GPCRs, influencing myriads of cellular functions, are the members of the largest family of the membrane proteins. However, their structures and the signaling mechanisms still remain enigmatic. In case of the Glycoprotein Hormone Receptor (GpHR) family the structure-function relationship is less understood because of a large extra-cellular domain (ECD). This large ECD, consisting of Leucine Rich Repeats (LRRs) and membrane-proximal hinge region, is sufficient for specific binding to the hormone (Ascoli, Fanelli, & Segaloff, 2002), but for receptor activation, hormone binding is translated via a conformation wave starting at hinge region and relayed to the transmembrane domain. Several biochemical, immunological and molecular biological tools have been employed to elucidate the structure-function relationship of the hormones and their receptors. These studies also helped in deciphering some of the regions present in both the hormones and the receptors involved in maintaining the specificity of their interaction (Fan & Hendrickson, 2005; Fox, Dias, & Van Roey, 2001; Wu, Lustbader, Liu, Canfield, & Hendrickson, 1994). However, the complete understanding of the hormone‐receptor contact sites and mechanism of receptor activation are still an enigma. Understanding the molecular details of these phenomena can lead to the development of novel strategies of regulating hormone action or regulating receptor activation in a hormone independent manner. The crystal structure of FSHR ECD (amino acids 17-366) revealed that LRRs form a semicircular palm shaped structure with the C terminus region, designated as the hinge region, protruding out like a thumb. The hinge region, rather than being a separate functional unit, was found to be an integral part of the LRR domain, having two such repeats (LRR11 &12). LRR 11 is connected to LRR12 through a hairpin loop (amino acids 280-344) harboring the invariant sulfated tyrosine residue (sTyr) in YD/EY motif (X. Jiang et al., 2012). The heterodimeric hormones consisting of a common  subunit and a hormone specific  subunit, bind to the primary hormone binding site at LRR 4-6 as reported in the FSHR-FSH co crystal (Fan & Hendrickson, 2005). This primary binding of the hormone at LRR 4-6 creates a pocket (comprising of the residues P16α, L17α, F18α, F74α, L37β, Y39β, and P45β) in the hormone for secondary binding at sTyr residue. This interaction is proposed to initiate conformation change in the hinge region which further leads to FSHR activation (X. Jiang et al., 2012). Thus, the role of hinge region in GpHR activation got evolved from a linker to a switch, which decides the fate of the receptor activity (Agrawal & Dighe, 2009; Majumdar & Dighe, 2012). sTyr residue being conserved, presents itself as a potential player in activation mechanism of all the three receptors of the family (Bonomi, Busnelli, Persani, Vassart, & Costagliola, 2006; Kreuchwig, Kleinau, & Krause, 2013). Precise involvement of sTyr in GpHR activation is yet to be explored. The previous studies from the laboratory using the hinge region specific polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies established the unequivocal role of the hinge region in FSHR and TSHR activation (Agrawal & Dighe, 2009; Majumdar & Dighe, 2012). However, its function in LHR activation has not been conclusively established. Due to the unavailability of the structural information of LHR ECD/hinge, it is more difficult to study and explain the role of hinge region in LHR activation. The hormone independent signaling by point mutants of LHR also remains poorly understood. In the present study an attempt has been made to understand the role of the hinge region in LHR signaling and modulating role of LRRs in hinge mediated LHR activation. The present study was initiated with an overall objective of understanding the molecular details of LHR activation mechanism keeping hinge at the centre of the picture. To have clarity of this picture with a holistic view of the mechanism, multi-pronged approach was adopted. Initially, ScFvs against LHR hinge region were employed as tools to probe into the hormone‐receptor interactions. Antibodies against glycoprotein hormones and their receptors have often provided insights into the mechanism of hormone‐receptor interactions and signal transduction (Agrawal & Dighe, 2009; Dighe & Moudgal, 1983; Gadkari, Sandhya, Sowdhamini, & Dighe, 2007; Gadkari et al., 2007; Kene, Nalavadi, Dighe, Iyer, & Mahale, 2004; Majumdar, Railkar, & Dighe, 2012a, 2012b). In this study, Single chain Fragment variables (ScFvs) against the hinge region of LH receptor have been employed to understand the mechanism of receptor activation. The effects of LHR ScFvs on hCG-LHR interactions have been investigated and three of the ScFvs, JE10, JE4 and JG1 could bypass the hormone and activate the receptor directly, with JE10 being the most potent one. The effect on the signaling was specific for LHR as no increase in cAMP response was observed for TSHR/FSHR in presence of these ScFvs. JE10 surprisingly was unique and could alter the hCG-LHR interaction by decreasing hormone affinity and simultaneously increasing the Bmax for the hormone. JE10 