfaces in the GABAA receptor (Figure 2). The γ 2 (K289M) GEFS mutation [35,36,39,40] resides in the second extracellular domain, between TMII and TMIII. Importantly, this region, and notably the conserved lysine residue, has been reported to be involved in channel gating [33]. The mutation has been reported to exhibit a reduced C 2006

Biochemical Society

865

866

Biochemical Society Transactions (2006) Volume 34, part 5

current amplitude, faster deactivation, reduced activation rate and a small decrease in channel opening times [35,36,39,40]. Despite the conservation of Lys289 in GABAA receptor subunits, the mutation had different effects when present in α 1 (reduced channel opening times) or β 2 (inhibiting receptor assembly), illustrating an asymmetric contribution of this residue to receptor structure and function [39]. If this residue plays a role in receptor assembly, then it is restricted to the incorporation of the β 2 subunit. Moreover, given the predicted location of this residue to the outside face of the channel (Figure 2), its involvement, like that of α 1 (RQS), would probably be transient. The α 1 (A322D) mutation is associated with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy [34,35,37] and is located within TMIII and has been reported to decrease cell-surface expression and GABA potency. The mutant subunit is retained in the ER, where it is degraded. That α 1 (A322D) subunit stability is compromised even when expressed alone, combined with its predicted location facing away from the channel (Figure 2), suggests that this residue is critical for normal receptor structure or membrane stability. Again, this mutation exhibits asymmetric effects depending on which of the two α subunits is mutated. If the mutant α 1 contributes to the γ 2 -(Bz)-α 1 -(GABA)-β 2 interface, receptor stability, assembly and transport to the cell surface are significantly perturbed. In contrast, if the mutant α 1 contributes to the β 2 -α 1 -(GABA)-β 2 , the mutation is better tolerated, although it causes rapid desensitization [34]. Mutations in the δ subunit are associated with GEFS (E177A) or juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (R220C) [36,38] and are both located within the first extracellular domain. Analysis of the mutants revealed reduced current amplitudes and cell-surface expression. However, upon co-expression with wild-type receptor subunits, the only significant effect appeared to be a reduction in channel opening times. Given that only one δ subunit is incorporated into pentameric receptors, a mixed receptor population must co-exist. Although Glu177 does not locate to subunit interfaces (Figure 2), it is present within the cysteine-loop and may be involved in channel gating [38] and/or receptor biogenesis or stability. How the R220C mutation might contribute to reduced GABAergic function remains unknown. It is not located at subunit interfaces (Figure 2), but may play a role in receptor biogenesis or stability. In addition to a primary role in the genetic predisposition to epilepsy, a reduction in GABAA receptor function is also induced by epileptic activity as a result of receptor endocytosis [41,42]. Indeed, α 1 β 2 γ 2 (R43Q) and α 1 β 2 γ 2 (K289M), but not α 1 (A322D)β 2 γ 2 , receptors have been reported to exhibit impaired trafficking and/or accelerated endocytosis at raised temperatures that may be relevant to the febrile seizures associated with the γ 2 GEFS pedigrees, but absent from the α 1 pedigree, described above [40]. In summary, vast leaps in our understanding of GABAA receptor structure and its impact on function have been made, both as a result of direct attempts and the analysis of epilepsy mutations. However, given the asymmetric contributions C 2006

Biochemical Society

of distinct subunits [36,39] and their position-dependency [34,45] within this structure, caution must be observed when drawing conclusions based on the structure of the acetylcholine receptor. We are particularly grateful to Tim G. Hales (Department of Pharmacology and Physiology, George Washington University, Washington, DC, U.S.A.) for constructive comments on this paper, and Tenovus (Scotland) and The Anonymous Trust (Dundee) for their continued support.

