Compartment-specific opioid receptor signaling is selectively modulated by Dynorphin subtypes

  1. Jennifer M. Kunselman
  2. Achla Gupta
  3. Ivone Gomes
  4. Lakshmi A. Devi
  5. Manoj A. Puthenveedu

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Many signal transduction systems have an apparent redundancy built into them, where multiple physiological agonists activate the same receptors. Whether this is true redundancy, or whether this provides as-yet unrecognized specificity in downstream signaling, is not well understood. We address this question using the kappa opioid receptor (KOR), a physiologically relevant G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) that is activated by multiple members of the Dynorphin family of opioid peptides. We show that, although highly related Dynorphins bind and activate KOR to similar extents on the cell surface, they localize KOR to distinct subcellular compartments, dictate different post-endocytic fates of the receptor, and differentially induce KOR signaling from the degradative pathway. Our results show that seemingly redundant endogenous opioid peptides that are often co-released can in fact fine-tune signaling by differentially regulating the subcellular spatial profile of GPCR localization and signaling.

Article activity feed

  1. eLife

    ##Author Response

    ###Summary:

    This is an interesting and creative paper implicating a differential mechanism of intracellular trafficking and subsequent signaling that is triggered by different dynorphins binding to the kappa opioid receptor. In principle, if the authors could explain the molecular basis for this phenomenon, the story would be of tremendous impact in the fields of opioid receptor signaling and trafficking. The reviewers noted a number of concerns that would require significant further work and clarification to support the authors' conclusions.

    We are very happy that you and the reviewers found that the study could be of tremendous impact and describe the paper as “interesting and creative”, “novel and intriguing”, “fascinating and novel”, and feel that the study was “nicely conducted”. We appreciate the comments of the reviewers, and we are confident that we can address the comments as below.

    ###Reviewer #1:

    General assessment: In this manuscript the authors have assessed the different endocytic routes of KOR when activated by DynA or DynB. These are nicely conducted experiments that show interesting results, however the authors completely obviate the connection with their own work that highlights the different degradation mechanisms of these two peptides. As it stands it does not add to the field, and lacks a mechanistic explanation that could be explored given the authors’ expertise in these systems.

    We thank the reviewer for the positive comments. We are happy that the reviewer felt that the experiments are nicely conducted, and that the results are interesting. However, we respectfully but strongly disagree with the comments that our study does not add to the field.

    First, considering the extended and severe opioid epidemic, understanding the many ways in which the opioid peptide/receptor system is modulated is of high priority. Endogenous opioid peptides are highly relevant neuromodulators about which we know even less than opioid drugs. Why there are over 20 different endogenous opioid peptides but only three receptors, has been a question that has been unanswered for decades. We show that two highly related endogenous opioids, which initially activate KOR to similar levels but subsequently diverge in trafficking and endosomal signaling. We feel that this is a clear advance in the field of opioids and GPCRs.

    Second, the idea that location-biased signaling can lead to different consequences for the same agonist is still a relatively new idea, and clearly a very important area of continuing research. Even for well-studied systems like the adrenergic receptor system, we know very little about the mechanisms or the relevance of differential signaling. Demonstrating that endogenous opioids take advantage of location bias to generate distinct signaling consequences is a clear indication that such differential trafficking and signaling is physiologically relevant. Considering that opioid receptor trafficking has been implicated in opioid signaling and tolerance (although again, the mechanisms are debated), showing that different endogenous opioids can regulate localization and trafficking of the same receptor is a key advance.

    Numbered summary of substantive concerns:

    1. The major conclusion of the study is that after endocytosis, DynA preferentially sorts KOR into the degradative pathway, while DynB sorts KOR into the recycling pathway and this has consequences in the duration of the active state of the receptor and its ability to signal. It is surprising that the authors do not investigate the connection between these results and previously published work that shows differences in the degradation of DynB vs DynA within endosomes. Indeed, the authors have previously shown that: i) ECE2 hydrolyzes DynB and not DynA (Mzhavia et al JBC 2003), ii) overexpression of ECE2 increases the rate of mu-opioid receptor recycling upon DynB stimulation (Gupta et al BJP 2015) and iii) inhibition of ECE2 decreases mu-opioid receptor recycling (Gupta et al BJP 2015). Considering this previous work, it is totally expected that the two ligands show distinct post-endocytic trafficking of KOR.