binding was decreased to the pre-formed hormone receptor complex suggesting that hCG and the stimulatory antibody show stearic hindrance at the binding sites on hinge or hormone binding induces conformational change in the epitope of JE10. The change in affinity and Bmax of the hormone by JE10 could be due to unmasking of new binding sites for hormones or an allosteric effect on the protomer interaction like explained in case of a small TMD specific allosteric modulator of FSHR (Xuliang Jiang et al., 2014). JE10 could also potentiate hCG signaling at sub-saturating concentrations of hCG, the precise mechanism of which is not clear. Through TSHR-LHR chimeric mutants, a stretch from amino acids 313-349, within the hinge region, was identified as the site recognized by JE10. In order to study structural features of the JE10 epitope, LHR ECD was modeled on the basis of FSHRED crystal structure. With most of the motifs being structurally conserved (CF3 and YPSHCCAFF); the major portion of the hinge region was found to be unstructured. This unstructured region harbored the JE10 epitope as well as the functionally important conserved sTyr residue. The CD spectra of LHR hinge in presence of ScFv JE10 suggested a ScFv induced helical conformation and stabilization of the hinge loop region, which was constrained in the homology model into helices. As loop was now constrained in the Mode 2, so was the interaction of sTyr, which was now in contact with positively charged residues, probably stabilizing its charge. The YEY motif mutants further confirmed the indirect essential role of Y331 in activation of LHR by JE10. Another approach followed to study hCG-LHR interactions was use of a series of LHR N-terminal truncation mutants and truncation mutants along with one of the LHR CAM (S277Q/D578Y). The effect of these truncations on hormone binding and receptor activation was investigated. The deletion of Cysteine box (Cb-1) of LHR (present at N-terminus of ECD) leads to abrogation of hCG binding, indicating importance of this region in maintaining ECD conformation required for hormone binding. This is the most unexplored region of the ECD. Though Cb-1 does not bind to the hormone directly (as is evident from the crystal structure) but it is indirectly essential for hormone binding. The basal activity of these truncated mutants was as low as that of the wild type LHR, reconfirming that no region of LHR ECD acts as an inverse agonist for the TMD (Karges, Gidenne, Aumas, Kelly, & Milgrom, 2005). Truncation mutants with CAM (double mutants) also showed low basal activity, suggesting that intact ECD is prerequisite for keeping LHR in a conformation, best suited for hormone binding and binding of G protein for activation. That best conformation still needs to be explored. Truncation mutants did not get stimulated by JE10 also. This observation is opposite to the previous studies in which FSHR/TSHR truncated mutants could be stimulated by hinge specific antibodies (Agrawal & Dighe, 2009; Majumdar & Dighe, 2012). This difference points out to the variations in which LHR hinge-TMD interactions prevail and lead to the receptor activation. This variation was also confirmed with a previous report in which the binding of TSHR-ECL specific antisera to wild type LHR and TSHR-LHR 6 chimeric mutant suggested that hinge of LHR does not seem to be constraining the TMD (Majumdar et al., 2012b). Thus the LHR TMD itself possesses all the inhibitory interactions, also indicated by the presence of most of the activating mutations in LHR TMD (Piersma, Verhoef-post, Berns, & Themmen, 2007). Protomer interaction is the newest aspect of GpHR activation mechanism and has not reached any conclusive, physiologically relevant explanations yet. By co-transfection of wild type LHR and ECD truncated mutants, this study suggests the LHR protomer interaction and proposes the involvement of allosteric effect of ECD on LHR protomer interaction. The effect of JE10 on activating and inactivating mutants of LHR were quite interesting. The ScFv could bind to the activating mutant D578Y (associated with precocious puberty). This mutant exhibited higher basal cAMP production, but was activated even further by the ScFv. The inactivating mutant A593P is a completely inactive receptor associated with (associated with pseudo-hermaphroditism. It does not respond to the hormone at all. The ScFv JE10 binds to this receptor and stimulates cAMP production. This observation is rather striking, as it is possible to activate a completely inactive mutant that could not be stimulated by the hormone by a binder specific for the hinge region. It is not clear how the binder that interacts with the hinge region affects the function of the inactive TMD thus providing an interesting tool to investigate the interactions between the hinge region and TMD that are probably key to understand the activation of GpHR. which has been shown to be central to the GpHR activation mechanism, (Agrawal & Dighe, 2009; Majumdar et al., 2012b; Schaarschmidt, Huth, Meier, Paschke, & Jaeschke, 2014). As per the recently suggested model by Deupi et. al., that each mutation and agonist can take a different pathway