Membrane lipid poly-unsaturation selectively affects ligand induced dopamine D2 receptor internalization

  1. Rim Baccouch
  2. Silvia Sposini
  3. Véronique De Smedt-Peyrusse
  4. Joyce Heuninck
  5. Thierry Durroux
  6. Pierre Trifilieff
  7. David Perrais
  8. Isabel Alves

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The poly-unsaturation of membrane phospholipids is an important feature for the biophysical properties of membranes and membrane proteins. In particular, it regulates the function of some G protein-coupled receptors (GPCR), such as their binding to ligand and G proteins or their membrane diffusion. However, its effects on GPCR internalization and trafficking remain unknown. The brain is highly enriched in poly-unsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and ω3-PUFAs deficiency has been associated with several neuropsychiatric disorders. Importantly, the Dopamine D2 receptor (D2R), a class A GPCR, is consistently impacted in these disorders and represents the main target of most antipsychotics. Here we show that enrichment in two different PUFAs strongly impairs agonist-induced endocytosis of D2R in HEK293 cells, without affecting clathrin-mediated endocytosis or β2 adrenergic receptor endocytosis. Using live cell TIRF imaging, we show that D2R clustering is not affected, but that recruitment of β-arrestin2 is strongly impaired and endocytic vesicle formation is slowed down. We conclude that PUFAs are involved in D2R trafficking, which could influence its role in the control of brain activity and behavior.

Article activity feed

  1. Review Commons

    Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Reply to the reviewers

    Compared to our initial submission to Review Commons, we have addressed all the reviewers' comments. We have extensively re-written the manuscript to make it clearer to a larger audience. In particular, we have transferred Figure EV1 to Figure 1 with more complete panels and included a scheme (Figure EV3) on the steps of D2R internalization which we measure with live cell imaging. We have added a new paragraph to the start of the Discussion to summarize our main conclusions and reordered the discussion on the possible mechanisms of membrane PUFA enrichment on D2R endocytosis. All the changes in the text are in red for easier comparison with the previous version.

    As suggested by reviewer 1, we have performed additional experiments to test the specificity of the effects of PUFA treatments on D2R endocytosis, reinforcing the results shown in Figure 4 using feeding assays. We show with live cell TIRF imaging and the ppH assay that TfR-SEP endocytosis is not affected (Figure EV5) and that SEP-β2AR endocytosis and βarr2-mCherry recruitment to the plasma membrane are not affected (Figure EV6).

    Reviewer #1

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    *The manuscript, using different live and fixed cell trafficking assays, demonstrates that incorporation of poly-unsaturated, but not saturated, free fatty acids in the membrane phospholipids reduce agonist induced internalization of the D2 dopamine receptor but not the adrenergic beta2 receptors or the transferrin receptor. Pulsed pH (ppH) live microscopy further demonstrated that the reduced internalization by incorporation of free fatty acid was accompanied by a blunted recruitment of Beta-arrestin for the D2R.

    I believe said claims put forward in the manuscript are overall well supported by the data and as such I do not believe that further experiments are necessarily needed to uphold these key claims. Also, the methodology is satisfactorily reported, and statistics are robust, although two-way Anova like used in Fig 1 seems appropriate for Fig 2 and 3*

    We thank the reviewer for his/her positive assessment of our work. We have checked the statistical tests used for all our measures. For Figure 2 and 3 (now 3 and 4) we test for only one factor (PUFA treatment or not) so we ran ordinary one-way ANOVA using Graphpad Prism.

    That said, I suggest that the fixed cell internalization experiments (Fig 2 and 3), which relate the effect on the D2R to B2AR and transferrin are revised. This is important since this is relevant to judge whether the effect is a general or a selective molecular mechanism since this is the one of the three assay which this comparison relies on. Alternatively, I suggest omitting this data and include the B2AR in the Live DERET assay and both B2AR and TfR in the ppH assay. Specifically, my concerns with the fixed cell internalization are: • The analysis is based on counting the number of endosomes, which is not necessarily equivalent to the number of receptors internalized

    The number of puncta, as well as their fluorescence, is reported by the analysis program (written in Matlab2021 and available upon request). We chose to show number of puncta because they reflect more directly the number of labelled endosomes (in Figures 3 and 4). As shown in the figure below, we found slight but significant differences between groups for FLAG-D2R (88.6 % and 87.6 % of average fluorescence in DHA and DPA treated cells compared to control cells), (panel A), and no differences for FLAG-β2AR (panel B). We find a significant decrease in puncta fluorescence for transferrin uptake in cells incubated with DHA (but not DPA) relative to control cells (panel C). However, because we did not detect differences in the number of puncta or in the frequency and amplitude of endocytic vesicle creation events (see below), we still conclude that enrichment with exogenous PUFAs does not affect clathrin mediated endocytosis.

    In conclusion, the most robust measure of endocytosis for this assay is the number of detected puncta per cell rather than their fluorescence.

    • The analysis relies on fully effective stripping of the surface pool of receptors - i.e clustered surface receptors not stripped by the protocol will be assessed as internalized. It is often very difficult to obtain full efficiency of the Flag-tag stripping and this is somewhat expression dependent. • The protocol for the constitutive and agonist induced internalization is different and yet shown on the same absolute graph. Although I take it the microscope gain setting are unaltered between the constitutive and agonist induced internalization I don't believe the quantification can be directly related. This is confusing at the very least. More critically however, the membrane signal from the non-stripped condition of constitutive internalization will likely fully shield internalized receptors in the Rab4 membrane proximal recycling pathway leading to under-estimation of the in the constitutive endocytosis. I believe this methodological limitation underlies the massive relative difference in the constitutive endocytosis between panel 2A,B and 2C,D. For comparison, by a quantitative dual color FACS endocytosis assay, we have previously demonstrated the ligand endocytosis a ~4 fold increased over constitutive (in concert with Fig 2A,B here) (Schmidt et al 20XX). Importantly, high relative variability by this methodology could well shield an actual effect of incorporation of FFAs on the constitutive endocytosis.* We thank the reviewer for pointing this difference in the protocol. As a matter of fact, we have not used acid stripping in all the conditions used for the uptake assays (Figures 3 and 4). We apologize for the confusion and we have clarified this point in the Methods section. In early experiments we compared conditions with or without stripping but we concluded from these experiments that indeed, the stripping was not complete. Moreover, we noticed early on that many cells treated with DHA or DPA did not have any detectable cluster (13 cells out of 58 quantified cells treated with DHA after addition of QPL, 12/56 cells treated with DPA, 0/68 for cells treated with vehicle). Stripping the antibody would have made these cells undetectable, biasing the analysis. Therefore, to make our results more consistent we decided to use non-stripping conditions. To detect endosomes specifically, we used a segmentation tool developed earlier (see Rosendale et al. 2019). This tool is based on wavelet transforms which recognizes dot-like structures. In addition, we excluded from the cell mask the labelled plasma membrane by a mask erosion.

    We agree the design of experiments was not aimed at comparing the effect of PUFA treatment on low levels of constitutive D2R endocytosis. This would require more sensitive assays and be addressed in subsequent studies.

    'Optional' Also, it would be informative to see the ppH Beta-arrestin experiments with the B2AR to assess, whether the putative discrepancy between D2R and B2AR is upstream or downstream of the blunted Beta-arrestin recruitment. To the same point, it would be very informative to assess how the incorporation of the free fatty acids affect receptor signalling, which would also help relate the effect of incorporation of the FFA's in the phospholipids to previous experiment using short term incubation with FFA's

    We have now performed live imaging experiments in HEK293 cells expressing SEP-β2AR, GRK2 and βarr2-mCherry and stimulated with isoproterenol (Figure EV6). We show that the clustering of SEP-β2AR, of βarr2-mCherry, as well as endocytosis, are not affected by treatments with DHA or DPA. In this study, we focused on the early trafficking steps of D2R internalization. It will be interesting in a future study to address its consequences on G protein dependent and independent signaling. Moreover, and for good measure, we performed experiments to assess TfR-SEP endocytosis with the ppH assay. Again, we found no difference between cells treated or not with PUFAs (Figure EV5)

    *References overall seem appropriate although Schmidt et al would be relevant for reference of the constitutive vs agonist induced endocytosis of D2R and B2AR. *

    We have now cited Schmidt et al. 2020 doi 10.1111/bcpt.13274 in the discussion with the following sentences: "D2R also shows constitutive endocytosis (Schmidt et al, 2020) which may be modulated by PUFAs although we did not detect any significant difference in our measures (see Figure 3) which were aimed at detecting high levels of internalization induced by agonists. Further work will be required to specifically examine the effect of PUFAs on constitutive GPCR internalization."

