Allosteric modulation of adenosine A1 receptor coupling to G-proteins in brain

2-Amino-4,5,6,7-tetrahydrobenzo(beta)thiophen-3-yl 4-chlorophenylmethanone (T62) is a member of a group of allosteric modulators of adenosine A1 receptors tested in animal models of neuropathic pain to increase the efficacy of adenosine. To determine its mechanisms at the level of receptor-G-protein activation, the present studies examined the effect of T62 on A1-stimulated [35S]guanosine-5'-O-(gamma-thio)-triphosphate ([35S]GTPgammaS) binding in brain membranes, and by [35S]GTPgammaS autoradiography using the A1 agonist, phenylisopropyladenosine (PIA), to activate G-proteins. In hippocampal membranes, T62 increased both basal and PIA-stimulated [35S]GTPgammaS binding. The effect of T62 was non-competitive in nature, since it increased the maximal effect of PIA, with no effect on agonist potency. GTPgammaS saturation analysis showed that T62 increased the number of G-proteins activated by agonist but had no effect on the affinity of activated G-proteins for GTPgammaS. [35S]GTPgammaS autoradiography showed that the neuroanatomical localization of T62-stimulated [35S]GTPgammaS binding was identical to that of PIA-stimulated activity. The increase in PIA-stimulated activity by T62 varied between brain regions, with areas of lower A1 activation producing the largest percent modulation by T62. These results suggest a mechanism of allosteric modulators to increase the number of activated G-proteins per receptor, and provide a neuroanatomical basis for understanding potential therapeutic effects of such drugs.     

Subtype differences in pre-coupling of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors

Based on the kinetics of interaction between a receptor and G-protein, a myriad of possibilities may result. Two extreme cases are represented by: 1/Collision coupling, where an agonist binds to the free receptor and then the agonist-receptor complex "collides" with the free G-protein. 2/Pre-coupling, where stable receptor/G-protein complexes exist in the absence of agonist. Pre-coupling plays an important role in the kinetics of signal transduction. Odd-numbered muscarinic acetylcholine receptors preferentially couple to G(q/11), while even-numbered receptors prefer coupling to G(i/o). We analyzed the coupling status of the various subtypes of muscarinic receptors with preferential and non-preferential G-proteins. The magnitude of receptor-G-protein coupling was determined by the proportion of receptors existing in the agonist high-affinity binding conformation. Antibodies directed against the C-terminus of the α-subunits of the individual G-proteins were used to interfere with receptor-G-protein coupling. Effects of mutations and expression level on receptor-G-protein coupling were also investigated. Tested agonists displayed biphasic competition curves with the antagonist [(3)H]-N-methylscopolamine. Antibodies directed against the C-terminus of the α-subunits of the preferential G-protein decreased the proportion of high-affinity sites, and mutations at the receptor-G-protein interface abolished agonist high-affinity binding. In contrast, mutations that prevent receptor activation had no effect. Expression level of preferential G-proteins had no effect on pre-coupling to non-preferential G-proteins. Our data show that all subtypes of muscarinic receptors pre-couple with their preferential classes of G-proteins, but only M(1) and M(3) receptors also pre-couple with non-preferential G(i/o) G-proteins. Pre-coupling is not dependent on agonist efficacy nor on receptor activation. The ultimate mode of coupling is therefore dictated by a combination of the receptor subtype and the class of G-protein.     

Diffusion-limited reactions in G-protein activation: unexpected consequences of antagonist and agonist competition

In this work, we ask whether the simultaneous movement of agonist and antagonist among surface receptors (i.e. continually associating and dissociating from individual receptors according to specified kinetics) has any unexpected consequences for G-protein activation and receptor desensitization. A Monte Carlo model framework is used to track the diffusion and reaction of individual receptors, allowing the requirement for receptors and G-proteins or receptors and kinases to find each other by diffusion (collision coupling) to be implemented explicitly. We find that at constant agonist occupancy the effect of an antagonist on both G-protein activation and the ratio of G-protein activation to receptor desensitization can be modulated by varying the antagonist dissociation kinetics. The explanation for this effect is that antagonist dissociation kinetics influence the ability of agonists to access particular receptors and thus reach G-proteins and kinases near those receptors. Relevant parameter ranges for observation of these effects are identified. These results are useful for understanding experimental and therapeutic situations when both agonist and antagonist are present, and in addition may offer new insights into insurmountable antagonism.     

