Published in

MDPI, International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 24(22), p. 13328, 2021

DOI: 10.3390/ijms222413328

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Gene Expression Data Mining Reveals the Involvement of GPR55 and Its Endogenous Ligands in Immune Response, Cancer, and Differentiation

Journal article published in 2021 by Artur Wnorowski ORCID, Jakub Wójcik ORCID, Maciej Maj ORCID
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

G protein-coupled receptor 55 (GPR55) is a recently deorphanized lipid- and peptide-sensing receptor. Its lipidic endogenous agonists belong to lysoglycerophospholipids, with lysophosphatidylinositol (LPI) being the most studied. Peptide agonists derive from fragmentation of pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP). Although GPR55 and its ligands were implicated in several physiological and pathological conditions, their biological function remains unclear. Thus, the aim of the study was to conduct a large-scale re-analysis of publicly available gene expression datasets to identify physiological and pathological conditions affecting the expression of GPR55 and the production of its ligands. The study revealed that regulation of GPR55 occurs predominantly in the context of immune activation pointing towards the role of the receptor in response to pathogens and in immune cell lineage determination. Additionally, it was revealed that there is almost no overlap between the experimental conditions affecting the expression of GPR55 and those modulating agonist production. The capacity to synthesize LPI was enhanced in various types of tumors, indicating that cancer cells can hijack the motility-related activity of GPR55 to increase aggressiveness. Conditions favoring accumulation of PACAP-derived peptides were different than those for LPI and were mainly related to differentiation. This indicates a different function of the two agonist classes and possibly the existence of a signaling bias.