    Overall, the figures are well composed and convey the messages fairly well. Specific point that would strengthen the rigor include: • Chosing actual representative pictures of the quantitative data in Fig 2 and 3 (e.g. hard to see 25 endocytic events in Fig 2A constitutive endo, EtOH)

    We apologize for the confusion. We employ a normalization procedure to account for cell size. In addition, all numbers have been normalized to the condition stimulated with agonist with no PUFA treatment). In fact, we detect in unstimulated cells very few puncta (on average 0.6, range 0-5) compared to 27.3 clusters (range 2-87) in cells stimulated with QPL.

    • Showing actual p values for the statistical comparisons* For easier reading, we have kept the stars convention for the figures but added two tables with all statistical tests and the p values for both main figures and EV figures.

    Moreover, for ease of reading the figures (without consulting the legend repeatedly) it would be very helpful to headline individual panel with what the experiments assesses. Figure 1a and 1b for example can't be distinguished at all before reading the figure legend. Also, y-axis could be more informative on what I measured rather than just giving the unit.

    We have added titles to panels (in particular for Figure 2A,B which correspond to former Figure 1A,B) and we have given new titles to Y axes to make them clearer. We hope that the reading of our figures will now be easier.

    Finally, the figure presentation and description of S1 is very hard to follow. I cannot really make out what is assessed in the different panels.

    We have changed substantially Figure EV1 (now Figure 1) with new presentation of data: all 4 conditions (control, treated with DHA, DPA or BA) systematically presented in the same graph, and clearer titles for the parameter displayed on the Y axes. We hope that this figure is now easier to follow.

    Significance

    *The strength of the manuscript is the use and validation of incorporation of FFA's in the plasma membrane, which more closely mimics the physiological situation than brief application of FFAs as often done. Is addition, the blunted recruitment of beta-arrestin as assessed by the ppH protocol is quite intriguing mechanistically. The limitation are the relative narrow focus on the D2 receptor (and not multiple GPCRs) that does not really speak to as or assess the physiological, pathophysiological or therapeutic role of the observations (except from referring the relation between FFAs and disease). Also, despite the putative role of Beta-arrestin recruitment in the process, the actual causation in the process is not clear. This shortcoming is underscored by the putative effect on the constitutive internalization described above.

    My specific expertise for assessing the paper is within general trafficking processes (including the trafficking methodology applied), trafficking of GPCRs and function of the dopamine system including the role of D2 receptors.*

    Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

    The only conclusion that I was able to understand from the study was that enrichment of cell membranes with polyunsaturated fatty acids specifically inhibited agonist-induced internalization of D2 receptors. However, I think that the experiments used to conclude that PUFAs do not alter D2R clustering but reduce the recruitment of β-arrestin2 and D2R endocytosis need some clarification (i.e. data depicted in Fig. 2-5). This lack of clarity might be due to the fact I am not familiar enough with the employed technologies or to the unclear writing style of the paper. There was an overuse of acronyms, initialisms and abbreviations, which are difficult to understand for researchers outside of the specific lipid field. I think that the manuscript should be written in a way to be legible also for researchers not working in the immediate filed.

    The paper was not written in a manner that a general audience of cell biologists or those interested in GPCR biology could understand and judge. It is indeed interesting that polyunsaturated fatty acids specifically inhibit D2R internalization in HEK293 cells, and it could be significant. But, it is difficult to judge the significance of the observation without more in vivo data.

    I would suggest the following. Remove all acronyms and abbreviations. Significantly, expand the Materials and Methods section, either in the manuscript or in the Supplemental section. I suggest clearly explaining each construct used, and the function of each module in the construct, with diagrams. In addition, provide a comprehensive step by step description of each experimental protocol, providing the reader with the rationale for each step in the protocol with explanatory diagrams. The authors should also more clearly explain the rationale and logic that was utilized to make the conclusions that they did from the depicted observations. Only then can a broader audience determine if the authors' conclusions are justified.

    We thank the reviewer for his/her comments. Indeed, our main message was that two types of PUFAs (DHA and DPA) specifically alter D2R endocytosis by reducing the recruitment of β-arrestin2 without changing D2R clustering at the plasma membrane. We are sorry that our writing was not clear enough. We also found out that in the last steps of the submission to Review Commons, the first paragraph of the Discussion was inadvertently erased. This made our main conclusions, summarized in this first paragraph, less clear. We have now put back this important paragraph. Moreover, we have extensively rewritten the manuscript thriving to make it as clear as possible to a large audience. We have reduced the use of acronyms to keep only the most used ones [e.g. PUFA (used 99 times), DHA (37 times), GPCR (34 times), D2R (126 times), GRK (17 times)] and made them consistent throughout the manuscript. Following the reviewer's suggestion, we have also added a scheme of the steps following D2R activation by agonist leading to its internalization (Figure EV3).

    We understand that the reviewer implies by "in vivo data" results obtained in the brain of animals. As written in the Introduction and in the Discussion, the current work follows up on a recently published manuscripts by a subset of the authors, namely (i) Ducrocq et al. 2020 (doi 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.02.012) in which we show that deficits in motivation in animals deprived in ω3-PUFAs can be restored specifically by conditional expression of a fatty acid desaturase from c. elegans (FAT1) that allows restoring PUFA levels specifically in D2R-expressing striatal projection neurons (which mediate the so-called indirect pathway), and (ii) Jobin et al. 2023 (doi: 10.1038/s41380-022-01928-6) which combines in cellulo (HEK 293 cells) and *in vivo *data to show that PUFAs affects the ligand binding of the dopamine D2 receptor and its signaling in a lipid context that reflects patient lipid profiles regarding poly-unsaturation levels.

    Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

    In summary, I will reiterate that the reported experiments need to be much better explained to make the study understandable to a broader audience and for that audience to determine whether the conclusions are justified.

    Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

    Summary:

    The authors investigate the role of lipid polyunsaturation in endocytic uptake of the dopamine D2 receptor (D2R). To modulate the degree of unsaturation in live cell plasma membranes, the authors incubate cell lines with pure fatty acid that is metabolized and incorporated into the cellular membranes. To quantify the internalization of D2R in these live cells, the authors utilized quantitative fluorescence assays such as DERET and endosome analysis to determine the degree and rate of D2R internalization in the presence of two model agonists - dopamine and quinpirole. The authors conclude that when the PUFA content of the plasma membrane is increased (i.e., via ω3 or ω6 fatty acids), both the quantity and rate of D2R internalization decrease substantially. The authors confirmed that these phenomena are specific to D2R as caveolar endocytosis and clathrin-mediated endocytosis were unaffected when these same experimental techniques were utilized for β2 adrenergic receptor and transferrin. Additionally, the authors conclude that the clustering ability of D2R is unaffected by lipid unsaturation but that the ability of D2R clusters to interact with β-arrestin2 is inhibited in the presence of excess PUFA. Based on these findings, the authors propose several hypothetical mechanisms for lipid-D2R interactions on the plasma membrane, which will likely be the scope of future work.

    Overall, this is a highly thorough and rigorous body of work that convincingly illustrates the connection between PUFA levels and D2R activity. However, I do not agree with the authors' conclusions pertaining to how their results should be interpreted in the context of fatty acid-related disorders. Additionally, this manuscript could benefit from some reorganization which would present the work more clearly. Please see the comments below.

    We thank the reviewer for the positive appreciation of our work, qualified as a "thorough and rigorous body of work that convincingly illustrates the connection between PUFA levels and D2R activity". We will address the specific points raised by the reviewer with our answers below.

    Comments:

      • A recurring motivation for this study that is brought up by the authors is that dietary deficiency of ω3 fatty acids is tied to D2R dysfunction. This would indicate that PUFA reduction in the plasma membrane results in D2R dysfunction. However, the experiments emphasized in this manuscript investigate the condition where PUFA content is INCREASED in the plasma membrane and D2R function is compromised. It seems inappropriate for the authors to cite dietary deficiency of ω3 as a motivation when they experimentally test a condition that is tied to ω3 surplus.* Regarding the general comment of the reviewer, we agree that direct conclusion cannot be drawn on the etiology of psychiatric disorders by looking at the effect of membrane fatty acid levels on D2R in HEK 293 cells. Nevertheless, we mention in the Introduction the intriguing occurrence of low PUFA levels in psychiatric disorders as starting point to look at D2R as an important target for psychoactive drugs prescribed for these disorders. In the Discussion, we propose that manipulating fatty acid levels might potentiate the efficacy of D2R ligands used as treatments. We felt raising these aspects was not putting too much emphasis on psychiatric disorders. However, in accordance with the reviewer's comment, we toned down these descriptions in the revised manuscript.