Collision coupling, crosstalk, and compartmentalization in G-protein coupled receptor systems: can a single model explain disparate results?

The collision coupling model describes interactions between receptors and G-proteins as first requiring the molecules to find each other by diffusion. A variety of experimental data on G-protein activation have been interpreted as suggesting (or not) the compartmentalization of receptors and/or G-proteins in addition to a collision coupling mechanism. In this work, we use a mathematical model of G-protein activation via collision coupling but without compartmentalization to demonstrate that these disparate observations do not imply the existence of such compartments. In experiments with GTP analogs (commonly GTPγS), the extent of G-protein activation is predicted to be a function of both receptor number and the rate of GTP analog hydrolysis. The sensitivity of G-protein activation to receptor number is shown to be dependent upon the assay used, with the sensitivity of phosphate production assays (GTPase) >GTPγS-binding assays >cAMP inhibition assays. Finally, the amount of competition or crosstalk between receptor species activating the same type of G-proteins is predicted to depend on receptor and G-protein number, but in some (common) experimental regimes this dependence is expected to be minimal. Taken together, these observations suggest that the collision coupling model, without compartments of receptors and/or G-proteins, is sufficient to explain a variety of observations in literature data.     

Feeding after fourth ventricular administration of neuropeptide Y receptor agonists in rats

Neuropeptide Y (NPY) and peptide YY (PYY) stimulate food intake after injection into the fourth cerebral ventricle, suggesting that NPY receptors in the hindbrain are targets for the stimulatory effect of these peptides on food intake. However, the NPY/PYY receptor subtype mediating the feeding response in the hindbrain is not known. To approach to this question we compared dose-effect of several NPY receptor agonists to stimulate food intake in freely-feeding rats 60- and 120-min after injection into the fourth cerebral ventricle. At the 120-min time point, PYY was 2- to 10-times as potent as NPY over the dose-response range and stimulated twice the total intake at the maximally effective dose (2-fold greater efficacy). NPY was 2-times as potent as the Y1, Y5 receptor agonist, [Leu(31)Pro(34)]NPY but acted with comparable efficacy. The Y5-, Y2-differentiating receptor agonist, NPY 2-36, was comparable in potency to PYY at low doses but equal in efficacy NPY and [Leu(31)Pro(34)]NPY. The Y2 receptor agonist, NPY 13-36, produced only a marginal effect on total food intake. The profile of agonist potency after fourth cerebral ventricle administration is similar to the profile obtained when these or related agonists are injected in the region of the hypothalamus. Agonists at both Y1 and Y5 receptors stimulated food intake with a rank order of potency that does not conclusively favor the exclusive involvement of a single known NPY receptor subtype. Thus it is possible that the ingestive effects of NPY and PYY are mediated by multiple or novel receptor subtypes in the hindbrain. And the relatively greater potency and efficacy of PYY raises the possibility that a novel PYY-preferring receptor in the hindbrain is involved in the stimulation of food intake.     

Enhanced electron transfer by GTP: cross-membrane electron signaling by G-proteins?

Activation of several receptor types is followed by their binding to a G-protein. Prior to transmission of the agonist signal, the G-protein which had affinity for guanosine 5-diphosphate (GDP) binds guanosine 5-triphosphate (GTP) instead. Because evidence exists that several agonist groups activate their receptors by reduction, we evaluated whether the nucleotide associated with G-proteins could enhance electron flow. Using a model system of ferrous iron and ferric cytochrome c, it was determined that substitution of GTP for GDP led to an enhanced reduction of ferric cytochrome c. These results support the concept that cellular activation by certain receptors may involve reductive activation with the participation of GTP and G-proteins. We speculate that GTP, when bound to G-protein, can facilitate electron transfer perhaps from the receptor or the G-protein to the catalytic subunit of the adenylate cyclase enzyme.     

Signal transduction of eicosanoid CB1 receptor ligands.

