MolPharm xPharm- The Comprehensive Pharmacology Reference

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kelley, M. T.
Right arrow Articles by Seifert, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kelley, M. T.
Right arrow Articles by Seifert, R.

Vol. 60, Issue 6, 1210-1225, December 2001


Distinct Interaction of Human and Guinea Pig Histamine H2-Receptor with Guanidine-Type Agonists

Melissa T. Kelley,1 Tilmann Bürckstümmer, Katharina Wenzel-Seifert, Stefan Dove, Armin Buschauer, and Roland Seifert

Departments of Pharmacology and Toxicology (M.T.K., K.W.-S., R.S.) and Molecular Biosciences (T.B.), the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas; and Department of Pharmacy, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany (S.D., A.B.)

    Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Experimental Procedures
Results and Discussion
Conclusions
References

It is unknown why the potencies and efficacies of long-chained guanidine-type histamine H2-receptor (H2R) agonists are lower at the H2R of human neutrophils than at the H2R of the guinea pig atrium. To elucidate these differences, we analyzed fusion proteins of the human H2R (hH2R) and guinea pig H2R (gpH2R), respectively, and the short splice variant of Gsalpha (Gsalpha S) expressed in Sf9 cells. The potencies and efficacies of small H2R agonists in the GTPase assay and the potencies of antagonists at inhibiting histamine-stimulated GTP hydrolysis by hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S were similar. In contrast, the potencies and efficacies of guanidines were lower at hH2R-Gsalpha S than at gpH2R-Gsalpha S. Guanidines bound to hH2R-Gsalpha S with lower affinity than to gpH2R-Gsalpha S, and high-affinity binding of guanidines at gpH2R-Gsalpha S was more resistant to disruption by GTPgamma S than binding at hH2R-Gsalpha S. Molecular modeling suggested that the nonconserved Asp-271 in transmembrane domain 7 of gpH2R (Ala-271 in hH2R) confers high potency to guanidines. This hypothesis was confirmed by Ala-271right-arrowAsp-271 mutation in hH2R-Gsalpha S. Intriguingly, the efficacies of guanidines at the Ala-271right-arrowAsp-271 mutant and at hH2R/gpH2R chimeras were lower than at gpH2R. Our model suggests that a Tyr-17/Asp-271 H-bond, present only in gpH2R-Gsalpha S but not the other constructs studied, stabilizes the active guanidine-H2R state. Collectively, our data show 1) distinct interaction of H2R species isoforms with guanidines, 2) that a single amino acid in transmembrane domain 7 critically determines guanidine potency, and 3) that an interaction between transmembrane domains 1 and 7 is important for guanidine efficacy.

    Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Experimental Procedures
Results and Discussion
Conclusions
References

HIS (1) is a biogenic amine (Fig. 1) that functions as a neurotransmitter and autacoid (Hill et al., 1997). HIS exerts its effects through at least four receptor subtypes, designated H1, H2, H3, and H4, respectively (Hill et al., 1997; Hough, 2001). HIS receptors belong to the superfamily of GPCRs that possess seven transmembrane domains, three extracellular and three intracellular loops. The H2R couples to Gs-proteins to activate adenylyl cyclase. Numerous H2R agonists and antagonists have been developed; the guinea pig atrium has been the standard model for ligand design for decades (Ganellin, 1982; Hill et al., 1997). Figure 1 shows the structures of prototypical H2R agonists and antagonists. Among agonists, DIM (2), AMT (3), and BET (4) are similar to HIS (1). BET is a nonselective H2R partial agonist (Ganellin, 1982; Burde et al., 1989) and is therefore an interesting experimental tool. Compared with compounds 1 to 4, the guanidines 5 to 13 are long-chained and more bulky. IMP (5), ARP (8), and several ARP analogs are much more potent in the guinea pig atrium than HIS (Durant et al., 1978; Buschauer, 1989). H2R antagonists are divided into five chemical classes: imidazoles such as CIM (14), furans such as RAN (15), thiazoles such as FAM (16), and TIO (17), piperidinomethylphenoxy derivatives such as ZOL (18), and (benzamidoalkyl)cyanoguanidines such as APT (19) (Hill et al., 1997). H2R antagonists are of great importance for the treatment of gastroduodenal ulcer disease (Hill et al., 1997). H2R agonists may be useful as positive inotropic drugs for the treatment of heart failure (Felix et al., 1995), as differentiation-inducing agents in acute myelogenous leukemia (Seifert et al., 1992), and as anti-inflammatory drugs (Burde et al., 1990).


View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   Structures of H2R agonists and antagonists. 1 to 13, agonists; 14 to 19, antagonists. 6 to 13 represent arpromidine-derived guanidines.

Guanidine-type compounds are less potent and/or efficient agonists at the H2R of human neutrophils than at the H2R of the guinea pig atrium (Burde et al., 1989, 1990; Buschauer, 1989). Additionally, several GPCR species isoforms, including the H3R, differ from each other in their pharmacological properties as assessed by the analysis of recombinant GPCRs (Kopin et al., 2000; Ligneau et al., 2000; Lovenberg et al., 2000). There are relatively few amino acid differences between hH2R and gpH2R (Gantz et al., 1991; Traiffort et al., 1995) (Fig. 2), particularly in the established ligand-binding domains TM3 and TM5, but even a single amino acid exchange between GPCR species isoforms can strongly affect their pharmacological properties (Kopin et al., 2000; Ligneau et al., 2000). Based on these findings, the hypothesis arose that the H2R exhibits species-specific pharmacological properties as well.


View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   Comparison of the amino acid sequences of hH2R and gpH2R. The amino acid sequences of the cloned hH2R (Gantz et al., 1991) and gpH2R (Traiffort et al., 1995) are given in the one-letter code. Dots in the gpH2R sequence indicate identity with hH2R. TM domains are shown in bold. Amino acids shown in green in TM3 and TM5 represent the interaction sites of HIS with the H2R (Gantz et al., 1992; Nederkoorn et al., 1996). Amino acids shown in black in the gpH2R sequence represent conservative exchanges. Amino acids shown in red in the gpH2R sequence represent nonconservative exchanges. The arrow indicates the cleavage site of KpnI, present in the cDNA of both gpH2R and hH2R. The KpnI site allowed us to construct reciprocal hH2R/gpH2R chimeras (see Fig. 10). N-term, extracellular N-terminal domain of H2Rs; C-term, intracellular C-terminal domain of H2Rs.; i1, i2, and i3; 1st, 2nd, and 3rd intracellular loop, respectively; e1, e2, and e3, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd extracellular loop, respectively; TM1-7, transmembrane domains 1-7.