    The goal of increasing the levels of fatty acids at the membrane in HEK 293, the most widely used cellular system to study GPCR trafficking, was to try to emulate the levels of lipids in brain cells. Indeed, the levels of PUFAs in our culture conditions are much lower (~8 %, Figure 1B) than in brain extracts (~30 %). Therefore, the "control" condition in HEK 293 cells would correspond to PUFA deficiency while after our enrichment protocol these levels are closer to those found in brain cells. Our results could therefore be interpreted as endocytosis of D2R being augmented under membrane PUFA decrease. Importantly, increased receptor internalization often correlates with decreased signaling. Therefore, membrane PUFA enrichment in our conditions would rather potentiate D2R signaling.

    • Following up on the first comment, the authors' results seem to indicate that excess ω3's are detrimental to D2R function. This result would be at odds with the conventional view that ω3's are essential and that excessive ω3 may not be harmful. The authors should rationalize their findings in the context of what is known about excess dietary ω3.*

    The Reviewer is right that the conventional view is that excessive ω3 PUFA may not be harmful. However, this rather applies to dietary consumption, which might have limited effect to brain fatty acid contents since their accretion is highly regulated. Moreover, the majority of studies looking at ω3 supplementation have been performed in young adults and the effects on the developing brain - as it might be happening in pathological conditions in which D2R is involved - remain poorly understood. Furthermore, as mentioned above, blunted internalization of D2R under membrane PUFA enrichment is not an indication of "detrimental" to D2R function. Nor do we argue that membrane enrichment corresponds to excess PUFAs.

    • I would argue that the control experiments with saturated fatty acids (i.e., Behenic Acid in figure 1), represent a scenario mimicking ω3 deficiency as the enrichment of Behenic Acid causes an overall reduction in PUFAs (Figure EV1C - an increase in SFA must correspond to a decrease in PUFA). These Behenic acid results are the only experiments presented by the authors that mimic a scenario resembling ω3 deficiency and the results show that the D2R internalization is unaffected (Figure 1G-H). Therefore, I would further argue that if anything, the authors results suggest that ω3 deficiency is NOT correlated to D2R internalization. Again, the authors must rationalize these findings in the context of what is known about dietary intake of ω3's.*

    The Reviewer must refer to the fact that nutrients rich in SFAs are usually poor in PUFAs and vice-versa. Based on our lipidomic analysis, we now present in Figure 1B the effect of treatments (DHA, DPA, BA) on the levels of PUFAs (Figure 1B) and saturated fatty acids (Figure 1C). In cells treated with behenic acid (BA), PUFA levels are not significantly changed relative to control, untreated cells, while saturated fatty acid levels are increased. BA was used here to determine whether the effects observed with PUFAs was related to the enrichment in unsaturations or due to carbon chain length (C22). It is not the case because BA treatment, unlike DHA or DPA treatment, does not affect D2R endocytosis (Figure 2G,H).

    • It's not clear why the authors decided to include an ω6 fatty acid in this study. The authors built up a detailed rationale for investigating ω3's as they are dietarily essential and tied to disease when deficient. To my knowledge, ω6's are considered much less beneficial than ω3's in a dietary sense. The inclusion of an ω6 almost seems coerced as the ω6-related results don't provide any interesting additional insights. It would benefit the manuscript if the authors provided some additional discussion explaining why ω6's are being investigated in addition to ω3's. *

    We agree that we could have made the rationale clearer. The goal in comparing ω3-DHA and ω6-DPA was to assess whether the position of the first unsaturation (n-3 vs n-6), with the same carbon chain length (C22) might differentially impact D2R endocytosis.

    • In Figure EV1D, the AHA and DPA percentages each increase by ~6%. The corresponding Figure EV1B indicates that the overall PUFA% in the plasma membrane also increases by 6%. This makes sense as the total change in PUFA content is consistent with the amount of AHA or DPA being internalized to cells. However, this consistency was not observed with BA and SFAs. In Figure EV1E, the BA percentage increases only ~1% while the total SFA percentage in Figure EV1C increases by ~6%. How can something undergoing a 1% change (relative to total lipid content) result in a 6% overall change in SFA content?*

    The reviewer is correct: the level of SFAs is increased by 5.2% (34.5 % of total FAs in control cells to 39.7 % in BA treated cells), more than the increase in BA alone (1.18% from 0.35 % to 1.53 %). A close look at our lipidomics data showed that many of the 10 saturated fatty acids quantified are enhanced. In particular, the two most abundant ones, palmitic acid (16:0) and stearic acid (18:0) are increased, from 21.37 % to 22.28 % and 8.47 % to 11.17%, respectively. The reasons for these apparent discrepancies may involve lipid metabolic pathways which convert the rare and long BA into more common and shorter SFAs to preserve lipid contents and thus membrane properties.

    • In Figure 4, the discussion of kinetics does not make sense. How exactly are kinetics being monitored in this figure? (Recruitment kinetics are discussed in panels D and G)*

    We wanted to convey the impression that the time to reach the peak βarr2-mCherry recruitment was shorter in PUFA-treated cells than in control cells. However, after analyzing the kinetics in individual cells, we did not find a statistically significant difference in the time to maximum fluorescence. Therefore, we removed this reference to the kinetics of recruitment.

    We now write: " However, treatment with DHA or DPA significantly decreased peak βarr2-mCherry fluorescence (Figure 5F-G).."

    • In Figure 5, What is the purpose of panel D? Would it be more helpful to include additional, overlaid "cumulative N" plots for scenarios in which PUFAs were enriched? This would work well in conjunction with panel F.*

    The purpose of this panel is to show the kinetics of increase in the frequency of endocytic vesicle formation upon agonist addition, and the decrease in frequency when the agonist is removed. We have now added examples of cells treated with DHA and DPA of similar surface for direct comparison with control (EtOH) cells.

    • For the readers who are new to this area or unfamiliar with the assays used, Figure 1 is not intuitive and initially difficult to interpret. It would greatly benefit the flow of the manuscript if Figures EV1A-C and EV2A were included in the main text and "Normalized R" was clearly defined in the main text, prior to discussion of Figure 1.*

    We have now transferred Figure EV1 as Figure 1. We have adapted the scheme of the DERET assay and its legend (now in Figure EV1A) to make it clearer. We did not put in Figure 2 because this figure is already very big. We have changed "Normalized R" to "Ratio 620/520) (% max)" to be clearer and more consistent with the scheme.

    Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

    General assessment: The work, for the most part, is rigorous and scientifically sound. The authors utilize impressive, quantitative assays to expand our understanding of protein-lipid interactions. However, the authors need to improve their discussion of the actual physiological conditions that correspond to their experimental results.

    Advance: This work may fill a gap in our understanding of disorders related to the dopamine D2 receptor. However, some of the results may be at odds with what is currently known/understood about dietary ω3 fatty acids.

    Audience: This work will be of broad interest to researchers in the biophysics field, with particular emphasis on researchers who study protein and membrane biophysics. This work will also be of interest to researchers who study membrane molecular biology.

    Reviewer Expertise: quantitative fluorescence spectroscopy and microscopy; membrane biophysics; protein-lipid interactions

  2. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #3

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    Summary:

    The authors investigate the role of lipid polyunsaturation in endocytic uptake of the dopamine D2 receptor (D2R). To modulate the degree of unsaturation in live cell plasma membranes, the authors incubate cell lines with pure fatty acid that is metabolized and incorporated into the cellular membranes. To quantify the internalization of D2R in these live cells, the authors utilized quantitative fluorescence assays such as DERET and endosome analysis to determine the degree and rate of D2R internalization in the presence of two model agonists - dopamine and quinpirole. The authors conclude that when the PUFA content of the plasma membrane is increased (i.e., via ω3 or ω6 fatty acids), both the quantity and rate of D2R internalization decrease substantially. The authors confirmed that these phenomena are specific to D2R as caveolar endocytosis and clathrin-mediated endocytosis were unaffected when these same experimental techniques were utilized for β2 adrenergic receptor and transferrin. Additionally, the authors conclude that the clustering ability of D2R is unaffected by lipid unsaturation but that the ability of D2R clusters to interact with β-arrestin2 is inhibited in the presence of excess PUFA. Based on these findings, the authors propose several hypothetical mechanisms for lipid-D2R interactions on the plasma membrane, which will likely be the scope of future work.

    Overall, this is a highly thorough and rigorous body of work that convincingly illustrates the connection between PUFA levels and D2R activity. However, I do not agree with the authors' conclusions pertaining to how their results should be interpreted in the context of fatty acid-related disorders. Additionally, this manuscript could benefit from some reorganization which would present the work more clearly. Please see the comments below.

