Vol. 60, Issue 1, 20-25, July 2001

PERSPECTIVE

Regulation of Opioid Receptor Function by Chronic Agonist Exposure: Constitutive Activity and Desensitization

Charles Chavkin, Jay P. McLaughlin, and Jeremy P. Celver

Department of Pharmacology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

	Article

Top Article References

Opium poppy extracts have been used for thousands of years to control pain, gut motility, and mood. However, chronic use of opiates can lead to tolerance, withdrawal, dependence, and addiction. Decades of study have established that the changes caused by sustained opioid receptor activation are complex and multifaceted. At the systems and behavioral levels, these changes are evident as compensatory adaptations within the neuronal circuits and adaptive learning. At the cellular level, changes in gene expression and opioid responses are evident. At the molecular level, sustained opiate receptor activation leads to changes in the efficiency of G protein activation and agonist efficacy.

Considerable progress in the molecular understanding of opioid receptor functioning followed the initial cloning of the µ-opioid receptor (MOR) (Chen et al., 1993; Fukuda et al., 1993; Wang et al., 1993). Detailed analysis of the sites in MOR responsible for ligand binding, G protein coupling, and phosphorylation-induced desensitization has emerged. For example, extensive point-mutation analysis of MOR has provided insight into the residues required for ligand affinity and selectivity (Table 1). Competition binding assays with MOR point mutants have shown that ligand binding affinity is influenced by over 20 amino acids, notably MOR D114 for full agonist binding and MOR H297N for partial agonist and antagonist binding (Surratt et al., 1994; Bot et al.; 1998; Xu et al., 1999b). Despite the involvement of numerous amino acids in conveying MOR-ligand affinity, MOR selectivity seems highly dependent on four amino acids: D128, N150, K303, and W318 (Surratt et al., 1994; Mansour et al., 1997; Xu et al., 1999a; Bonner et al., 2000; Larson et al., 2000).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   TABLE 1 Site mutations affecting ligand binding Summary of opioid ligand binding experiments with point mutated µ-opioid receptors. Schematic summarizes point-mutated amino acids in the MOR from 17 studies. Table summarizes results of competition binding assays with assorted opioid ligands using the expressed point-mutated MOR protein.

Sites within MOR responsible for G protein coupling have also been defined (Table 2). The image that emerges is one of rich complexity in which receptor functioning is highly regulated at many checkpoints. Although much of this complexity is consistent with previously characterized G protein-coupled receptors, the resulting understanding of opioid receptor regulation provides an essential foundation for further studies of opioid tolerance and addiction. In addition, the underlying molecular mechanisms can begin to be defined for certain poorly understood phenomena. One example of this is the constitutive activity of opioid receptors described by Liu and Prather (2001) presented in this issue.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   TABLE 2 Site mutations affecting G protein coupling efficiency Summary of alterations in opioid intrinsic efficacy produced by point mutation of the µ-opioid receptor. Schematic summarizes point-mutated amino acids in the MOR from 13 separate studies. Table summarizes observed changes in opioid intrinsic efficacy using the expressed point-mutated MOR protein in functional assays.

Constitutive activity for other G protein-coupled receptors (GPCR) has been observed previously (see Lefkowitz et al., 1993), and constitutive activity for MOR has also been demonstrated (Wang et al., 1994, 2000). However, the basis for constitutive GPCR activity is not known. In general terms, receptor theory suggests that agonist binding shifts the receptor from the basal state (having negligible or low rate of G protein activation) to a ligand-bound, activated state (having a high rate of G protein activation). As these hypothetical states have not been visualized, a clear description of intrinsic efficacy is not yet available. Nevertheless, the constitutively active state is presumably a stabilized form of the receptor that does not require agonist binding to maintain a conformation necessary to produce detectable G protein activation. The important question is what kind of post-translational modifications (e.g., changes in phosphorylation or accessory protein binding) stabilize this conformation of the receptor.

Chronic exposure to opiates produces the constitutively activated state by mechanisms that are not yet clear. Sadee and colleagues present the interesting hypothesis that constitutive activation of MOR results from an H7-sensitive phosphorylation event (Wang et al., 1994) that reduces a tonic inhibition of receptor coupling caused by calmodulin binding to the 3rd intracellular loop of MOR. Because this same loop has been shown to regulate constitutive activity of the dopamine receptors (Charpentier et al., 1996) and has been shown to be important for MOR association with G proteins (Table 2), the hypothesis is plausible.