To test our hypothesis, we constructed fusion proteins of the hH2R and gpH2R, respectively, and Gsalpha S and expressed the fusion proteins in Sf9 cell membranes. GPCR-Galpha fusion proteins ensure a defined 1:1 stoichiometry of the signaling partners and efficient coupling (Seifert et al., 1999; Milligan, 2000). The measurement of GTP hydrolysis in GPCR-Galpha fusion proteins is presumably the most precise method currently available for the analysis of ligand potencies and efficacies, because the GTPase assay is a steady-state method, is extremely sensitive in GPCR-Gsalpha fusion proteins, assesses GPCR/G-protein coupling directly at the G-protein level, and is independent of the expression level of the components (Seifert et al., 1999; Milligan, 2000). Finally, the analysis of H2R species isoforms in the same host cell membrane annihilates the impact of pharmacokinetic differences between different test systems. Here, we report that hH2R and gpH2R exhibit distinct pharmacological properties, particularly with respect to interaction with guanidines.

    Experimental Procedures
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Experimental Procedures
Results and Discussion
Conclusions
References

Materials. The cDNA for the hH2R was kindly provided by Dr. I. Gantz (University of Michigan Medical School and Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI) (Gantz et al., 1991). The cDNA for the gpH2R was kindly provided by Drs. E. Traiffort and J.-C. Schwartz (Department of Neurobiology and Pharmacology, Center Paul Broca, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Paris, France) (Traiffort et al., 1995). The generation of the baculovirus encoding beta 2AR-Gsalpha L had been described previously (Seifert et al., 1998a). APT was synthesized as described previously (Hirschfeld et al., 1992). IMP was prepared as described previously (Durant et al., 1978). Guanidines 6 to 11 were synthesized as described previously (Buschauer, 1989). Guanidines 12 and 13 (Schalkhausser, 1998) were prepared by analogy to the procedures described for guanidines 6 to 11 (Buschauer, 1989). The structures of the synthesized compounds were confirmed by analysis (C, H, N), 1H NMR, and mass spectroscopy spectra. Purity of compounds was >98% as determined by high-performance liquid chromatography or capillary electrophoresis (Schuster et al., 1997). The anti-FLAG Ig (M1 monoclonal antibody) was from Sigma (St. Louis, MO). The anti-Gsalpha Ig (C-terminal) was from Calbiochem (La Jolla, CA). [gamma -32P]GTP (6000 Ci/mmol), [35S]GTPgamma S (1100 Ci/mmol), [3H]DHA (85-90 Ci/mmol), and [3H]TIO (90 Ci/mmol) were from PerkinElmer Life Sciences (Boston, MA). All unlabeled nucleotides were from Roche (Indianapolis, IN). HIS, BET, CIM, RAN, and FAM were from Sigma. AMT, TIO, and ZOL were from Tocris Cookson (Ballwin, MO). DIM was from RBI (Natick, MA). All restriction enzymes and T4 DNA ligase were from New England Biolabs (Beverly, MA). Cloned Pfu DNA polymerase was from Stratagene (La Jolla, CA).

Construction of FLAG Epitope- and Hexahistidine-Tagged cDNA for hH2R-Gsalpha S. A DNA sequence encoding the cleavable signal peptide from influenza hemagglutinin (S) followed by the FLAG epitope (F), which is recognized by the M1 antibody, was placed 5' of the start codon of the hH2R to enhance GPCR expression and allow immunological detection. We also added a hexahistidine tag to the C terminus of hH2R to allow future purification and to provide additional protection against proteolysis (Seifert et al., 1998a). The GPCR modifications were generated by sequential overlap-extension PCRs. In PCR 1A, the DNA sequence of the N-terminal portion of the hH2R was amplified using CMVneo-hH2R as template. The sense primer annealed with the first 18 bp of the 5'-end of the hH2R and included the last 18 bp of the SF in its 5'-extension. The antisense primer encoded the sequence GAGCTGTTGATATCCGGTGCGGAAGTCTCTG to generate a silent mutation yielding a new EcoRV site. In PCR 1B, the DNA sequence of the C-terminal portion of the hH2R was amplified using CMVneo-hH2R as template. The sense primer encoded the sequence TTCCGCACCGGATATCAACAGCTCTTCTGCTGC to generate the new EcoRV site. The antisense primer encoded the five C-terminal amino acids of the hH2R, a hexahistidine tag, the stop codon and an XbaI site. In PCR 2, the products of PCRs 1A and 1B annealed in the region encoding the newly created EcoRV site. In PCR 2, the sense primer of PCR 1A and the antisense primer of PCR 1B were used. In this way, a fragment encoding the signal sequence, the FLAG epitope, hH2R cDNA with a new EcoRV site and a hexahistidine tag followed by an XbaI site was obtained. This fragment was digested with NcoI and XbaI and cloned into pGEM-3Z-SF-human formyl peptide receptor-6His digested with NcoI and XbaI. In PCR 3A, the C-terminal portion of the H2R was amplified using pGEM-3Z-SF-hH2R as template, a sense primer annealing 5' of the newly created EcoRV site and an antisense primer annealing with the hexahistidine tag. In PCR 3B, the sequence of Gsalpha S was amplified, using pGEM-3Z-SF-beta 2AR-Gsalpha S as template, a sense primer annealing with the hexahistidine tag and an antisense primer annealing with the 5 C-terminal amino acids of Gsalpha , the stop codon, and an XbaI site. In PCR 4, the products of PCRs 3A and 3B annealed in the hexahistidine region, and the sense primer of PCR 3A and the antisense primer of PCR 3B were used. In this way, a fragment encoding the C-terminal portion of the hH2R, a hexahistidine tag, Gsalpha S, a stop codon and an XbaI site was created. This fragment was digested with EcoRV and XbaI and cloned into pGEM-3Z-SFhH2R digested with EcoRV and XbaI. In this way, the full-length cDNA for hH2R-Gsalpha S was created. pGEM-3Z-SF-hH2R-Gsalpha S was digested with NcoI and XbaI to recover the fusion protein cDNA and cloned into the baculovirus transfer vector pVL 1392-SF-beta 2AR-Gialpha 2 digested with NcoI and XbaI. PCR-generated DNA sequences were confirmed by extensive restriction enzyme analysis and enzymatic sequencing.

