Literature DB >> 14722344

Inverse agonists: tools to reveal ligand-specific conformations of G protein-coupled receptors.

Paul L Prather1.   

Abstract

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) traverse the plasma membrane seven times and produce intracellular effects through interaction with G proteins. Three classes of ligands bind and regulate the activity of GPCRs: agonists, antagonists, and inverse agonists. To describe the activity of these ligands at GPCRs, a two-state receptor model has been proposed in which receptors exist in an equilibrium between inactive (R) and active (R*) states. Agonists preferentially bind and stabilize the active (R*) state. This results in an enrichment of the proportion of active receptors, producing an increase in receptor activity. In contrast, inverse agonists preferentially bind and stabilize receptors in the inactive (R) state. This results in an enrichment of the proportion of inactive receptors, producing a reduction in spontaneous receptor activity. Neutral antagonists have equal preferences for both R and R* states, lack any intrinsic activity, and are able to block actions produced by either agonists or inverse agonists. Exciting observations reported in two recent manuscripts by Gbahou et al. and Azzi et al. indicate that some inverse agonists act not only in opposition to agonists by suppressing constitutive receptor activity, but may also initiate unique signal transduction cascades as well. Specifically, it is proposed that these unique ligands are able to enrich several distinct active receptor conformations, each demonstrating a preference for regulation of a discrete intracellular effector. This suggests that inverse agonists are not merely "the opposite of agonists," but instead may serve as useful tools to investigate ligand-specific conformations of GPCRs.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14722344     DOI: 10.1126/stke.2152004pe1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci STKE        ISSN: 1525-8882


  7 in total

1.  In vitro pharmacological characterization of AM1241: a protean agonist at the cannabinoid CB2 receptor?

Authors:  B B Yao; S Mukherjee; Y Fan; T R Garrison; A V Daza; G K Grayson; B A Hooker; M J Dart; J P Sullivan; M D Meyer
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  2006-08-07       Impact factor: 8.739

2.  Differential signalling in human cannabinoid CB1 receptors and their splice variants in autaptic hippocampal neurones.

Authors:  Alex Straiker; Jim Wager-Miller; Jacqueline Hutchens; Ken Mackie
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 8.739

3.  Cannabinoid receptor type 1- and 2-mediated increase in cyclic AMP inhibits T cell receptor-triggered signaling.

Authors:  Christine Börner; Michal Smida; Volker Höllt; Burkhart Schraven; Jürgen Kraus
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2009-12-18       Impact factor: 5.157

4.  The role of opioid antagonist efficacy and constitutive opioid receptor activity in the opioid withdrawal syndrome in mice.

Authors:  Dipesh M Navani; Sunil Sirohi; Priyanka A Madia; Byron C Yoburn
Journal:  Pharmacol Biochem Behav       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 3.533

5.  Lysophosphatidylcholine-induced surface redistribution regulates signaling of the murine G protein-coupled receptor G2A.

Authors:  Li Wang; Caius G Radu; Li V Yang; Laurent A Bentolila; Mireille Riedinger; Owen N Witte
Journal:  Mol Biol Cell       Date:  2005-02-23       Impact factor: 4.138

6.  Fitting the complexity of GPCRs modulation into simple hypotheses of ligand design.

Authors:  Chiara Custodi; Roberto Nuti; Tudor I Oprea; Antonio Macchiarulo
Journal:  J Mol Graph Model       Date:  2012-07-20       Impact factor: 2.518

7.  The relative potency of inverse opioid agonists and a neutral opioid antagonist in precipitated withdrawal and antagonism of analgesia and toxicity.

Authors:  Sunil Sirohi; Shveta V Dighe; Priyanka A Madia; Byron C Yoburn
Journal:  J Pharmacol Exp Ther       Date:  2009-05-12       Impact factor: 4.030

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.