The eicosanoid ligand, arachidonylethanolamide (anandamide), interacts with the CB1 cannabinoid receptor in the brain to signal its response. Pharmacophoric points of interaction between this agonist and the receptor have been proposed based upon structure-activity relationship studies of ligand binding to the receptor. Three dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship (3D-QSAR) models have been constructed based upon the corresponding pharmacophoric points predicted for cannabinoid ligands delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol and 9-nor-9beta-hydroxyhexa-hydrocannabinol. A novel data set has been used to test the statistical validity of these models. Once the ligand interacts with the CB1 receptor, signal transduction occurs via G-proteins of the Gi/o family which are shown to be associated with the receptor. Evidence suggests that the juxtamembrane region of the C-terminal of the CB1 receptor is critical for activation of these G-proteins.     

Agonist-independent phosphorylation of purified cardiac muscarinic cholinergic receptors by protein kinase C

The results of several studies have suggested that muscarinic cholinergic receptors (mAChR) may be regulated by multiple pathways involving phosphorylation of the receptors. Previous studies have demonstrated that chick heart mAChR are phosphorylated by the beta-adrenergic receptor kinase (beta-AR kinase) in an agonist-dependent manner, and it has been suggested that this process may be linked to receptor desensitization. In this work, we present evidence that protein kinase C can phosphorylate the purified, reconstituted chick heart mAChR and can modify the interaction of the receptors with GTP binding proteins (G-proteins) that couple the receptors to effectors. Phosphorylation of the mAChR with protein kinase C occurred to an extent of approximately 5 mol of P/mol of receptor. Neither the rate nor the extent of the protein kinase C mediated phosphorylation of mAChR was agonist-dependent. Under the conditions tested, the initial rate of phosphorylation of the mAChR by protein kinase C was significantly more rapid than that obtained with the beta-AR kinase. At equilibrium, phosphorylation of mAChR by protein kinase C and beta-AR kinase was partially additive. The functional effects of protein kinase C mediated phosphorylation of the mAChR were assessed by comparing the abilities of purified G-proteins (Gi and Go) to reconstitute high-affinity agonist binding to phosphorylated and nonphosphorylated receptors. A significantly larger percentage of the receptors phosphorylated with protein kinase C exhibited G-protein-dependent high-affinity agonist binding, suggesting that phosphorylation of the receptors by protein kinase C modulates receptor function in a positive manner.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Mutagenesis of the GABA(A) receptor alpha1 subunit reveals a domain that affects sensitivity to GABA and benzodiazepine-site ligands

We have mutated several amino acids in the region of the GABA(A) receptor alpha1 subunit predicted to form a small extracellular loop between transmembrane domains two and three to investigate its possible role in ligand sensitivity. The mutations were S275T, L276A, P277A, V279A, A280S and Y281F. Mutant alpha1 subunits were co-expressed with beta2 and gamma2 subunits in tsA201 cells or Xenopus oocytes. Binding studies revealed that the only mutation that significantly affected [3H]Ro15-4513 binding was the V279A substitution which reduced the affinity for this ligand. Electrophysiological examination of mutant receptors revealed that L276A, P277A and V279A displayed rightward shifts of their GABA concentration-response curves, the largest occurring with the L276A mutant. The impact of these mutations on allosteric modulation by benzodiazepine-site ligands was examined. V279A reduced the potency of both flunitrazepam and Ro15-4513 but, in each case, their efficacy was enhanced. A280S resulted in a decrease in flunitrazepam efficacy without affecting its potency. Additionally, P277A and A280S resulted in Ro15-4513 losing its inverse agonist effect at these receptors. These results suggest that a domain within this small extracellular loop between TMII-TMIII plays a role in determining the sensitivity of GABA(A) receptors to both GABA and benzodiazepine-site ligands.     