Clues to the nature of constitutive activity may also be revealed by a consideration of the sites in MOR found by point-mutation analysis to affect intrinsic efficacy (Table 2). Mutation of MOR S196L and MOR H297N changed the antagonist naloxone into an agonist, and naloxone activation of the mutant receptors produced DAMGO-like inhibition of forskolin-stimulated adenylyl cyclase activity in Chinese hamster ovary cells and activation of potassium channels in Xenopus laevis oocytes (Claude et al., 1996; Spivak et al., 1997; Spivak and Beglan, 2000). Alterations in agonist intrinsic efficacy were likewise produced by point mutations at specific tyrosine residues in the putative cytoplasmic face of MOR, suggesting that Y106F and Y166F are also sites that regulate G protein coupling (see Table 2).

Of particular interest is the construction of constitutively active mutant MOR D164Q receptors that displayed enhanced basal guanosine-5'-O-(3-[³⁵S]thio)triphosphate binding and constitutive, spontaneous internalization and down-regulation without agonist in Chinese hamster ovary cells (Li et al., 2000). The MOR D164Q and Y166F point mutant data provide evidence that highlight the role of the highly conserved DRY motif in MOR coupling to and activation of G proteins. Support for this hypothesis has been generated in other receptor systems (Valiquette et al., 1995; Scheer et al., 1996; Rhee et al., 2000), and should reveal important information about opioid receptor activation as studies mutating MOR R165 and corresponding structures in the other opioid receptors become available. Together these findings suggest that alterations in the conformation of the cytoplasmic face of MOR, either by tyrosine phosphorylation of the DRY motif or changes in the 3rd intracellular loop, stabilize a receptor configuration able to more efficiently activate G proteins.

A second issue of particular interest touched on by Liu and Prather (2001) is the concept that morphine has `special' properties that distinguish it from other opioid agonists. The idea was initially derived from studies of opioid receptor internalization in cell lines (Keith et al., 1996). Strong opioid agonists possessing high intrinsic efficacies (e.g., etorphine, DAMGO, fentanyl) caused rapid receptor internalization and receptor desensitization whereas weak partial agonists such as morphine did not. This difference was initially attributed to differences in agonist efficacy because the G protein receptor kinase (GRK) and -arrestin machinery responsible for receptor desensitization and internalization is activated by G. Thus agonists with higher efficacies would be expected to more effectively activate this machinery. Yu et al. (1997) and Whistler et al. (1999) noted that MOR phosphorylation and desensitization caused by a series of opioid agonists did not exactly correlate with agonist efficacy. In particular, morphine was found to have a low propensity to produce tolerance, whereas two agonists with lower efficacies (methadone and LAAM) more readily produced tolerance.

Whistler et al. (1999) propose that the inability of morphine to promote receptor desensitization leads to sustained receptor activation; thus, heightened compensatory changes ultimately lead to the development of tolerance and dependence. Furthermore they provide evidence for the dissociation of agonist efficacy and regulation of MOR by GRK and arrestin. This is an exciting proposal and lends support to the possibility of developing MOR agonists that are effective in producing analgesic effects with a decreased tendency to promote tolerance. Whistler et al. (1999), propose deriving a RAVE index for opioid agonists that may better predict the ability of opioid agonist to promote tolerance by expressing the relative ability of agonists to activate MOR and drive receptor endocytosis as a ratio. This hypothesis partially motivated the analysis of chronic morphine actions performed by Liu and Prather (2001).

The induction of tolerance and receptor desensitization by chronic morphine exposure have been studied extensively. Although the molecular mechanisms are not completely understood, the recent finding that disruption of the -arrestin2 gene in mice greatly decreases morphine tolerance offers a significant demonstration of the importance of the present model of GRK and arrestin regulation of opioid receptors in vivo (Bohn et al., 2000). According to the present model, agonist occupation of the receptor promotes GRK phosphorylation of MOR, leading to the activation of arrestin and formation of an inactive receptor arrestin complex. Interestingly, precise characterization of the desensitization process in simpler expression systems has proven to be quite elusive and has led to a large body of apparently contradictory reports concerning the specifics of cellular models of opioid tolerance. Table 3 summarizes findings from many laboratories and multiple expression systems implicating specific residues important for agonist dependent down-regulation or desensitization of MOR.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   TABLE 3 Site mutations affecting phosphorylation, internalization, and desensitization Summary of alterations in opioid phosphorylation, internalization, and desensitization produced by point mutation of the µ-opioid receptor. Schematic summarizes point-mutated amino acids in the MOR from 10 separate studies. Table summarizes observed changes in opioid phosphorylation, internalization, and desensitization using the expressed point-mutated MOR protein in functional assays.

