FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2035290373> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2035290373 endingPage "4" @default.
• W2035290373 startingPage "3" @default.
• W2035290373 abstract "James et al.(1) proposed a “rigorous” treatment of bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) data to distinguish random (non-specific) from true oligomeric protein interactions. The question is not trivial and the intention laudable since BRET has become increasingly popular with more than 100 original articles published. However, the authors dismissed many studies that addressed similar issues and several points deserve comments.The authors preface their study by the statement: “Conventional BRET experiments are presently done at high levels of expression and at a single acceptor:donor ratio”. Although it is true of some studies, such general statement ignores a large body of work where these parameters were taken into account. Expression levels were monitored in many studies and found to be within physiological range (2–5) and at least 15 papers performed BRET titration assay where the ratio donor:acceptor was varied (ex: 2,4–6). Specificity of the BRET signals allowing to distinguish oligomerization from random collisions has also been verified by several authors using BRET competition assays where the occurrence of BRET between two partners expressed at a given donor:acceptor ratio can be inhibited by expression of the non-tagged partners but not of a non-tagged non-interacting protein (ex: 3,6–8).James et al. propose to differentiate random from true oligomeric interactions based on theoretical considerations summarized in a seminal article by Kenworthy and Edidin (9). The first approach consists in studying BRET efficiency (BRETeff) in experiments where the acceptor:donor (GFP/Luc) ratio is varied (type I assay). Random interactions are expected to be less sensitive to the acceptor:donor ratio if the surface density of the acceptor remains low. In multiple previous studies reported in the literature, the change of acceptor:donor ratio was obtained by maintaining the donor concentration fixed and progressively increasing the acceptor and true oligomeric interactions deduced from the hyperbolic progression of the BRET (ex: 2,4–6). In the experiments conducted by James et al., the total concentration of acceptor+donor was maintained constant by inversely changing the concentrations of both donor and acceptor and the difference between pseudo- and true- hyperbolic BRET curves used to define random collision. Such analysis is technically difficult and complicated by the fact that the efficiency of transfer for random collisions becomes independent of donor/acceptor ratio only if the acceptor concentration is kept constant (see table I in ref 9).In type I assays, James et al. also interpreted lower maximal BRET value as evidence for the lack of dimerization or equilibrium between dimers and monomers. Such interpretation is very hazardous given that the extent of RET signals vary with the distance between donors and acceptors within a dimer. Thus no direct conclusion can be drawn on the amount of dimers simply based on the maximal BRET signals observed.In type II assay, BRET for true oligomers should be independent of the concentrations of BRET partners at a fixed acceptor:donor ratio. This was previously shown to be the case for class A GPCRs (1, 11, 12) and in particular for the β2AR at receptor concentration below 15pmol/mg of protein (1). From their data, James et al. concluded otherwise. However, a close examination of Fig 4, reveals that the β2AR BRET curve has a slope that appears closer to that of the constitutive CTLA-4 dimer than that of the CD2 or CD86 monomers, consistent with the notion that the BRET between β2AR-luc and β2AR-GFP may reflect constitutive oligomerization. Also, the BRET signal observed for the constitutive dimer CD80 increase more readily with increasing expression levels than that of the β2AR, further complicating data interpretation. The fact that BRET falls below detection level at low donor/acceptor ratio may reflect lack of detector sensitivity for pairs yielding low BRET signals. Despite these interpretational difficulties, the authors concluded that the entire concept of GPCR oligomerization needs reappraisal.In their discussion concerning the specificity of the BRET signals observed in previous studies, James et al. argued that the GABAb type-2 receptor (GBR2) is a poor choice because it can itself dimerize. The reason to use this receptor as a negative control was precisely its demonstrated ability to dimerize thus offering a reliable selectivity test using a dimerization competent receptor. Also, contrary to what was implied by the authors, GBR2 is not the only negative control that was used in BRET studies. A number of other receptors were used as negative controls in BRET studies addressing class A GPCR oligomerization (ex: 3, 13–15).The observation that in some studies, ligand binding affects the maximal BRET signal between the proposed protomers of class A GPCR oligomers, is difficult to reconcile with the implicit conclusion of James et al. that the BRET signals observed for class A GPCRs most likely result from random collisions. In many of these studies, the ligand-promoted changes in BRET signal were interpreted as conformational changes within pre-existing dimers that changed the distances between the energy acceptor and donor.Finally, the notion that family A GPCRs may form constitutive oligomers is not only based on BRET studies. Many other biochemical and biophysical approaches support this notion. These include: co-immunoprecipitation, various types of FRET, atomic force microscopy, covalent cross-linking, gel filtration, neutron scattering experiments, functional complementation, cell biology studies demonstrating cross-internalization and co-processing of GPCRs as well as binding studies showing positive and negative cooperativity. These approaches, their relative strengths and caveats, including methodological considerations and potential functional outcomes have recently been reviewed (16, 17). It is therefore premature to dismiss the GPCR oligomer hypothesis based on the interpretations of a single BRET study.In conclusion, we believe that the results reported in the article by James et al. can be interpreted in different ways and that more controls would have been necessary to challenge the multidisciplinary work conducted on this topic by many groups over the past 10 years. Clearly, BRET is gaining in popularity to assess protein-protein interaction in living cells and additional quantitative approaches will certainly be forthcoming. Maybe more importantly, additional studies performed in native tissues are needed to establish the generality of GPCR dimerization in physiologically relevant systems." @default.
