BACKGROUND: Local anesthetics have been shown to selectively inhibit functioning of Xenopus laevis Gq proteins. It is not known whether a similar interaction exists with mammalian G proteins. The goal of this study was to determine whether mammalian Gq protein is inhibited by local anesthetics. METHODS: In Xenopus oocytes, the authors replaced endogenous Gq protein with mouse Gq (expressed in Sf9 cells using baculovirus vectors). Cells endogenously expressing lysophosphatidic acid or recombinantly expressing muscarinic m3 receptors were injected with phosphorothioate DNA antisense (or sense as control) oligonucleotides against Xenopus Gq. Forty-eight hours later, oocytes were injected with purified mouse Gq (5 x 10(-8) M) or solvent as control. Two hours later, the authors injected either lidocaine, its permanently charged analog QX314 (at IC50, 50 nl), or solvent (KCl 150 mM) as control and measured Ca-activated Cl currents in response to lysophosphatidic acid or methylcholine (one tenth of EC50). RESULTS: Injection of anti-Gq reduced the mean response size elicited by lysophosphatidic acid to 33 +/- 7% of the corresponding control response. In contrast, responses were unchanged (131 +/- 29% of control) in cells in addition injected with mouse Gq protein. Injection of mouse Gq protein "rescued" the inhibitory effect of intracellularly injected QX314: whereas QX314 was without effect on Gq-depleted oocytes, responses to lysophosphatidic acid after QX314 injection were inhibited to 44 +/- 10% of control response in cells in addition injected with mouse Gq protein (5 x 10(-8) M). Similar results were obtained for m3 signaling and intracellularly injected lidocaine. CONCLUSION: Inhibition of Gq function by local anesthetics is not restricted to Xenopus G proteins. Therefore, Gq should be considered as one additional intracellular target site for local anesthetics, especially relevant for those effects not explainable by sodium channel blockade (e.g., antiinflammatory effects).
BACKGROUND: Local anesthetics have been shown to selectively inhibit functioning of Xenopus laevisGq proteins. It is not known whether a similar interaction exists with mammalian G proteins. The goal of this study was to determine whether mammalianGq protein is inhibited by local anesthetics. METHODS: In Xenopus oocytes, the authors replaced endogenous Gq protein with mouseGq (expressed in Sf9 cells using baculovirus vectors). Cells endogenously expressing lysophosphatidic acid or recombinantly expressing muscarinic m3 receptors were injected with phosphorothioate DNA antisense (or sense as control) oligonucleotides against XenopusGq. Forty-eight hours later, oocytes were injected with purified mouseGq (5 x 10(-8) M) or solvent as control. Two hours later, the authors injected either lidocaine, its permanently charged analog QX314 (at IC50, 50 nl), or solvent (KCl 150 mM) as control and measured Ca-activated Cl currents in response to lysophosphatidic acid or methylcholine (one tenth of EC50). RESULTS: Injection of anti-Gq reduced the mean response size elicited by lysophosphatidic acid to 33 +/- 7% of the corresponding control response. In contrast, responses were unchanged (131 +/- 29% of control) in cells in addition injected with mouseGq protein. Injection of mouseGq protein "rescued" the inhibitory effect of intracellularly injected QX314: whereas QX314 was without effect on Gq-depleted oocytes, responses to lysophosphatidic acid after QX314 injection were inhibited to 44 +/- 10% of control response in cells in addition injected with mouseGq protein (5 x 10(-8) M). Similar results were obtained for m3 signaling and intracellularly injected lidocaine. CONCLUSION: Inhibition of Gq function by local anesthetics is not restricted to Xenopus G proteins. Therefore, Gq should be considered as one additional intracellular target site for local anesthetics, especially relevant for those effects not explainable by sodium channel blockade (e.g., antiinflammatory effects).
Authors: Stephanie Weibel; Yvonne Jelting; Nathan L Pace; Antonia Helf; Leopold Hj Eberhart; Klaus Hahnenkamp; Markus W Hollmann; Daniel M Poepping; Alexander Schnabel; Peter Kranke Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-06-04
Authors: Stefan Weinschenk; Carsten Weiss; Justus Benrath; Volker von Baehr; Thomas Strowitzki; Manuel Feißt Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 5.923