Recent reports have gone a long way in resolving some of the discrepancies by considering the cyclic nature of the GRK and arrestin regulation of MOR. For example, alanine substitution of the most terminal threonine of the rat µ-opioid receptor has been implicated in reducing agonist dependent desensitization (Pak et al., 1997). However, both the splice variant of MOR lacking this putative GRK phosphorylation site and the MOR mutant having alanine substitution at this site progressed through the internalization and resensitization cycle at a much faster rate. The significantly increased kinetics of resensitization made this receptor mutant seem to lack agonist dependent desensitization (Koch et al., 1998; Wolf et al., 1999). With the same theme, Law et al. (2000) carefully examined the role of receptor recycling in an attempt to resolve the findings that rapid receptor phosphorylation did not seem to correlate with the much slower changes in receptor desensitization observed in many systems (Capeyrou et al., 1997; El Kouhen et al., 1999). Here, either blockade of receptor internalization or reduction in functional receptor with the irreversible MOR antagonist -funaltrexamine dramatically increased the MOR desensitization rate and greatly increased the correlation between desensitization and phosphorylation. As demonstrated by Wolf et al., (1999) and Law et al. (2000), subtle changes in the kinetics of receptor recycling can have dramatic effects on the apparent coupling efficiency of MOR upon prolonged agonist treatment. Hence, if these points are considered more carefully, it is likely that the specifics of GRK and arrestin regulation will be more readily compared between expression systems.

Chronic agonist exposure thus seems to evoke the opposing processes of receptor desensitization and constitutive receptor activity. This paradox needs better resolution. Interestingly, Liu and Prather (2001) found that chronic exposure to morphine or DAMGO were both able to induce constitutive activity proportional to their drug efficiacies. This proposal is consistent with reports that GRK and arrestin regulation of GPCRs is directly correlated with agonist efficacy (Kovoor et al., 1998; Szekeres et al., 1998). In this highlighted report (Liu and Prather, 2001) and in other systems, it is clear that morphine is a partial MOR agonist. Thus, the contribution of receptor reserve and the role of agonist efficacy in controlling tolerance induction rates need careful consideration. For example, the RAVE model requires a better measure of intrinsic efficacy (e.g., in the absence of spare receptors), correction for constitutive activity, and an assessment of receptor resensitization (i.e., recycling) rates. Without those additional measures, it seems premature to discount the role of agonist efficacy and to ascribe to morphine "special" properties.

	Footnotes

Received April 20, 2001; Accepted April 30, 2001

Dr. Charles I. Chavkin, Department of Pharmacology, University of Washington, Health Sciences Center, Box 357280, Room D425, Seattle, WA 98195-7280. E-mail: cchavkin{at}u.washington.edu

	Abbreviations

MOR, µ-opioid receptor; GPCR, G protein coupled receptor; DAMGO, [D-Ala²,N-Me-Phe⁴,Gly⁵-ol]-enkephalin; GRK, G protein receptor kinase; HEK, human embryonic kidney.

