![[Feedback]](/icons/banner/feedbackACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[For Subscribers]](/icons/banner/subscriberACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Archive]](/icons/banner/archiveACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Search]](/icons/banner/searchACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Contents]](/icons/banner/tocACT.gif){kind=icon}
|
|
|
|
|
||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Department of Pharmacology and Department of Internal Medicine (Cardiovascular Medicine), the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Received February 7, 2007; accepted February 9, 2007
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract References |
|---|
1 and 2 adrenergic receptors. Each article bridges a gap between recent biophysical studies showing distinct receptor conformations produced by different ligands and the increasing number of reports of discordant outputs by a single ligand to two effector readouts. The Lane et al. study clearly demonstrates G protein-specific actions of D2 dopamine receptor ligands. These range from equivalent responses for G
o and Gi activation by norapomorphine and 7-hydroxy-2-dipropylaminotetralin to S-(–)-3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)-N-propylpiperidine, which is an agonist for Go activation and an inverse agonist at Gi1 and Gi2. Likewise, Galandrin and Bouvier describe a two-dimensional Cartesian efficacy approach in which propranolol is an agonist for extracellular signal-regulated kinase activation, probably through -arrestin, while functioning as an inverse agonist for adenylyl cyclase activation. Thus, these two important articles further solidify the concepts of functional selectivity and protean agonism and begin to define the first postreceptor step in actions of protean agonist ligands.
). Efficacy describes how strongly a ligand activates a receptor, and, in contrast to intrinsic activity (Ariens, 1954), efficacy was conceived to be independent of the system used (cells, tissues, or in vivo) and the response measured (contraction, second messengers, etc.). The concept of pharmacological efficacy, however, has undergone major revisions in the last 20 years. Two key developments were: 1) the recognition of inverse agonists—compounds with "negative" efficacy that actively turn off receptors (Costa and Herz, 1989; Milligan, 2003) and 2) the recognition that efficacy cannot be expressed as a single number that determines the strength of the receptor stimulus. This occurs because receptor signals do not just activate linear pathways as previously assumed (Stephenson, 1956), but their signals can branch and engage distinct intracellular protein components. Thus, distinct outputs involving different signaling pathways may not show the same pattern of agonist dependence (Kenakin, 1995, 2001). This idea has been given many colorful (and some confusing) names, such as protean agonism, biased agonism, agonist directed trafficking of receptor stimulus, and functional selectivity. It was recently the subject of an excellent review (Urban et al., 2007).
A number of cases have been reported in which different apparent efficacies are seen for agonists acting at two effector readouts from the same receptor (Berg et al., 1998; Brink et al., 2000; Wei et al., 2003). Furthermore, recent, biophysical studies now show directly that different agonist ligands induce qualitatively different receptor conformations (Ghanouni et al., 2001; Swaminath et al., 2005; for review, see Perez and Karnik, 2005). Thus, a unidimensional efficacy term cannot account for the richness of receptor signaling. However, the mechanistic steps between distinct receptor conformations and distinct effector readouts were not directly addressed. The two articles examined here fill a gap in our understanding of this process by bridging the receptor-effector divide. One focuses on G protein selectivity and the other on distinct G protein and non-G protein mechanisms. For purposes of this article, I will use the term protean ligand to describe these phenomena. Although the original definition intended it to describe ligands with both agonist and inverse agonist actions at one receptor (Kenakin, 2001), it is also rather appropriate to serve as a noun for ligands that show functional selectivity (Urban et al., 2007).
Selective G Protein Activation. The possibility that agonists could selectively activate different G proteins was an obvious explanation for this phenomenon, but most evidence was indirect (Brink et al., 2000; MacKinnon et al., 2001). In the current issue of Molecular Pharmacology, an article by Lane et al. (2007) clearly establishes that mechanism. They systematically assess activation of the four primary members of the Gi family (Gi1, Gi2, Gi3, and Go) by different agonists at the D2L dopamine receptor. By use of the receptor-G protein fusion method and [35S]guanosine 5'-O-(3-thio)triphosphate binding, they ensure identical expression of the associated G protein subunits and also eliminate membrane compartmentation as a reason why one G protein may be activated while another is not. Most of the D2 agonists tested can activate all four Gi family G proteins. However, (S)-(–)-3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)-N-propylpiperidine [S-(–)-3-PPP] and p-tyramine are only able to activate Go and not Gi1, Gi2, or Gi3. To eliminate concerns about the artificial nature of the fusion proteins, the authors also express the G subunits from a tetracycline-regulated promoter and find the same result. Furthermore, they show that high-affinity agonist binding of S-(–)-3-PPP, another measure of receptor-G protein coupling, also follows the same pattern with high affinity binding to the D2-Go fusion but not for Gi1, Gi2, or Gi3. Finally, S-(–)-3-PPP, in contrast to its activation of Go, is an inverse agonist at Gi1, Gi2, and possibly Gi3. This clearly establishes S-(–)-3-PPP as a protean agonist at the D2L dopamine receptor and provides a molecular mechanism for differential responses in this system (Fig. 1).