Construction of FLAG Epitope- and Hexahistidine-Tagged cDNA for gpH2R-Gsalpha S. The strategy for creation of gpH2R-Gsalpha S cDNA was analogous to the strategy for creation of hH2R-Gsalpha S cDNA. In PCR 1A, the DNA sequence of the N-terminal portion of gpH2R was amplified using pGEM4Z-gpH2R as template. The sense primer annealed with the first 20 bp of the 5'-end of the gpH2R and included the last 8 bp of the SF in its 5'-extension. The antisense primer encoded the sequence CTCATGGGAGTTGTGGCTAGCGAGCCTGCAGCAGAAGAGC to create a silent mutation yielding a new NheI site. In PCR 1B, the sequence of the C-terminal portion of gpH2R was amplified using pGEM4Z-gpH2R as template. The sense primer encoded the sequence GCTCTTCTGCTGCAGGCTCGCTAGCCACAACTCCCATGAG to create the new NheI site. The antisense primer encoded the five C-terminal amino acids of the gpH2R, a hexahistidine tag, the stop codon, and an XbaI site. In PCR 2, the products of PCRs 1A and 1B annealed in the region encoding the newly created NheI site. In PCR 2, the sense primer of PCR 1A and the antisense primer of PCR 1B were used. In this way, a fragment encoding the signal sequence, the FLAG epitope, gpH2R cDNA with a new NheI site, and a hexahistidine tag followed by an XbaI site was obtained. This fragment was digested with NcoI and XbaI and cloned into pGEM-3Z-SF-human formyl peptide receptor-6His digested with NcoI and XbaI. In PCR 3A, the C-terminal portion of the gpH2R was amplified using pGEM-3Z-SF-gpH2R as template, a sense primer annealing 5' of the newly created NheI site, and an antisense primer annealing with the hexahistidine tag. In PCR 3B, the sequence of Gsalpha S was amplified, using pGEM-3Z-SF-beta 2AR-Gsalpha S as template, a sense primer annealing with the hexahistidine tag, and an antisense primer annealing with the 5 C-terminal amino acids of Gsalpha , the stop codon, and an XbaI site. In PCR 4, the products of PCRs 3A and 3B annealed in the hexahistidine region, and the sense primer of PCR 3A and the antisense primer of PCR 3B were used. In this way, a fragment encoding the C-terminal portion of the gpH2R, a hexahistidine tag, Gsalpha S, a stop codon, and an XbaI site was created. This fragment was digested with NheI and XbaI and cloned into pGEM-3Z-SFgpH2R digested with NheI and XbaI. In this way, the full-length cDNA for gpH2R-Gsalpha S was created. pGEM-3Z-SF-hH2R-Gsalpha S was digested with NcoI and XbaI to recover the fusion protein cDNA and cloned into the baculovirus transfer vector pVL 1392-SF-beta 2AR-Gialpha 2 digested with NcoI and XbaI. PCR-generated DNA sequences were confirmed by extensive restriction enzyme analysis and enzymatic sequencing.

Construction of the cDNA for hH2R-A271D-Gsalpha S. The Ala-271 right-arrow Asp-271 exchange in hH2R was generated by sequential overlap-extension PCRs. In PCR 1A, the DNA sequence of the N-terminal portion of hH2R was amplified using pGEM-3Z-SF-hH2R-Gsalpha S as a template. The sense primer annealed with the first 18 bp of the 5' end of hH2R and included the last 18 bp of the SF in its 5' extension. The antisense primer encoded the sequence CAGAACGATATCTTCTAACACCTCATTGATGGCATC to generate the Ala-271 right-arrow Asp-271 exchange and a new EcoRV site at the position of the mutated amino acid. In PCR 1B, the DNA sequence of the C-terminal portion of the hH2R and the entire sequence of Gsalpha s was amplified using pGEM-3Z-SF-hH2R-Gsalpha S as a template. The sense primer encoded the sequence GTTAGAAGATATCGTTCTGTGGCTGGGCTATGCCAAC to generate the Ala-271 right-arrow Asp-271 exchange and a new EcoRV site at the position of the mutated amino acid. The antisense primer encoded the five C-terminal amino acids of Gsalpha , the stop codon and an XbaI site. In PCR 2, the products of PCR 1A and 1B annealed in the region encoding the newly created Ala-271 right-arrow Asp-271 exchange and the EcoRV site. In the PCR 2, the sense primer of PCR 1A and the antisense primer of PCR 1B were used. In this way, a fragment encoding the entire hH2R-A271D-Gsalpha S fusion protein was created. This fragment was digested with EcoRI and NcoI and cloned into pGEM-3Z-SF-hH2R-Gsalpha S digested with EcoRI and NcoI. pGEM-3Z-SF-hH2R-A271D-Gsalpha S was digested with SacI and EcoN I and cloned into the baculovirus transfer vector pVL 1392-SF-hH2R-Gsalpha S digested with SacI and EcoN I. PCR-generated DNA sequences were confirmed by extensive restriction enzyme analysis and enzymatic sequencing.

Construction of the cDNAs for NgpChH2R-Gsalpha S and NhCgpH2R-Gsalpha S. For construction of hH2R/gpH2R chimeras, we took advantage of the KpnI site present at the same position of the cDNAs of both receptors. KpnI cleaves hH2R- and gpH2R cDNA in the center of the second intracellular loop (Fig. 2). pGEM-3Z-SF-hH2R-Gsalpha S and pGEM-3Z-SF-gpH2R-Gsalpha S were digested with KpnI and XbaI so that the C-terminal halves of H2Rs and the fused Gsalpha S were cut out. The fragments obtained were reciprocally cloned back into pGEM-3Z-SF-hH2R-Gsalpha S and pGEM-3Z-SF-gpH2R-Gsalpha S. As a result of this exchange, we created pGEM-3Z-SF-NgpChH2R-Gsalpha S and pGEM-3Z-SF-NhCgpH2R-Gsalpha S. These plasmids were digested with NcoI and XbaI and cloned into the baculovirus transfer vector pVL 1392-SF-gpH2R-Gsalpha S digested with NcoI and XbaI. The chimeric H2R-Gsalpha S DNA sequences were confirmed by extensive restriction enzyme analysis.

Generation of Recombinant Baculoviruses, Cell Culture and Membrane Preparation. Recombinant baculoviruses encoding the H2R-Gsalpha fusion proteins were generated in Sf9 cells using the BaculoGOLD transfection kit (BD PharMingen, San Diego, CA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. After initial transfection, high-titer virus stocks were generated by two sequential virus amplifications. Sf9 cells were cultured in 250-ml disposable Erlenmeyer flasks at 28°C under rotation at 125 rpm in SF 900 II medium (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) supplemented with 5% (v/v) fetal calf serum (BioWhittaker, Walkersville, MD) and 0.1 mg/ml gentamicin (BioWhittaker). Cells were maintained at a density of 0.5 to 6.0 × 106 cells/ml. For infection, cells were sedimented by centrifugation and suspended in fresh medium. Cells were seeded at 3.0 × 106 cells/ml and infected with a 1:100 dilution of high-titer baculovirus stocks encoding H2R-Gsalpha S fusion proteins. Cells were cultured for 48 h before membrane preparation. Sf9 membranes were prepared as described previously (Seifert et al., 1998a), using 1 mM EDTA, 0.2 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 10 µg/ml benzamidine, and 10 µg/ml leupeptin as protease inhibitors. Membranes were suspended in binding buffer (12.5 mM MgCl2, 1 mM EDTA and 75 mM Tris/HCl, pH 7.4) and stored at -80°C until use.

