Differential stimulation of pancreatic-polypeptide and gastrin secretion by bombesin in man

Bombesin, besides many other actions on the mammalian gastroentero-pancreatic tract, strongly stimulates the release of pancreatic-polypeptide (PP) in dogs. In 8 healthy human volunteers (5 males, 3 females), the PP response during bombesin infusion was low (25.7 ± 6.3 peak vs. 5.0 ± 2.0 basal pmol/1) compared to the effect of a protein meal (144.1 ± 13.4 pmol/1) or to the gastrin response to the same dose of the amphibian polypeptide (140.0 ± 23.6 pmol/1 eq SHG 17 I). The response pattern of PP and gastrin was different as PP concentrations peaked 10 min after cessation of bombesin infusion (32.0 ± 4.9 pmol/1) when gastrin concentrations already were down to one third of the maximal response. Atropine inhibited the PP response to bombesin but did not abolish it completely. It is concluded that in man, the total effect of bombesin on PP secretion is minor compared both to the effect of the peptide on gastrin secretion in man and to the effect of bombesin in dogs. It is suggested that bombesin might have a dual, inhibitory-stimulatory, effect on PP secretion in man.     

A model for population regulation with density- and frequency-dependent selection

The life-cycle of a species with separate generations is divided into a reproduction phase and a growing-up phase. In the reproduction phase we assume random mating and selection due to genotype differences in fecundity of the parents and viability of the offspring. During the growing-up phase we assume a (deterministic) death process in continuous time with death rates for the genotypes which increase linearly with the genotype population sizes.In the absence of genotype differences the model gives logistic population regulation. With genotype differences the model generalizes the usual separate generations selection patterns. In addition to these we exhibit cases with three polymorphic equilibria or with a stable cycle.     

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.     

Interaction of a non-peptide agonist with angiotensin II AT1 receptor mutants

To identify residues of the rat AT1A angiotensin II receptor involved with signal transduction and binding of the non-peptide agonist L-162,313 (5,7-dimethyl-2-ethyl-3-[[4-[2(n-butyloxycarbonylsulfonamido)-5-isobutyl-3-thienyl]phenyl]methyl]imidazol[4,5,6]-pyridine) we have performed ligand binding and inositol phosphate turnover assays in COS-7 cells transiently transfected with the wild-type and mutant forms of the receptor. Mutant receptors bore modifications in the extracellular region: T88H, Y92H, G1961, G196W, and D278E. Compound L-162,313 displaced [125I]-Sar1,Leu8-AngII from the mutants G196I and G196W with IC50 values similar to that of the wild-type. The affinity was, however, slightly affected by the D278E mutation and more significantly by the T88H and Y92H mutations. In inositol phosphate turnover assays, the ability of L-162,313 to trigger the activation cascade was compared with that of angiotensin II. These assays showed that the G196W mutant reached a relative maximum activation exceeding that of the wild-type receptor; the efficacy was slightly reduced in the G1961 mutant and further reduced in the T88H, Y92H, and D278E mutants. Our data suggest that residues of the extracellular domain of the AT1 receptor are involved in the binding of the non-peptide ligand, or in a general receptor activation phenomenon that involves conformational modifications for a preferential binding of agonists or antagonists.     

Characterization of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor beta-arrestin 2 interaction: a high-affinity receptor phenotype

To dissect the interaction between beta-arrestin ((beta)arr) and family B G protein-coupled receptors, we constructed fusion proteins between the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor and (beta)arr2. The fusion constructs had an increase in apparent affinity selectively for glucagon, suggesting that (beta)arr2 interaction locks the receptor in a high-affinity conformation, which can be explored by some, but not all, ligands. The fusion constructs adopted a signaling phenotype governed by the tethered (beta)arr2 with an attenuated G protein-mediated cAMP signal and a higher maximal internalization compared with wild-type receptors. This distinct phenotype of the fusion proteins can not be mimicked by coexpressing wild-type receptor with (beta)arr2. However, when the wild-type receptor was coexpressed with both (beta)arr2 and G protein-coupled receptor kinase 5, a phenotype similar to that observed for the fusion constructs was observed. We conclude that the glucagon-like peptide 1 fusion construct mimics the natural interaction of the receptor with (beta)arr2 with respect to binding peptide ligands, G protein-mediated signaling and internalization, and that this distinct molecular phenotype is reminiscent of that which has previously been characterized for family A G protein-coupled receptors, suggesting similarities in the effect of (beta)arr interaction between family A and B receptors also at the molecular level.     

Molecular mechanism of AMD3100 antagonism in the CXCR4 receptor: transfer of binding site to the CXCR3 receptor

AMD3100 is a symmetric bicyclam, prototype non-peptide antagonist of the CXCR4 chemokine receptor. Mutational substitutions at 16 positions located in TM-III, -IV, -V, -VI, and -VII lining the main ligand-binding pocket of the CXCR4 receptor identified three acid residues: Asp(171) (AspIV:20), Asp(262) (AspVI:23), and Glu(288) (GluVII:06) as the main interaction points for AMD3100. Molecular modeling suggests that one cyclam ring of AMD3100 interacts with Asp(171) in TM-IV, whereas the other ring is sandwiched between the carboxylic acid groups of Asp(262) and Glu(288) from TM-VI and -VII, respectively. Metal ion binding in the cyclam rings of AMD3100 increased its dependence on Asp(262) and provided a tighter molecular map of the binding site, where borderline mutational hits became clear hits for the Zn(II)-loaded analog. The proposed binding site for AMD3100 was confirmed by a gradual build-up in the rather distinct CXCR3 receptor, for which the compound normally had no effect. Introduction of only a Glu at position VII:06 and the removal of a neutralizing Lys residue at position VII:02 resulted in a 1000-fold increase in affinity of AMD3100 to within 10-fold of its affinity in CXCR4. We conclude that AMD3100 binds through interactions with essentially only three acidic anchor-point residues, two of which are located at one end and the third at the opposite end of the main ligand-binding pocket of the CXCR4 receptor. We suggest that non-peptide antagonists with, for example, improved oral bioavailability can be designed to mimic this interaction and thereby efficiently and selectively block the CXCR4 receptor.