during activation (Kobilka & Deupi, 2007). The activated state induced by JE10 in D578Y and A593P seems to be different from the wild type LHR, with each activated receptor state having different capacity to bind to the G protein. The difference in G protein capacity in itself reflects the different receptor turnover or different Gs uncouplings or different Gs binding affinities, which needs to be further investigated, opening up another avenue for exploration. There is a lacuna in understanding the signal relay from the hinge to TMD. However, JE10 seems to be activating the wild type LHR and the mutants directly or indirectly by modulating the 6th helix of the TMD, known to be important for hormone independent activation of LHR (Fanelli, 2000; Latronico & Segaloff, 2007; Majumdar et al., 2012b). As evident from the absence of any hinge mediated constrain on LHR TMD and absence of uncharged residues present in LHR LRRD-TMD interface (LHR ECD Model 1), LHR hinge does not seem to be maintaining significant interactions with the TMD in absence of a ligand or in its basal state. Hormone/ agonist binding or activating mutations act as a positive regulator (inducing conformation change in hinge), required to bridge the interactions between LHR hinge and the TMD, which is supported by various studies in the past (Karges et al., 2005; Majumdar et al., 2012b; Nishi, Nakabayashi, Kobilka, & Hsueh, 2002; Osuga et al., 1997; Ryu, Gilchrist, Tung, Ji, & Ji, 1998; Zeng, Phang, Song, Ji, & Ji, 2001). This interaction bridged by the conformational change in the hinge region, seems to isomerize the closed state of LHR into an activated state. The present study supports the conformational induction model for receptor activation in which intramolecular interactions between the two domains (hinge-TMD) lead to the receptor activation. In conclusion, this study presents a possible mechanism of activation of LHR by a partial agonist ScFv, which induces the conformation change in the disordered loop region (a.a.313-349) of the hinge and stabilizes it into helical state. This conformation change is predicted to be important for relaying the activation signal to the TMD. The study also demonstrates the activation of a completely inactive mutant A593P by JE10, suggesting a distinct possibility of its use as a therapeutic tool in treating infertility caused by inactivating mutations in LHR. On a second note, the study extends the role of LRRs, apart from direct hormone binding, to an indirect allosteric role in hormone binding, LHR activation and functional stability. This functional stability does not seem to be restricted to a single LHR but also depends on its interaction with nearby protomers. Though there are evidences for and against each of the above discussed possibilities, as yet there is no accepted model that explains the precise steps of receptor activation, hence, the molecular details of these interactions needs to be investigated in future.

The glycoprotein hormones, Luteinizing Hormone (LH), human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG), Follicle Stimulating Hormone (FSH) and Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH) are heterodimeric proteins with an identical α-subunit associated non-covalently with the hormone specific β-subunit and play important roles in reproduction and overall physiology of the organism [1]. The receptors of these hormones belong to the family of G-protein coupled receptors (GPCR) and have a large extracellular domain (ECD) comprising of 9-10 leucine rich repeats (LRR) followed by a flexible hinge region, a seven helical transmembrane domain (TMD) and a C terminal cytoplasmic tail [2]. Despite significant sequence and structural homologies observed between the ECDs of the receptors and the specific β-subunits of the hormones, the hormone-receptor pairs exhibit exquisite specificity with very low cross-reactivity with other members of the family. The TSH receptor (TSHR) is an especially interesting member of this family as it not only recognizes is cognate ligand, i.e. TSH, but also binds to the non-cognate ligands such as autoantibodies. TSHR autoantibodies come in different flavors; inhibitory antibodies that compete with the hormone for receptor binding and block its action, stimulatory antibodies that activate the receptor in a hormone independent manner and neutral antibodies that bind to the receptor but do not directly influence its functions. The inhibitory autoantibodies cause hypothyroidism and are responsible for Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis, whereas the stimulatory autoantibodies cause Graves’ thyrotoxicosis characterized by hyperthyroid condition [3]. The exact epitopes of these autoantibodies are not well delineated although it has been hypothesized that the blocking type- and the stimulatory type- autoantibodies have predominant epitopes in the TSHR ECD that overlap with hormone binding regions [4]. Insights into the mode of hormone or autoantibody binding to the receptor was primarily derived from the crystal structure of FSHR leucine rich repeat domain (LRRD) bound to single chain analog of FSH, and the crystal structures of TSHR LRRD