Literature DB >> 10385263

Comparative pharmacology of recombinant human M3 and M5 muscarinic receptors expressed in CHO-K1 cells.

N Watson1, D V Daniels, A P Ford, R M Eglen, S S Hegde.   

Abstract

1. Affinity estimates were obtained for several muscarinic antagonists against carbachol-stimulated [3H]-inositol phosphates accumulation in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO-KI) cells stably expressing either human muscarinic M3 or M5 receptor subtypes. The rationale for these studies was to generate a functional antagonist affinity profile for the M5 receptor subtype and compare this with that of the M3 receptor, in order to identify compounds which discriminate between these two subtypes. 2. The rank order of antagonist apparent affinities (pK(B)) at the muscarinic M5 receptor was atropine (8.7) > or =tolterodine (8.6) = 4-diphenylacetoxy-N-methylpiperidine (4-DAMP, 8.6)> darifenacin (7.7) > or =zamifenacin (7.6)>oxybutynin (6.6)= para-fluorohexahydrosiladifenidol (p-F-HHSiD, 6.6)>pirenzepine (6.4) > or = methoctramine (6.3)=himbacine (6.3)>AQ-RA 741 (6.1). 3. Antagonist apparent affinities for both receptor subtypes compare well with published binding affinity estimates. No antagonist displayed greater selectivity for the muscarinic M5 subtype over the M3 subtype, but himbacine, AQ-RA 741, p-F-HHSiD, darifenacin and oxybutynin displayed between 9- and 60 fold greater selectivity for the muscarinic M3 over the M5 subtype. 4. This study highlights the similarity in pharmacological profiles of M3 and M5 receptor subtypes and identifies five antagonists that may represent useful tools for discriminating between these two subtypes. Collectively, these data show that in the absence of a high affinity M5 selective antagonist, affinity data for a large range of antagonists is critical to define operationally the M5 receptor subtype.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10385263      PMCID: PMC1566024          DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0702551

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Pharmacol        ISSN: 0007-1188            Impact factor:   8.739


  15 in total

1.  Further concerns over Cheng-Prusoff analysis.

Authors:  P Leff; I G Dougall
Journal:  Trends Pharmacol Sci       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 14.819

2.  Relationship between the inhibition constant (K1) and the concentration of inhibitor which causes 50 per cent inhibition (I50) of an enzymatic reaction.

Authors:  Y Cheng; W H Prusoff
Journal:  Biochem Pharmacol       Date:  1973-12-01       Impact factor: 5.858

3.  A muscarinic receptor different from the M1, M2, M3 and M4 subtypes mediates the contraction of the rabbit iris sphincter.

Authors:  I T Bognar; U Altes; C Beinhauer; I Kessler; H Fuder
Journal:  Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 3.000

4.  Antagonist binding properties of five cloned muscarinic receptors expressed in CHO-K1 cells.

Authors:  N J Buckley; T I Bonner; C M Buckley; M R Brann
Journal:  Mol Pharmacol       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 4.436

5.  Inositol phospholipid hydrolysis in rat cerebral cortical slices: I. Receptor characterisation.

Authors:  E Brown; D A Kendall; S R Nahorski
Journal:  J Neurochem       Date:  1984-05       Impact factor: 5.372

6.  Pharmacological characterization of acetylcholine-stimulated [35S]-GTP gamma S binding mediated by human muscarinic m1-m4 receptors: antagonist studies.

Authors:  S Lazareno; N J Birdsall
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 8.739

7.  Some quantitative uses of drug antagonists.

Authors:  O ARUNLAKSHANA; H O SCHILD
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol Chemother       Date:  1959-03

8.  M2 muscarinic receptors on the iris sphincter muscle differ from those on iris noradrenergic nerves.

Authors:  I T Bognar; B Baumann; F Dammann; B Knöll; M Meincke; S Pallas; H Fuder
Journal:  Eur J Pharmacol       Date:  1989-04-25       Impact factor: 4.432

9.  Antagonism by antimuscarinic and neuroleptic compounds at the five cloned human muscarinic cholinergic receptors expressed in Chinese hamster ovary cells.

Authors:  C Bolden; B Cusack; E Richelson
Journal:  J Pharmacol Exp Ther       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 4.030

10.  Antagonist binding profiles of five cloned human muscarinic receptor subtypes.

Authors:  F Dörje; J Wess; G Lambrecht; R Tacke; E Mutschler; M R Brann
Journal:  J Pharmacol Exp Ther       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 4.030

View more
  10 in total

1.  Functional characterization of rat submaxillary gland muscarinic receptors using microphysiometry.

Authors:  T D Meloy; D V Daniels; S S Hegde; R M Eglen; A P Ford
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 8.739

Review 2.  The muscarinic M(5) receptor: a silent or emerging subtype?

Authors:  R M Eglen; S R Nahorski
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 8.739

Review 3.  Muscarinic receptors: what we know.

Authors:  Harriette M Scarpero; Roger R Dmochowski
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Role of the M3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor subtype in murine ophthalmic arteries after endothelial removal.

Authors:  Adrian Gericke; Andreas Steege; Caroline Manicam; Tobias Böhmer; Jürgen Wess; Norbert Pfeiffer
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2014-01-29       Impact factor: 4.799

Review 5.  Preserving cognitive function for patients with overactive bladder: evidence for a differential effect with darifenacin.

Authors:  G G Kay; U Ebinger
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2008-08-11       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Heterogeneity of muscarinic receptor-mediated Ca2+ responses in cultured urothelial cells from rat.

Authors:  F Aura Kullmann; D Artim; J Beckel; S Barrick; W C de Groat; L A Birder
Journal:  Am J Physiol Renal Physiol       Date:  2008-02-13

7.  Cholinergic responses of ophthalmic arteries in M3 and M5 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor knockout mice.

Authors:  Adrian Gericke; Veronique G A Mayer; Andreas Steege; Andreas Patzak; Ulrike Neumann; Franz H Grus; Stephanie C Joachim; Lars Choritz; Jürgen Wess; Norbert Pfeiffer
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2009-04-30       Impact factor: 4.799

8.  A split luciferase-based probe for quantitative proximal determination of Gαq signalling in live cells.

Authors:  Timo Littmann; Takeaki Ozawa; Carsten Hoffmann; Armin Buschauer; Günther Bernhardt
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-11-21       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Profiling 976 ToxCast chemicals across 331 enzymatic and receptor signaling assays.

Authors:  Nisha S Sipes; Matthew T Martin; Parth Kothiya; David M Reif; Richard S Judson; Ann M Richard; Keith A Houck; David J Dix; Robert J Kavlock; Thomas B Knudsen
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2013-05-16       Impact factor: 3.739

Review 10.  Role of fesoterodine in the treatment of overactive bladder.

Authors:  Kylie J Mansfield
Journal:  Open Access J Urol       Date:  2009-12-17
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.