    Comments:

    1. A recurring motivation for this study that is brought up by the authors is that dietary deficiency of ω3 fatty acids is tied to D2R dysfunction. This would indicate that PUFA reduction in the plasma membrane results in D2R dysfunction. However, the experiments emphasized in this manuscript investigate the condition where PUFA content is INCREASED in the plasma membrane and D2R function is compromised. It seems inappropriate for the authors to cite dietary deficiency of ω3 as a motivation when they experimentally test a condition that is tied to ω3 surplus.
    2. Following up on the first comment, the authors' results seem to indicate that excess ω3's are detrimental to D2R function. This result would be at odds with the conventional view that ω3's are essential and that excessive ω3 may not be harmful. The authors should rationalize their findings in the context of what is known about excess dietary ω3.
    3. I would argue that the control experiments with saturated fatty acids (i.e., Behenic Acid in figure 1), represent a scenario mimicking ω3 deficiency as the enrichment of Behenic Acid causes an overall reduction in PUFAs (Figure EV1C - an increase in SFA must correspond to a decrease in PUFA). These Behenic acid results are the only experiments presented by the authors that mimic a scenario resembling ω3 deficiency and the results show that the D2R internalization is unaffected (Figure 1G-H). Therefore, I would further argue that if anything, the authors results suggest that ω3 deficiency is NOT correlated to D2R internalization. Again, the authors must rationalize these findings in the context of what is known about dietary intake of ω3's.
    4. It's not clear why the authors decided to include an ω6 fatty acid in this study. The authors built up a detailed rationale for investigating ω3's as they are dietarily essential and tied to disease when deficient. To my knowledge, ω6's are considered much less beneficial than ω3's in a dietary sense. The inclusion of an ω6 almost seems coerced as the ω6-related results don't provide any interesting additional insights. It would benefit the manuscript if the authors provided some additional discussion explaining why ω6's are being investigated in addition to ω3's.
    5. In Figure EV1D, the AHA and DPA percentages each increase by ~6%. The corresponding Figure EV1B indicates that the overall PUFA% in the plasma membrane also increases by 6%. This makes sense as the total change in PUFA content is consistent with the amount of AHA or DPA being internalized to cells. However, this consistency was not observed with BA and SFAs. In Figure EV1E, the BA percentage increases only ~1% while the total SFA percentage in Figure EV1C increases by ~6%. How can something undergoing a 1% change (relative to total lipid content) result in a 6% overall change in SFA content?
    6. In Figure 4, the discussion of kinetics does not make sense. How exactly are kinetics being monitored in this figure? (Recruitment kinetics are discussed in panels D and G)
    7. In Figure 5, What is the purpose of panel D? Would it be more helpful to include additional, overlaid "cumulative N" plots for scenarios in which PUFAs were enriched? This would work well in conjunction with panel F.
    8. For the readers who are new to this area or unfamiliar with the assays used, Figure 1 is not intuitive and initially difficult to interpret. It would greatly benefit the flow of the manuscript if Figures EV1A-C and EV2A were included in the main text and "Normalized R" was clearly defined in the main text, prior to discussion of Figure 1.

    Significance

    General assessment: The work, for the most part, is rigorous and scientifically sound. The authors utilize impressive, quantitative assays to expand our understanding of protein-lipid interactions. However, the authors need to improve their discussion of the actual physiological conditions that correspond to their experimental results.

    Advance: This work may fill a gap in our understanding of disorders related to the dopamine D2 receptor. However, some of the results may be at odds with what is currently known/understood about dietary ω3 fatty acids.

    Audience: This work will be of broad interest to researchers in the biophysics field, with particular emphasis on researchers who study protein and membrane biophysics. This work will also be of interest to researchers who study membrane molecular biology.

    Reviewer Expertise: quantitative fluorescence spectroscopy and microscopy; membrane biophysics; protein-lipid interactions

  3. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #2

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    The only conclusion that I was able to understand from the study was that enrichment of cell membranes with polyunsaturated fatty acids specifically inhibited agonist-induced internalization of D2 receptors. However, I think that the experiments used to conclude that PUFAs do not alter D2R clustering but reduce the recruitment of β-arrestin2 and D2R endocytosis need some clarification (i.e. data depicted in Fig. 2-5). This lack of clarity might be due to the fact I am not familiar enough with the employed technologies or to the unclear writing style of the paper . There was an overuse of acronyms, initialisms and abbreviations, which are difficult to understand for researchers outside of the specific lipid field. I think that the manuscript should be written in a way to be legible also for researchers not working in the immediate filed.

    The paper was not written in a manner that a general audience of cell biologists or those interested in GPCR biology could understand and judge. It is indeed interesting that polyunsaturated fatty acids specifically inhibit D2R internalization in HEK293 cells, and it could be significant. But, it is difficult to judge the significance of the observation without more in vivo data.

    I would suggest the following. Remove all acronyms and abbreviations. Significantly, expand the Materials and Methods section, either in the manuscript or in the Supplemental section. I suggest clearly explaining each construct used, and the function of each module in the construct, with diagrams. In addition, provide a comprehensive step by step description of each experimental protocol, providing the reader with the rationale for each step in the protocol with explanatory diagrams. The authors should also more clearly explain the rationale and logic that was utilized to make the conclusions that they did from the depicted observations. Only then can a broader audience determine if the authors' conclusions are justified.

    Significance

    In summary, I will reiterate that the reported experiments need to be much better explained to make the study understandable to a broader audience and for that audience to determine whether the conclusions are justified.

  4. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #1

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    The manuscript, using different live and fixed cell trafficking assays, demonstrates that incorporation of poly-unsaturated, but not saturated, free fatty acids in the membrane phospholipids reduce agonist induced internalization of the D2 dopamine receptor but not the adrenergic beta2 receptors or the transferrin receptor. Pulsed pH (ppH) live microscopy further demonstrated that the reduced internalization by incorporation of free fatty acid was accompanied by a blunted recruitment of Beta-arrestin for the D2R.

    I believe said claims put forward in the manuscript are overall well supported by the data and as such I do not believe that further experiments are necessarily needed to uphold these key claims. Also, the methodology is satisfactorily reported, and statistics are robust, although two-way Anova like used in Fig 1 seems appropriate for Fig 2 and 3

    That said, I suggest that the fixed cell internalization experiments (Fig 2 and 3), which relate the effect on the D2R to B2AR and transferrin are revised. This is important since this is relevant to judge whether the effect is a general or a selective molecular mechanism since this is the one of the three assay which this comparison relies on. Alternatively, I suggest omitting this data and include the B2AR in the Live DERET assay and both B2AR and TfR in the ppH assay. Specifically, my concerns with the fixed cell internalization are:

    • The analysis is based on counting the number of endosomes, which is not necessarily equivalent to the number of receptors internalized
    • The analysis relies on fully effective stripping of the surface pool of receptors - i.e clustered surface receptors not stripped by the protocol will be assessed as internalized. It is often very difficult to obtain full efficiency of the Flag-tag stripping and this is somewhat expression dependent.
    • The protocol for the constitutive and agonist induced internalization is different and yet shown on the same absolute graph. Although I take it the microscope gain setting are unaltered between the constitutive and agonist induced internalization I don't believe the quantification can be directly related. This is confusing at the very least. More critically however, the membrane signal from the non-stripped condition of constitutive internalization will likely fully shield internalized receptors in the Rab4 membrane proximal recycling pathway leading to under-estimation of the in the constitutive endocytosis. I believe this methodological limitation underlies the massive relative difference in the constitutive endocytosis between panel 2A,B and 2C,D. For comparison, by a quantitative dual color FACS endocytosis assay, we have previously demonstrated the ligand endocytosis a ~4 fold increased over constitutive (in concert with Fig 2A,B here) (Schmidt et al 20XX). Importantly, high relative variability by this methodology could well shield an actual effect of incorporation of FFAs on the constitutive endocytosis.

    'Optional' Also, it would be informative to see the ppH Beta-arrestin experiments with the B2AR to assess, whether the putative discrepancy between D2R and B2AR is upstream or downstream of the blunted Beta-arrestin recruitment. To the same point, it would be very informative to assess how the incorporation of the free fatty acids affect receptor signalling, which would also help relate the effect of incorporation of the FFA's in the phospholipids to previous experiment using short term incubation with FFA's

    References overall seem appropriate although Schmidt et al would be relevant for reference of the constitutive vs agonist induced endocytosis of D2R and B2AR. Overall, the figures are well composed and convey the messages fairly well. Specific point that would strengthen the rigor include:

    • Chosing actual representative pictures of the qunatiative data in Fig 2 and 3 (e.g. har to see 25 endocytic events in Fig 2A constitutive endo, EtOH)
    • Showing actual p values for the statistical comparisions

    Moreover, for ease of reading the figures (without consulting the legend repeatedly) it would be very helpful to headline individual panel with what the experiments assesses. Figure 1a and 1b for example can't be distinguished at all before reading the figure legend. Also, y-axis could be more informative on what I measured rather than just giving the unit.

    Finally, the figure presentation and description of S1 is very hard to follow. I cannot really make out what is assessed in the different panels.