Activation of solubilized G-proteins by muscarinic acetylcholine receptors

Binding of GTP and its analogue, guanosine 5′-O-[γ-thio]triphosphate (GTP[S]) to G-proteins, and release of GTP[S] from G-proteins are stimulated by muscarinic acetylcholine (mACh) receptors in intact cardiac membranes. Upon solubilization of receptors and G-proteins by membrane extraction with the detergent, 3-[(cholamidopropyl)dimethylammonio]-1-propanesulphonate, followed by sucrose density gradient centrifugation, agonist-liganded mACh receptors stimulated binding of GTP[S] and hydrolysis of GTP by G-proteins with similar requirements as in intact membranes. One soluble agonist-activated mACh receptor induced binding of GTP[S] to several (about seven) soluble G-proteins. In contrast to intact membranes, however, agonist activation of mACh receptors did not induce release of GTP[S] from solubilized G-proteins. The data presented indicate that mACh receptors can interact with and efficiently activate G-proteins even in solution, whereas the possible interaction of receptors with GTP[S]-liganded G-proteins observed in intact membranes is lost upon solubilization of these components.     

Ago-Allosteric Modulation and Other Types of Allostery in Dimeric 7TM Receptors

Conventionally, an allosteric modulator is neutral in respect of efficacy and binds to a receptor site distant from the orthosteric site of the endogenous agonist. However, recently compounds being ago-allosteric modulators have been described i.e., compounds acting both as agonists on their own and as enhancers for the endogenous agonists in both increasing agonist potency and providing additive efficacy—superagonism. The additive efficacy can also be observed with agonists, which are neutral or even negative modulators of the potency of the endogenous ligand. Based on the prevailing dimeric concept for 7TM receptors, it is proposed that the ago-allosteric modulators bind in the orthosteric binding site, but–importantly–in the “other” or allosteric protomer of the dimer. Hereby, they can act both as additive co-agonists, and through intermolecular cooperative effects between the protomers, they may influence the potency of the endogenous agonist. It is of interest that at least some endogenous agonists can only occupy one protomer of a dimeric 7TM receptor complex at a time and thereby they leave the orthosteric binding site in the allosteric protomer free, potentially for binding of exogenous, allosteric modulators. If the allosteric modulator is an agonist, it is an ago-allosteric modulator; if it is neutral, it is a classical enhancer. Molecular mapping in hetero-dimeric class-C receptors, where the endogenous agonist clearly binds only in one protomer, supports the notion that allosteric modulators can act through binding in the “other” protomer. It is suggested that for the in vivo, clinical setting a positive ago-allosteric modulator should be the preferred agonist drug.     

A low molecular weight agonist signals by binding to the transmembrane domain of thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor (TSHR) and luteinizing hormone/chorionic gonadotropin receptor (LHCGR)

Many cognate low molecular weight (LMW) agonists bind to seven transmembrane-spanning receptors within their transmembrane helices (TMHs). The thienopyrimidine org41841 was identified previously as an agonist for the luteinizing hormone/chorionic gonadotropin receptor (LHCGR) and suggested to bind within its TMHs because it did not compete for LH binding to the LHCGR ectodomain. Because of its high homology with LHCGR, we predicted that thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor (TSHR) might be activated by org41841 also. We show that org41841 is a partial agonist for TSHR but with lower potency than for LHCGR. Analysis of three-dimensional molecular models of TSHR and LHCGR predicted a binding pocket for org41841 in common clefts between TMHs 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and extracellular loop 2 in both receptors. Evidence for this binding pocket was obtained in signaling studies with chimeric receptors that exhibited improved responses to org41841. Furthermore, a key receptor-ligand interaction between the highly conserved negatively charged E3.37 and the amino group of org41841 predicted by docking of the ligand into the three-dimensional TSHR model was experimentally confirmed. These findings provide the first evidence that, in contrast to the ectodomain binding of cognate ligands, a LMW agonist can bind to and activate glycoprotein hormone receptors via interaction with their transmembrane domain.     

Cloned M1 muscarinic receptors mediate both adenylate cyclase inhibition and phosphoinositide turnover

The rat M1 muscarinic receptor gene was cloned and expressed in a rat cell line lacking endogenous muscarinic receptors. Assignment of the cloned receptors to the M1 class was pharmacologically confirmed by their high affinity for the M1-selective muscarinic antagonist pirenzepine and low affinity for the M2-selective antagonist AF-DX-116. Guanylyl imidodiphosphate [Gpp(NH)p] converted agonist binding sites on the receptor, from high-affinity to the low-affinity state, thus indicating that the cloned receptors couple to endogenous G-proteins. The cloned receptors mediated both adenylate cyclase inhibition and phosphoinositide hydrolysis, but by different mechanisms. Pertussis toxin blocked the inhibition of adenylate cyclase (indicating coupling of the receptor to inhibitory G-protein), but did not affect phosphoinositide turnover. Furthermore, the stimulation of phosphoinositide hydrolysis was less efficient than the inhibition of adenylate cyclase. These findings demonstrate that cloned M1 receptors are capable of mediating multiple responses in the cell by coupling to different effectors, possibly to different G-proteins.     