bound to the stimulatory type human monoclonal antibody M22 [5] and the inhibitory type- monoclonal antibody K1-70 [6]. Both these crystal structures propose LRRDs as the primary ligand binding site which interacts with the hormone through its determinant loop in a hand-clasp fashion [7] while the autoantibodies mimics the hormone binding to a large extent [8] . These structures, while providing detailed understanding of the molecular interactions of the LRRs with the hormone, shed little light on the mechanism by which the signal generated at the LRRD are transduced to the downstream effector regions at the distally situated TMD. Hence, while one understands the ligand binding to a large extent, the activation process is not well understood, one of the central objective of the present study. Ligand-receptor interactions are typically studied by perturbing ligand/receptor structure by mutagenesis or by mapping conformational changes by biophysical or computational approaches. In addition to the above-mentioned approaches, the present work also uses highly specific antibodies against different domains of the receptor as molecular probes due to the ability of antibodies to distinguish between conformations likely to arise during the activation process. Use of antibodies to understand the receptor activation process is especially apt for TSHR due to the presence of physiologically relevant TSHR autoantibodies and their ability to influence hormone binding and receptor activation [9, 10]. Chapter 2 attempts to provide a comparison between the interactions of the hormone and the autoantibodies with TSHR. For this purpose, two assays were developed for identification of TSHR autoantibodies in the sera of patients suffering from autoimmune thyroid diseases (AITD), the first assay is based on the ability of TSHR autoantibodies to compete for radiolabeled hormone (The TSH binding inhibition (TBI), assay) and the second based on the capability of stimulatory antibody to produce cAMP in cells expressing TSHR (TSHR stimulatory immunoglobin (TSI) assay). A stable cell line expressing TSHR capable of recognizing both TSH and TSHR autoantibodies was thus created and used for prospective and retrospective analysis of AITD patients. Based on the TBI and TSI profiles of IgGs, purified from AITD patient's sera, it was recognized that TSHR stimulatory and TSH binding inhibitory effects of these antibodies correlated well, indicating overlap between hormone binding and IgG binding epitopes. It was also recognized that stimulatory IgGs are not affected by negative regulatory mechanism that governs TSH secretion substantiating the persistence of these antibodies in circulation. Kinetics of cAMP production by Graves’ stimulatory IgG was found to be fundamentally distinct, where the autoantibodies displayed pronounce hysteresis during the onset of the activation process when compared to the hormone. This could possibly be explained by the oligoclonality of the autoantibody population, a different mechanism of receptor activation or dissimilarity in autoantibody and hormone epitopes. To gain additional insights into the epitopes of TSHR autoantibodies and the regions that might be critical in the activation process, different overlapping fragments encompassing the entire TSH receptor ECD were cloned, expressed in E.coli as GST fusion proteins and purified: 1] the first three LRRs (TLRR 1-3, amino acid (aa) 21-127), 2] the first six LRRs (TLRR 1-6, aa 21-200), 3] the putative major hormone binding domain (TLRR 4-6, aa 128-200), and 4] the hinge region of TSH receptor along with LRR 7 to 9, (TLRR 7-HinR, aa 201-413). The receptor fragment TLRR 7-HinR was further subdivided into LRR 7-9 (TLRR 7-9, aa 201-161) and the hinge region (TSHR HinR, aa 261-413), expressed as N-terminal His-Tagged protein and purified using IMAC chromatography. Simultaneously, the full-length TSHR ECD was cloned, expressed and purified using the Pichia pastoris expression system. ELISA or immunoblot analysis of autoantibodies with the TSHR exodomain fragments suggested that Graves’ stimulatory antibody epitopes were distributed throughout the ECD with LRR 4-9 being the predominant site of binding. Interestingly, experiments involving neutralization of Graves’ IgG stimulated cAMP response by different receptor fragment indicated that fragments corresponding to the TSHR hinge region were better inhibitors of autoantibody stimulated receptor response than corresponding LRR fragments, suggesting that the hinge region might be an important component of the receptor activation process. This was in contrast to prevalent beliefs that considered the hinge region to be an inert linker connecting the LRRs to the TMD, a structural entity without any known functional significance. Mutagenesis in TSHR hinge region and agonistic antibodies against FSHR and LHR hinge regions, reported by the laboratory, recognized the importance of the hinge regions as critical for receptor activation and may not simply be a scaffold [11-13]. Unfortunately, the mechanism by which the hinge region regulates binding or response or both have not been well understood partially due to unavailability of structural