    The reviewer cites data that the surface recovery rates of a different GPCR (MOR) is regulated by ECE2, and that ECE2 differentially processes Dyn A and B, to argue that it is expected that the two ligands will direct KOR to different subcellular localizations. While our results certainly could be one logical outcome of previous data, we disagree that it is a foregone conclusion.

    Specific to the reviewer’s assessment of our previous work, we were never able to test DynA previously because traditional assays did not have the sensitivity to resolve DynA-mediated recycling or trafficking. This limitation precluded the key comparison, between DynA and DynB, necessary for addressing differences between these two physiologically relevant opioid peptides. Here we use advanced high-resolution imaging experiments to carefully address how DynA and DynB diverge in directing KOR trafficking and signaling.

    More generally, we have known for over a decade that the rates of GPCR recycling can be regulated by signaling pathways without changing sorting, endosomal localization, or fates (e.g., PMID: 16604070, PMID: 27226565, PMID: 25801029, PMID: 24003153). Further, many recent studies have highlighted that the details of how GPCRs are regulated and how that affects their function diverges considerably between different receptors, even though the gross signaling characteristics are nearly identical. Therefore, it is becoming increasingly clear that we cannot apply our understanding of one GPCR too broadly to argue that we expect all GPCRs are regulated in the same manner.

    We also appreciate the reviewer’s interest in the question of whether and how ECE2 regulates location-specific signaling, and we agree that it will be very exciting to study. This is particularly important since ECE2 is not ubiquitously expressed in every cell type in the brain and thus cells with no/low ECE2 expression should exhibit different profiles for recycling or location-based signaling by DynA and DynB compared to cells expressing moderate/high levels of ECE2.

    Nevertheless, we disagree with the reviewer’s assumption that there is an obvious correlation. ECE2 sensitivity for opioid peptides was estimated using purified peptides and enzymes, and there is no evidence that the selectivity persists in vivo. In fact, most of the previous studies measured simply the sensitivity to overexpressed ECE2. Even within these constraints, the correlation is not obvious or direct. For example, we have found that BAM22 and BAM18, two peptides that activate opioid receptors, show much lower recycling of KOR than DynB (Gupta, Gomes and Devi, INRC 2019, manuscript in preparation) even though all three are ECE2 substrates (PMID: 12560336). Therefore, it is unlikely that ECE substrate sensitivity is the only difference between these peptides.

    We will be happy to provide some insight on the question of ECE sensitivity and discuss possibilities, but we feel that a thorough characterization of how ECE regulates location-specific signaling, while interesting, is outside the scope of our study that demonstrates a physiological difference between two different endogenous opioids in neurons.

    Most importantly, we respectfully feel that following up and demonstrating a logical conclusion is a strength, and should not be viewed as a negative. Clearly differentiating and establishing predicted outcomes is a critical part of advancing biology. Acknowledging and supporting this is especially important in these times where there is a clear effort and an opportunity to make academic publishing open and fair.

    1. Similarly, the differences in ECE2 sensitivity can also explain the Nb39 results, with KOR activated by the ligand that is not hydrolysable (DynA) being able to remain in the active state (and signal) for longer than when activated with the hydrolyzable ligand (DynB).

    As described in the response to #1, we agree that it is possible that the trafficking and signaling differences we see could correlate with ECE2 substrate sensitivity. Again, we feel that the focus of the manuscript is on signaling differences between endogenous opioids, and not on how ECE inhibition regulates location-specific signaling.

    1. A simple experiment to address this obvious connection is to use an ECE2 inhibitor. One would expect that in the presence of this inhibitor DynB-activated KOR is retained intracellularly and remains active for longer.

    We agree that ECE inhibitors are important tools to manipulate recycling. As mentioned above, we can provide some insight towards the correlation of ECE sensitivity and trafficking and discuss possibilities, but an in-depth characterization of how ECE proteases regulate GPCR location-specific signaling is not the focus of our study.

