Biased signaling or functional selectivity occurs when a 7TM-receptor preferentially activates one of several available pathways. It can be divided into three distinct forms: ligand bias, receptor bias, and tissue or cell bias, where it is mediated by different ligands (on the same receptor), different receptors (with the same ligand), or different tissues or cells (for the same ligand–receptor pair). Most often biased signaling is differentiated into G protein-dependent and β-arrestin-dependent signaling. Yet, it may also cover signaling differences within these groups. Moreover, it may not be absolute, i.e., full versus no activation. Here we discuss biased signaling in the chemokine system, including the structural basis for biased signaling in chemokine receptors, as well as in class A 7TM receptors in general. This includes overall helical movements and the contributions of micro-switches based on recently published 7TM crystals and molecular dynamics studies. All three forms of biased signaling are abundant in the chemokine system. This challenges our understanding of “classic” redundancy inevitably ascribed to this system, where multiple chemokines bind to the same receptor and where a single chemokine may bind to several receptors – in both cases with the same functional outcome. The ubiquitous biased signaling confers a hitherto unknown specificity to the chemokine system with a complex interaction pattern that is better described as promiscuous with context-defined roles and different functional outcomes in a ligand-, receptor-, or cell/tissue-defined manner. As the low number of successful drug development plans implies, there are great difficulties in targeting chemokine receptors; in particular with regard to receptor antagonists as anti-inflammatory drugs. Un-defined and putative non-selective targeting of the complete cellular signaling system could be the underlying cause of lack of success. Therefore, biased ligands could be the solution.

The CCR7 ligands CCL19 and CCL21 are increasingly recognized as functionally different (biased). Using mature human dendritic cells (DCs), we show that CCL19 is more potent than CCL21 in inducing 3D chemotaxis. Intriguingly, CCL21 induces prolonged and more efficient ERK1/2 activation compared with CCL19 and a C-terminal truncated (tailless) CCL21 in DCs. In contrast, tailless-CCL21 displays increased potency in DC chemotaxis compared with native CCL21. Using a CCL21-specific antibody, we show that CCL21, but not tailless-CCL21, accumulates at the cell surface. In addition, removal of sialic acid from the cell surface by neuraminidase treatment impairs ERK1/2 activation by CCL21, but not by CCL19 or tailless-CCL21. Using standard laboratory cell lines, we observe low potency of both CCL21 and tailless-CCL21 in G protein activation and β-arrestin recruitment compared with CCL19, indicating that the tail itself does not improve receptor interaction. Chemokines interact with their receptors in a stepwise manner with ultimate docking of their N-terminus into the main binding pocket. Employing site-directed mutagenesis we identify residues in this pocket of selective CCL21 importance. We also identify a molecular switch in the top of TM7 important for keeping CCR7 in an inactive conformation (Tyr312), as introduction of the chemokine receptor-conserved Glu (or Ala) induces high constitutive activity. Summarized, we show that the interaction of the tail of CCL21 with polysialic acid is needed for strong ERK signaling, whereas it impairs CCL21-mediated chemotaxis and has no impact on receptor docking consistent with the current model of chemokine:receptor interaction. This indicates that future selective pharmacological targeting of CCL19 versus CCL21 should focus on a differential targeting of the main receptor pocket, while selective targeting of tailless-CCL21 versus CCL21 and CCL19 requires targeting of the glycosaminoglycan (GAG) interaction.

Background: Information about the structure-function relationship and activation mechanism of 7TM receptors is needed. Results: Single mutations in CCR5 induce biased signaling with increased activation through G␣ i but decreased ␤-arrestin recruitment. Conclusion:The TM6/7 interface controls the G protein-dependent and -independent activity state of CCR5. Significance: Knowledge about specific 7TM receptor regions targeted by pathway-selective (biased) ligands is vital for future drug design.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSEThe) is an antagonist at the CXC chemokine receptor CXCR4, which plays a role in human immunodeficiency virus infection, cancer and stem cell recruitment. Binding modes for FC131 in CXCR4 have previously been suggested based on molecular docking guided by structure-activity relationship (SAR) data; however, none of these have been verified by in vitro experiments. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACHHeterologous 125 I-12G5-competition binding and functional assays (inhibition of CXCL12-mediated activation) of FC131 and three analogues were performed on wild-type CXCR4 and 25 receptor mutants. Computational modelling was used to rationalize the experimental data. KEY RESULTS CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONSLigand modification, receptor mutagenesis and computational modelling approaches were used to identify the binding mode of FC131 in CXCR4, which was in agreement with binding modes suggested from previous SAR studies. Furthermore, insights into the mechanism for CXCR4 activation by CXCL12 were gained. The combined findings will facilitate future design of novel CXCR4 antagonists. Abbreviations2-Nal, 3-(2-naphthyl)alanine; 7TM, 7 transmembrane helix; Aib, 2-aminoisobutyric acid; Cit, citrulline; ECL, extracellular loop; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; IP, inositol phosphate; SAR, structure-activity relationship; WT, wild type BJP British Journal of Pharmacology

Background: Characterization of 7TM biology and chemistry is needed generally and within chemokine receptors. Results: A CCR5-CCR2 receptor chimera was constructed by transferring all extracellular regions of CCR2 to CCR5. CCR2 chemokine binding was maintained and so was small molecule CCR5 agonists and antagonists. Conclusion: Orthosteric and allosteric sites could be structurally separated and still act together. Significance: New basic knowledge to be used in drug development.