    Significance

    The strength of the manuscript is the use and validation of incorporation of FFA's in the plasma membrane, which more closely mimics the physiological situation than brief application of FFAs as often done. Is addition, the blunted recruitment of beta-arrestin as assessed by the ppH protocol is quite intriguing mechanistically. The limitation are the relative narrow focus on the D2 receptor (and not multiple GPCRs) that does not really speak to as or assess the physiological, pathophysiological or therapeutic role of the observations (except from referring the relation between FFAs and disease). Also, despite the putative role of Beta-arrestin recruitment in the process, the actual causation in the process is not clear. This shortcoming is underscored by the putative effect on the constitutive internalization described above.

    My specific expertise for assessing the paper is within general trafficking processes (including the trafficking methodology applied), trafficking of GPCRs and function of the dopamine system including the role of D2 receptors.

  5. Review Commons

    Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Reply to the reviewers

    Compared to our initial submission to Review Commons, we have addressed all the reviewers' comments. We have extensively re-written the manuscript to make it clearer to a larger audience. In particular, we have transferred Figure EV1 to Figure 1 with more complete panels and included a scheme (Figure EV3) on the steps of D2R internalization which we measure with live cell imaging. We have added a new paragraph to the start of the Discussion to summarize our main conclusions and reordered the discussion on the possible mechanisms of membrane PUFA enrichment on D2R endocytosis. All the changes in the text are in red for easier comparison with the previous version.

    As suggested by reviewer 1, we have performed additional experiments to test the specificity of the effects of PUFA treatments on D2R endocytosis, reinforcing the results shown in Figure 4 using feeding assays. We show with live cell TIRF imaging and the ppH assay that TfR-SEP endocytosis is not affected (Figure EV5) and that SEP-β2AR endocytosis and βarr2-mCherry recruitment to the plasma membrane are not affected (Figure EV6).

    Reviewer #1

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    *The manuscript, using different live and fixed cell trafficking assays, demonstrates that incorporation of poly-unsaturated, but not saturated, free fatty acids in the membrane phospholipids reduce agonist induced internalization of the D2 dopamine receptor but not the adrenergic beta2 receptors or the transferrin receptor. Pulsed pH (ppH) live microscopy further demonstrated that the reduced internalization by incorporation of free fatty acid was accompanied by a blunted recruitment of Beta-arrestin for the D2R.

    I believe said claims put forward in the manuscript are overall well supported by the data and as such I do not believe that further experiments are necessarily needed to uphold these key claims. Also, the methodology is satisfactorily reported, and statistics are robust, although two-way Anova like used in Fig 1 seems appropriate for Fig 2 and 3*

    We thank the reviewer for his/her positive assessment of our work. We have checked the statistical tests used for all our measures. For Figure 2 and 3 (now 3 and 4) we test for only one factor (PUFA treatment or not) so we ran ordinary one-way ANOVA using Graphpad Prism.

    That said, I suggest that the fixed cell internalization experiments (Fig 2 and 3), which relate the effect on the D2R to B2AR and transferrin are revised. This is important since this is relevant to judge whether the effect is a general or a selective molecular mechanism since this is the one of the three assay which this comparison relies on. Alternatively, I suggest omitting this data and include the B2AR in the Live DERET assay and both B2AR and TfR in the ppH assay. Specifically, my concerns with the fixed cell internalization are: • The analysis is based on counting the number of endosomes, which is not necessarily equivalent to the number of receptors internalized

    The number of puncta, as well as their fluorescence, is reported by the analysis program (written in Matlab2021 and available upon request). We chose to show number of puncta because they reflect more directly the number of labelled endosomes (in Figures 3 and 4). As shown in the figure below, we found slight but significant differences between groups for FLAG-D2R (88.6 % and 87.6 % of average fluorescence in DHA and DPA treated cells compared to control cells), (panel A), and no differences for FLAG-β2AR (panel B). We find a significant decrease in puncta fluorescence for transferrin uptake in cells incubated with DHA (but not DPA) relative to control cells (panel C). However, because we did not detect differences in the number of puncta or in the frequency and amplitude of endocytic vesicle creation events (see below), we still conclude that enrichment with exogenous PUFAs does not affect clathrin mediated endocytosis.

    In conclusion, the most robust measure of endocytosis for this assay is the number of detected puncta per cell rather than their fluorescence.

    • The analysis relies on fully effective stripping of the surface pool of receptors - i.e clustered surface receptors not stripped by the protocol will be assessed as internalized. It is often very difficult to obtain full efficiency of the Flag-tag stripping and this is somewhat expression dependent. • The protocol for the constitutive and agonist induced internalization is different and yet shown on the same absolute graph. Although I take it the microscope gain setting are unaltered between the constitutive and agonist induced internalization I don't believe the quantification can be directly related. This is confusing at the very least. More critically however, the membrane signal from the non-stripped condition of constitutive internalization will likely fully shield internalized receptors in the Rab4 membrane proximal recycling pathway leading to under-estimation of the in the constitutive endocytosis. I believe this methodological limitation underlies the massive relative difference in the constitutive endocytosis between panel 2A,B and 2C,D. For comparison, by a quantitative dual color FACS endocytosis assay, we have previously demonstrated the ligand endocytosis a ~4 fold increased over constitutive (in concert with Fig 2A,B here) (Schmidt et al 20XX). Importantly, high relative variability by this methodology could well shield an actual effect of incorporation of FFAs on the constitutive endocytosis.* We thank the reviewer for pointing this difference in the protocol. As a matter of fact, we have not used acid stripping in all the conditions used for the uptake assays (Figures 3 and 4). We apologize for the confusion and we have clarified this point in the Methods section. In early experiments we compared conditions with or without stripping but we concluded from these experiments that indeed, the stripping was not complete. Moreover, we noticed early on that many cells treated with DHA or DPA did not have any detectable cluster (13 cells out of 58 quantified cells treated with DHA after addition of QPL, 12/56 cells treated with DPA, 0/68 for cells treated with vehicle). Stripping the antibody would have made these cells undetectable, biasing the analysis. Therefore, to make our results more consistent we decided to use non-stripping conditions. To detect endosomes specifically, we used a segmentation tool developed earlier (see Rosendale et al. 2019). This tool is based on wavelet transforms which recognizes dot-like structures. In addition, we excluded from the cell mask the labelled plasma membrane by a mask erosion.

    We agree the design of experiments was not aimed at comparing the effect of PUFA treatment on low levels of constitutive D2R endocytosis. This would require more sensitive assays and be addressed in subsequent studies.

    'Optional' Also, it would be informative to see the ppH Beta-arrestin experiments with the B2AR to assess, whether the putative discrepancy between D2R and B2AR is upstream or downstream of the blunted Beta-arrestin recruitment. To the same point, it would be very informative to assess how the incorporation of the free fatty acids affect receptor signalling, which would also help relate the effect of incorporation of the FFA's in the phospholipids to previous experiment using short term incubation with FFA's

    We have now performed live imaging experiments in HEK293 cells expressing SEP-β2AR, GRK2 and βarr2-mCherry and stimulated with isoproterenol (Figure EV6). We show that the clustering of SEP-β2AR, of βarr2-mCherry, as well as endocytosis, are not affected by treatments with DHA or DPA. In this study, we focused on the early trafficking steps of D2R internalization. It will be interesting in a future study to address its consequences on G protein dependent and independent signaling. Moreover, and for good measure, we performed experiments to assess TfR-SEP endocytosis with the ppH assay. Again, we found no difference between cells treated or not with PUFAs (Figure EV5)

    *References overall seem appropriate although Schmidt et al would be relevant for reference of the constitutive vs agonist induced endocytosis of D2R and B2AR. *

    We have now cited Schmidt et al. 2020 doi 10.1111/bcpt.13274 in the discussion with the following sentences: "D2R also shows constitutive endocytosis (Schmidt et al, 2020) which may be modulated by PUFAs although we did not detect any significant difference in our measures (see Figure 3) which were aimed at detecting high levels of internalization induced by agonists. Further work will be required to specifically examine the effect of PUFAs on constitutive GPCR internalization."

    Overall, the figures are well composed and convey the messages fairly well. Specific point that would strengthen the rigor include: • Chosing actual representative pictures of the quantitative data in Fig 2 and 3 (e.g. hard to see 25 endocytic events in Fig 2A constitutive endo, EtOH)

    We apologize for the confusion. We employ a normalization procedure to account for cell size. In addition, all numbers have been normalized to the condition stimulated with agonist with no PUFA treatment). In fact, we detect in unstimulated cells very few puncta (on average 0.6, range 0-5) compared to 27.3 clusters (range 2-87) in cells stimulated with QPL.

    • Showing actual p values for the statistical comparisons* For easier reading, we have kept the stars convention for the figures but added two tables with all statistical tests and the p values for both main figures and EV figures.

    Moreover, for ease of reading the figures (without consulting the legend repeatedly) it would be very helpful to headline individual panel with what the experiments assesses. Figure 1a and 1b for example can't be distinguished at all before reading the figure legend. Also, y-axis could be more informative on what I measured rather than just giving the unit.