    1. The authors state "this is the first example of different physiological agonists driving spatial localization and trafficking of a GPCR" in light of the above comment, previous work from Bunnett et al have shown how peptides with different endocytic enzyme sensitivity can indeed, localize GPCRs (e.g somatostatin receptor) in different compartments and elicit distinct signals (Padilla et al J Cell Biol 2007; Roosterman et al PNAS 2007; Zhao et al JBC 2013 to name a few).

    We were quite taken aback by this comment. We take previously published work very seriously, and we try to be as fair as possible when we describe them. We will be happy to modify the sentence to match the current literature.

    We carefully searched through the papers the reviewer pointed out for an example where two physiological agonists drive different spatial localization and signaling of the same receptor. But we could not find one. Padilla et al., 2007, show that the recycling of CLR, activated by the ECE1-sensitive CGRP, is sensitive to ECE inhibition, but that the recycling of angiotensin receptor or bradykinin receptor, whose ligands are not sensitive to ECE, is not. Similarly, Roosterman et al., 2007, focus on how NK1 receptor recycling is sensitive to ECE1 inhibition. To the best of our knowledge, neither paper shows that spatial localization or location-biased signaling of a given GPCR is regulated differentially by two different endogenous agonists.

    The closest experiment we could find are in Fig 2, titled “Agonists induce endocytosis of SSTR2A in myenteric neurons” in Zhao et al JBC 2013. This figure shows that, when cells exposed to SST14 or the pro-peptide SST28 for 1 hour at 4˚C are followed at 37˚C and fixed, SSTR labeling at the plasma membrane and cytoplasm is similar at 30 min, but diverges after that. As far as we could figure out, receptor recycling, the precise endosomal distribution, or signaling were not tested in this manuscript.

    Therefore, we respectfully submit that the manuscripts the reviewer points to, which describe how the recycling of a receptor that binds an ECE-sensitive peptide is sensitive to ECE inhibition, should not be conflated with our careful analysis of whether different endogenous opioids can drive different spatial localization and signaling fates of the same opioid receptor.

    We would, however, be be happy to modify the sentence to state the impact of our work more precisely and to discuss the details on SSTR trafficking in the revised manuscript. If the reviewer would point us to specific examples that show that subcellular localization and spatially restricted signaling of a given GPCR is regulated differentially by two different endogenous agonists, we will be more than happy to include a discussion of that work.

    1. Support for endosomal signalling falls a bit short. For example, if indeed KOR signals from endosomes, the authors should use an inhibitor of receptor internalization and assess Nb39 recruitment and KOR signalling.

    We agree this experiment will support the conclusion, and we will be happy to provide this data.

    ###Reviewer #2:

    This manuscript demonstrates that two highly similar endogenous opioid agonists can give distinct opioid receptor trafficking and signaling fates. There are two key observations that are novel and intriguing: 1) two opioid peptides that are derived from the same precursor can distinctly modulate Kappa Opioid receptor (KOR) trafficking into two distinct pathways; Dynorphin A causes KOR trafficking to the late endosomes/lysosomes pathway whereas Dynorphin B promotes rapid recycling; 2) Dynorphin A activates Gi proteins on the late endosomes/lysosomes which leads to Gi-mediated cAMP inhibition from these compartments.

    The idea that GPCRs can activate G proteins at the late endosome/lysosomal compartments is fascinating and novel, however, the data presented here does not fully support their model that Dynorphin A activated Gi proteins on the late endosomes/lysosomes.

    We are very happy that the reviewer found our study fascinating and novel. We thank the reviewer for the comments, and we can address them as follows.

    Main questions:

    1. There is a mismatch with the timing of receptor colocalization experiment (Fig 3B and C, 20 min Dynorphin A/B treatment) and the cAMP assay (Fig 3H, 5 min treatment). There needs to be direct evidence that KOR is localized on the late endosomes/lysosomes at 5 minutes post agonist stimulation, i.e. at the time that cAMP levels are measured. It is important to demonstrate that the sustained signaling inhibition by DynA comes from the late endosomes/lysosomes as opposed to early endosomes. A colocalization experiment with 5 min DynA stimulation followed by a 25min washout would be necessary to support their model.