	References

Top Article References

• Befort K, Tabbara L, Bausch S, Chavkin C, Evans C and Kieffer B (1996) The conserved aspartate residue in the third putative transmembrane domain of the delta-opioid receptor is not the anionic counterpart for cationic opiate binding but is a constituent of the receptor binding site. Mol Pharmacol  49: 216-223[Abstract].
• Befort K, Filliol D, Décaillot FM, Gavériaux-Ruff C, Hoehe MR and Kieffer BL (2001) A single nucleotide polymorphic mutation in the human µ-opioid receptor severely impairs receptor signaling. J Biol Chem  276: 3130-3137[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Bohn LM, Gainetdinov RR, Lin FT, Lefkowitz RJ and Caron MG (2000) Mu-opioid receptor desensitization by beta-arrestin-2 determines morphine tolerance but not dependence. Nature (Lond)  408: 720-723[Medline].
• Bond C, LaForge KS, Tian M, Melia D, Zhang S, Borg L, Gong J, Schluger J, Strong JA, Leal SM, et al. (1998) Single-nucleotide polymorphism in the human mu opioid receptor gene alters -endorphin binding and activity: possible implications for opiate addiction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA  95: 9608-9613[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Bonner G, Meng F and Akil H (2000) Selectivity of mu-opioid receptor determined by interfacial residues near third extracellular loop. Eur J Pharmacol  403: 37-44[Medline].
• Bot G, Blake AD, Li S and Resine T (1998) Mutagenesis of a single amino acid in the rat mu-opioid receptor discriminates ligand binding. J Neurochem  70: 358-365[Medline].
• Burd AL, El-Kouhen R, Erickson LJ, Loh HH and Law PY (1998) Identification of serine 356 and serine 363 as the amino acids involved in etorphine-induced down-regulation of the mu-opioid receptor. J Biol Chem  273: 34488-34495[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Capeyrou R, Riond J, Corbani M, Lepage JF, Bertin B and Emorine LJ (1997) Agonist-induced signaling and trafficking of the mu-opioid receptor: role of serine and threonine residues in the third cytoplasmic loop and C-terminal domain. FEBS Lett  415: 200-205[Medline].
• Celver J, Lowe J, Kovoor A, Gurevich VV and Chavkin C (2000) Threonine 180 is required for GRK3 and arr3 mediated desensitization of the mu opioid receptor in Xenopus oocytes. J Biol Chem  276: 4894-4900[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Chakrabarti S, Yang W, Law P-Y and Loh HH (1997) The µ-opioid receptor down-regulates differently from the -opioid receptor: requirement of a high affinity receptor/G protein complex formation. Mol Pharmacol  52: 105-113[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Charpentier S, Jarvie KR, Severynse DM, Caron MG and Tiberi M (1996) Silencing of the constitutive activity of the dopamine D1B receptor. Reciprocal mutations between D1 receptor subtypes delineate residues underlying activation properties. J Biol Chem  271: 28071-28076[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Chen C, Yin J, de Riel JK, DesJarlais RL, Raveglia LF, Zhu J and Liu-Chen L-Y (1996) Determination of the amino acid residue involved in [³H]-funaltrexamine covalent binding in the cloned Ratµopioid receptor. J Biol Chem  271: 21422-21429[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Chen Y, Mestek A, Liu J, Hurley JA and Yu L (1993) Molecular cloning and functional expression of a mu-opioid receptor from rat brain. Mol Pharmacol  44: 8-12[Abstract].
• Claude PA, Wotta DR, Zhang XH, Prather PL, McGinn TM, Erickson LJ, Loh HH and Law P-Y (1996) Mutation of a conserved serine in TM4 of opioid receptors confers full agonistic properties to classical antagonists. Proc Natl Acad Sci. USA  93: 5715-5719[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Deng HB, Guang W and Wang JB (2000) Selected cysteine residues in transmembrane domains of µ-opioid receptor are critical for effects of sulfhydryl reagents. J Pharmacol Exp Ther  293: 113-120[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• El Kouhen R, Burd AL, Erickson-Herbrandson LJ, Chang CY, Law PY and Loh HH (2001) Phosphorylation of Ser363, Thr370 and Ser375 residues within the carboxyl tail differentially regulates mu-opioid receptor internalization. J Biol Chem  276: 12774-12780[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• El Kouhen R, Maestri-El Kouhen O, Law PY and Loh HH (1999) The absence of a direct correlation between the loss of [D-Ala2, MePhe4, Gly5-ol]Enkephalin inhibition of adenylyl cyclase activity and agonist-induced mu-opioid receptor phosphorylation. J Biol Chem  274: 9207-9215[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Fukuda K, Kato S, Mori K, Nishi M and Takeshima H (1993) Primary structures and expression from cDNAs of rat opioid receptor delta- and mu-subtypes. FEBS Lett  327: 311-314[Medline].
