BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The antimalarial compounds quinine, chloroquine and mefloquine affect the electrophysiological properties of Cys-loop receptors and have structural similarities to 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists. They may therefore act at 5-HT(3) receptors. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: The effects of quinine, chloroquine and mefloquine on electrophysiological and ligand binding properties of 5-HT(3A) receptors expressed in HEK 293 cells and Xenopus oocytes were examined. The compounds were also docked into models of the binding site. KEY RESULTS: 5-HT(3) responses were blocked with IC (50) values of 13.4 microM, 11.8 microM and 9.36 microM for quinine, chloroquine and mefloquine. Schild plots indicated quinine and chloroquine behaved competitively with pA (2) values of 4.92 (K (B)=12.0 microM) and 4.97 (K (B)=16.4 microM). Mefloquine displayed weakly voltage-dependent, non-competitive inhibition consistent with channel block. On and off rates for quinine and chloroquine indicated a simple bimolecular reaction scheme. Quinine, chloroquine and mefloquine displaced [(3)H]granisetron with K (i) values of 15.0, 24.2 and 35.7 microM. Docking of quinine into a homology model of the 5-HT(3) receptor binding site located the tertiary ammonium between W183 and Y234, and the quinoline ring towards the membrane, stabilised by a hydrogen bond with E129. For chloroquine, the quinoline ring was positioned between W183 and Y234 and the tertiary ammonium stabilised by interactions with F226. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This study shows that quinine and chloroquine competitively inhibit 5-HT(3) receptors, while mefloquine inhibits predominantly non-competitively. Both quinine and chloroquine can be docked into a receptor binding site model, consistent with their structural homology to 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The antimalarial compounds quinine, chloroquine and mefloquine affect the electrophysiological properties of Cys-loop receptors and have structural similarities to 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists. They may therefore act at 5-HT(3) receptors. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: The effects of quinine, chloroquine and mefloquine on electrophysiological and ligand binding properties of 5-HT(3A) receptors expressed in HEK 293 cells and Xenopus oocytes were examined. The compounds were also docked into models of the binding site. KEY RESULTS: 5-HT(3) responses were blocked with IC (50) values of 13.4 microM, 11.8 microM and 9.36 microM for quinine, chloroquine and mefloquine. Schild plots indicated quinine and chloroquine behaved competitively with pA (2) values of 4.92 (K (B)=12.0 microM) and 4.97 (K (B)=16.4 microM). Mefloquine displayed weakly voltage-dependent, non-competitive inhibition consistent with channel block. On and off rates for quinine and chloroquine indicated a simple bimolecular reaction scheme. Quinine, chloroquine and mefloquine displaced [(3)H]granisetron with K (i) values of 15.0, 24.2 and 35.7 microM. Docking of quinine into a homology model of the 5-HT(3) receptor binding site located the tertiary ammonium between W183 and Y234, and the quinoline ring towards the membrane, stabilised by a hydrogen bond with E129. For chloroquine, the quinoline ring was positioned between W183 and Y234 and the tertiary ammonium stabilised by interactions with F226. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This study shows that quinine and chloroquine competitively inhibit 5-HT(3) receptors, while mefloquine inhibits predominantly non-competitively. Both quinine and chloroquine can be docked into a receptor binding site model, consistent with their structural homology to 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists.
Authors: P Das; C L Bell-Horner; R Q Huang; A Raut; E B Gonzales; Z L Chen; D F Covey; G H Dillon Journal: Neuroscience Date: 2004 Impact factor: 3.590
Authors: Stephan A Pless; Ariele P Hanek; Kerry L Price; Joseph W Lynch; Henry A Lester; Dennis A Dougherty; Sarah C R Lummis Journal: Mol Pharmacol Date: 2011-01-25 Impact factor: 4.436
Authors: Aaron Janowsky; Amy J Eshleman; Robert A Johnson; Katherine M Wolfrum; David J Hinrichs; Jongtae Yang; T Mark Zabriskie; Martin J Smilkstein; Michael K Riscoe Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2014-02-02 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Stephan A Pless; Kat S Millen; Ariele P Hanek; Joseph W Lynch; Henry A Lester; Sarah C R Lummis; Dennis A Dougherty Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2008-10-22 Impact factor: 6.167