    We agree that this is a good point, and we will be happy to perform the experiment suggested. In addition, we can also provide live cell imaging data, where we simultaneously localize the nanobody that recognizes active KOR with a lysosomal marker and KOR, to show that they colocalize after DynA treatment.

    1. What percentage of KORs are proteolytically degraded in the late endosomes/lysosomes at 20 min DynA stimulation?

    At 20 min, although some of the receptors reach the lysosome, it is unlikely that there is significant degradation. This is supported by our blots that show similar levels of KOR expression at 30 minutes, and loss of receptor levels at 2 hours. This is also roughly consistent with previous studies on GPCR degradation. We will include these details in the revised manuscript.

    1. Given that KOR trafficking to the late endosomes and lysosomes is mediate by ubiquitination (as shown here PMID: 18212250), does mutation of these ubiquitination sites (3 lysine residues on KOR C-terminus) block its trafficking and the sustained signaling from the late endosomes/lysosomes?

    The reviewer raises an interesting topic that has been a subject of considerable debate in the GPCR trafficking field. The mutation of the three lysine residues on the KOR C-terminus cause more residual KOR levels after 4 hours of Dyn A, suggesting that degradation/downregulation of KOR is reduced in these mutants, even though internalization is comparable. For some opioid receptors, although ubiquitination might be required for involution and entry into the intralumenal vesicles, lysosomal localization is arguably independent of ubiquitination. Ubiquitination and/or lysine residues that interact with Ub-transferases could also affect downstream signaling, especially in the endosomes, by some GPCRs. Therefore, we feel that interpretation of results from the lysine mutant receptors will not be straightforward. Nevertheless, we appreciate that this is an interesting point, and we will address this in the revised manuscript.

    1. Is there any evidence for Gi protein localization on the late endosome/lysosomes?

    This is another interesting point raised by the reviewer, as the majority of endosomal signaling data rely on Gs-coupled or Gq-coupled receptors. However, Gi-coupled GPCRs, such as the cannabinoid receptor or the related mu opioid receptor can exist in the active conformation in endosomes (e.g, PMID: 18267983, PMID: 29754753), and internalization is required for sustained cAMP inhibition for the Class B S1P receptor (PMID: 24638168). These provide indirect evidence that Gi proteins might be present and active on endosomes.

    Unfortunately, directly testing whether Gi proteins are active on endosomes has been technically challenging, unlike with Gs proteins. The main limitation has been the lack of conformation-sensors for Gi proteins. We will be happy to discuss these points in the revised manuscript.

    1. Additional functional readouts would also be helpful to support their model of Gi-mediated inhibition of cAMP response from late endosomes/lysosomes and not the plasma membrane or early endosomes. Perhaps mTOR activation (as authors have suggested in their discussion) could be used as a read out to show differences between DynA and B-mediated signaling?

    We will be happy to test endosome-based mTOR signaling downstream of KOR to see if there is a difference between DynA and B. Since our data already suggest that the main impact might be on cAMP signaling, we will also discuss the implications to cAMP signaling.

    ###Reviewer #3:

    This is an interesting idea and creative paper implicating a differential mechanism of intracellular trafficking and subsequently signaling that is triggered by different dynorphins binding to the kappa opioid receptor. However, there are some questions for the authors:

    We thank the reviewer for the comments that the paper is interesting and creative, and for the critique. We are confident that we can fully address them as follows.

    1. My reading is that some dynorphins are extremely rapidly degraded in serum and with these experiments performed in 15% Horse/FCS there is concern that some of the differential results could be explained by differential degradation. One hypothesis could be a differential frequency of receptor activation over time of a fast recycling receptor population. Can the authors convince me that this difference in trafficking and subsequent signaling is an intrinsic property of the peptide and not an exhaustion of peptide (would be DynB) over the 30min assay?

    We agree this is an important point, and we apologize for not specifically addressing this point. For the trafficking experiments, we directly compared results from experiments done with and without protease inhibitors. We saw no difference between the two conditions, possibly because we were using short time points, high enough concentrations, and dialyzed serum. We agree that it will be important to include these data in the revised manuscript. The signaling experiments, which required longer incubations, were performed in the presence of protease inhibitors, consistent with previous studies.