• Keith DE, Murray SR, Zaki PA, Chu PC, Lissin DV, Kang L, Evans CJ and von Zastrow M (1996) Morphine activates opioid receptors without causing their rapid internalization. J Biol Chem  271: 19021-19024[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Koch T, Kroslak T, Mayer P, Raulf E and Hollt V (1997) Site mutation in the rat mu-opioid receptor demonstrates the involvement of calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II in agonist-mediated desensitization. J Neurochem  69: 1767-1770[Medline].
• Koch T, Schulz S, Schroder H, Wolf R, Raulf E and Hollt V (1998) Carboxyl-terminal splicing of the rat mu opioid receptor modulates agonist-mediated internalization and receptor resensitization. J Biol Chem  273: 13652-13657[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Koch T, Kroslak T, Averbeck M, Mayer P, Schröder H, Raulf E and Höllt V (2000) Allelic variation S268P of the human µ-opioid receptor affects both desensitization and G protein coupling. Mol Pharmacol  58: 328-334[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Kovoor A, Celver JP, Wu A and Chavkin C (1998) Agonist induced homologous desensitization of µ-opioid receptors mediated by G protein-coupled receptor kinases is dependent on agonist efficacy. Mol Pharmacol  54: 704-711[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Larson DL, Jones RM, Hjorth SA, Schwartz TA and Portoghese PS (2000) Binding of norbinaltorphimine (norBNI) congeners to wild-type and mutant mu and kappa opioid receptors: molecular recognition loci for the pharmacophore and address components of kappa antagonists. J Med Chem  43: 1573-1576[Medline].
• Law PY, Erickson LJ, El-Kouhen R, Dicker L, Solberg J, Wang W, Miller E, Burd AL and Loh HH (2000) Receptor density and recycling affect the rate of agonist-induced desensitization of µ-opioid receptor. Mol Pharmacol  58: 388-398[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Lefkowitz RJ, Cotecchia S, Samama P and Costa T (1993) Constitutive activity of receptors coupled to guanine nucleotide regulatory proteins. Trends Pharmacol Sci  14: 303-307[Medline].
• Li J, Huang P, Chen C and Liu-Chen L-Y (2000) Up-regulation of a constitutively active mutant of the rat µ opioid receptor by naloxone (Abstract). 31st International Narcotics Research Conference; 15-20 Jul 2000; Seattle Washington. International Narcotics Research Conference; p. 56. Available from: http://www.inrcworld.org.
• Li JG, Chen C, Yin J, Rice K, Zhang Y, Matecka D, de Riel JK, DesJarlais RL and Liu-Chen LY (1999) ASP147 in the third transmembrane helix of the rat mu opioid receptor forms ion-pairing with morphine and naltrexone. Life Sci  65: 175-185[Medline].
• Liu JG and Prather PL (2001) Chronic exposure to µ-opioid agonists produces constitutive activation of µ-opioid receptors in direct proportion to the efficacy of the agonist used for pretreatment. Mol Pharmacol  60: 53-62[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Mansour A, Taylor LP, Fine JL, Thompson RC, Hoversten MT, Mosberg HI, Watson SJ and Akil H (1997) Key residues defining the µ-opioid receptor binding pocket: a site-directed mutagenesis study. J Neurochem  68: 344-353[Medline].
• McLaughlin JP and Chavkin C (2001) Tyrosine phosphorylation of the µ- opioid receptor regulates agonist intrinsic efficacy. Mol Pharmacol  59: 1360-1368[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Pak Y, O'Dowd BF and George SR (1997) Agonist-induced desensitization of the mu opioid receptor is determined by threonine 394 preceded by acidic amino acids in the COOH-terminal tail. J Biol Chem  272: 24961-24965[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Pak Y, O'Dowd BF, Wang JB and George SR (1999) Agonist-induced, G protein-dependent and -independent down-regulation of the mu opioid receptor. The receptor is a direct substrate for protein-tyrosine kinase. J Biol Chem  274: 27610-27616[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Rhee M-H, Nevo I, Levy R and Vogel Z (2000) Role of the highly conserved Asp-Arg-Tyr motif in signal transduction of the CB₂ cannabinoid receptor. FEBS Lett  466: 300-304[Medline].
• Scheer A, Fanelli F, Costa T, De Benedetti PG and Cotecchia S (1996) Constitutively active mutants of the alpha 1B-adrenergic receptor: role of highly conserved polar amino acids in receptor activation. EMBO J  15: 3566-3578[Medline].
• Segredo V, Burford NT, Lameh J and Sadee W (1997) A constitutively internalizing and recycling mutant of the mu-opioid receptor. J Neurochem  68: 2395-2404[Medline].
