Article

Antagonist binding profile of the split chimeric muscarinic m2-trunc/m3-tail receptor.

Department of Neuroscience, University of Pisa, Italy.
European Journal of Pharmacology (Impact Factor: 2.59). 09/1998; 355(2-3):267-74. DOI: 10.1016/S0014-2999(98)00485-3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Recent evidence suggests that G-protein-coupled receptors can behave as multiple subunit receptors, and can be split into parts, maintaining their binding ability. Transfection of a truncated muscarinic m2 receptor (containing transmembrane domains I-V, named m2-trunc) with a gene fragment coding for the carboxyl-terminal receptor portion of the muscarinic m3 receptor (containing transmembrane domains VI and VII, named m3-tail) results in the formation of a binding site with a high affinity for the muscarinic ligand N-[3H]methylscopolamine. In this paper we analyse the antagonist binding profile of this chimeric m2-trunc/m3-tail receptor in comparison with the wild-type muscarinic m2 and m3 receptors. While many of the substances tested had an intermediate affinity for the chimeric m2-trunc/m3-tail receptor compared with m2 and m3, some compounds were able to distinguish between the chimeric m2-trunc/m3-tail receptor on the one hand and the m2 or the m3 receptor on the other. Among them, tripitramine (a high-affinity M2 receptor antagonist) bound to the m2-trunc/m3-tail receptor with the same affinity as m2, but it bound to the m3 receptor with a 103-fold lower affinity; pirenzepine (a selective muscarinic M1 receptor antagonist) bound to the chimeric receptor with an affinity that was 12- and 3-fold higher than that of m2 and m3, respectively. The results of this study demonstrate that the chimeric m2-trunc/m3-tail receptor has a pharmacological profile distinct from that of the originating muscarinic m2 and m3 receptors.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
61 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: MOTIVATION: Previous work had established that it was possible to derive sparse signatures (essentially sequence-length motifs) by examining points of contact between residues in proteins of known three-dimensional (3D) structure. Many interesting protein families have very little tertiary structural information. Methods for deriving signatures using only primary and secondary-structural information were therefore developed. RESULTS: Two methods for deriving protein signatures using protein sequence information and predicted secondary structures are described. One method is based on a scoring approach, the other on the Genetic Algorithm (GA). The effectiveness of the method was tested on the superfamily of GPCRs and compared with the established hidden Markov model (HMM) method. The signature method is shown to perform well, detecting 68% of superfamily members before the first false positive sequence and detecting several distant relationships. The GA population was used to provide information on alignment regions of particular importance for selection of key residues.
    Bioinformatics 05/2003; 19(6):727-34. · 5.32 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We compared the binding properties of selective muscarinic antagonists with their potencies for antagonizing muscarinic responses in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells expressing M(2) and M(3) muscarinic receptors in combination and in isolation. When measured by the competitive displacement of [3H]N-methylscopolamine binding to CHO cells expressing both M(2) and M(3) muscarinic receptors (CHO M(2)+M(3) cells), the competition curves of the subtype-selective muscarinic antagonists were consistent with a two-site model. One site exhibited binding properties identical to those of CHO M(2) cells, whereas the other site exhibited properties like those of CHO M(3) cells. Oxotremorine-M, a muscarinic agonist, elicited a robust, pertussis toxin-insensitive stimulation of phosphoinositide hydrolysis in both CHO M(3) and CHO M(2)+M(3) cells, but not in CHO M(2) cells. The pharmacological antagonism of the phosphoinositide response exhibited similar properties in both CHO M(3) and CHO M(2)+M(3) cells. Oxotremorine-M elicited a pertussis toxin-sensitive, robust inhibition of forskolin-stimulated cyclic AMP (cAMP) accumulation in both CHO M(2) and CHO M(2)+M(3) cells and a less robust inhibition in CHO M(3) cells. At higher concentrations, oxotremorine-M elicited an increase in cAMP accumulation over the maximal inhibition noted at lower concentrations in both CHO M(3) and CHO M(2)+M(3) cells. Following pertussis toxin treatment, only the stimulatory phase of the cAMP response to oxotremorine-M was observed in CHO M(2), CHO M(3), and CHO M(2)+M(3) cells. The pharmacological antagonism of the cAMP response in CHO M(2)+M(3) cells resembled that expected for a response mediated independently by both M(2) and M(3) receptors.
    Biochemical Pharmacology 05/2003; 65(8):1227-41. · 4.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The concept that polyamines may represent a universal template in the receptor recognition process is embodied in the design of ligands for different biological targets. As a matter of fact, the insertion of different pharmacophores onto the polymethylene tetraamine backbone can tune both affinity and selectivity for any given receptor. The application of this approach provided a prospect of modifying benextramine (1). structure to achieve specific recognition of muscarinic receptors that led to the discovery of methoctramine (2). which is widely used as a pharmacological tool for muscarinic receptor characterization. In turn, appropriate structural modifications performed on the structure of methoctramine led to the discovery of new polyamines endowed with high affinity and selectivity for (a). muscarinic receptor subtypes, (b). G(i) proteins, and (c). muscle-type nicotinic receptors. Thus, polyamines tripitramine (9) and spirotramine (33), among others, were designed, which were shown to be highly selective for muscarinic M(2) and M(1) receptors, respectively. Several polyamines have been discovered, which inhibit noncompetitively a closed state of the nicotinic receptor. These ligands, such as 66, resulted in important tools for elucidating the mode and site of interaction of polyamines with the ion channel. It was discovered that reducing the flexibility of the diaminohexane spacer of methoctramine led to polyamines, such as 70, which are endowed with a biological profile significantly different from that of the prototype. Most likely, tetraamine (70) is a potent activator of G(i) proteins. Finally, the universal template approach formed the basis for modifying benextramine (1) structure to the design of ligands, which display affinity for acetylcholinesterase and muscarinic M(2) receptors. Thus, these polyamines, such as caproctamine (78), could have potential in the investigation of Alzheimer disease.
    Medicinal Research Reviews 04/2003; 23(2):200-33. · 9.58 Impact Factor