Receptor Ligand Binding Assays. Membranes were thawed and sedimented by a 15-min centrifugation at 4°C and 15,000g to remove residual endogenous guanine nucleotides as much as possible. Membranes were resuspended in binding buffer (12.5 mM MgCl2, 1 mM EDTA and 75 mM Tris/HCl, pH 7.4). In [3H]TIO binding assays, each tube (total volume, 250 µl) contained 200 to 250 µg of protein. Nonspecific binding was determined in the presence of [3H]TIO at various concentrations plus 100 µM unlabeled TIO. Incubations were conducted for 90 min at 25°C and shaking at 250 rpm. In saturation binding experiments, tubes contained 1 to 20 nM [3H]TIO plus unlabeled TIO to obtain final ligand concentrations of up to 300 nM. Competition binding experiments were carried out in the presence of 10 nM [3H]TIO and unlabeled ligands at various concentrations without or with GTPgamma S (10 µM). Bound [3H]TIO was separated from free [3H]TIO by filtration through GF/C filters, followed by three washes with 2 ml of binding buffer (4°C). Filter-bound radioactivity was determined by liquid scintillation counting. The experimental conditions chosen ensured that not more than 5% of the total amount of [3H]TIO added to binding tubes was bound to filters. The expression level of beta 2AR-Gsalpha L was determined with 10 nM [3H]DHA as radioligand as described previously (Seifert et al., 1998a).

[35S]GTPgamma S Binding Assay. Membranes were thawed, sedimented, and suspended as for receptor ligand binding assays. Reaction mixtures (total volume, 500 µl) contained Sf9 membranes expressing H2R-Gsalpha fusion proteins (15 µg of protein/tube) in binding buffer supplemented with 0.05% (w/v) bovine serum albumin, 1 µM GDP, and 1 nM [35S]GTPgamma S plus 9 nM unlabeled GTPgamma S. Reaction mixtures additionally contained distilled water (basal) and HIS at a saturating concentration (100 µM). Incubations were conducted for 90 min at 25°C and shaking at 250 rpm. Bound [35S]GTPgamma S was separated from free [35S]GTPgamma S by filtration through GF/C filters, followed by three washes with 2 ml of binding buffer (4°C). Filter-bound radioactivity was determined by liquid scintillation counting. The experimental conditions chosen ensured that no more than 10% of the total amount of [35S]GTPgamma S added was bound to filters.

Steady-State GTPase Activity Assay. Membranes were thawed, sedimented, and resuspended in 10 mM Tris/HCl, pH 7.4. Assay tubes contained Sf9 membranes expressing H2R-Gsalpha fusion proteins (10 µg of protein/tube), 1.0 mM MgCl2, 0.1 mM EDTA, 0.1 mM ATP, 100 nM GTP, 1 mM adenylyl imidodiphosphate, 5 mM creatine phosphate, 40 µg of creatine kinase, and 0.2% (w/v) bovine serum albumin in 50 mM Tris/HCl, pH 7.4, and H2R ligands at various concentrations. Reaction mixtures (80 µl) were incubated for 3 min at 25°C before the addition of 20 µl of [gamma -32P]GTP (0.2-0.5 µCi/tube). All stock and work dilutions of [gamma -32P]GTP were prepared in 20 mM Tris/HCl, pH 7.4. Reactions were conducted for 20 min at 25°C. Preliminary studies under basal conditions and with HIS, IMP, and ARP showed that under these conditions, GTP hydrolysis was linear. Reactions were terminated by the addition of 900 µl of slurry consisting of 5% (w/v) activated charcoal and 50 mM NaH2PO4, pH 2.0. Charcoal absorbs nucleotides but not Pi. Charcoal-quenched reaction mixtures were centrifuged for 15 min at room temperature at 15,000g. Seven hundred microliters of the supernatant fluid of reaction mixtures were removed, and 32Pi was determined by liquid scintillation counting. Enzyme activities were corrected for spontaneous degradation of [gamma -32P]GTP. Spontaneous [gamma -32P]GTP degradation was determined in tubes containing all of the above described components plus a very high concentration of unlabeled GTP (1 mM) that, by competition with [gamma -32P]GTP, prevents [gamma -32P]GTP hydrolysis by enzymatic activities present in Sf9 membranes. Spontaneous [gamma -32P]GTP degradation was <1% of the total amount of radioactivity added using 20 mM Tris/HCl, pH 7.4, as solvent for [gamma -32P]GTP. The experimental conditions chosen ensured that not more than 10% of the total amount of [gamma -32P]GTP added was converted to 32Pi.

SDS-PAGE and Immunoblot Analysis. Membrane proteins were separated on SDS polyacrylamide gels containing 8% (w/v) acrylamide. Proteins were then transferred onto Immobilon-P transfer membranes (Millipore, Bedford, MA). Membranes were reacted with M1 antibody or anti-Gsalpha Ig (1:1000 each). Immunoreactive bands were visualized by sheep anti-mouse IgG (M1 antibody) and donkey anti-rabbit IgG (anti-Gsalpha Ig), respectively, coupled to peroxidase, using o-dianisidine and H2O2 as substrates.

Molecular Modeling. Models of the seven TM helices were taken from the PDB bovine rhodopsin file 1f88 (Palczewski et al., 2000). The starting structure of gpH2R TM domains was constructed from a multiple sequence-alignment of bovine rhodopsin with hbeta 2AR (Palczewski et al., 2000), gpH1R, hH2R, and gpH2R (Gantz et al., 1991; Traiffort et al., 1995; Hill et al., 1997). The resulting TM helices in hH2R and gpH2R are highlighted in bold (Fig. 2). First, the model was roughly minimized by the steepest descent method to remove bad contacts due to the mutated residues. In the first 100 steps, the backbone was fixed. Energy calculations were based on the Kollman all-atom force field (Kollman charges, distant dependent dielectricity constant of 4). Then IMP (5) and ARP (8) were manually docked into the model in a conformation suggested to be active from 3D QSAR results (Dove and Buschauer, 1998, 1999). The selection of amino acids interacting with the imidazolylpropylguanidine moiety based on studies with hH2R (Gantz et al., 1992), hbeta 2AR (Wieland et al., 1996; Isogaya et al., 1999), and hH1R (Wieland et al., 1999) mutants. The docking with respect to TM 6 and 7 was only roughly suggested by seeking a pocket near the "hot" region around Asp-271 that may accommodate the imidazole and the pyridine moiety of IMP and ARP, respectively. Kollman all-atom types were assigned to IMP and ARP by analogy, including definition of the new atom type F (fluorine). Missing parameters (e.g., for bonds CA---NB, CC---CC, F---CA, and a number of bond angles) were derived from similar types or from the Tripos force field. As hydrogen bonding parameters for F-H3, the respective values for O and N were assigned. Both ligands were provided with Gasteiger-Hueckel charges. The complexes were fully minimized (distant dependent dielectricity constant of 1) without constraints by the Powell method down to an RMS gradient of less than 0.05. All calculations were performed with SYBYL 6.7 (Tripos, St. Louis, MO) on an SGI Octane workstation (SGI, Mountain View, CA)

Miscellaneous. Protein concentrations were determined using the DC protein assay kit (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA). All analyses of experimental data were performed with the Prism III program (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA).