Probing the effects of residues located outside the agonist binding site on drug-receptor selectivity in the nicotinic receptor

The nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) are a family of closely related but pharmacologically distinct neurotransmitter-gated ion channels. They are therapeutic targets for a wide range of neurological disorders, and a key issue in drug development is selective targeting among the more than 20 subtypes of nAChRs that are known. The present work evaluates a proposed hydrogen bonding interaction involving a residue known as the "loop B glycine" that distinguishes receptors that are highly responsive to ACh and nicotine from those that are much less so. We have performed structure-function studies on the loop B site, including unnatural amino acid mutagenesis, in three different nAChR subtypes and found that the correlation between agonist potency and this residue is strong. Low potency receptor subtypes have a glycine at this key site, and mutation to a residue with a side chain converts a low potency receptor to a high potency receptor. Innately high potency receptors have a lysine at the loop B site and show a decrease in potency for the reverse mutation (i.e., introducing a glycine). This residue lies outside of the agonist binding site, and studies of other residues at the agonist binding site show that the details of how changes at the loop B glycine site impact agonist potency vary for differing receptor subtypes. This suggests a model in which the loop B residue influences the global shape of the agonist binding site rather than modulating any specific interaction.     

Thermostabilization of the Neurotensin Receptor NTS1

Structural studies on G-protein-coupled receptors have been hampered for many years by their instability in detergent solution and by the number of potential conformations that receptors can adopt. Recently, the structures of the β₁ and β₂ adrenergic receptors and the adenosine A_2a receptor were determined in the antagonist-bound state, a receptor conformation that is thought to be more stable than the agonist-bound state. In contrast to these receptors, the neurotensin (NT) receptor NTS1 is much less stable in detergent solution. We have therefore used a systematic mutational approach coupled with activity assays to identify receptor mutants suitable for crystallization, both alone and in complex with the peptide agonist NT. The best receptor mutant NTS1-7m contained four point mutations. It showed increased stability compared to the wild-type receptor, in the absence of ligand, after solubilization with a variety of detergents. In addition, NTS1-7m bound to NT was more stable than unliganded NTS1-7m. Of the four thermostabilizing mutations, only one residue (A86L) is predicted to be in the lipid environment. In contrast, I260A appears to be buried within the transmembrane helix bundle, F342A may form a distant part of the putative ligand-binding site, whereas F358A is likely to be in a region that is important for receptor activation. NTS1-7m binds NT with a similar affinity for the wild-type receptor. However, agonist dissociation was slower, and NTS1-7m activated G-proteins poorly. The affinity of NTS1-7m for the antagonist SR48692 was also lower than that of the wild-type receptor. Thus, we have successfully stabilized NTS1 in an agonist-binding conformation that does not efficiently couple to G-proteins.     

Reversal of agonist selectivity by mutations of conserved amino acids in the binding site of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors

Homomeric alpha7 and heteromeric alpha4beta2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR) can be distinguished by their pharmacological properties, including agonist specificity. We introduced point mutations of conserved amino acids within the C loop, a region of the receptor critical for agonist binding, and we examined the expression of the mutant receptors in Xenopus oocytes. Mutation of either a conserved C loop tyrosine (188) to phenylalanine or a nearby conserved aspartate (197) to alanine resulted in alpha7 receptors for which the alpha7-selective agonist 3-(4-hydroxy, 2-methoxybenzylidene) anabaseine (4OH-GTS-21) had roughly the same potency as for wild-type receptors, whereas the physiologic agonist acetylcholine (ACh) showed drastically reduced potency for these mutant receptors. Corresponding mutations in alpha4 receptors co-expressed with beta2 resulted in alpha4beta2 receptors for which ACh potency was relatively unchanged, although the efficacy of the alpha7-selective agonist 4OH-GTS-21 was increased greatly relative to that of ACh. We also investigated the significance of a conserved lysine (145 in alpha7), proposed to form a stable salt bridge with Asp-197 in the resting state of the receptor. Mutations of this residue in both alpha7 and alpha4 resulted in receptors that were largely unresponsive to both ACh and 4OH-GTS-21. Our results suggest that initiation of gating depends both on specific interactions between residues in the C loop domain and, depending on receptor subtype, the physiochemical properties of the agonist, so that in the altered environment of the alpha4Y190F-binding site, large hydrophobic benzylidene anabaseines may close the C loop and initiate channel gating more effectively than the polar agonist ACh.     

