How Activin A Became a Therapeutic Target in Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva.

Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) is a rare genetic disorder characterized by episodic yet cumulative heterotopic ossification (HO) of skeletal muscles, tendons, ligaments, and fascia. FOP arises from missense mutations in Activin Receptor type I (ACVR1), a type I bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) receptor. Although initial findings implicated constitutive activity of FOP-variant ACVR1 (ACVR1FOP) and/or hyperactivation by BMPs, it was later shown that HO in FOP requires activation of ACVR1FOP by Activin A. Inhibition of Activin A completely prevents HO in FOP mice, indicating that Activin A is an obligate driver of HO in FOP, and excluding a key role for BMPs in this process. This discovery led to the clinical development of garetosmab, an investigational antibody that blocks Activin A. In a phase 2 trial, garetosmab inhibited new heterotopic bone lesion formation in FOP patients. In contrast, antibodies to ACVR1 activate ACVR1FOP and promote HO in FOP mice. Beyond their potential clinical relevance, these findings have enhanced our understanding of FOP's pathophysiology, leading to the identification of fibroadipogenic progenitors as the cells that form HO, and the discovery of non-signaling complexes between Activin A and wild type ACVR1 and their role in tempering HO, and are also starting to inform biological processes beyond FOP.

The orphan ligand, activin C, signals through activin receptor-like kinase 7.

Activin ligands are formed from two disulfide-linked inhibin ß (Inhß) subunit chains. They exist as homodimeric proteins, as in the case of activin A (ActA; InhßA/InhßA) or activin C (ActC; InhßC/InhßC), or as heterodimers, as with activin AC (ActAC; InhßA:InhßC). While the biological functions of ActA and activin B (ActB) have been well characterized, little is known about the biological functions of ActC or ActAC. One thought is that the InhßC chain functions to interfere with ActA production by forming less active ActAC heterodimers. Here, we assessed and characterized the signaling capacity of ligands containing the InhßC chain. ActC and ActAC activated SMAD2/3-dependent signaling via the type I receptor, activin receptor-like kinase 7 (ALK7). Relative to ActA and ActB, ActC exhibited lower affinity for the cognate activin type II receptors and was resistant to neutralization by the extracellular antagonist, follistatin. In mature murine adipocytes, which exhibit high ALK7 expression, ActC elicited a SMAD2/3 response similar to ActB, which can also signal via ALK7. Collectively, these results establish that ActC and ActAC are active ligands that exhibit a distinct signaling receptor and antagonist profile compared to other activins.

Structures of activin ligand traps using natural sets of type I and type II TGFß receptors.

The 30+ unique ligands of the TGFß family signal by forming complexes using different combinations of type I and type II receptors. Therapeutically, the extracellular domain of a single receptor fused to an Fc molecule can effectively neutralize subsets of ligands. Increased ligand specificity can be accomplished by using the extracellular domains of both the type I and type II receptor to mimic the naturally occurring signaling complex. Here, we report the structure of one "type II-type I-Fc" fusion, ActRIIB-Alk4-Fc, in complex with two TGFß family ligands, ActA, and GDF11, providing a snapshot of this therapeutic platform. The study reveals that extensive contacts are formed by both receptors, replicating the ternary signaling complex, despite the inherent low affinity of Alk4. Our study shows that low-affinity type I interactions support altered ligand specificity and can be visualized at the molecular level using this platform.

Characterization of tolloid-mediated cleavage of the GDF8 procomplex.

Growth differentiation factor 8 (GDF8), a.k.a. myostatin, is a member of the larger TGFß superfamily of signaling ligands. GDF8 has been well characterized as a negative regulator of muscle mass. After synthesis, GDF8 is held latent by a noncovalent complex between the N-terminal prodomain and the signaling ligand. Activation of latent GDF8 requires proteolytic cleavage of the prodomain at residue D99 by a member of the tolloid family of metalloproteases. While tolloid proteases cleave multiple substrates, they lack a conserved consensus sequence. Here, we investigate the tolloid cleavage site of the GDF8 prodomain to determine what residues contribute to tolloid recognition and subsequent proteolysis. Using sequential alanine mutations, we identified several residues adjacent to the scissile bond, including Y94, that when mutated, abolish tolloid-mediated activation of latent GDF8. Using the astacin domain of Tll1 (Tolloid Like 1) we determined that prodomain mutants were more resistant to proteolysis. Purified latent complexes harboring the prodomain mutations, D92A and Y94A, impeded activation by tolloid but could be fully activated under acidic conditions. Finally, we show that co-expression of GDF8 WT with prodomain mutants that were tolloid resistant, suppressed GDF8 activity. Taken together our data demonstrate that residues towards the N-terminus of the scissile bond are important for tolloid-mediated activation of GDF8 and that the tolloid-resistant version of the GDF8 prodomain can function dominant negative to WT GDF8.

Heparin-mediated dimerization of follistatin.