    Results and Discussion
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Experimental Procedures
Results and Discussion
Conclusions
References

Immunological Detection of hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S in Sf9 Cell Membranes. Monomeric nonfused H2R expressed in Sf9 cells migrates as ~33-kDa band in SDS-PAGE (Fukushima et al., 1997), and the apparent molecular mass of Gsalpha S is ~45 kDa. Thus, the molecular mass of H2R-Gsalpha S fusion proteins was expected to be ~78 kDa. In fact, the anti-FLAG Ig detected a ~78-kDa band in immunoblots (Fig. 3). The intensities of immunologically detected bands in membranes expressing hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S were similar to the band intensities in membranes expressing beta 2AR-Gsalpha L fusion protein at 7.0 pmol/mg as determined by [3H]DHA saturation binding. The ~44-kDa band in membranes expressing beta 2AR-Gsalpha L represents a degradation product of the fusion protein that was generated as the result of incidental freeze/thaw cycles. The membranes expressing H2R-Gsalpha S did not undergo such cycles, and accordingly, we did not observe degradation products. In membranes expressing hH2R-Gsalpha S and, to a much lesser extent, in membranes expressing gpH2R-Gsalpha S, we also observed ~160-kDa bands. The H2R is known to form homodimers (Fukushima et al., 1997), and thus the ~160-kDa bands most probably represent H2R-Gsalpha S fusion protein homodimers.


View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3.   Analysis of the expression of H2R-Gsalpha S fusion proteins in Sf9 cell membranes. Various Sf9 cell membrane preparations (SP followed by number) expressing beta 2AR-Gsalpha L (7.0 pmol/mg as assessed by [3H]DHA saturation binding) and H2R-Gsalpha fusion proteins were separated by SDS-PAGE using a gel that contained 8% (w/v) acrylamide. Fusion proteins were probed with the anti-FLAG Ig (M1 antibody). Each membrane preparation was analyzed in three different amounts (25, 50, and 100 µg of protein, respectively, from left to right). Numbers on the left of the immunoblot indicate molecular masses of marker proteins. Shown is the horseradish peroxidase-reacted Immobilon P membrane of a representative gel. Similar results were obtained with four other membrane preparations of hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S each.

[3H]TIO- and [35S]GTPgamma S Saturation Binding to hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S Expressed in Sf9 Cell Membranes. Native gpH2R binds [3H]TIO with a Kd value of ~17 nM (Gajtkowski et al., 1983). However, the use of [3H]TIO in native organs is severely limited by the fact that nonspecific binding with saturating [3H]TIO concentrations amounts to ~85 to 90% of total [3H]TIO binding. In Sf9 membranes, only ~55 to 65% nonspecific [3H]TIO binding occurred with saturating radioligand concentrations. Therefore, a more precise determination of the kinetics of specific [3H]TIO binding was possible (Fig. 4). H2R-Gsalpha S fusion proteins expressed in Sf9 membranes bound [3H]TIO according to monophasic saturation curves: hH2R-Gsalpha S with a Kd value of 32.0 ± 4.6 nM and a Bmax value of 0.43 ± 0.02 pmol/mg (SP166); gpH2R-Gsalpha S with a Kd value of 34.4 ± 8.4 nM and a Bmax value of 0.72 ± 0.02 pmol/mg (SP391). Although the Kd values for [3H]TIO fit well to the KB values for TIO in the GTPase competition studies with HIS (Table 1), we would have expected Bmax values of ~5 to 7 pmol/mg for H2R-Gsalpha S fusion proteins.


View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4.   [3H]TIO saturation binding in Sf9 membranes expressing hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S. Membranes expressing hH2R-Gsalpha S (A, SP166) or gpH2R-Gsalpha S (B, SP391) were incubated in the presence of [3H]TIO at the concentrations indicated on the abscissa as described under Experimental Procedures. Nonspecific binding is the [3H]TIO binding not competed for by 100 µM unlabeled TIO. Specific binding is the difference between total [3H]TIO binding and nonspecific [3H]TIO binding for a given [3H]TIO concentration. Data were analyzed by nonlinear regression and are the means ± S.D. of three experiments performed in duplicate. Similar results were obtained with four other membrane preparations of hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S each.


                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1
Potencies and inverse agonist efficacies of antagonists at hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S expressed in Sf9 cell membranes

KB values for hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S were determined in the GTPase assay. GTP hydrolysis was determined as described under Experimental Procedures. Reaction mixtures contained Sf9 membranes expressing fusion proteins, 1 µM HIS as agonist and antagonists at concentrations from 1 nM to 100 µM to generate saturated competition curves. Competition curves were analyzed by nonlinear regression. To determine the inverse agonist efficacies of antagonists (Inv. Ago. Eff.), the effects of antagonists at a fixed concentration (10 µM) on basal GTPase activity were assessed and referred to the stimulatory effect of 100 µM HIS (= 1.00). Typical basal GTPase activities ranged between ~1 and 2 pmol/mg/min, and typical GTPase activities stimulated by HIS (1 µM) ranged between ~2.5 and 5.0 pmol/mg/min. Data shown are the means of four to five experiments performed in duplicate. Numbers in parentheses represent the 95% confidence intervals. The relative potency (Rel. Pot.) of CIM was set at 100, and the potencies of other antagonists were measured against this value to facilitate comparison of antagonist potencies in the various systems. The effects of compounds at hH2R-Gsalpha S were compared with the corresponding effects of compounds at gpH2R-Gsalpha S using the t test.

