Somatostatin sst2 receptor knock-out mice: localisation of sst1-5 receptor mRNA and binding in mouse brain by semi-quantitative RT-PCR, in situ hybridisation histochemistry and receptor autoradiography.

The peptide hormone/neurotransmitter somatostatin (somatotropin release inhibiting factor; SRIF) and its receptors (sst(1)-sst(5)) appear to regulate many physiological functions in the CNS. Semi-quantitative analysis of the densities of mRNA expression for sst(1-5) receptors and SRIF receptor binding sites were established in sst(2) receptor knock-out (KO) mice. Patterns of sst(1-5) receptor mRNA expression were largely conserved for sst(1,3,4) and sst(5) selective oligonucleotide probes; whereas sst(2) signals were completely absent in KO mouse brain. Autoradiographic analysis demonstrated [(125)I]LTT SRIF(28), [(125)I]CGP 23996 (two radioligands known to label all five recombinant SRIF receptors) and [(125)I]Tyr(3)-octreotide (sst(2) and sst(5) receptor selective) binding in wild type (WT) mouse brain sections; yet no specific binding of [(125)I]Tyr(3)-octreotide in KO mice. In contrast, [(125)I]LTT SRIF(28) and [(125)I]CGP 23996 binding was still present in a number of brain areas in KO mice, although to a lesser degree than in those regions where [(125)I]Tyr(3)-octreotide binding was found, in WT animals. The present data suggest first, that both sst(2) receptor protein and mRNA were completely absent in the brain of these KO animals. Second, there was little evidence of compensatory regulation, at the mRNA level, of the other SRIF receptors as a consequence of the sst(2) KO. Third, the absence of any [(125)I]Tyr(3)-octreotide binding, in KO mice, suggests that this particular ligand is selective for the sst(2) receptor subtype (under the conditions utilised); or that sst(5) receptors are only marginally expressed in brain. Fourth, there were regions where the binding of [(125)I]LTT SRIF(28) and [(125)I]CGP 23996 were moderately affected by the sst(2) KO, suggesting that additional SRIF receptors may well contribute to the binding of the aforementioned radioligands. Finally, since the relative distribution of these two ligands were not entirely superimposable, it suggests that their respective selectivity profiles towards the different SRIF receptor subtypes in situ are not identical.