information about this region. In addition poor sequence similarity within the GpHR family and within proteins of known structure, make this region difficult to model structurally. In chapter 3, effort is made to model the hinge regions of the three GpHR based on the knowledge driven and Ab initio protocols. An assembled structure comprising of the LRR domain (derived from the known structures of FSHR and TSHR LRR domains) and the modeled hinge region and transmembrane domain presents interesting differences between the three receptors, especially in the manner the hormone bound LRRD is oriented towards the TMD. These models also suggested that the α-subunit interactions in these three receptors are fundamentally different and this was verified by investigating the effects of two α-subunit specific MAbs C10/2A6 on hCG-LHR and hTSH-TSHR interactions. These two α-subunit MAbs had inverse effects on binding of hormone to the receptor. MAb C10 inhibited TSH binding to TSHR but not that of hCG, whereas MAb 2A6 inhibited binding of hCG to LHR but not of hTSH. Investigation into the accessibility of their epitopes in a preformed hormone receptor complex indicated that the α-subunit may become buried or undergo conformational change during the activation process and interaction may be different for LHR and TSHR. Fundamental differences in TSHR and LHR were further investigated in the next chapter (Chapter 4), especially with regards to the ligand independent receptor activation. Polyclonal antibodies were developed against LRR 1-6, TLRR 7-HinR and the TSHR HinR receptor fragments. The LRR 1-6 antibodies were potent inhibitor of receptor binding as well as response, similar to that observed with antibodies against the corresponding regions of LHR. Interestingly, the antibodies against the hinge region of TSHR were unable to inhibit hTSH binding, but were effective inhibitors of cAMP production suggesting that this region may be involved in a later stage of a multi-step activation process. This was also verified by studying the mechanism of inhibition of receptor response and their effect on ligand-receptor association and dissociation kinetics. Hinge region-specific antibodies immunopurified from TLRR 7-HinR antibodies behaved akin to those of the pure hinge region antibodies providing independent validation of the above results. This result was, however, in contrast to those observed with a similar antibody against LHR hinge region. As compared to the TSHR antibody, the LHR antibody inhibited both hormone binding and response. In addition, this antibody could dissociate a preformed hormone-receptor complex which was not observed for TSHR hinge region antibodies. Although unable to dissociate preformed hormone-receptor complex by itself, the TSHR HinR antibodies augmented hormone induced dissociation of the hormone-receptor complex suggesting that this region may be involved in modulation of negative cooperativity associated with TSHR. Molecular dissection of the role of hinge region of TSHR was further carried out by using monoclonal antibodies against LRR 1-3 (MAb 413.1.F7), LRR 7-9 (MAb 311.87), TSHR hinge region (MAb 311.62 and MAb PD1.37). MAb 311.62 which identifies the LRR/Cb-2 junction (aa 265-275), increased the affinity of TSHR for the hormone while concomitantly decreasing its efficacy, whereas MAb 311.87 recognizing LRR 7-9 (aa 201-259) acted as a non-competitive inhibitor of TSH binding. MAb 413.1.F7 did not affect hormone binding or response and was used as the control antibody for different experiments. Binding of MAbs was sensitive to the conformational changes caused by the activating and inactivating mutations and exhibited differential effects on hormone binding and response of these mutants. By studying the effects of these MAbs on truncation and chimeric mutants of thyroid stimulating hormone receptor (TSHR), this study confirms the tethered inverse agonistic role played by the hinge region and maps the interactions between TSHR hinge region [14] and exoloops responsible for maintenance of the receptor in its basal state. Mechanistic studies on the antibody-receptor interactions suggest that MAb 311.87 is an allosteric insurmountable antagonist and inhibits initiation of the hormone induced conformational changes in the hinge region, whereas MAb 311.62 acts as a partial agonist that recognizes a conformational epitope critical for coupling of hormone binding to receptor activation. Estimation of apparent affinities of the antibody to the receptor and the cooperativity factor suggests that epitope of MAb 311.87 (LRR 7-9) may act as a pivot involved in the initial events immediate to hormone binding at the LRRs. The anatgonsitic effect of MAB 311.62 on binding and response also suggested that binding of hormone is conformationally selective rather than an induced event. The hinge region, probably in close proximity with the α-subunit in the hormone-receptor complex, acts as a tunable switch between hormone binding and receptor activation. In contrast to the stimulatory nature of Cb-2 antibody such as MAb 311.62, MAb PD1.37, which identified residues aa 366–384 near Cb-3, was found to be inverse agonistic. Unlike