Heparin and heparan sulfate (HS) are highly sulfated polysaccharides covalently bound to cell surface proteins, which directly interact with many extracellular proteins, including the transforming growth factor-ß (TGFß) family ligand antagonist, follistatin 288 (FS288). Follistatin neutralizes the TGFß ligands, myostatin and activin A, by forming a nearly irreversible non-signaling complex by surrounding the ligand and preventing interaction with TGFß receptors. The FS288-ligand complex has higher affinity than unbound FS288 for heparin/HS, which accelerates ligand internalization and lysosomal degradation; however, limited information is available for how FS288 interactions with heparin affect ligand binding. Using surface plasmon resonance (SPR) we show that preincubation of FS288 with heparin/HS significantly decreased the association kinetics for both myostatin and activin A with seemingly no effect on the dissociation rate. This observation is dependent on the heparin/HS chain length where small chain lengths less than degree of polymerization 10 (dp10) did not alter association rates but chain lengths >dp10 decreased association rates. In an attempt to understand the mechanism for this observation, we uncovered that heparin induced dimerization of follistatin. Consistent with our SPR results, we found that dimerization only occurs with heparin molecules >dp10. Small-angle X-ray scattering of the FS288 heparin complex supports that FS288 adopts a dimeric configuration that is similar to the FS288 dimer in the ligand-bound state. These results indicate that heparin mediates dimerization of FS288 in a chain-length-dependent manner that reduces the ligand association rate, but not the dissociation rate or antagonistic activity of FS288.

Structural perspective of BMP ligands and signaling.

The Bone Morphogenetic Proteins (BMPs) are the largest class signaling molecules within the greater Transforming Growth Factor Beta (TGFß) family, and are responsible for a wide array of biological functions, including dorsal-ventral patterning, skeletal development and maintenance, as well as cell homeostasis. As such, dysregulation of BMPs results in a number of diseases, including fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) and pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Therefore, understanding BMP signaling and regulation at the molecular level is essential for targeted therapeutic intervention. This review discusses the recent advances in the structural and biochemical characterization of BMPs, from canonical ligand-receptor interactions to co-receptors and antagonists. This work aims to highlight how BMPs differ from other members of the TGFß family, and how that information can be used to further advance the field. Lastly, this review discusses several gaps in the current understanding of BMP structures, with the aim that discussion of these gaps will lead to advancements in the field.

Activin A forms a non-signaling complex with ACVR1 and type II Activin/BMP receptors via its finger 2 tip loop.

Activin A functions in BMP signaling in two ways: it either engages ACVR1B to activate Smad2/3 signaling or binds ACVR1 to form a non-signaling complex (NSC). Although the former property has been studied extensively, the roles of the NSC remain unexplored. The genetic disorder fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) provides a unique window into ACVR1/Activin A signaling because in that disease Activin can either signal through FOP-mutant ACVR1 or form NSCs with wild-type ACVR1. To explore the role of the NSC, we generated 'agonist-only' Activin A muteins that activate ACVR1B but cannot form the NSC with ACVR1. Using one of these muteins, we demonstrate that failure to form the NSC in FOP results in more severe disease pathology. These results provide the first evidence for a biological role for the NSC in vivo and pave the way for further exploration of the NSC's physiological role in corresponding knock-in mice.

Structural characterization of an activin class ternary receptor complex reveals a third paradigm for receptor specificity.

TGFß family ligands, which include the TGFßs, BMPs, and activins, signal by forming a ternary complex with type I and type II receptors. For TGFßs and BMPs, structures of ternary complexes have revealed differences in receptor assembly. However, structural information for how activins assemble a ternary receptor complex is lacking. We report the structure of an activin class member, GDF11, in complex with the type II receptor ActRIIB and the type I receptor Alk5. The structure reveals that receptor positioning is similar to the BMP class, with no interreceptor contacts; however, the type I receptor interactions are shifted toward the ligand fingertips and away from the dimer interface. Mutational analysis shows that ligand type I specificity is derived from differences in the fingertips of the ligands that interact with an extended loop specific to Alk4 and Alk5. The study also reveals differences for how TGFß and GDF11 bind to the same type I receptor, Alk5. For GDF11, additional contacts at the fingertip region substitute for the interreceptor interactions that are seen for TGFß, indicating that Alk5 binding to GDF11 is more dependent on direct contacts. In support, we show that a single residue of Alk5 (Phe84), when mutated, abolishes GDF11 signaling, but has little impact on TGFß signaling. The structure of GDF11/ActRIIB/Alk5 shows that, across the TGFß family, different mechanisms regulate type I receptor binding and specificity, providing a molecular explanation for how the activin class accommodates low-affinity type I interactions without the requirement of cooperative receptor interactions.

Structural basis for potency differences between GDF8 and GDF11.

BACKGROUND: Growth/differentiation factor 8 (GDF8) and GDF11 are two highly similar members of the transforming growth factor ß (TGFß) family. While GDF8 has been recognized as a negative regulator of muscle growth and differentiation, there are conflicting studies on the function of GDF11 and whether GDF11 has beneficial effects on age-related dysfunction. To address whether GDF8 and GDF11 are functionally identical, we compared their signaling and structural properties. RESULTS: Here we show that, despite their high similarity, GDF11 is a more potent activator of SMAD2/3 and signals more effectively through the type I activin-like receptor kinase receptors ALK4/5/7 than GDF8. Resolution of the GDF11:FS288 complex, apo-GDF8, and apo-GDF11 crystal structures reveals unique properties of both ligands, specifically in the type I receptor binding site. Lastly, substitution of GDF11 residues into GDF8 confers enhanced activity to GDF8. CONCLUSIONS: These studies identify distinctive structural features of GDF11 that enhance its potency, relative to GDF8; however, the biological consequences of these differences remain to be determined.