This Key Event Relationship is licensed under the Creative Commons BY-SA license. This license allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use. If you remix, adapt, or build upon the material, you must license the modified material under identical terms.
Relationship: 2734
Title
Antagonism Smoothened leads to Decrease, SMO relocation
Upstream event
Downstream event
AOPs Referencing Relationship
| AOP Name | Adjacency | Weight of Evidence | Quantitative Understanding | Point of Contact | Author Status | OECD Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antagonism of Smoothened receptor leading to orofacial clefting | adjacent | Moderate | Low | Arthur Author (send email) | Under development: Not open for comment. Do not cite | Under Development |
Taxonomic Applicability
Sex Applicability
| Sex | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Unspecific | Not Specified |
Life Stage Applicability
| Term | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Embryo | High |
The Smoothened (SMO) receptor is Class F G protein coupled receptor involved in signal transduction of the Sonic Hedgehog (SHH) pathway. It includes distinct functional groups including ligand binding pockets, cysteine rich domain (CRD), transmembrane helix (TM), extracellular loop (ECL), intracellular loop (ICL), and a carboxyl-terminal tail (C-term tail) (Arensdorf, Marada et al. 2016). SMO signaling is dependent upon its relocation to a subcellular location. This relocation occurs in the primary cilium (PC) in vertebrates (Huangfu and Anderson 2005). Relocation of SMO to the PC typically occurs within ~20 minutes of agonist stimulation (Arensdorf, Marada et al. 2016).
In the absence of SHH ligand, the Patched (PTCH) receptor suppresses the activation of SMO. When HH ligand binds to PTCH, suppression on SMO is released and SMO can relocate, accumulate, and signal to intracellular effectors (Denef, Neubüser et al. 2000, Rohatgi and Scott 2007). It has been shown that SMO localization to the tip of the primary cilia is essential for the SHH signaling cascade in vertebrates (Corbit, Aanstad et al. 2005, Rohatgi, Milenkovic et al. 2007, Rohatgi, Milenkovic et al. 2009). This relocation then leads to signaling to effectors resulting in the activation of the GLI transcription factors and the subsequent induction of HH target gene expression (Alexandre, Jacinto et al. 1996, Von Ohlen and Hooper 1997). The exact mechanism through which PTCH and SMO interact is not known.
Pubmed was used as the primary database for evidence collection. Searches are organized by the date and search terms used in the supplementary table. Search results were initially screened through review of the title and abstract for potential for data relating antagonism of SMO and SMO relocation. Each selected publication and its’ data were then examined to determine if support or lack thereof existed for this KER. Papers that did not show any data relating to this KER were discarded. The search is detailed below in Table 1.
| ID | Experimental Design | Species | Upstream Observation | Downstream Observation | Citation (first author, year) | Notes |
|---|
| Title | First Author | Biological Plausibility |
Dose Concordance |
Temporal Concordance |
Incidence Concordance |
|---|
Biological Plausibility
Dose Concordance Evidence
Temporal Concordance Evidence
Incidence Concordance Evidence
Uncertainties and Inconsistencies
While we know that entry to the cilia is tightly controlled, the exact mechanism of SMO ciliary trafficking is not fully understood. The PC is separated from the plasma membrane by the ciliary pockets and the transition zone which function together to regulate the movement of lipids and proteins in and out of the organelle (Goetz, Ocbina et al. 2009, Rohatgi and Snell 2010). The SHH receptor PTCH contains a ciliary localization sequence in its’ carboxy tail. Localization of PTCH to the PC is essential for inhibition of SMO as deletion of the CLS in PTCH prevents PTCH localization as well as inhibition of SMO (Kim, Hsia et al. 2015) (53). SMO also contains a CLS, but only accumulates in the PC upon ligand binding (Corbit, Aanstad et al. 2005). The entry of SMO into the PC is thought to occur either laterally through the ciliary pockets or internally via recycling endosomes (Milenkovic, Scott et al. 2009). Once inside the PC, SMO can diffuse freely, however it will usually accumulate in specific locations depending upon its’ activation state. Inactive SMO will accumulate more at the base of the PC while active SMO will accumulate in the tip of the PC (Milenkovic, Weiss et al. 2015).