    We have added titles to panels (in particular for Figure 2A,B which correspond to former Figure 1A,B) and we have given new titles to Y axes to make them clearer. We hope that the reading of our figures will now be easier.

    Finally, the figure presentation and description of S1 is very hard to follow. I cannot really make out what is assessed in the different panels.

    We have changed substantially Figure EV1 (now Figure 1) with new presentation of data: all 4 conditions (control, treated with DHA, DPA or BA) systematically presented in the same graph, and clearer titles for the parameter displayed on the Y axes. We hope that this figure is now easier to follow.

    Significance

    *The strength of the manuscript is the use and validation of incorporation of FFA's in the plasma membrane, which more closely mimics the physiological situation than brief application of FFAs as often done. Is addition, the blunted recruitment of beta-arrestin as assessed by the ppH protocol is quite intriguing mechanistically. The limitation are the relative narrow focus on the D2 receptor (and not multiple GPCRs) that does not really speak to as or assess the physiological, pathophysiological or therapeutic role of the observations (except from referring the relation between FFAs and disease). Also, despite the putative role of Beta-arrestin recruitment in the process, the actual causation in the process is not clear. This shortcoming is underscored by the putative effect on the constitutive internalization described above.

    My specific expertise for assessing the paper is within general trafficking processes (including the trafficking methodology applied), trafficking of GPCRs and function of the dopamine system including the role of D2 receptors.*

    Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

    The only conclusion that I was able to understand from the study was that enrichment of cell membranes with polyunsaturated fatty acids specifically inhibited agonist-induced internalization of D2 receptors. However, I think that the experiments used to conclude that PUFAs do not alter D2R clustering but reduce the recruitment of β-arrestin2 and D2R endocytosis need some clarification (i.e. data depicted in Fig. 2-5). This lack of clarity might be due to the fact I am not familiar enough with the employed technologies or to the unclear writing style of the paper. There was an overuse of acronyms, initialisms and abbreviations, which are difficult to understand for researchers outside of the specific lipid field. I think that the manuscript should be written in a way to be legible also for researchers not working in the immediate filed.

    The paper was not written in a manner that a general audience of cell biologists or those interested in GPCR biology could understand and judge. It is indeed interesting that polyunsaturated fatty acids specifically inhibit D2R internalization in HEK293 cells, and it could be significant. But, it is difficult to judge the significance of the observation without more in vivo data.

    I would suggest the following. Remove all acronyms and abbreviations. Significantly, expand the Materials and Methods section, either in the manuscript or in the Supplemental section. I suggest clearly explaining each construct used, and the function of each module in the construct, with diagrams. In addition, provide a comprehensive step by step description of each experimental protocol, providing the reader with the rationale for each step in the protocol with explanatory diagrams. The authors should also more clearly explain the rationale and logic that was utilized to make the conclusions that they did from the depicted observations. Only then can a broader audience determine if the authors' conclusions are justified.

    We thank the reviewer for his/her comments. Indeed, our main message was that two types of PUFAs (DHA and DPA) specifically alter D2R endocytosis by reducing the recruitment of β-arrestin2 without changing D2R clustering at the plasma membrane. We are sorry that our writing was not clear enough. We also found out that in the last steps of the submission to Review Commons, the first paragraph of the Discussion was inadvertently erased. This made our main conclusions, summarized in this first paragraph, less clear. We have now put back this important paragraph. Moreover, we have extensively rewritten the manuscript thriving to make it as clear as possible to a large audience. We have reduced the use of acronyms to keep only the most used ones [e.g. PUFA (used 99 times), DHA (37 times), GPCR (34 times), D2R (126 times), GRK (17 times)] and made them consistent throughout the manuscript. Following the reviewer's suggestion, we have also added a scheme of the steps following D2R activation by agonist leading to its internalization (Figure EV3).

    We understand that the reviewer implies by "in vivo data" results obtained in the brain of animals. As written in the Introduction and in the Discussion, the current work follows up on a recently published manuscripts by a subset of the authors, namely (i) Ducrocq et al. 2020 (doi 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.02.012) in which we show that deficits in motivation in animals deprived in ω3-PUFAs can be restored specifically by conditional expression of a fatty acid desaturase from c. elegans (FAT1) that allows restoring PUFA levels specifically in D2R-expressing striatal projection neurons (which mediate the so-called indirect pathway), and (ii) Jobin et al. 2023 (doi: 10.1038/s41380-022-01928-6) which combines in cellulo (HEK 293 cells) and *in vivo *data to show that PUFAs affects the ligand binding of the dopamine D2 receptor and its signaling in a lipid context that reflects patient lipid profiles regarding poly-unsaturation levels.

    Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

    In summary, I will reiterate that the reported experiments need to be much better explained to make the study understandable to a broader audience and for that audience to determine whether the conclusions are justified.

    Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

    Summary:

    The authors investigate the role of lipid polyunsaturation in endocytic uptake of the dopamine D2 receptor (D2R). To modulate the degree of unsaturation in live cell plasma membranes, the authors incubate cell lines with pure fatty acid that is metabolized and incorporated into the cellular membranes. To quantify the internalization of D2R in these live cells, the authors utilized quantitative fluorescence assays such as DERET and endosome analysis to determine the degree and rate of D2R internalization in the presence of two model agonists - dopamine and quinpirole. The authors conclude that when the PUFA content of the plasma membrane is increased (i.e., via ω3 or ω6 fatty acids), both the quantity and rate of D2R internalization decrease substantially. The authors confirmed that these phenomena are specific to D2R as caveolar endocytosis and clathrin-mediated endocytosis were unaffected when these same experimental techniques were utilized for β2 adrenergic receptor and transferrin. Additionally, the authors conclude that the clustering ability of D2R is unaffected by lipid unsaturation but that the ability of D2R clusters to interact with β-arrestin2 is inhibited in the presence of excess PUFA. Based on these findings, the authors propose several hypothetical mechanisms for lipid-D2R interactions on the plasma membrane, which will likely be the scope of future work.

    Overall, this is a highly thorough and rigorous body of work that convincingly illustrates the connection between PUFA levels and D2R activity. However, I do not agree with the authors' conclusions pertaining to how their results should be interpreted in the context of fatty acid-related disorders. Additionally, this manuscript could benefit from some reorganization which would present the work more clearly. Please see the comments below.

    We thank the reviewer for the positive appreciation of our work, qualified as a "thorough and rigorous body of work that convincingly illustrates the connection between PUFA levels and D2R activity". We will address the specific points raised by the reviewer with our answers below.

    Comments:

      • A recurring motivation for this study that is brought up by the authors is that dietary deficiency of ω3 fatty acids is tied to D2R dysfunction. This would indicate that PUFA reduction in the plasma membrane results in D2R dysfunction. However, the experiments emphasized in this manuscript investigate the condition where PUFA content is INCREASED in the plasma membrane and D2R function is compromised. It seems inappropriate for the authors to cite dietary deficiency of ω3 as a motivation when they experimentally test a condition that is tied to ω3 surplus.* Regarding the general comment of the reviewer, we agree that direct conclusion cannot be drawn on the etiology of psychiatric disorders by looking at the effect of membrane fatty acid levels on D2R in HEK 293 cells. Nevertheless, we mention in the Introduction the intriguing occurrence of low PUFA levels in psychiatric disorders as starting point to look at D2R as an important target for psychoactive drugs prescribed for these disorders. In the Discussion, we propose that manipulating fatty acid levels might potentiate the efficacy of D2R ligands used as treatments. We felt raising these aspects was not putting too much emphasis on psychiatric disorders. However, in accordance with the reviewer's comment, we toned down these descriptions in the revised manuscript.

    The goal of increasing the levels of fatty acids at the membrane in HEK 293, the most widely used cellular system to study GPCR trafficking, was to try to emulate the levels of lipids in brain cells. Indeed, the levels of PUFAs in our culture conditions are much lower (~8 %, Figure 1B) than in brain extracts (~30 %). Therefore, the "control" condition in HEK 293 cells would correspond to PUFA deficiency while after our enrichment protocol these levels are closer to those found in brain cells. Our results could therefore be interpreted as endocytosis of D2R being augmented under membrane PUFA decrease. Importantly, increased receptor internalization often correlates with decreased signaling. Therefore, membrane PUFA enrichment in our conditions would rather potentiate D2R signaling.