other known inverse agonistic MAbs such as CS-17 [15] and 5C9 [16], MAb PD1.37 did not compete for TSH binding to TSHR, although it could inhibit hormone stimulated response. Moreover, unlike CS-17, MAb PD1.37 was able to decrease elevated basal cAMP of hinge region constitutively activated mutations only but not those in the extracellular loops. This is particularly important as interaction of hinge region residues with those of ECLs had been thought to be critical in maintenance of the basal level of receptor activation and are responsible for attenuating the constitutive basal activity of the mutant and wild-type receptors in the absence of the hormone. This was demonstrated by a marked increase in the basal constitutive activity of the receptor upon the complete removal of its extracellular domain, which returned to the wild-type levels upon reintroduction of the hinge region. However, careful comparison of the activities of the mutants (receptors harboring deletions and gain-of-function mutations) with maximally stimulated wild-type TSHR indicated that these mutations of the receptor resulted primarily in partial activation of the serpentine domain suggesting that only the ECD in complex with the hormone is the full agonist of the receptor. Confirmation of the above proposition has been difficult to verify primarily due to a highly transient conformational change in the tripartite interaction of the hinge region/hormone and the ECLs. The current approaches of using antibodies to probe the ECLs are difficult due to the conformational nature of the antigen as well as difficulty in obtaining a soluble protein. In chapter 5, the ligand induced conformational alterations in the hinge regions and inter-helical loops of LHR/FSHR/TSHR were mapped using the exoloop specific antibodies generated against a mini-Transmembrane domain (mini-TMD) protein. This mini-TMD protein, designed to mimic the native exoloop conformations, was created by joining the TSHR exoloops, constrained through the helical tethers and library derived linkers. The antibody against mini-TMD specifically recognized all three GpHRs and inhibited the basal and hormone stimulated cAMP production without affecting hormone binding. Interestingly, binding of the antibody to all three receptors was abolished by prior incubation of the receptors with the respective hormones suggesting that the exoloops are buried in the hormone-receptor complexes. The antibody also suppressed the high basal activities of gain-of-function mutations in the hinge regions, exoloops and TMDs such as those involved precocious puberty and thyroid toxic adenomas. Using the antibody and point/deletion/chimeric receptor mutants, dynamic changes in hinge region-exoloop interactions were mapped. The computational analysis suggests that mini-TMD antibodies act by conformationally locking the transmembrane helices by restraining the exoloops and juxta-membrane regions. This computational approach of generating synthetic TMDs bears promise in development of interesting antibodies with therapeutic potential, as well as, explains the role of exoloops during receptor activation. In conclusion (Chapter 6), the study provides a comprehensive outlook on the highly dynamic interaction of ligand and different subdomains of the TSHR (and to a certain extent of LHR and FSHR) and proposes a model of receptor activation where the receptor is in a dynamic equilibrium between the low affinities constrained state and the high affinity unconstrained state and bind to the hormone through the LRR 4-6. Upon binding the βL2 loop of the hormone contact LRR 8-10 that triggers a conformational change in the hinge region driving the α-subunit to contact the ECLs. Upon contact, the ECLs cooperatively causes helix movement in the TMH and ultimately in ICLs causing the inbuilt GTP-exchange function of a GPCR.

The glycoprotein hormones, Luteinizing Hormone (LH), human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG), Follicle Stimulating Hormone (FSH) and Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH) are heterodimeric proteins with an identical α-subunit associated noncovalently with the hormone specific β-subunit and play important roles in reproduction and overall physiology of the organism (Pierce & Parsons, 1981). The receptors of these hormones belong to the family of G-protein coupled receptors (GPCR) and have a large extracellular domain (ECD)comprising of 9-10 leucine rich repeats (LRR) followed by a flexible hinge region, a seven helical transmembrane domain (TMD) and a C terminal cytoplasmic tail (Vassart et al, 2004). Despite significant sequence and structural homologies observed between the ECDs of the receptors and the specific β-subunits of the hormones, the hormone-receptor pairs exhibit exquisite specificity with very low cross-reactivity with other members of the family. Several biochemical, immunological and molecular biological tools have been employed to elucidate the structure– function relationship of the hormones and their receptors. These studies also helped in deciphering some of the regions present in both the hormones and the receptors involved in maintaining the