Ago-allosteric modulation and other types of allostery in dimeric 7TM receptors

Conventionally, an allosteric modulator is neutral in respect of efficacy and binds to a receptor site distant from the orthosteric site of the endogenous agonist. However, recently compounds being ago-allosteric modulators have been described i.e., compounds acting both as agonists on their own and as enhancers for the endogenous agonists in both increasing agonist potency and providing additive efficacy-superagonism. The additive efficacy can also be observed with agonists, which are neutral or even negative modulators of the potency of the endogenous ligand. Based on the prevailing dimeric concept for 7TM receptors, it is proposed that the ago-allosteric modulators bind in the orthosteric binding site, but-importantly-in the "other" or allosteric protomer of the dimer. Hereby, they can act both as additive co-agonists, and through intermolecular cooperative effects between the protomers, they may influence the potency of the endogenous agonist. It is of interest that at least some endogenous agonists can only occupy one protomer of a dimeric 7TM receptor complex at a time and thereby they leave the orthosteric binding site in the allosteric protomer free, potentially for binding of exogenous, allosteric modulators. If the allosteric modulator is an agonist, it is an ago-allosteric modulator; if it is neutral, it is a classical enhancer. Molecular mapping in hetero-dimeric class-C receptors, where the endogenous agonist clearly binds only in one protomer, supports the notion that allosteric modulators can act through binding in the "other" protomer. It is suggested that for the in vivo, clinical setting a positive ago-allosteric modulator should be the preferred agonist drug.     

Design of non-peptide agonists and antagonists at neuropeptide receptors starting from the chemical structure of neuropeptides

Non-peptide small-molecule antagonists for cholecystokinin (CCK)-A and -B receptors, tachykinin NK-1, NK-2 and NK-3 receptors and bombesin BB-1 receptors have been designed and synthesized starting from the chemical structure of the endogenous mammalian neuropeptides cholecystokinin, substance-P and bombesin, respectively. A non-peptide CCK-A agonist, with weak potency but high efficacy, was also identified from the same strategy.     

Design of non-peptide agonists and antagonists at neuropeptide receptors starting from the chemical structure of neuropeptides

Summary Non-peptide small-molecule antagonists for cholecystokinin (CCK)-A and-B receptors, tachykinin NK-1, NK-2 and NK-3 receptors and bombesin BB-1 receptors have been designed and synthesized starting from the chemical structure of the endogenous mammalian neuropeptides cholecystokinin, substance-P and bombesin, respectively. A non-peptide CCK-A agonist, with weak potency but high efficacy, was also identified from the same strategy.     

Discovery of 1,1-dioxo-1,2,6-thiadiazine-5-carboxamide derivatives as cannabinoid-like molecules with agonist and antagonist activity

A series of new 2-substituted 1,1-dioxo-1,2,6-thiadiazine-5-carboxylate derivatives have been prepared from monosubstituted sulfamides in order to obtain N-substituted 1,1-dioxo-1,2,6-thiadiazine-5-carboxamides as novel cannabinoid derivatives, analogues of Rimonabant (SR141716A). Their potential functional activity on cannabinoid receptors has been evaluated in vitro and in vivo in mice, showing that two compounds (37 and 39) behave as cannabinoid agonists in vitro. Their potency is lower than that of the reference compound, WIN 55,212-2, but their efficacy is similar to that of this cannabinoid agonist, although no in vivo activity is observed. Another derivative (38) behaves as a cannabinoid antagonist both in vitro and in vivo, being its efficacy and potency similar to that of the well-known antagonist SR141716A.