References 1 Crestani, F., Lorez, M., Baer, K., Essrich, C., Benke, D., Laurent, J.P., Belzung, C., Fritschy, J.M., Luscher, B. and Mohler, H. (1999) Nat. Neurosci. 2, 833–839 1a Stephenson, F.A. (2006) Biochem. Soc. Trans. 34, 877–881 2 Moss, S.J. and Smart, T.G. (2001) Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2, 240–250 3 van Rijnsoever, C., Tauber, M., Choulli, M.K., Keist, R., Rudolph, U., Mohler, H., Fritschy, J.M. and Crestani, F. (2004) J. Neurosci. 24, 6785–6790 4 Dias, R., Sheppard, W.F., Fradley, R.L., Garrett, E.M., Stanley, J.L., Tye, S.J., Goodacre, S., Lincoln, R.J., Cook, S.M., Conley, R. et al. (2005) J. Neurosci. 25, 10682–10688 5 Cirone, J., Rosahl, T.W., Reynolds, D.S., Newman, R.J., O’Meara, G.F., Hutson, P.H. and Wafford, K.A. (2004) Anesthesiology 100, 1438–1445 6 Connolly, C.N., Krishek, B.J., McDonald, B., Smart, T.G. and Moss, S.J. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 89–96 7 Baumann, S.W., Baur, R. and Sigel, E. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 36275–36280 8 Davies, P.A., Kirkness, E.F. and Hales, T.G. (2001) J. Physiol. 537, 101–113 9 Wagner, D.A., Goldschen-Ohm, M.P., Hales, T.G. and Jones, M.V. (2005) J. Neurosci. 25, 10462–10468 10 Mangan, P.S., Sun, C., Carpenter, M., Goodkin, H.P., Sieghart, W. and Kapur, J. (2005) Mol. Pharmacol. 67, 775–788 11 Thomas, P., Mortensen, M., Hosie, A.M. and Smart, T.G. (2005) Nat. Neurosci. 8, 889–897 12 Connolly, C.N. and Wafford, K.A. (2004) Biochem. Soc. Trans. 32, 529–534 13 Baumann, S.W., Baur, R. and Sigel, E. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 46020–46025 14 Ernst, M., Bruckner, S., Boresch, S. and Sieghart, W. (2005) Mol. Pharmacol. 68, 1291–1300 15 Angelotti, T.M. and Macdonald, R.L. (1993) J. Neurosci. 13, 1418–1428 16 Bollan, K., Robertson, L.A., Tang, H. and Connolly, C.N. (2003) Biochem. Soc. Trans. 31, 875–879 17 Connolly, C.N., Uren, J.M., Thomas, P., Gorrie, G.H., Gibson, A., Smart, T.G. and Moss, S.J. (1999) Mol. Cell Neurosci. 13, 259–271 18 Boyd, G.W., Doward, A.I., Kirkness, E.F., Millar, N.S. and Connolly, C.N. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 27681–27687 19 Taylor, P.M., Thomas, P., Gorrie, G.H., Connolly, C.N., Smart, T.G. and Moss, S.J. (1999) J. Neurosci. 19, 6360–6371 20 Taylor, P.M., Connolly, C.N., Kittler, J.T., Gorrie, G.H., Hosie, A., Smart, T.G. and Moss, S.J. (2000) J. Neurosci. 20, 1297–1306 21 Klausberger, T., Fuchs, K., Mayer, B., Ehya, N. and Sieghart, W. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 8921–8928 22 Klausberger, T., Sarto, I., Ehya, N., Fuchs, K., Furtmuller, R., Mayer, B., Huck, S. and Sieghart, W. (2001) J. Neurosci. 21, 9124–9133 23 Sarto, I., Klausberger, T., Ehya, N., Mayer, B., Fuchs, K. and Sieghart, W. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 30656–30664 24 Sarto, I., Wabnegger, L., Dogl, E. and Sieghart, W. (2002) Neuropharmacology 43, 482–491 25 Bollan, K., King, D., Robertson, L.A., Brown, K., Taylor, P.M., Moss, S.J. and Connolly, C.N. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 4747–4755 26 Ernst, M., Brauchart, D., Boresch, S and Sieghart, W. (2003) Neuroscience 119, 933–943 27 Ehya, N., Sarto, I., Wabnegger, L. and Sieghart, W. (2003) J. Neurochem. 84, 127–135 28 Jin, P., Walther, D., Zhang, J., Rowe-Teeter, C. and Fu, G.K. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 14179–14183


29 Sarto-Jackson, I., Ramerstorfer, J., Ernst, M. and Sieghart, W. (2006) J. Neurochem. 96, 983–995 30 Nusser, Z., Ahmad, Z., Tretter, V., Fuchs, K., Wisden, W., Sieghart, W. and Somogyi, P. (1999) Eur. J. Neurosci. 11, 1685–1697 31 Baer, K., Essrich, C., Benson, J.A., Benke, D., Bluethmann, H., Fritschy, J.M. and Luscher, B. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96, 12860–12865 32 Kash, T.L., Dizon, M.J., Trudell, J.R. and Harrison, N.L. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 4887–4893 33 Morimoto, K., Fahnestock, M. and Racine, R.J. (2004) Prog. Neurobiol. 73, 1–60 34 Gallagher, M.J., Shen, W., Song, L. and Macdonald, R.L. (2005) J. Biol. Chem. 280, 37995–38004 35 Baulac, S., Gourfinkel-An, I., Nabbout, R., Huberfeld, G., Serratosa, J., Leguern, E. and Baulac, M. (2004) Lancet Neurol. 3, 421–430 36 Hales, T.G., Tang, H., Bollan, K., Johnson, S., King, D. and Connolly, C.N. (2005) Mol. Cell. Neurosci. 29, 120–127

37 Krampfl, K., Maljevic, S., Cossette, P., Ziegler, E., Rouleau, G.A., Lerche, H. and Bufler, J. (2005) Eur. J. Neurosci. 22, 10–20 38 Feng, H.J., Kang, J.Q., Song, L., Dibbens, L., Mulley, J. and Macdonald, R.L. (2006) J. Neurosci. 26, 1499–1506 39 Hales, T.G., Deeb, T.Z., Tang, H., Bollan, K.A., King, D.P., Johnson, S.J. and Connolly, C.N. (2006) J. Biol. Chem. 281, 17034–17043 40 Kang, J.Q., Shen, W. and Macdonald, R.L. (2006) J. Neurosci. 26, 2590–2597 41 Blair, R.E., Sombati, S., Lawrence, D.C., McCay, B.D. and DeLorenzo, R.J. (2004) J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 310, 871–880 42 Goodkin, H.P., Yeh, J.L. and Kapur, J. (2005) J. Neurosci. 25, 5511–5520 43 Baumann, S.W., Baur, R. and Sigel, E. (2003) J. Neurosci. 23, 11158–11166 44 Unwin, N. (2005) J. Mol. Biol. 346, 967–989 45 Sayle, R.A. and Milner-White, E.J. (1995) Trends Biochem. Sci. 20, 374

Received 6 July 2006

C 2006

Biochemical Society

867