Ligand-directed signalling within the opioid receptor family

Semel Institute for Neuropsychiatry & Human Behavior, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA Shirley and Stefan Hatos Center for Neuropharmacology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA Institut de Génétique et de Biologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique/Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale/Université de Strasbourg, Illkirch, France.
British Journal of Pharmacology (Impact Factor: 4.99). 06/2012; 167(5):960-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2012.02075.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The classic model of GPCR activation proposed that all agonists induce the same active receptor conformation. However, research over the last decade has shown that GPCRs exist in multiple conformations, and that agonists can stabilize different active states. The distinct receptor conformations induced by ligands result in distinct receptor-effector complexes, which produce varying levels of activation or inhibition of subsequent signalling cascades. This concept, referred to as ligand-directed signalling or biased agonism has important biological and therapeutic implications. Opioid receptors are G(i/o) GPCRs and regulate a number of important physiological functions, including pain, reward, mood, stress, gastrointestinal transport and respiration. A number of in vitro studies have shown biased agonism at the three opioid receptors (µ, δ and κ); however, in vivo consequences of this phenomenon have only recently been demonstrated. For the µ and δ opioid receptors, the majority of reported ligand selective behavioural effects are observed as differential adaptations to repeated drug administration. In terms of the κ opioid receptor, clear links between ligand-selective signalling events and specific in vivo responses have been recently characterized. Drugs for all three receptors are either already used or are being developed for clinical applications. There is clearly a need to better characterize the specific events that occur following agonist stimulation and how these relate to in vivo responses. This understanding could eventually lead to the development of tailor-made pharmacotherapies where advantageous drug effects can be selectively targeted over adverse effects.

Download full-text


Available from: Monique Leana Smith, Apr 25, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Twelve years after the publication of the first crystal structure of a G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR), experimental crystal structures of the four opioid receptor subtypes have made their entrance into the literature in the most extraordinary way, that is, all at once. Not only do these crystal structures contribute unprecedented molecular details of opioid ligand binding and specificity, but they also represent important tools for structure-based approaches to guide the discovery of safer and more efficient opioid therapeutics. We provide here an overview of these latest breakthroughs in the structural biology of GPCRs with a focus on differences and similarities between the four opioid receptor structures, as well as their limitations, in the context of challenges for translation of this new knowledge from bench to bedside.
    Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 11/2012; 34(1). DOI:10.1016/ · 9.99 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The roles of opioid receptors in pain and addiction have been extensively studied, but their function in mood disorders has received less attention. Accumulating evidence from animal research reveals that mu, delta and kappa opioid receptors (MORs, DORs and KORs, respectively) exert highly distinct controls over mood-related processes. DOR agonists and KOR antagonists have promising antidepressant potential, whereas the risk-benefit ratio of currently available MOR agonists as antidepressants remains difficult to evaluate, in addition to their inherent abuse liability. To date, both human and animal studies have mainly examined MORs in the etiology of depressive disorders, and future studies will address DOR and KOR function in established and emerging neurobiological aspects of depression, including neurogenesis, neurodevelopment, and social behaviors.
    Trends in Neurosciences 12/2012; 36(3). DOI:10.1016/j.tins.2012.11.002 · 12.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In addition to producing antinociception, opioids exert profound effects on body temperature. This study aimed at comparing antinociceptive and hyperthermic responses between two groups of μ-opioid receptor agonists: fentanyl (4-anilinopiperidine-type) and morphine (phenanthrene-type) derivatives in rats. Analgesic activity was assessed by tail immersion test and the body temperature by insertion of a thermometer probe into the colon. Fentanyl (F), (±)-cis-3-methyl fentanyl (CM), (±)-cis-3-carbomethoxy fentanyl (C), (±)trans-3-carbomethoxy fentanyl (T) and (±)-cis-3 butyl fentanyl (B) produced dose-dependent increase in antinociception and hyperthermia. The relative order of analgesic potency was: CM(11.27)>F(1)>C(0.35)≥T(0.11)≥B(0.056). Similar to this, the relative order of hyperthermic potency was: CM(8.43)>F(1)>C(0.46)≥T(0.11)≥B(0.076). Morphine (M), oxycodone (O), thebacon (T) and 6,14-ethenomorphinan-7-methanol, 4,5-epoxy-6-fluoro-3-hydroxy-α,α,17-trimethyl-, (5α,7α) (E) also produced dose-dependent increase in antinociception and hyperthermia. Among morphine derivatives the relative order of analgesic potency was: E(56)>O(5)≥T(2.6)>M(1), and similar to this, the relative order of hyperthermic potency was: E(37)>O(3)≥T(2.3)>M(1). Morphine (phenanthrene-type) and fentanyl (4-anilinopiperidine-type) derivatives produced hyperthermia in rats at doses about 2 times lower, and 6-11 times higher, than their median antinociceptive doses, respectively. This study is first to identify difference between these two classes of opioid drugs in their potencies in producing hyperthermia. Further studies are needed to clarify the significance of these findings.
    Archives of Pharmacal Research 02/2013; DOI:10.1007/s12272-013-0072-z · 1.75 Impact Factor
Show more