    1. In Fig 2D, 2G and 2J at what time after addition peptides was this data obtained?

    For measuring individual recycling events (2D and G), cells were treated with agonist for 5 minutes at 37°C. Receptor clustering was visualized using TIRF microscopy, and then a recycling movie was recorded at 10 Hz for 1 minute in TIRF. For 2J, we measured 2 time points, 30 min and 120 min after agonist addition. We apologize for not stating these details in the figure, and will be happy to do so.

    1. In Fig 2F the divergence of internalized receptor only occurs from time 20-30 mins which was difficult for me to understand since DynA should result in lost surface receptor number. What confuses me is that in Fig2H the initial recycling induced by DynA17 is fast and slows down so I am wondering if a second hit is needed which feeds into my concern about peptide degradation in the media. Since released peptide would be pulsatile maybe in vivo DynA17 could act like DynB?

    We realize that a better explanation is needed for the recycling experiment performed in 2F. The cells were imaged for a period of 2 minutes to collect baseline SpH fluorescence, which corresponds to the steady-state amount of KOR on the cell surface. After this period, cells were imaged for 15 min after DynA or DynB was added. In this period, because internalization is the predominant factor affecting surface levels, we see a loss in fluorescence as the receptors are internalized and SpH is quenched in the relatively acidic compartments. Because KOR internalization rates are not dramatically different between DynA and B, we do not expect the fluorescence traces to be different. The agonist was then washed out at this time (t=17), and cells were imaged in media containing antagonist. Because there is very little agonist-induced internalization after this point, the fluorescence change depends predominantly on reappearance of receptors via recycling. Therefore, if the main difference between DynA and DynB is in KOR recycling, we expect to see a divergence only in the late points of the trace.

    We thank the reviewer for carefully viewing the traces in 2F and 2H. We understand the interpretation that there might be fast and slow components to DynA induced recycling. While it certainly is possible, we are not comfortable making a strong conclusion on that, based on the sensitivity of the assays used and the variability between cells.

    As mentioned in point#1, it is unlikely, however that this divergence in recycling is due to significant degradation of DynA. Nevertheless, it is an important point to discuss in light of the new data we provide, and we will be happy to explain this in detail.

    1. The assays seem to be done with a single concentration of peptide - 1µM. Do the authors have data to show that at lower (or higher) concentrations than 1µM result in the same trafficking patterns, albeit to a lesser or greater extent. Also, for the cAMP inhibition what concentration gives max inhibition? For a binding affinity of 0.01nM in the cells and with high expression, the 1micromolar concentration seems high.

    We used the 1µM dose based on careful dose-response measurements for cAMP signaling. Part of the dose-response data has been published (PMID: 32393639). We will be happy to provide the extended data, and also provide a dose-response for trafficking. It is possible that the dose is what helps us mitigate potential degradation of the peptides.

    1. In Fig 2H 100% of receptors appear to be recycled after DynB however 25% of kappa colocalize in Rab7 in 3C so do these Rb 7 co-localized receptors recycle?

    It is certainly possible that some receptors from Rab7 endosomes can recycle. Current views are more aligned with overlapping populations of endosomes as labelled by biochemical markers, especially by trafficking components like Rabs. Therefore, our characterization likely describes a spread of receptor distributions across overlapping compartments. Moreover, the recycling of receptors in Fig 2H was quantitated using ELISA over 2 hours after agonist washout. The endosome colocalization in 3C was measured after 20 min of agonist treatment. As the reviewer would agree, it is difficult to directly compare data from these two experiments and draw definite conclusions.

    That said, we certainly did not mean to imply that all of DynB-activated KOR is recycled and that DynA-activated KOR is degraded. Current data on trafficking support a more dynamic and flexible model for receptor sorting, where a fraction of the receptors is recycled while a fraction is degraded from each endosome. Our results are consistent with this model. We feel that, because the receptor populations undergo many rounds of rapid iterative sorting as the endosome matures, a larger fraction is recycled back to the surface in the case of DynB at a steady state, while a larger fraction stays behind in the case of DynA. Importantly, this difference in steady state localization is enough to cause a difference in endosomal receptor activation and cAMP signaling, suggesting that small differences in steady state localization can cause relevant changes in signaling.