|
o better than Gi, 2) the complication of pertussis toxin resistance mutations in the G subunits, 3) the effect of this G specificity on effector responses, and 4) the ultimate in vivo functional significance of the work. Addressing these issues in reverse order, Lane et al. (2007) point out that in vivo work with S-(–)-3-PPP shows differential effects on pre- and postsynaptic dopamine functions (Hjorth et al., 1983). In 1983, however, one did not know about the five different dopamine receptor subtypes, so re-examination of this question with receptor-knockout models and/or improved pharmacological agents may be worthwhile. In addition, the role of G selectivity in the novel pharmacology of aripiprazole (Ohta et al., 2004) will be of interest to study. Second, distinct effector mechanisms have been proposed for Gi and Go signaling, activation of G protein-coupled inwardly rectifying potassium channel currents, and inhibition of voltage-gated Ca2+ channels (Sowell et al., 1997; Valenzuela et al., 1997). Thus, electrophysiological studies of these ligands in a D2-regulated neuronal system would be of significant interest. Third, the requirement for use of the pertussis toxin-insensitive mutations in the G subunit carboxyl termini is a potential concern. It is noteworthy that similar results on agonist selectivity for D2L regulation of G subunits was shown by Gazi et al. (2003) in Sf9 cells. They did not, however, detect inverse agonism of S-(–)-3-PPP at Gi1 and Gi2. That study (Gazi et al., 2003), however, does show that the general agonist selectivity seen here (Lane et al., 2007) is not due to the pertussis toxin-insensitive G proteins.
The fourth point above deserves individual scrutiny. Which of the four G subunits studied here really carries out D2 receptor function in vivo? Jiang et al. (2001) show that Go is the most important G subunit. In Go–/– mice, dopamine-stimulated [35S]guanosine 5'-O-(3-thio)triphosphate binding in brain and the GTP-shift for agonist binding to D2 receptors in the striatum was completely lost. In contrast, these measures of RG coupling were unaffected by knockouts of the three Gi subunits—either alone or in pairs. Thus, D2 receptors couple best to Go. This was initially attributed to the greater concentration of Go versus Gi subunits in the CNS. It is noteworthy that binding data in the present study (Lane et al., 2007) show that with equivalent G stoichiometry, D2 receptors have a similar ability to couple to Gi subunits and Go except perhaps for Gi2. D2 functional coupling, however, does show a preference for Go > Gi1 
Gi3 = Gi2 also seen previously (Gazi et al., 2003). In particular, the pEC50 for the majority of agonists tested was significantly greater for the D2-Go fusion than for the D2-Gi fusions. However, n-propyl norapomorphine (NPA) and 7-(dipropylamino)-5,6,7,8-tetrahydronaphthalen-2-ol show essentially identical EC50 and Emax values for activation of Go and Gi1 so the Go preference is agonist-dependent.
Thus Lane et al. (2007) clearly define G protein-selective agonist effects at D2 dopamine receptors (Fig. 1). They show a wide range of behaviors with NPA and 7-(dipropylamino)-5,6,7,8-tetrahydronaphthalen-2-ol having very similar abilities to activate Go and Gi1, whereas DA and quinpirole activate Go better than any Gi and p-tyramine and S-(–)-3-PPP are partial agonists for Go activation with virtually no activity for the Gi subunits. Indeed, S-(–)-3-PPP even has substantial inverse agonist activity with the D2-Gi1 and D2-Gi2 fusion systems. It will be of great interest to explore the implications of this work for effector signaling, in vivo pharmacology, and therapeutics.
