N of wild type and mutant CCR5 receptors.IP Production CCR5 Receptor Construct Basal (CPM) Wild type Thr2.56(82)Lys Thr2.56(82)Pro Thr2.56(82)Arg Asp3.49(125)FACS analysis Stimulated (CPM) 15 68461 198 4 5166915 12 38263 161 2 8276802 1 7996680 28276802 6 19762 550 6 44661 556 6 69762 022 14 18764 320 18 03866 700 Mean Fluorescence Intensity ( wild type) 100 661.5 92615 1963 1161.7 4768.5 63610 72624 43612 51613 80621 Cells gated ( ) 8660.5 860.5 4766.7 5160.8 4661.8 7460.3 57611 61619 6965.0 4867.5 5867.2 2636417 (9) 4 78361 007a (9) 9 00463284a (6) 2 3586373 1 8116368 1 3386338 1 4386360 1 6646259 1 8086418 14 50064 321a (4) 15 54066 929a (4)AlaAsp3.49(125)Asn Arg6.32(225)Ala Arg6.32(225)Asp Arg6.32(225)Glu T2.56(82)K/R6.32(225)Q T2.56(82)P/R6.32(225)Qa significantly different from wild type, p,0.05. To assess constitutive- and ligand-stimulated IP production, HEK-Gqi cells transiently expressing wild type or mutant CCR5 receptors were labeled with [H3]-myo-inositol and incubated with buffer (Basal) or MIP-1b (1027 M, Stimulated). To assess cell surface Alprenolol biological activity expression of receptors HEK 293 cells transiently transfected with wild type or mutant CCR5 constructs were incubated with PE-2D7 antibody before FACS analysis. Every experiment included wild type CCR5 and mock transfected cells. Data are means 6 SEM calculated from at least three independent experiments performed in duplicate. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054532.tEnv-expressing HEK 293 cells, while the concentrations of receptor-expressing HOS-CD4-Luc cells were held constant. This is analogous to standard dose-response experiments with the Envexpressing cells constituting the agonist ligand. Cells expressing the wild type CCR5 receptor fused well with Env-expressing cells (Fig. 3A) and exhibited a mean EC50 value of 14,70564591 Envexpressing cells/well (Table 2). Mutant receptors with Lys in position 82, Thr2.56(82)Lys and Thr2.56(82)Lys/Arg6.32(225)Gln, both mediated very low levels of Env-directed Linolenic acid methyl ester chemical information fusion (Fig. 3A, Table 2). In contrast, cells expressing mutants with Pro in position 82, Thr2.56(82)Pro and Thr2.56(82)Pro/Arg6.32(225)Gln, displayed high levels of 1655472 Env-directed fusion that were comparable with that mediated by the wild type receptor (Fig. 3A, Table 2). The EC50 value for the Thr2.56(82)Pro mutant was similar to wild type (Table 2) and the EC50 value for the Thr2.56(82)Pro/Arg6.32(225)Gln double mutant was lower (Table 2). FACS analysis showed that mutant CCR5 receptors were expressed at levels lower than wild type CCR5 in HOS-CD4-Luc cells (Fig. 3B). As we were unable to generate HOS-CD4-Luc cell lines stably expressing mutant CCR5 receptors, we calculated a fusion efficiency coefficient to take account of differences in receptor expression (Fig. 3C, Table 2). The wild type CCR5 receptor showed a maximum fusion coefficient of 11.862.2. The Pro-containing mutants, Thr2.56(82)Pro and Thr2.56(82)Pro/ Arg6.32(225)Gln, showed high maximum fusion coefficients of 16.564.1 and 18.865.6 respectively (Fig. 3C, Table 2). In contrast, the Lys-containing mutants, Thr2.56(82)Lys and Thr2.56(82)Lys/Arg6.32(225)Gln, both showed very low maximum fusion coefficients (Fig. 3C, Table 2). These results show that CCR5 mutants that constitutively activate IP signaling fall into two categories, those with Lys in position 82 are poor mediators of fusion, whereas those with Pro in position 82 are good mediators of fusion. The two classes of constitutively