    We apologize for not making this important point clearer, and we will be happy to clarify this in the revised manuscript.

    1. Could some of the signaling differences be explained by continued activation of receptors as a consequence of peptide processing in the endocytosed vesicle as opposed to different vesicles? I guess the continued signaling could also direct subsequent trafficking and this could be tested with a membrane permeable antagonist.

    We thank the reviewer for raising this point. As we described in our response to reviewer#1, peptide processing by ECE proteases could contribute to the differences, but the data suggest that this is not a direct correlation or the main explanation for the differences we observe. We will be happy to provide data to address this aspect.

    1. The impact statement "Co-released dynorphins, which signal similarly from the cell surface, can differentially localize GPCRs to specific subcellular compartments, and cause divergent receptor fates and distinct spatiotemporal patterns of signaling" could be misconstrued. If one of the pathways is dominant and blocks the other, then co-release may only have one signaling outcome. Have any dynorphin mix experiments been conducted? What might be anticipated?

    We agree that the question of whether one peptide is dominant is an interesting one in the context of the paper, and we thank the reviewer for pointing this out. Assay sensitivity has remained a long-standing problem when trying these mixed experiments in the endogenous opioid system. We will be happy to try a dynorphin mix experiment with our state-of-the-art imaging assays. We will also revise the sentence to reduce ambiguity.

    1. It looks like details for the ELISA measurements in the methods section was missing. Were the ELISA measurements done with untagged KOR or SpH-KOR? One might worry about the effects of the N-terminal SpH tag on KOR trafficking, and it would be nice if the fluorescence SpH-KOR data were supported by ELISA for untagged KOR. (At least some of the data is immunostaining of FLAG-KOR, which probably introduces only minimal perturbation)

    We apologize for not including the details of the ELISA experiments. The ELISA experiments were performed essentially as described previously (PMID: 24990314; PMID: 24847082). Briefly, CHO-KOR cells or SpH-KOR cells (2x105) were seeded in complete growth media into each well of a 24 well poly-lysine coated plate. The following day cells were washed once in PBS, placed on ice and incubated with 1:1000 dilution (PBS containing 1% BSA) of either anti-Flag M1 mouse monoclonal antibody (for CHO-KOR cells), or anti-GFP rabbit polyclonal antibody (for SpH-KOR) for 1h at 4˚C. Cells were then gently washed twice with PBS and treated without or with 1mM peptides in either F-12 medium (for CHO-KOR cells) or F-12K(for SpH-KOR) containing protease inhibitor cocktail (Sigma) for 30 min at 37oC to induce receptor internalization. Cells were then washed and incubated in media without peptides for different time periods (5-120 min). Cells were chilled to 4˚C and briefly fixed with paraformaldehyde for 3 min. Cells were then incubated with 1:1000 dilution of either anti-mouse or anti-rabbit HRP-coupled secondary antibody. The substrate o-phenylenediamine (5 mg/10 ml in 0.15 M citrate buffer, pH 5, containing 20 ul of H2O2 ) was added to each well (100 ul) and reaction stopped after 10 min by addition of 50 ul 1N HCl. Absorbance at 490 nm was measured with a Bio-Rad ELISA reader. We will definitely correct this oversight and include these details in the revised manuscript.

    The reviewer’s concern about the tag is a valid one, and one that we are very careful about. We have used three different tags to label the receptor, all on the N-terminus to reduce potential interference. The ELISA measurements were done using FLAG-tagged and HA-tagged KOR. The trafficking experiments were done with FLAG-tagged and SpH-tagged KOR. The results are consistent between all these experiments, suggesting that the difference we observe are not due to tagging. We will clarify these details in the revised manuscript.

    1. Dynorphin A17 is a very sticky peptide and difficult to wash out. Since we don't have a dose response it may require only very doses to have full activation for cAMP inhibition. It would be nice to be able to discount this as a potential for prolonged activation after washout.

    The reviewer brings up a good point. DynA is less sticky in media or solutions containing 150mM NaCl, but we realize that this is a concern that should be addressed. In our case, we picked the doses we used based on dose-response curves that we have performed for cAMP signaling for these peptides. We realize that it is important to explain the choice of our concentrations better, and we will be happy to do so in the revised manuscript.