G Protein versus non-G Protein Mechanisms. An alternative mechanism of protean ligand action is implicated in the November 2006 issue of Molecular Pharmacology (Galandrin and Bouvier, 2006). Besides the classic G protein pathway that activates adenylyl cyclase, several labs have defined non-G protein signaling mechanisms through 2 adrenergic receptor phosphorylation and recruitment of -arrestin as a signaling scaffold that can activate extracellular regulated kinase (ERK) (Azzi et al., 2003; Shenoy et al., 2006; Werry et al., 2006). Galandrin and Bouvier (2006) examined agonist-specific signaling to adenylyl cyclase (Gs-mediated) and ERK (Gs- and -arrestin-mediated) functional readouts. They found 2 ligands (e.g., propranolol) that are reasonable agonists for one pathway (-arrestin-dependent ERK signaling) and inverse agonists for the other (Gs-activated adenylyl cyclase). Although the ERK signal measured at early times is probably complicated by elements of both Gs and arrestin mechanisms (Shenoy et al., 2006), Galandrin and Bouvier (2006) provide an explicit multidimensional view of the "efficacy" of compounds, plotting the Emax for adenylyl cyclase signaling on the x-axis and the Emax for ERK signaling on the y-axis to provide a Cartesian (or vector) view of efficacy. In the case of the D2 readouts (Lane et al., 2007), that vector would have to be in four dimensions (one for each of the G proteins studied).
Thus, two key articles in Molecular Pharmacology push the frontier of molecular mechanisms of pathway-specific differential efficacy or protean ligand function. Both are characterized by a careful attention to quantitative analysis of drug action and each provides new but different insights into molecular mechanisms of G protein-coupled receptor action.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Please see the related article on page 1349.
ABBREVIATIONS: (S)-(–)-3-PPP, S-(–)-3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)-N-propylpiperidine; NPA, norapomorphine, ERK, extracellular regulated kinase; PTX, pertussis toxin.
Address correspondence to: Dr. Richard R. Neubig, Department of Pharmacology, 1301 MSRB III, 1150 W. Medical Center Drive, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0632. E-mail: rneubig{at}umich.edu
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractReferences |
|---|
Azzi M, Charest PG, Angers S, Rousseau G, Kohout T, Bouvier M, and Pineyro G (2003) Beta-arrestin-mediated activation of MAPK by inverse agonists reveals distinct active conformations for G protein-coupled receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 11406–11411.
Berg KA, Maayani S, Goldfarb J, Scaramellini C, Leff P, and Clarke WP (1998) Effector pathway-dependent relative efficacy at serotonin type 2A and 2C receptors: evidence for agonist-directed trafficking of receptor stimulus. Mol Pharmacol 54: 94–104.
Brink CB, Wade SM, and Neubig RR (2000) Agonist-directed trafficking of porcine 2A-adrenergic receptor signaling in Chinese hamster ovary cells: L-isoproterenol selectively activates Gs. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 294: 539–547.
Costa T and Herz A (1989) Antagonists with negative intrinsic activity at delta opioid receptors coupled to GTP-binding proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86: 7321–7325.
Galandrin S and Bouvier M (2006) Distinct signaling profiles of 1 and 2 adrenergic receptor ligands toward adenylyl cyclase and mitogen-activated protein kinase reveals the pluridimensionality of efficacy. Mol Pharmacol 70: 1575–1584.
Gazi L, Nickolls SA, and Strange PG (2003) Functional coupling of the human dopamine D2 receptor with G alpha i1, G alpha i2, G alpha i3 and G alpha o G proteins: evidence for agonist regulation of G protein selectivity. Br J Pharmacol 138: 775–786.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ghanouni P, Gryczynski Z, Steenhuis JJ, Lee TW, Farrens DL, Lakowicz JR, and Kobilka BK (2001) Functionally different agonists induce distinct conformations in the G protein coupling domain of the beta 2 adrenergic receptor. J Biol Chem 276: 24433–24436.
Hjorth S, Carlsson A, Clark D, Svensson K, Wikstrom H, Sanchez D, Lindberg P, Hacksell U, Arvidsson LE, Johansson A, et al. (1983) Central dopamine receptor agonist and antagonist actions of the enantiomers of 3-PPP. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 81: 89–99.[CrossRef][Medline]
Jiang M, Spicher K, Boulay G, Wang Y, and Birnbaumer L (2001) Most central nervous system D2 dopamine receptors are coupled to their effectors by Go. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 3577–3582.