An endogenous ligand for SMO has not been discovered although evidence for one exists and that PTCH controls SMO by controlling its’ availability or accessibility. To support this, it has been shown that PTCH and SMO do not physically interact (Chen and Struhl 1998). PTCH acts catalytically with SMO with one PTCH receptor capable of controlling many (~50) SMO receptors (Taipale, Cooper et al. 2002). Since PTCH includes a sterol sensing domain and shares characteristics of ancient bacterial transporters, a model of PTCH functioning by pumping a sterol-like MSO regulator has been proposed (Mukhopadhyay and Rohatgi 2014). SMO is constitutively active in the absence of PTCH suggesting that the elusive molecule is an agonist (Rohatgi and Scott 2007). Conversely, the discovery that oxysterols bind to the CRD binding domain acting as positive modulators suggest that the molecule could be an agonist with PTCH functioning to sequester away or limit cellular concentration (Corcoran and Scott 2006, Nachtergaele, Mydock et al. 2012)
The activity of SMO is controlled by ligand binding (Kobilka 2007). Two separate binding pockets, one in the groove of the extracellular CRD and the other in the helices of the TMD have been identified (Nachtergaele, Mydock et al. 2012, Rana, Carroll et al. 2013, Wang, Wu et al. 2013, Byrne, Sircar et al. 2016, Huang, Zheng et al. 2018). These two binding pockets have been shown to interact in an allosteric manner (Nachtergaele, Mydock et al. 2012). The binding pocket in the helices of the TMD binds several SMO agonists including SAG as well as antagonists Vismodegib and Sonidegib. The CRD binding pocket binds cholesterol and its’ oxidized derivates (Byrne, Luchetti et al. 2018). The antagonist cyclopamine binds to the TMD binding pocket and inhibits SHH signal transduction. However, in mSMO carrying the mutations D477G/E552K that disable the TMD binding pocket, cyclopamine binds to the CRD pocket and activates the pathway (Huang, Nedelcu et al. 2016). To date several oxysterols including 20(S)-hydroxylcholesterol, 22(S)-hydroxylcholesterol, 7-keto-25-hydroxylcholesterol and 7-keto-27-hydroxylcholesterol have been identified as activators of SMO (Dwyer, Sever et al. 2007, Nachtergaele, Mydock et al. 2012, Myers, Sever et al. 2013). A binding site for 24(S),25-epoxycholesterol has been identified in the TMD pocket using cryo-EM of SMO in complex with 24(S),25-epoxycholesterol (Qi, Liu et al. 2019).
While it is well understood that cyclopamine is an antagonist of SMO, contradictory in vivo data was found regarding whether cyclopamine blocks SMO relocation to the primary cilia. Rohatgi et al used NIH 3T3s cell and found that cyclopamine did not inhibit the accumulation of SMO in the cilia even when dosed at 5-10um (>10 fold above kd). All three antagonists inhibited SHH pathway transduction and target gene expression (Rohatgi, Milenkovic et al. 2009). Corbit et al used a renal epithelial MDCK (Madin-Darby canine kidney) line was engineered to express Myc-tagged SMO. Following culture for 1hr in SHH conditioned media SMO presence in the primary cilium is upregulated while cells cultured in the presence of cyclopamine see a downregulation of SMO in the primary cilia (Corbit, Aanstad et al. 2005). Further work is required to determine if SMO antagonism via cyclopamine results in decrease in SMO relocation.
The data presented in support of this KER includes both in vitro and in vivo studies. The in vivo work identifies multiple antagonists of SMO and validates that they directly bind to SMO. These studies also offer data to show that antagonism of SMO causes a down regulation in SMO relocation the primary cilia. Dose dependent SMO localization is seen in the studies performed by Rohtagi et al 2009 and Chen et al 2002.The response time of SMO antagonism and subsequent time for a decrease in SMO relocation and activation has not been reported. No dose dependent in vivo data for antagonism of SMO and relocation to the cilia was found and all in vivo evidence is conducted under steady state exposure. Dose response data for disruption of SHH using the antagonists exists and is well charactered however quantification of ciliary relocation is lacking. Further studies are needed to expand our quantitative understanding of this linkage.
Response-response Relationship
No studies identified
Time-scale
Relocation of SMO to the PC typically occurs within ~20 minutes of agonist stimulation (Arensdorf, Marada et al. 2016). No data was found on how fast antagonism of SMO will stop its’ relocation to the primary cilia.
Known Feedforward/Feedback loops influencing this KER
None identified
The relationship between antagonism of SMO and a decrease in SMO relocation and activation has been shown repeatedly in mice models as detailed in the empirical evidence section. The relationship is biologically plausible in human, but to date no specific experiments have addressed this question. The SHH pathway is well understood to be fundamental to proper embryonic development and that aberrant SHH signaling during embryonic development can cause birth defects indculding orofacial clefts (OFCs). For this reason, this KER is applicable to the embryonic stage with a high level of confidence.