  2. eLife

    ###Reviewer #3:

    This is an interesting idea and creative paper implicating a differential mechanism of intracellular trafficking and subsequently signaling that is triggered by different dynorphins binding to the kappa opioid receptor. However, there are some questions for the authors:

    1. My reading is that some dynorphins are extremely rapidly degraded in serum and with these experiments performed in 15% Horse/FCS there is concern that some of the differential results could be explained by differential degradation. One hypothesis could be a differential frequency of receptor activation over time of a fast recycling receptor population. Can the authors convince me that this difference in trafficking and subsequent signaling is an intrinsic property of the peptide and not an exhaustion of peptide (would be DynB) over the 30min assay?

    2. In Fig 2D, 2G and 2J at what time after addition peptides was this data obtained?

    3. In Fig 2F the divergence of internalized receptor only occurs from time 20-30 mins which was difficult for me to understand since DynA should result in lost surface receptor number. What confuses me is that in Fig2H the initial recycling induced by DynA17 is fast and slows down so I am wondering if a second hit is needed which feeds into my concern about peptide degradation in the media. Since released peptide would be pulsatile maybe in vivo DynA17 could act like DynB?

    4. The assays seem to be done with a single concentration of peptide - 1µM. Do the authors have data to show that at lower (or higher) concentrations than 1µM result in the same trafficking patterns, albeit to a lesser or greater extent. Also, for the cAMP inhibition what concentration gives max inhibition? For a binding affinity of 0.01nM in the cells and with high expression, the 1micromolar concentration seems high.

    5. In Fig 2H 100% of receptors appear to be recycled after DynB however 25% of kappa colocalize in Rab7 in 3C so do these Rb 7 co-localized receptors recycle?

    6. Could some of the signaling differences be explained by continued activation of receptors as a consequence of peptide processing in the endocytosed vesicle as opposed to different vesicles? I guess the continued signaling could also direct subsequent trafficking and this could be tested with a membrane permeable antagonist.

    7. The impact statement "Co-released dynorphins, which signal similarly from the cell surface, can differentially localize GPCRs to specific subcellular compartments, and cause divergent receptor fates and distinct spatiotemporal patterns of signaling" could be misconstrued. If one of the pathways is dominant and blocks the other, then co-release may only have one signaling outcome. Have any dynorphin mix experiments been conducted? What might be anticipated?

    8. It looks like details for the ELISA measurements in the methods section was missing. Were the ELISA measurements done with untagged KOR or SpH-KOR? One might worry about the effects of the N-terminal SpH tag on KOR trafficking, and it would be nice if the fluorescence SpH-KOR data were supported by ELISA for untagged KOR. (At least some of the data is immunostaining of FLAG-KOR, which probably introduces only minimal perturbation)

    9. Dynorphin A17 is a very sticky peptide and difficult to wash out. Since we don't have a dose response it may require only very doses to have full activation for cAMP inhibition. It would be nice to be able to discount this as a potential for prolonged activation after washout.

  3. eLife

    ###Reviewer #2:

    This manuscript demonstrates that two highly similar endogenous opioid agonists can give distinct opioid receptor trafficking and signaling fates. There are two key observations that are novel and intriguing: 1) two opioid peptides that are derived from the same precursor can distinctly modulate Kappa Opioid receptor (KOR) trafficking into two distinct pathways; Dynorphin A causes KOR trafficking to the late endosomes/lysosomes pathway whereas Dynorphin B promotes rapid recycling; 2) Dynorphin A activates Gi proteins on the late endosomes/lysosomes which leads to Gi-mediated cAMP inhibition from these compartments.

    The idea that GPCRs can activate G proteins at the late endosome/lysosomal compartments is fascinating and novel, however, the data presented here does not fully support their model that Dynorphin A activated Gi proteins on the late endosomes/lysosomes.