• W2035290373 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2035290373 creator A5009704367 @default.
• W2035290373 creator A5051585961 @default.
• W2035290373 creator A5064018437 @default.
• W2035290373 creator A5068839016 @default.
• W2035290373 creator A5086198173 @default.
• W2035290373 date "2007-01-01" @default.
• W2035290373 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
• W2035290373 title "BRET analysis of GPCR oligomerization: newer does not mean better" @default.
• W2035290373 cites W1593172464 @default.
• W2035290373 cites W1984429646 @default.
• W2035290373 cites W1986308794 @default.
• W2035290373 cites W2002154523 @default.
• W2035290373 cites W2002567921 @default.
• W2035290373 cites W2031602994 @default.
• W2035290373 cites W2041138404 @default.
• W2035290373 cites W2044585881 @default.
• W2035290373 cites W2053912544 @default.
• W2035290373 cites W2069915228 @default.
• W2035290373 cites W2074381517 @default.
• W2035290373 cites W2081819792 @default.
• W2035290373 cites W2120365849 @default.
• W2035290373 cites W2126205569 @default.
• W2035290373 cites W2134185564 @default.
• W2035290373 doi "https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth0107-3" @default.
• W2035290373 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/2246005" @default.
• W2035290373 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17195017" @default.
• W2035290373 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W2035290373 type Work @default.
• W2035290373 sameAs 2035290373 @default.
• W2035290373 citedByCount "111" @default.
• W2035290373 countsByYear W20352903732012 @default.
• W2035290373 countsByYear W20352903732013 @default.
• W2035290373 countsByYear W20352903732014 @default.
• W2035290373 countsByYear W20352903732015 @default.
• W2035290373 countsByYear W20352903732016 @default.
• W2035290373 countsByYear W20352903732017 @default.
• W2035290373 countsByYear W20352903732018 @default.
• W2035290373 countsByYear W20352903732019 @default.
• W2035290373 countsByYear W20352903732020 @default.
• W2035290373 countsByYear W20352903732021 @default.
• W2035290373 countsByYear W20352903732022 @default.
• W2035290373 countsByYear W20352903732023 @default.
• W2035290373 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2035290373 hasAuthorship W2035290373A5009704367 @default.
• W2035290373 hasAuthorship W2035290373A5051585961 @default.
• W2035290373 hasAuthorship W2035290373A5064018437 @default.
• W2035290373 hasAuthorship W2035290373A5068839016 @default.
• W2035290373 hasAuthorship W2035290373A5086198173 @default.
• W2035290373 hasBestOaLocation W20352903732 @default.
• W2035290373 hasConcept C12554922 @default.
• W2035290373 hasConcept C135285700 @default.
• W2035290373 hasConcept C170493617 @default.
• W2035290373 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2035290373 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2035290373 hasConcept C70721500 @default.
• W2035290373 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2035290373 hasConcept C95444343 @default.
• W2035290373 hasConceptScore W2035290373C12554922 @default.
• W2035290373 hasConceptScore W2035290373C135285700 @default.
• W2035290373 hasConceptScore W2035290373C170493617 @default.
• W2035290373 hasConceptScore W2035290373C185592680 @default.
• W2035290373 hasConceptScore W2035290373C55493867 @default.
• W2035290373 hasConceptScore W2035290373C70721500 @default.
• W2035290373 hasConceptScore W2035290373C86803240 @default.
• W2035290373 hasConceptScore W2035290373C95444343 @default.
• W2035290373 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2035290373 hasLocation W20352903731 @default.
• W2035290373 hasLocation W20352903732 @default.
• W2035290373 hasLocation W20352903733 @default.
• W2035290373 hasLocation W20352903734 @default.
• W2035290373 hasLocation W20352903735 @default.
• W2035290373 hasLocation W20352903736 @default.
• W2035290373 hasOpenAccess W2035290373 @default.
• W2035290373 hasPrimaryLocation W20352903731 @default.
• W2035290373 hasRelatedWork W1498784784 @default.
• W2035290373 hasRelatedWork W187914618 @default.
• W2035290373 hasRelatedWork W1974664442 @default.
• W2035290373 hasRelatedWork W2002309357 @default.
• W2035290373 hasRelatedWork W2035184614 @default.
• W2035290373 hasRelatedWork W2085229836 @default.
• W2035290373 hasRelatedWork W2128735823 @default.
• W2035290373 hasRelatedWork W2270573517 @default.
• W2035290373 hasRelatedWork W2323172604 @default.
• W2035290373 hasRelatedWork W3049725047 @default.
• W2035290373 hasVolume "4" @default.
• W2035290373 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2035290373 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2035290373 magId "2035290373" @default.
• W2035290373 workType "article" @default.