active mutants may define distinct activat.N of wild type and mutant CCR5 receptors.IP Production CCR5 Receptor Construct Basal (CPM) Wild type Thr2.56(82)Lys Thr2.56(82)Pro Thr2.56(82)Arg Asp3.49(125)FACS analysis Stimulated (CPM) 15 68461 198 4 5166915 12 38263 161 2 8276802 1 7996680 28276802 6 19762 550 6 44661 556 6 69762 022 14 18764 320 18 03866 700 Mean Fluorescence Intensity ( wild type) 100 661.5 92615 1963 1161.7 4768.5 63610 72624 43612 51613 80621 Cells gated ( ) 8660.5 860.5 4766.7 5160.8 4661.8 7460.3 57611 61619 6965.0 4867.5 5867.2 2636417 (9) 4 78361 007a (9) 9 00463284a (6) 2 3586373 1 8116368 1 3386338 1 4386360 1 6646259 1 8086418 14 50064 321a (4) 15 54066 929a (4)AlaAsp3.49(125)Asn Arg6.32(225)Ala Arg6.32(225)Asp Arg6.32(225)Glu T2.56(82)K/R6.32(225)Q T2.56(82)P/R6.32(225)Qa significantly different from wild type, p,0.05. To assess constitutive- and ligand-stimulated IP production, HEK-Gqi cells transiently expressing wild type or mutant CCR5 receptors were labeled with [H3]-myo-inositol and incubated with buffer (Basal) or MIP-1b (1027 M, Stimulated). To assess cell surface expression of receptors HEK 293 cells transiently transfected with wild type or mutant CCR5 constructs were incubated with PE-2D7 antibody before FACS analysis. Every experiment included wild type CCR5 and mock transfected cells. Data are means 6 SEM calculated from at least three independent experiments performed in duplicate. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054532.tEnv-expressing HEK 293 cells, while the concentrations of receptor-expressing HOS-CD4-Luc cells were held constant. This is analogous to standard dose-response experiments with the Envexpressing cells constituting the agonist ligand. Cells expressing the wild type CCR5 receptor fused well with Env-expressing cells (Fig. 3A) and exhibited a mean EC50 value of 14,70564591 Envexpressing cells/well (Table 2). Mutant receptors with Lys in position 82, Thr2.56(82)Lys and Thr2.56(82)Lys/Arg6.32(225)Gln, both mediated very low levels of Env-directed fusion (Fig. 3A, Table 2). In contrast, cells expressing mutants with Pro in position 82, Thr2.56(82)Pro and Thr2.56(82)Pro/Arg6.32(225)Gln, displayed high levels of 1655472 Env-directed fusion that were comparable with that mediated by the wild type receptor (Fig. 3A, Table 2). The EC50 value for the Thr2.56(82)Pro mutant was similar to wild type (Table 2) and the EC50 value for the Thr2.56(82)Pro/Arg6.32(225)Gln double mutant was lower (Table 2). FACS analysis showed that mutant CCR5 receptors were expressed at levels lower than wild type CCR5 in HOS-CD4-Luc cells (Fig. 3B). As we were unable to generate HOS-CD4-Luc cell lines stably expressing mutant CCR5 receptors, we calculated a fusion efficiency coefficient to take account of differences in receptor expression (Fig. 3C, Table 2). The wild type CCR5 receptor showed a maximum fusion coefficient of 11.862.2. The Pro-containing mutants, Thr2.56(82)Pro and Thr2.56(82)Pro/ Arg6.32(225)Gln, showed high maximum fusion coefficients of 16.564.1 and 18.865.6 respectively (Fig. 3C, Table 2). In contrast, the Lys-containing mutants, Thr2.56(82)Lys and Thr2.56(82)Lys/Arg6.32(225)Gln, both showed very low maximum fusion coefficients (Fig. 3C, Table 2). These results show that CCR5 mutants that constitutively activate IP signaling fall into two categories, those with Lys in position 82 are poor mediators of fusion, whereas those with Pro in position 82 are good mediators of fusion. The two classes of constitutively active mutants may define distinct activat.