specificity of their interaction (Fan & Hendrickson, 2005b; Fox et al, 2001; Wu et al, 1994). However, the complete understanding of the hormone-receptor contact sites and mechanism of receptor activation are still an enigma. Understanding the molecular details of these phenomena can lead to the development of novel strategies of regulating hormone action. Binding of FSH to FSHR occurs in the large extracellular NH2-terminal domain where the participation of the LRRs (amino acids 18-259) is essential to determine the ligand selectivity (Dias & Van Roey, 2001; Fan & Hendrickson, 2005a; Szkudlinski et al, 2002). In fact, mutations in these regions lead to reduction in binding of the agonist to the receptor. It is not known how the signal from the large extracellular domain liganded complex is transmitted to the TMD (amino acids 367-695). It is envisioned that hormone binding to the LRRs leads to series of conformational changes leading activation of the TMD resulting in signal transduction. The recently reported crystal structure of the single chain form of FSH in complex with the leucine rich repeats of the FSHR (amino acids 1-268) (Fan & Hendrickson, 2005b), although provides detailed understanding of the molecular interactions of the LRRs with the hormone, fails to provide any insights into mechanism of receptor activation as the information regarding critical interaction of the hormone with TMD. This structure also did not provide any information on the role of the hinge region (amino acids 259-366) that connects the LRRs to the TMD in hormone binding and activation of the receptor. In the present study an attempt has been made to understand the role of the hinge region in hormone binding and signal transduction. The overall objective of the study is to elucidate the molecular details of the hormone receptor interactions, particularly FSH-FSHR interaction. Antibodies to glycoprotein hormones and their receptors have often provided insights into the mechanism of hormone-receptor interactions and signal transduction. While the TSH receptor antibodies and their effects on the overall physiology have been well documented (Khoo & Bahn, 2007; Rapoport & McLachlan, 2007), reports of such antibodies against FSHR or LHR and their possible effects on the reproductive functions are not available. In the present study, effects of FSHR antibodies with different specificities on FSH-FSHR interactions have been investigated. Antibodies to different regions of rat FSHR, were raised and extensively characterized and their effects of FSH-FSHR interactions and signaling were investigated. It was found that a polyclonal antibody against the hinge of the receptor (RF2 antiserum, amino acids 218-336), while having no significant effect on hormone binding and response could stimulate the receptor by itself bypassing the hormone. This stimulation of FSHR was very specific as this antiserum could not stimulate LHR or TSHR and could be blocked by preincubating the antibody with the antigen. Through competition experiments with different synthetic peptides of human FSHR, a stretch of hinge region corresponding to amino acids 296-331 was identified as the site recognized by the stimulatory antibody. This antibody did not interfere in hormone binding and could also bind to the pre-formed hormone-receptor complex suggesting that the binding site of the antibody may not participate directly in hormone binding. Subsequently the antibody was extensively characterized for its effect of hormone receptor interactions (Chapter 2). Previous studies considered the hinge region to be an inert linker connecting the LRRs to the TMD, a structural entity without any known functional significance (Vlaeminck-Guillem et al, 2002). However, the data with RF2 antibody suggested a direct role of the hinge region in signal transduction. Therefore, a systematic study to dissect the role to hinge region in hormone binding and signal transduction was conducted. Several truncations, deletions, activating and inactivating point mutations in the FSHR were generated to understand the mechanism of receptor activation. Firstly, these mutant receptors were characterized for their ability to translocate to the cell surface when transfected in the cultured mammalian cells. Secondly, affinity of all the mutant receptors for the hormone was determined in order to understand the effect of mutations on hormone binding. Finally, the cAMP response of these mutant receptors to the hormone and the stimulatory antibody was investigated to understand the effects of mutations on signal transduction. The results are described in Chapter 3. The hormone binding analysis and the affinity measurement of the mutant receptors showed that the LRRs are involved in high affinity hormone binding while the hinge region may not contribute to the process. This is in agreement with the crystal structure data which showed that the hormone was bound to the truncated receptor fragment representing only the LRRs (Fan & Hendrickson, 2005b). These binding data also corroborated the earlier data indicating that the antibodies against the hinge region do not interfere in hormone-receptor interactions. Further, the