    • Following up on the first comment, the authors' results seem to indicate that excess ω3's are detrimental to D2R function. This result would be at odds with the conventional view that ω3's are essential and that excessive ω3 may not be harmful. The authors should rationalize their findings in the context of what is known about excess dietary ω3.*

    The Reviewer is right that the conventional view is that excessive ω3 PUFA may not be harmful. However, this rather applies to dietary consumption, which might have limited effect to brain fatty acid contents since their accretion is highly regulated. Moreover, the majority of studies looking at ω3 supplementation have been performed in young adults and the effects on the developing brain - as it might be happening in pathological conditions in which D2R is involved - remain poorly understood. Furthermore, as mentioned above, blunted internalization of D2R under membrane PUFA enrichment is not an indication of "detrimental" to D2R function. Nor do we argue that membrane enrichment corresponds to excess PUFAs.

    • I would argue that the control experiments with saturated fatty acids (i.e., Behenic Acid in figure 1), represent a scenario mimicking ω3 deficiency as the enrichment of Behenic Acid causes an overall reduction in PUFAs (Figure EV1C - an increase in SFA must correspond to a decrease in PUFA). These Behenic acid results are the only experiments presented by the authors that mimic a scenario resembling ω3 deficiency and the results show that the D2R internalization is unaffected (Figure 1G-H). Therefore, I would further argue that if anything, the authors results suggest that ω3 deficiency is NOT correlated to D2R internalization. Again, the authors must rationalize these findings in the context of what is known about dietary intake of ω3's.*

    The Reviewer must refer to the fact that nutrients rich in SFAs are usually poor in PUFAs and vice-versa. Based on our lipidomic analysis, we now present in Figure 1B the effect of treatments (DHA, DPA, BA) on the levels of PUFAs (Figure 1B) and saturated fatty acids (Figure 1C). In cells treated with behenic acid (BA), PUFA levels are not significantly changed relative to control, untreated cells, while saturated fatty acid levels are increased. BA was used here to determine whether the effects observed with PUFAs was related to the enrichment in unsaturations or due to carbon chain length (C22). It is not the case because BA treatment, unlike DHA or DPA treatment, does not affect D2R endocytosis (Figure 2G,H).

    • It's not clear why the authors decided to include an ω6 fatty acid in this study. The authors built up a detailed rationale for investigating ω3's as they are dietarily essential and tied to disease when deficient. To my knowledge, ω6's are considered much less beneficial than ω3's in a dietary sense. The inclusion of an ω6 almost seems coerced as the ω6-related results don't provide any interesting additional insights. It would benefit the manuscript if the authors provided some additional discussion explaining why ω6's are being investigated in addition to ω3's. *

    We agree that we could have made the rationale clearer. The goal in comparing ω3-DHA and ω6-DPA was to assess whether the position of the first unsaturation (n-3 vs n-6), with the same carbon chain length (C22) might differentially impact D2R endocytosis.

    • In Figure EV1D, the AHA and DPA percentages each increase by ~6%. The corresponding Figure EV1B indicates that the overall PUFA% in the plasma membrane also increases by 6%. This makes sense as the total change in PUFA content is consistent with the amount of AHA or DPA being internalized to cells. However, this consistency was not observed with BA and SFAs. In Figure EV1E, the BA percentage increases only ~1% while the total SFA percentage in Figure EV1C increases by ~6%. How can something undergoing a 1% change (relative to total lipid content) result in a 6% overall change in SFA content?*

    The reviewer is correct: the level of SFAs is increased by 5.2% (34.5 % of total FAs in control cells to 39.7 % in BA treated cells), more than the increase in BA alone (1.18% from 0.35 % to 1.53 %). A close look at our lipidomics data showed that many of the 10 saturated fatty acids quantified are enhanced. In particular, the two most abundant ones, palmitic acid (16:0) and stearic acid (18:0) are increased, from 21.37 % to 22.28 % and 8.47 % to 11.17%, respectively. The reasons for these apparent discrepancies may involve lipid metabolic pathways which convert the rare and long BA into more common and shorter SFAs to preserve lipid contents and thus membrane properties.

    • In Figure 4, the discussion of kinetics does not make sense. How exactly are kinetics being monitored in this figure? (Recruitment kinetics are discussed in panels D and G)*

    We wanted to convey the impression that the time to reach the peak βarr2-mCherry recruitment was shorter in PUFA-treated cells than in control cells. However, after analyzing the kinetics in individual cells, we did not find a statistically significant difference in the time to maximum fluorescence. Therefore, we removed this reference to the kinetics of recruitment.

    We now write: " However, treatment with DHA or DPA significantly decreased peak βarr2-mCherry fluorescence (Figure 5F-G).."

    • In Figure 5, What is the purpose of panel D? Would it be more helpful to include additional, overlaid "cumulative N" plots for scenarios in which PUFAs were enriched? This would work well in conjunction with panel F.*

    The purpose of this panel is to show the kinetics of increase in the frequency of endocytic vesicle formation upon agonist addition, and the decrease in frequency when the agonist is removed. We have now added examples of cells treated with DHA and DPA of similar surface for direct comparison with control (EtOH) cells.

    • For the readers who are new to this area or unfamiliar with the assays used, Figure 1 is not intuitive and initially difficult to interpret. It would greatly benefit the flow of the manuscript if Figures EV1A-C and EV2A were included in the main text and "Normalized R" was clearly defined in the main text, prior to discussion of Figure 1.*

    We have now transferred Figure EV1 as Figure 1. We have adapted the scheme of the DERET assay and its legend (now in Figure EV1A) to make it clearer. We did not put in Figure 2 because this figure is already very big. We have changed "Normalized R" to "Ratio 620/520) (% max)" to be clearer and more consistent with the scheme.

    Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

    General assessment: The work, for the most part, is rigorous and scientifically sound. The authors utilize impressive, quantitative assays to expand our understanding of protein-lipid interactions. However, the authors need to improve their discussion of the actual physiological conditions that correspond to their experimental results.

    Advance: This work may fill a gap in our understanding of disorders related to the dopamine D2 receptor. However, some of the results may be at odds with what is currently known/understood about dietary ω3 fatty acids.

    Audience: This work will be of broad interest to researchers in the biophysics field, with particular emphasis on researchers who study protein and membrane biophysics. This work will also be of interest to researchers who study membrane molecular biology.

    Reviewer Expertise: quantitative fluorescence spectroscopy and microscopy; membrane biophysics; protein-lipid interactions

  6. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #3

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    Summary:

    The authors investigate the role of lipid polyunsaturation in endocytic uptake of the dopamine D2 receptor (D2R). To modulate the degree of unsaturation in live cell plasma membranes, the authors incubate cell lines with pure fatty acid that is metabolized and incorporated into the cellular membranes. To quantify the internalization of D2R in these live cells, the authors utilized quantitative fluorescence assays such as DERET and endosome analysis to determine the degree and rate of D2R internalization in the presence of two model agonists - dopamine and quinpirole. The authors conclude that when the PUFA content of the plasma membrane is increased (i.e., via ω3 or ω6 fatty acids), both the quantity and rate of D2R internalization decrease substantially. The authors confirmed that these phenomena are specific to D2R as caveolar endocytosis and clathrin-mediated endocytosis were unaffected when these same experimental techniques were utilized for β2 adrenergic receptor and transferrin. Additionally, the authors conclude that the clustering ability of D2R is unaffected by lipid unsaturation but that the ability of D2R clusters to interact with β-arrestin2 is inhibited in the presence of excess PUFA. Based on these findings, the authors propose several hypothetical mechanisms for lipid-D2R interactions on the plasma membrane, which will likely be the scope of future work.

    Overall, this is a highly thorough and rigorous body of work that convincingly illustrates the connection between PUFA levels and D2R activity. However, I do not agree with the authors' conclusions pertaining to how their results should be interpreted in the context of fatty acid-related disorders. Additionally, this manuscript could benefit from some reorganization which would present the work more clearly. Please see the comments below.