Kenakin T (1995) Agonist-receptor efficacy. II. Agonist trafficking of receptor signals. Trends Pharmacol Sci 16: 232–238.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kenakin T (2001) Inverse, protean, and ligand-selective agonism: matters of receptor conformation. FASEB J 15: 598–611.
Lane JR, Powney B, Wise A, Rees S, and Milligan G (2007) Protean agonism at the dopamine D2 receptor: S-3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)-N-propylpiperidine is an agonist for activation of Go1 but an antagonist/inverse agonist for Gi1, Gi2 and Gi3 Mol Pharmacol 71: 1349–1359.
MacKinnon AC, Waters C, Jodrell D, Haslett C, and Sethi T (2001) Bombesin and substance P analogues differentially regulate G-protein coupling to the bombesin receptor. Direct evidence for biased agonism. J Biol Chem 276: 28083–28091.
Milligan G (2003) Constitutive activity and inverse agonists of G protein-coupled receptors: a current perspective. Mol Pharmacol 64: 1271–1276.
Ohta T, Hasebe N, Tsuji S, Izawa K, Jin YT, Kido S, Natori S, Sato M, and Kikuchi K (2004) Unequal effects of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in acute cardiac dysfunction induced by isoproterenol. Am J Physiol 287: H2914–H2921.
Perez DM and Karnik SS (2005) Multiple signaling states of G-protein-coupled receptors. Pharmacol Rev 57: 147–161.
Shenoy SK, Drake MT, Nelson CD, Houtz DA, Xiao K, Madabushi S, Reiter E, Premont RT, Lichtarge O, and Lefkowitz RJ (2006) -Arrestin-dependent, G protein-independent ERK1/2 activation by the 2 adrenergic receptor. J Biol Chem 281: 1261–1273.
Sowell MO, Ye C, Ricupero DA, Hansen S, Quinn SJ, Vassilev PM, and Mortensen RM (1997) Targeted inactivation of i2 or i3 disrupts activation of the cardiac muscarinic K+ channel, IK+ Ach, in intact cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94: 7921–7926.
Stephenson RP (1956) A modification of receptor theory. Br J Pharmacol 11: 379–393.
Swaminath G, Deupi X, Lee TW, Zhu W, Thian FS, Kobilka TS, and Kobilka B (2005) Probing the 2 adrenoceptor binding site with catechol reveals differences in binding and activation by agonists and partial agonists. J Biol Chem 280: 22165–22171.
Urban JD, Clarke WP, von Zastrow M, Nichols DE, Kobilka B, Weinstein H, Javitch JA, Roth BL, Christopoulos A, Sexton PM, et al. (2007) Functional selectivity and classical concepts of quantitative pharmacology. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 320: 1–13.
Valenzuela D, Han X, Mende U, Fankhauser C, Mashimo H, Huang P, Pfeffer J, Neer EJ, and Fishman MC (1997) Go is necessary for muscarinic regulation of Ca2+ channels in mouse heart. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94: 1727–1732.
Wei H, Ahn S, Shenoy SK, Karnik SS, Hunyady L, Luttrell LM, and Lefkowitz RJ (2003) Independent beta-arrestin 2 and G protein-mediated pathways for angiotensin II activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1 and 2. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 10782–10787.
Werry TD, Christopoulos A, and Sexton PM (2006) Mechanisms of ERK1/2 regulation by seven-transmembrane-domain receptors. Curr Pharm Des 12: 1683–1702.[CrossRef][Medline]
Related articles in MolPharm:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. Seifert and S. Dove Functional Selectivity of GPCR Ligand Stereoisomers: New Pharmacological Opportunities Mol. Pharmacol., January 1, 2009; 75(1): 13 - 18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Sato, D. S. Hutchinson, B. A. Evans, and R. J. Summers Mol. Pharmacol., November 1, 2008; 74(5): 1417 - 1428. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. T. Drake, J. D. Violin, E. J. Whalen, J. W. Wisler, S. K. Shenoy, and R. J. Lefkowitz {beta}-Arrestin-biased Agonism at the {beta}2-Adrenergic Receptor J. Biol. Chem., February 29, 2008; 283(9): 5669 - 5676. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