• Shahrestanifar M, Wang WW and Howells RD (1996) Studies on inhibition of µ and  opioid receptor binding by dithiothreitol and N-ethylmaleimide. J Biol Chem  271: 5505-5512[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Spivak CE and Beglan CL (2000) Kinetics of recovery from opioids at wild-type and mutant mu opioid receptors expressed in Xenopus oocytes. Synapse  38: 254-260[Medline].
• Spivak CE, Beglan CL, Seidleck BK, Hirshbein LD, Blaschak CJ, Uhl GR and Surratt CK (1997) Naloxone activation of µ-opioid receptors mutated at a histidine residue lining the opioid binding cavity. Mol Pharmacol  52: 983-992[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Surratt CK, Johnson PS, Moriwaki A, Seidleck BK, Blaschak CJ, Wang J-B and Uhl GR (1994) µ opiate receptor. Charged transmembrane domain amino acids are critical for agonist recognition and intrinsic activity. J Biol Chem  269: 20548-20553[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Szekeres PG, Koenig JA and Edwardson JM (1998) The relationship between agonist intrinsic activity and the rate of endocytosis of muscarinic receptors in a human neuroblastoma cell line. Mol Pharmacol  53: 759-765[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Ulens C, Van Boven M, Daenens P and Tytgat J (2000) Interaction of p-fluorofentanyl on cloned human opioid receptors and exploration of the role of Trp-318 and His-319 in µ-opioid receptor selectivity. J Pharmacol Exp Ther  294: 1024-1033[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Valiquette M, Parent S, Loisel TP and Bouvier M (1995) Mutation of tyrosine-141 inhibits insulin-promoted tyrosine phosphorylation and increased responsiveness of the human ₂-adrenergic receptor. EMBO J  14: 5542-5549[Medline].
• Wang D, Sadée W and Quillan JM (2088) (1999) Calmodulin binding to G protein-coupling domain of opioid receptors. J Biol Chem  274: 22081-22082[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Wang D, Surratt CK and Sadee W (2000) Calmodulin regulation of basal and agonist-stimulated G protein coupling by the mu-opioid receptor (OP(3)) in morphine-pretreated cell. J Neurochem  75: 763-771[Medline].
• Wang HL (1999) A conserved arginine in the distal third intracellular loop of the mu-opioid receptor is required for G protein activation. J Neurochem  72: 1307-1314[Medline].
• Wang J-B, Imai Y, Epler MC, Gregor P, Spivak C and Uhl GR (1993) Mu opiate receptor: cDNA cloning and expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.  90: 10230-10234[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Wang Z, Bilsky EJ, Porreca F and Sadee W (1994) Constitutive mu opioid receptor activation as a regulatory mechanism underlying narcotic tolerance and dependence. Life Sci  54: 339-350.
• Whistler JL, Chuang HH, Chu P, Jan LY and von Zastrow M (1999) Functional dissociation of mu opioid receptor signaling and endocytosis: implications for the biology of opiate tolerance and addiction. Neuron  23: 737-746[Medline].
• Wolf R, Koch T, Schulz S, Klutzny M, Schroder H, Raulf E, Buhling F and Hollt V (1999) Replacement of threonine 394 by alanine facilitates internalization and resensitization of the rat mu opioid receptor. Mol Pharmacol  55: 263-268[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Xu H, Lu Y-F, Partilla JS, Zheng Q-X, Wang J-B, Brine GA, Carroll FI, Rice KC, Chen K-X, Chi Z-Q, et al. (1999a) Opioid peptide receptor studies, 11: involvement of Tyr148, Trp318, and His319 of the rat µ-opioid receptor in binding of µ-selective ligands. Synapse  32: 23-28[Medline].
• Xu W, Chen C, Huang P, Li J, de Riel JK, Javitch JA and Liu-Chen LY (2000) The conserved cysteine 7.38 residue is differentially accessible in the binding-site crevices of the mu, delta, and kappa opioid receptors. Biochemistry  39: 13904-13915[Medline].
• Xu W, Ozdener F, Li JG, Chen C, de Riel JK, Weinstein H and Liu-Chen LY (1999b) Functional role of the spatial proximity of Asp114(2.50) in TMH 2 and Asn332(7.49) in TMH 7 of the mu opioid receptor. FEBS Lett  447: 318-324[Medline].
• Yu Y, Zhang L, Yin X, Sun H, Uhl GR and Wang JB (1997) Mu opioid receptor phosphorylation, desensitization, and ligand efficacy. J Biol Chem  272: 28869-28874[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Zhang P, Johnson PS, Zollner C, Wang W, Wang Z, Montes AE, Seidleck BK, Blaschak CJ and Surratt CK (1999) Mutation of human mu opioid receptor extracellular "disulfide cysteine" residues alters ligand binding but does not prevent receptor targeting to the cell plasma membrane. Brain Res Mol Brain Res  72: 195-204[Medline].