There are two possible explanations for the low Bmax values of [3H]TIO binding to H2R-Gsalpha S fusion proteins. [3H]TIO could either bind to only a fraction of the functionally active fusion protein molecules or the majority of the expressed molecules could be inactive. To discriminate between these alternatives, we took advantage of the fact that in GPCR-Galpha fusion proteins, 1 mol of protein binds ~1 mol of [35S]GTPgamma S when fully activated (Wenzel-Seifert and Seifert, 2000; Liu et al., 2001). The Bmax value of HIS-stimulated [35S]GTPgamma S binding was 5.2 ± 0.6 pmol/mg for hH2R-Gsalpha S (SP166) and 8.7 ± 1.1 pmol/mg for gpH2R-Gsalpha S (SP391). These values fit well to the immunological data (Fig. 3) and suggest that almost all of the expressed H2R-Gsalpha molecules are functionally active. Accordingly, the majority of ligand-free H2R-Gsalpha molecules exist in a conformation that does not bind [3H]TIO. Future studies will have to determine whether H2R-Gsalpha differentially binds [3H]TIO and another H2R radioligand, [125I]iodoaminopotentidine (Hill et al., 1997).

Similar Antagonist Potencies at hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S Expressed in Sf9 Cell Membranes and Evidence that RAN and APT Differentially Stabilize an Inactive Conformation in H2R Species Isoforms. In GPCR-Galpha fusion proteins, the GTPase assay is a highly sensitive method to determine ligand potencies and efficacies (Seifert et al., 1999; Milligan, 2000). GTP hydrolysis in Sf9 membranes expressing H2R-Gsalpha S fusion proteins was stimulated with HIS at a submaximally effective concentration, and the HIS-stimulated GTP hydrolysis was inhibited by H2R antagonists of various chemical classes. The KB values for CIM (14), RAN (15), ZOL (16), TIO (17), FAM (18), and APT (19) did not vary by more than a factor of 2 between hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S (Table 1). We correlated pKB values of antagonists at hH2R-Gsalpha S versus gpH2R-Gsalpha S. If the antagonist-affinities of hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S were identical, we would expect a linear correlation with a slope of 1.00 that follows the dotted line in Fig. 5A. Indeed, we obtained a highly significant correlation with a slope of 0.98 close to the theoretical curve (Fig. 5A), indicating that the antagonist-binding properties of hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S are very similar. This is an important finding, because for other GPCR species isoforms, including the H3R, differences in antagonist-binding properties were observed (Kopin et al., 2000; Ligneau et al., 2000; Lovenberg et al., 2000).


View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5.   Relations between pKB values for antagonists and between pD2 values for HIS-like agonists at hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S. pKB values were derived from KB values shown in Table 1. pD2 values were derived from EC50 values shown in Table 2. Solid lines represent the actual correlations obtained. Dashed lines represent the 95% confidence intervals of the correlations. The straight dotted lines represent the theoretical correlations that would have been obtained if pKB values and pD2 values, respectively, had been identical in the two systems compared with each other. The theoretical curves have a slope of 1.00. A, correlation of pKB values for hH2R-Gsalpha S versus gpH2R-Gsalpha S. Slope, 0.98 ± 0.13; r2, 0.94; p = 0.0015 (significant). B, correlation of pD2 values for agonists 1 to 4 at hH2R-Gsalpha S versus gpH2R-Gsalpha S. Slope, 0.99 ± 0.13; r2, 0.97; p = 0.0172 (significant).

Previous studies had shown that the hH2R is constitutively active (i.e., H2R antagonists decrease the activity of the agonist-free hH2R) (Alewijnse et al., 1998). In fact, RAN (15) had a consistent inverse agonist effect at hH2R-Gsalpha S (Table 1). APT (19), which had not been studied in this respect previously, was a much more efficient inverse agonist than RAN (15) at hH2R-Gsalpha S. At gpH2R-Gsalpha S, RAN showed the greatest inverse agonist effect among the antagonists studied, and the effect of RAN at gpH2R-Gsalpha S was also significantly greater than at hH2R-Gsalpha S. Conversely, APT was considerably more efficient as an inverse agonist at hH2R-Gsalpha S than at gpH2R-Gsalpha S. These data show that RAN and APT differentially stabilize an inactive conformation in hH2R and gpH2R. In support of the hypothesis that different H2R antagonists stabilize unique conformations in H2Rs from different species is the finding that at the rat H2R, burimamide is a neutral antagonist, whereas at hH2R, it is a partial agonist (Alewijnse et al., 1998).

The absolute inverse agonist activities of APT at hH2R-Gsalpha S and of RAN at gpH2R-Gsalpha S, respectively, were similar, indicating that both GPCRs exhibit a similar degree of constitutive activity. In comparison, the rat H2R is less constitutively active than hH2R (Alewijnse et al., 1998). These data show that H2R species isoforms differ from each other in their constitutive activity. Differences in constitutive activity among GPCR species isoforms are not restricted to the H2R (Kopin et al., 2000). We also noted that, except for RAN (15) and APT (19), the inverse agonist effect of each individual antagonist was quite variable (Table 1). This variability does not reflect insensitivity of the GTPase assay. Rather, we assume that in our system, CIM (14), ZOL (16), TIO (17), and FAM (18) casually act as neutral antagonists or inverse agonists at H2Rs, resulting in considerable data variability. Stochastic actions of weak inverse agonists were also reported for the beta 2AR (Chidiac et al., 1996). Another factor that could have contributed to the relatively small inverse agonist effects of RAN and FAM at H2R in this study relative to a previous study (Alewijnse et al., 1998) could be that we studied coupling of H2Rs to Gsalpha S and not Gsalpha L (see Experimental Procedures). Specifically, it is known that Gsalpha L confers the properties of constitutive activity to the beta 2AR; i.e., Gsalpha L increases inverse agonists effects, whereas Gsalpha S does not have these effects (Seifert et al., 1998b). Thus, it is possible that in the Chinese hamster ovary cells studied by Alewijnse et al. (1998), the H2R was preferentially coupled to Gsalpha L, thereby increasing inverse agonist effects.

Agonist Efficacies, Potencies and Affinities at hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S Expressed in Sf9 Cell Membranes: Evidence that Guanidines Stabilize an Active Conformation in gpH2R More Efficiently and Potently Than in hH2R. We determined the efficacies and potencies of the small H2R agonists 1 to 4 and of the larger H2R agonists 5 to 13 in the GTPase assay (Table 2). The efficacies of HIS (1), DIM (2), AMT (3), and BET (4) were similar at hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S, respectively. In contrast, the efficacies of the guanidines 5 to 13 at hH2R-Gsalpha S were all significantly lower than at gpH2R-Gsalpha S. The differences in efficacy were most prominent for BU-E-43 (7), BU-E-48 (10), and D281 (13). Specifically, elongation of the alkyl chain between the guanidino group and the phenyl ring (6 right-arrow 7) and introduction of a bulky Br atom (6 right-arrow 10) or of multiple Cl atoms into the phenyl ring (12 right-arrow 13) had pronounced negative effects on agonist efficacy at hH2R-Gsalpha S but not at gpH2R-Gsalpha S. Accordingly, the slope of the correlation of the efficacies of agonists at hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S was very shallow, and the theoretical curve assuming pharmacological identity of H2R species isoforms was not approached within the data interval (Fig. 6A). Particularly informative is the comparison of the efficacies of BET (4) and guanidines 8 to 11. At hH2R-Gsalpha S, these compounds possess efficacies of 0.73 to 0.87, but only guanidines have increased efficacies at gpH2R-Gsalpha S (Table 2). Taken together, these results indicate that the hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S conformations stabilized by one of the small agonists 1 to 4 similarly promote GDP/GTP exchange. In contrast, the guanidines 5 to 13 stabilize a hH2R-Gsalpha S conformation considerably less efficient for GDP/GTP exchange than the corresponding gpH2R-Gsalpha S conformation.