analysis of different N-terminally truncated receptor mutants provided strong evidence indicating that the constraining intramolecular interactions between the extracellular and the transmembrane domains are required to maintain the FSHR in an inactive conformation in the absence of an agonist. The analysis of the constitutive basal activity of the mutant receptors in absence of hormone suggested that certain regions of the extracellular domain had an attenuating effect over the TMDs that prevented constitutive activation of the receptor. This was demonstrated by a marked increase in the basal constitutive activity of the receptor upon the complete removal of its extracellular domain. Detailed analysis of the mutants suggested that LRR portion does not contribute to this attenuating effect, but it is the hinge region that perhaps interacts with the TMDs and dampens its basal constitutive activity. This attenuating effect was further narrowed down to a small stretch of 35 amino acids (296-331) within the hinge region. It was striking that the similar stretch was identified as the binding site of the stimulatory receptor antibody. In pharmacology, an ‘inverse agonist’ is an agent which binds to the receptor and reverses the constitutive activity of receptors. Thus the hinge region of the receptor could be termed as a ‘tethered inverse agonist’ of the TMD, since it is covalently associated with the TMD and their interactions dampen the basal constitutive activity of the receptor. However, careful comparison of the activities of the mutants (receptors harboring deletions and gain-of-function mutations) with maximally stimulated wild-type FSHR indicated that these mutations of the receptor resulted only in partial activation of the serpentine domain suggesting that only the ECD in complex with the hormone is the full agonist of the receptor. Moreover, the hinge region stabilizes the TMD in an inactive conformation and the activating mutations disengage the inhibitory ECD–TMD interactions bringing about partial activation of the receptor. Most interestingly, the deletion of amino acids 296-331 from hFSHR resulted in no further response to the hormone indicating that this part of the receptor is also critical for hormonal activation, perhaps playing a dual role in the attenuation of the basal activity and a direct involvement in the hormonal activation of the receptor. Progressive sequential deletions of ten amino acids from 290 to 329 yielded similar results (high basal cAMP production with concomitant loss of hormone and antibody response) clearly demonstrating that the integrity of this region is absolutely essential for hormonal activation. In conclusion, the study provides a conclusive evidence to show that the hinge region of FSHR, although not involved in primary high affinity hormone binding, plays a critical role in the modulation of the receptor activity in absence, as well as, presence of the hormone. A large array of reproductive abnormalities is associated with malfunctioning of FSHR. To explore the possibility of using the stimulatory antibodies for therapeutic purpose, three inactivating mutations of hFSHR were analyzed. In corroboration with the earlier reports (Doherty et al, 2002; Touraine et al, 1999), the mutants A419T and L601V are incapable of transducing the signal, despite having adequate cell surface expression and wild type affinities for the hormone, mainly because of defective TMD. The RF2 antibody failed to elicit any response from these mutants suggesting that its ability to activate the receptor depends on the status of the TMD. Interestingly, the activating mutant D576G, which showed very high basal cAMP production, could be stimulated by both antibody and the hormone to the nearly wild type levels suggesting that in this mutant the interactions between the hinge region and TMD are similar to that of wild type and higher basal cAMP production could be due to different interactions of the TMD with the G-Proteins. Structure-function studies of glycoprotein hormones and their receptors have been hampered due to low levels of expression of the properly folded proteins in heterologous systems (Chazenbalk & Rapoport, 1995; Hong et al, 1999b; Peterson et al, 2000; Sharma & Catterall, 1995; Thomas & Segaloff, 1994). Previous studies from the laboratory have shown that the Pichiapastoris,which blends the advantages of both bacterial and mammalian expression systems, can be used to hyper-express biologically active hormones (Blanchard et al, 2008; Gadkari et al, 2003; Samaddar et al, 1997). In addition, the same expression system has been used to produce single chain hormone analogs (Roy et al, 2007; Setlur & Dighe, 2007). Further, methodologies for Pichiafermentation and purification of recombinant hormones from the fermentation media have been wellestablished in the laboratory. Chapter 4 describes the work carried out to express, purify and characterize a fully functional hFSHR extracellular domain. Thus a stage is now set to attempt structural studies with the receptor. The results are discussed at the end of each of these chapters and future directions have been discussed at the end of this thesis.