    Comments:

    1. A recurring motivation for this study that is brought up by the authors is that dietary deficiency of ω3 fatty acids is tied to D2R dysfunction. This would indicate that PUFA reduction in the plasma membrane results in D2R dysfunction. However, the experiments emphasized in this manuscript investigate the condition where PUFA content is INCREASED in the plasma membrane and D2R function is compromised. It seems inappropriate for the authors to cite dietary deficiency of ω3 as a motivation when they experimentally test a condition that is tied to ω3 surplus.
    2. Following up on the first comment, the authors' results seem to indicate that excess ω3's are detrimental to D2R function. This result would be at odds with the conventional view that ω3's are essential and that excessive ω3 may not be harmful. The authors should rationalize their findings in the context of what is known about excess dietary ω3.
    3. I would argue that the control experiments with saturated fatty acids (i.e., Behenic Acid in figure 1), represent a scenario mimicking ω3 deficiency as the enrichment of Behenic Acid causes an overall reduction in PUFAs (Figure EV1C - an increase in SFA must correspond to a decrease in PUFA). These Behenic acid results are the only experiments presented by the authors that mimic a scenario resembling ω3 deficiency and the results show that the D2R internalization is unaffected (Figure 1G-H). Therefore, I would further argue that if anything, the authors results suggest that ω3 deficiency is NOT correlated to D2R internalization. Again, the authors must rationalize these findings in the context of what is known about dietary intake of ω3's.
    4. It's not clear why the authors decided to include an ω6 fatty acid in this study. The authors built up a detailed rationale for investigating ω3's as they are dietarily essential and tied to disease when deficient. To my knowledge, ω6's are considered much less beneficial than ω3's in a dietary sense. The inclusion of an ω6 almost seems coerced as the ω6-related results don't provide any interesting additional insights. It would benefit the manuscript if the authors provided some additional discussion explaining why ω6's are being investigated in addition to ω3's.
    5. In Figure EV1D, the AHA and DPA percentages each increase by ~6%. The corresponding Figure EV1B indicates that the overall PUFA% in the plasma membrane also increases by 6%. This makes sense as the total change in PUFA content is consistent with the amount of AHA or DPA being internalized to cells. However, this consistency was not observed with BA and SFAs. In Figure EV1E, the BA percentage increases only ~1% while the total SFA percentage in Figure EV1C increases by ~6%. How can something undergoing a 1% change (relative to total lipid content) result in a 6% overall change in SFA content?
    6. In Figure 4, the discussion of kinetics does not make sense. How exactly are kinetics being monitored in this figure? (Recruitment kinetics are discussed in panels D and G)
    7. In Figure 5, What is the purpose of panel D? Would it be more helpful to include additional, overlaid "cumulative N" plots for scenarios in which PUFAs were enriched? This would work well in conjunction with panel F.
    8. For the readers who are new to this area or unfamiliar with the assays used, Figure 1 is not intuitive and initially difficult to interpret. It would greatly benefit the flow of the manuscript if Figures EV1A-C and EV2A were included in the main text and "Normalized R" was clearly defined in the main text, prior to discussion of Figure 1.

    Significance

    General assessment: The work, for the most part, is rigorous and scientifically sound. The authors utilize impressive, quantitative assays to expand our understanding of protein-lipid interactions. However, the authors need to improve their discussion of the actual physiological conditions that correspond to their experimental results.

    Advance: This work may fill a gap in our understanding of disorders related to the dopamine D2 receptor. However, some of the results may be at odds with what is currently known/understood about dietary ω3 fatty acids.

    Audience: This work will be of broad interest to researchers in the biophysics field, with particular emphasis on researchers who study protein and membrane biophysics. This work will also be of interest to researchers who study membrane molecular biology.

    Reviewer Expertise: quantitative fluorescence spectroscopy and microscopy; membrane biophysics; protein-lipid interactions

  7. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #2

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    The only conclusion that I was able to understand from the study was that enrichment of cell membranes with polyunsaturated fatty acids specifically inhibited agonist-induced internalization of D2 receptors. However, I think that the experiments used to conclude that PUFAs do not alter D2R clustering but reduce the recruitment of β-arrestin2 and D2R endocytosis need some clarification (i.e. data depicted in Fig. 2-5). This lack of clarity might be due to the fact I am not familiar enough with the employed technologies or to the unclear writing style of the paper . There was an overuse of acronyms, initialisms and abbreviations, which are difficult to understand for researchers outside of the specific lipid field. I think that the manuscript should be written in a way to be legible also for researchers not working in the immediate filed.

    The paper was not written in a manner that a general audience of cell biologists or those interested in GPCR biology could understand and judge. It is indeed interesting that polyunsaturated fatty acids specifically inhibit D2R internalization in HEK293 cells, and it could be significant. But, it is difficult to judge the significance of the observation without more in vivo data.

    I would suggest the following. Remove all acronyms and abbreviations. Significantly, expand the Materials and Methods section, either in the manuscript or in the Supplemental section. I suggest clearly explaining each construct used, and the function of each module in the construct, with diagrams. In addition, provide a comprehensive step by step description of each experimental protocol, providing the reader with the rationale for each step in the protocol with explanatory diagrams. The authors should also more clearly explain the rationale and logic that was utilized to make the conclusions that they did from the depicted observations. Only then can a broader audience determine if the authors' conclusions are justified.

    Significance

    In summary, I will reiterate that the reported experiments need to be much better explained to make the study understandable to a broader audience and for that audience to determine whether the conclusions are justified.

  8. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #1

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    The manuscript, using different live and fixed cell trafficking assays, demonstrates that incorporation of poly-unsaturated, but not saturated, free fatty acids in the membrane phospholipids reduce agonist induced internalization of the D2 dopamine receptor but not the adrenergic beta2 receptors or the transferrin receptor. Pulsed pH (ppH) live microscopy further demonstrated that the reduced internalization by incorporation of free fatty acid was accompanied by a blunted recruitment of Beta-arrestin for the D2R.

    I believe said claims put forward in the manuscript are overall well supported by the data and as such I do not believe that further experiments are necessarily needed to uphold these key claims. Also, the methodology is satisfactorily reported, and statistics are robust, although two-way Anova like used in Fig 1 seems appropriate for Fig 2 and 3

    That said, I suggest that the fixed cell internalization experiments (Fig 2 and 3), which relate the effect on the D2R to B2AR and transferrin are revised. This is important since this is relevant to judge whether the effect is a general or a selective molecular mechanism since this is the one of the three assay which this comparison relies on. Alternatively, I suggest omitting this data and include the B2AR in the Live DERET assay and both B2AR and TfR in the ppH assay. Specifically, my concerns with the fixed cell internalization are:

    • The analysis is based on counting the number of endosomes, which is not necessarily equivalent to the number of receptors internalized
    • The analysis relies on fully effective stripping of the surface pool of receptors - i.e clustered surface receptors not stripped by the protocol will be assessed as internalized. It is often very difficult to obtain full efficiency of the Flag-tag stripping and this is somewhat expression dependent.
    • The protocol for the constitutive and agonist induced internalization is different and yet shown on the same absolute graph. Although I take it the microscope gain setting are unaltered between the constitutive and agonist induced internalization I don't believe the quantification can be directly related. This is confusing at the very least. More critically however, the membrane signal from the non-stripped condition of constitutive internalization will likely fully shield internalized receptors in the Rab4 membrane proximal recycling pathway leading to under-estimation of the in the constitutive endocytosis. I believe this methodological limitation underlies the massive relative difference in the constitutive endocytosis between panel 2A,B and 2C,D. For comparison, by a quantitative dual color FACS endocytosis assay, we have previously demonstrated the ligand endocytosis a ~4 fold increased over constitutive (in concert with Fig 2A,B here) (Schmidt et al 20XX). Importantly, high relative variability by this methodology could well shield an actual effect of incorporation of FFAs on the constitutive endocytosis.

    'Optional' Also, it would be informative to see the ppH Beta-arrestin experiments with the B2AR to assess, whether the putative discrepancy between D2R and B2AR is upstream or downstream of the blunted Beta-arrestin recruitment. To the same point, it would be very informative to assess how the incorporation of the free fatty acids affect receptor signalling, which would also help relate the effect of incorporation of the FFA's in the phospholipids to previous experiment using short term incubation with FFA's

    References overall seem appropriate although Schmidt et al would be relevant for reference of the constitutive vs agonist induced endocytosis of D2R and B2AR. Overall, the figures are well composed and convey the messages fairly well. Specific point that would strengthen the rigor include:

    • Chosing actual representative pictures of the qunatiative data in Fig 2 and 3 (e.g. har to see 25 endocytic events in Fig 2A constitutive endo, EtOH)
    • Showing actual p values for the statistical comparisions

    Moreover, for ease of reading the figures (without consulting the legend repeatedly) it would be very helpful to headline individual panel with what the experiments assesses. Figure 1a and 1b for example can't be distinguished at all before reading the figure legend. Also, y-axis could be more informative on what I measured rather than just giving the unit.

    Finally, the figure presentation and description of S1 is very hard to follow. I cannot really make out what is assessed in the different panels.

    Significance

    The strength of the manuscript is the use and validation of incorporation of FFA's in the plasma membrane, which more closely mimics the physiological situation than brief application of FFAs as often done. Is addition, the blunted recruitment of beta-arrestin as assessed by the ppH protocol is quite intriguing mechanistically. The limitation are the relative narrow focus on the D2 receptor (and not multiple GPCRs) that does not really speak to as or assess the physiological, pathophysiological or therapeutic role of the observations (except from referring the relation between FFAs and disease). Also, despite the putative role of Beta-arrestin recruitment in the process, the actual causation in the process is not clear. This shortcoming is underscored by the putative effect on the constitutive internalization described above.

    My specific expertise for assessing the paper is within general trafficking processes (including the trafficking methodology applied), trafficking of GPCRs and function of the dopamine system including the role of D2 receptors.

  9. Version published to 10.1101/2023.12.14.571632v1 on bioRxiv