                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2
Agonist efficacies and potencies at hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S expressed in Sf9 cell membranes

Potencies and efficacies of ligands at hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S were determined in the GTPase assay. GTP hydrolysis was determined as described under Experimental Procedures. Reaction mixtures contained Sf9 membranes expressing fusion proteins and agonists at concentrations from 1 nM to 1 mM as appropriate to generate saturated concentration/response curves. Curves were analyzed by nonlinear regression. Typical basal GTPase activities ranged between ~1 and 2 pmol/mg/min, and typical GTPase activities stimulated by HIS (100 µM) ranged between ~4 and 8 pmol/mg/min. To calculate agonist efficacies, the maximum stimulatory effect of HIS was set at 1.00, and the stimulatory effects of other agonists were referred to this value. Data shown are the means ± SD of four to six experiments performed in duplicate. The relative potency (Rel. Pot.) of HIS was set at 100, and the potencies of other agonists were referred to this value to facilitate comparison of agonist potencies with hH2R-A271D-Gsalpha S, NgpChH2R-Gsalpha S, and NhCgpH2R-Gsalpha S (Table 4). Efficacies and potencies, respectively, of ligands at hH2R-Gsalpha S were compared with the corresponding parameters at gpH2R-Gsalpha S using the t test.


View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6.   Relations between efficacies and potencies of guanidines at hH2R-Gsalpha S, hH2R-A271D-Gsalpha S, NgpChH2R-Gsalpha S and NhCgpH2R-Gsalpha S, respectively, versus gpH2R-Gsalpha S. Agonist efficacies were taken from Tables 2 and 4, and pD2 values were derived from the EC50 values shown in Tables 2 and 4. Solid lines represent the actual correlations obtained. Dashed lines represent the 95% confidence intervals of the correlations. The straight dotted lines represent the theoretical correlations that would have been obtained if efficacies and pD2 values, respectively, had been identical in the two systems compared with each other. The theoretical curves have a slope of 1.00. A, correlation of efficacies of agonists 5 to 13 at hH2R-Gsalpha S versus gpH2R-Gsalpha S. Slope, 0.41 ± 0.10; r2, 0.72; p = 0.0038 (significant). B, correlation of pD2 values for agonists 5 to 13 at hH2R-Gsalpha S versus gpH2R-Gsalpha S. Slope, 0.89 ± 0.32; r2, 0.53; p = 0.0270 (significant). C, correlation of efficacies of agonists 5 to 8, 10, 11, and 13 at hH2R-A271D-Gsalpha S versus gpH2R-Gsalpha S. Slope, 0.50 ± 0.12; r2, 0.77; p =0.0096 (significant). D, correlation of pD2 values for agonists 5 to 8, 10, 11, and 13 at hH2R-A271D-Gsalpha S versus gpH2R-Gsalpha S. Slope, 0.81 ± 0.16; r2, 0.83; p = 0.0041 (significant). E, correlation of efficacies of agonists 5 to 8, 10, 11, and 13 at NgpChH2R-Gsalpha S versus gpH2R-Gsalpha S. Slope, 0.34 ± 0.04; r2, 0.94; p = 0.0003 (significant). F, correlation of pD2 values for agonists 5 to 8, 10, 11, and 13 at NgpChH2R-Gsalpha S versus gpH2R-Gsalpha S. Slope, 0.67 ± 1.12; r2, 0.07; p = 0.57 (not significant). G, correlation of efficacies of agonists 5 to 8, 10, 11, and 13 at NhCgpH2R-Gsalpha S versus gpH2R-Gsalpha S. Slope, 0.36 ± 0.06; r2, 0.88; p = 0.0015 (significant). H, correlation of pD2 values for agonists 5 to 8, 10, 11, and 13 at NhCgpH2R-Gsalpha S versus gpH2R-Gsalpha S. Slope, 0.73 ± 0.28; r2, 0.58; p = 0.0471 (significant).

The potencies of small agonists (1-4) differed by not more than a factor of 2 between hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S (Table 2). The correlation of the pD2 values of compounds 1 to 4 at both H2R-Gsalpha S was highly significant with a slope close to the theoretical curve assuming pharmacological identity of H2R species isoforms (Fig. 5B). Except for BU-E-43 (7), the potencies of guanidines were all significantly lower at hH2R-Gsalpha S than at gpH2R-Gsalpha S. Differences in potency between hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S were particularly large for BU-E-75 (11) (6.6-fold), BU-E-42 (6) (6.0-fold), and IMP (5) (5.0-fold). The slope of the correlation between the pD2 values of guanidines at hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S was 0.89, and the curve nearly paralleled the theoretical curve assuming pharmacological identity of H2R species isoforms (Fig. 6B), indicating a constant contribution of the guanidinoalkylaryl moiety to the ligand/GPCR interaction difference between hH2R and gpH2R. Notably, agonist potency decreased almost 3-fold at gpH2R-Gsalpha S by elongation of the alkyl chain between the guanidino group and the phenyl ring (6 right-arrow 7) (Fig. 1), but slightly increased at hH2R-Gsalpha S. These data indicate that the guanidine binding pocket in gpH2R is smaller or less flexible than in hH2R. Taken together, guanidines stabilize an active conformation in gpH2R not only more efficiently but also more potently than in hH2R, and the structure-activity relationships for guanidines at hH2R and gpH2R are slightly different.

To further corroborate the concept of species-specific H2R conformations stabilized by guanidines, we competed [3H]TIO binding to H2R-Gsalpha S fusion proteins with unlabeled guanidines. In the absence of guanine nucleotides, agonist, GPCR, and G-protein form a ternary complex that is characterized by high agonist affinity (Seifert et al., 1998a). Typically, ternary complex formation is not complete; i.e., a certain fraction of GPCRs display low agonist-affinity (Seifert et al., 1998a). Consequently, agonist-competition curves are biphasic. GTPgamma S reduces agonist affinity, presumably reflecting ternary complex dissociation. However, in some cases, high-affinity agonist binding is GTPgamma S-insensitive, indicative of tight GPCR/G-protein coupling (Seifert et al., 1998a).