    Main questions:

    1. There is a mismatch with the timing of receptor colocalization experiment (Fig 3B and C, 20 min Dynorphin A/B treatment) and the cAMP assay (Fig 3H, 5 min treatment). There needs to be direct evidence that KOR is localized on the late endosomes/lysosomes at 5 minutes post agonist stimulation, i.e. at the time that cAMP levels are measured. It is important to demonstrate that the sustained signaling inhibition by DynA comes from the late endosomes/lysosomes as opposed to early endosomes. A colocalization experiment with 5 min DynA stimulation followed by a 25min washout would be necessary to support their model.

    2. What percentage of KORs are proteolytically degraded in the late endosomes/lysosomes at 20 min DynA stimulation?

    3. Given that KOR trafficking to the late endosomes and lysosomes is mediate by ubiquitination (as shown here PMID: 18212250), does mutation of these ubiquitination sites (3 lysine residues on KOR C-terminus) block its trafficking and the sustained signaling from the late endosomes/lysosomes?

    4. Is there any evidence for Gi protein localization on the late endosome/lysosomes?

    5. Additional functional readouts would also be helpful to support their model of Gi-mediated inhibition of cAMP response from late endosomes/lysosomes and not the plasma membrane or early endosomes. Perhaps mTOR activation (as authors have suggested in their discussion) could be used as a read out to show differences between DynA and B-mediated signaling?

  4. eLife

    ###Reviewer #1:

    General assessment:

    In this manuscript the authors have assessed the different endocytic routes of KOR when activated by DynA or DynB. These are nicely conducted experiments that show interesting results, however the authors completely obviate the connection with their own work that highlights the different degradation mechanisms of these two peptides. As it stands it does not add to the field, and lacks a mechanistic explanation that could be explored given the authors’ expertise in these systems.

    Numbered summary of substantive concerns:

    1. The major conclusion of the study is that after endocytosis, DynA preferentially sorts KOR into the degradative pathway, while DynB sorts KOR into the recycling pathway and this has consequences in the duration of the active state of the receptor and its ability to signal. It is surprising that the authors do not investigate the connection between these results and previously published work that shows differences in the degradation of DynB vs DynA within endosomes. Indeed, the authors have previously shown that: i) ECE2 hydrolyzes DynB and not DynA (Mzhavia et al JBC 2003), ii) overexpression of ECE2 increases the rate of mu-opioid receptor recycling upon DynB stimulation (Gupta et al BJP 2015) and iii) inhibition of ECE2 decreases mu-opioid receptor recycling (Gupta et al BJP 2015). Considering this previous work, it is totally expected that the two ligands show distinct post-endocytic trafficking of KOR.

    2. Similarly, the differences in ECE2 sensitivity can also explain the Nb39 results, with KOR activated by the ligand that is not hydrolysable (DynA) being able to remain in the active state (and signal) for longer than when activated with the hydrolyzable ligand (DynB).

    3. A simple experiment to address this obvious connection is to use an ECE2 inhibitor. One would expect that in the presence of this inhibitor DynB-activated KOR is retained intracellularly and remains active for longer.

    4. The authors state "this is the first example of different physiological agonists driving spatial localization and trafficking of a GPCR" in light of the above comment, previous work from Bunnett et al have shown how peptides with different endocytic enzyme sensitivity can indeed, localize GPCRs (e.g somatostatin receptor) in different compartments and elicit distinct signals (Padilla et al J Cell Biol 2007; Roosterman et al PNAS 2007; Zhao et al JBC 2013 to name a few).

    5. Support for endosomal signalling falls a bit short. For example, if indeed KOR signals from endosomes, the authors should use an inhibitor of receptor internalization and assess Nb39 recruitment and KOR signalling.

  5. eLife

    ##Preprint Review

    This preprint was reviewed using eLife’s Preprint Review service, which provides public peer reviews of manuscripts posted on bioRxiv for the benefit of the authors, readers, potential readers, and others interested in our assessment of the work. This review applies only to version 1 of the manuscript.

    ###Summary:

    This is an interesting and creative paper implicating a differential mechanism of intracellular trafficking and subsequent signaling that is triggered by different dynorphins binding to the kappa opioid receptor. In principle, if the authors could explain the molecular basis for this phenomenon, the story would be of tremendous impact in the fields of opioid receptor signaling and trafficking. The reviewers noted a number of concerns that would require significant further work and clarification to support the authors' conclusions.

  6. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.21.162206 on bioRxiv