Fig. 7 shows the [3H]TIO competition curves with IMP (5), ARP (8), and BU-E-48 (10) in membranes expressing hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S in the absence and presence of GTPgamma S, and Table 3 provides a summary of the nonlinear regression analysis. The Kl-values of guanidines 5, 8, and 10 at hH2R-Gsalpha S were all higher than at gpH2R-Gsalpha S. All Kl values were much more similar to the corresponding EC50 in the GTPase assay than the Kh values (Tables 2 and 3). These data suggest that H2Rs in a conformation with low affinity for guanidines can efficiently mediate GDP/GTP exchange. An explanation for the moderate divergence between Kl and EC50 values could be that individual guanidines may interact differently with [3H]TIO-bound and ligand-free H2R. Dissociations between agonist-affinities in binding assays and agonist potencies in functional assays have been observed for several GPCRs (Wenzel-Seifert et al., 1999; Seifert et al., 2001), and the reader is referred to these articles and references cited therein for a detailed discussion on this topic.


View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7.   Competition of [3H]TIO binding by guanidines in Sf9 membranes expressing hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S. [3H]TIO binding in Sf9 membranes was performed as described under Experimental Procedures. Reaction mixtures contained membranes expressing fusion proteins, 10 nM [3H]TIO and agonists at the concentrations indicated on the abscissa. Reaction mixtures additionally contained distilled water (control) or GTPgamma S (10 µM). A and B, IMP (5); C and D, ARP (8); E and F, BU-E-48 (10). Data were analyzed for best fit to monophasic or biphasic competition curves (F test). Data shown are the means ± S.D. of three to five experiments performed in duplicate.


                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 3
Binding properties of guanidines at hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S expressed in Sf9 cell membranes

Agonist competition binding was determined as described under Experimental Procedures. The data shown in Fig. 7 were analyzed by nonlinear regression for best fit to monophasic or biphasic competition curves. Data shown are the means of four to six experiments performed in duplicate. Numbers in parentheses represent the 95% confidence intervals. Kh and Kl designate the dissociation constants for the high- and low-affinity state of H2Rs, respectively. %Rh indicates the percentage of high-affinity binding sites. The corresponding values obtained in the presence of GTPgamma S (10 µM) are referred to as KhGTPgamma S, KlGTPgamma S and %RhGTPgamma S, respectively. If data were best fit to monophasic competition curves, data are listed under Kl and KlGTPgamma S, respectively.

At hH2R-Gsalpha S and gpH2R-Gsalpha S the IMP-competition curves in the absence of GTPgamma S were monophasic (Fig. 7, A and B). GTPgamma S shifted the IMP-competition curves at both fusion proteins to the right, indicating that despite our inability to resolve high- and low-affinity binding components, IMP still formed a ternary complex with H2R-Gsalpha S. Intriguingly, with gpH2R-Gsalpha S, the IMP-competition curve in the presence of GTPgamma S was biphasic, suggesting partial stability of the ternary complex of IMP-liganded gpH2R with GTPgamma S-liganded Gsalpha S. The ternary complex in the hH2R-Gsalpha S system seems to be less stable as indicated by the monophasic IMP-competition curve in the presence of GTPgamma S. ARP was highly efficient at stabilizing the ternary complex in both H2R-Gsalpha S fusion proteins (Fig. 7, C and D). In hH2R-Gsalpha S, GTPgamma S abolished ternary complex formation with ARP, as reflected by the monophasic and strongly rightward-shifted agonist competition curve (Fig. 7C). In marked contrast, at gpH2R-Gsalpha S, GTPgamma S had only a small effect on the ARP-competition curve (Fig. 7D), indicating high stability of the ternary complex in the presence of GTPgamma S-liganded Gsalpha S. Similar to ARP, the binding of BU-E-48 (10) at hH2R-Gsalpha S was highly GTPgamma S-sensitive, and at gpH2R-Gsalpha S it was largely GTPgamma S-insensitive (Fig. 7, E and F). Collectively, these data indicate that the conformations of gpH2R stabilized by guanidines interact more tightly with Gsalpha S than the corresponding conformations of hH2R. Because of this different GPCR/G-protein interaction, guanidines promote steady-state GDP/GTP exchange through gpH2R more efficiently than through hH2R (Fig. 6 and Table 2).

Molecular Analysis of Guanidine/H2R Interactions. The crystal structure of bovine rhodopsin (Palczewski et al., 2000) has improved the reliability of GPCR models with bound ligands. To elucidate the structural basis for the differences in interactions of guanidines with H2R species isoforms, we built three-dimensional models of the seven TM helices of gpH2R starting from the PDB rhodopsin file 1f88 and using the alignment with the beta 2AR (Palczewski et al., 2000). Additionally, our previous 3D QSAR data obtained by comparative molecular field analysis, correlating pD2 values of guanidines at gpH2R-atrium with electrostatic and steric field variables, were considered (Dove and Buschauer, 1998, 1999), in particular for defining the conformation and superposition of structures.

Figs. 8 and 9 show the putative binding of IMP (5) and ARP (8), respectively, to gpH2R. Presumably, the imidazolylpropylguanidine moiety binds to H2R like HIS (1). Studies with H2R mutants proved an ionic interaction of the protonated amino group with Asp-98 (TM3) (see also Fig. 2) (Gantz et al., 1992). The second and third site of the widely accepted three-point model for biogenic amine/GPCR interaction could principally be formed by the couples Asp-186/Thr-190 (Gantz et al., 1992) or Tyr-182/Asp-186 in TM5 (Nederkoorn et al., 1996). Based on a pure alpha -helical TM5, the proposed two hydrogen bonds of the imidazole ring with H2R are only possible with Tyr-182 and Asp-186. This assumption is also in agreement with a pH-dependent model of H2R activation that suggests tautomerization of the imidazole into the Npi -H form caused by neutralization of HIS upon binding and accompanied by proton transfers from Tyr-182 to Npi and from Ntau to Asp-186, respectively (Giraldo, 1999). Interactions of nontautomeric agonists with H2R are compatible with this model, too. Asn-293 of the beta 2AR (Wieland et al., 1996) and Phe-436 of the H1R (Wieland et al., 1999) have been suggested to interact with the beta -OH group of epinephrine and with the imidazolylethyl side chain of HIS, respectively. The corresponding residue in TM6 of the H2R, Phe-254, is near imidazolylpropyl side chain only if agonists do not deeply penetrate into the GPCR core. The selected orientation of the guanidines in Figs. 8 and 9, therefore, is in agreement with our present knowledge on biogenic amine/GPCR interactions.