BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: alpha(1)-Adrenoceptors in the rabbit prostate have been studied because of their controversial pharmacological profiles in functional and radioligand binding studies. The purpose of the present study is to determine the native profiles of alpha(1)-adrenoceptor phenotypes and to clarify their relationship. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Binding experiments with [3H]-silodosin and [3H]-prazosin were performed using intact tissue segments and crude membrane preparations of rabbit prostate and the results were compared with alpha(1)-adrenoceptor-mediated prostate contraction. KEY RESULTS: [3H]-Silodosin at subnanomolar concentrations bound specifically to intact tissue segments of rabbit prostate. However, [3H]-prazosin at the same range of concentrations failed to bind to alpha(1)-adrenoceptors of intact segments. Binding sites of [3H]-silodosin in intact segments were composed of alpha(1L) phenotype with low affinities for prazosin (pKi=7.1), 5-methyurapidil and N-[2-(2-cyclopropylmethoxyphenoxy)ethyl]-5-chloro-alpha,alpha-dimethyl-1H-indole-3-ethamine hydrochloride (RS-17053), and alpha(1A)-like phenotype with moderate affinity for prazosin (pKi=8.8) but high affinity for 5-methyurapidil and RS-17053. In contrast, both radioligands bound to a single population of alpha(1)-adrenoceptors in the membrane preparations at the same density with a subnanomolar affinity, showing a typical profile of 'classical' alpha(1A)-adrenoceptors (pKi for prazosin=9.8). The pharmacological profile of alpha(1)-adrenoceptor-mediated prostate contraction was in accord with the alpha(1L) phenotype observed by intact segment binding approach. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Three distinct phenotypes (alpha(1L) and alpha(1A)-like phenotypes in the intact segments and a classical alpha(1A) phenotype in the membranes) with different affinities for prazosin were detected in rabbit prostate. It appears that the three phenotypes are phenotypic subtypes of alpha(1A)-adrenoceptors, but are not genetically different subtypes.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: alpha(1)-Adrenoceptors in the rabbit prostate have been studied because of their controversial pharmacological profiles in functional and radioligand binding studies. The purpose of the present study is to determine the native profiles of alpha(1)-adrenoceptor phenotypes and to clarify their relationship. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Binding experiments with [3H]-silodosin and [3H]-prazosin were performed using intact tissue segments and crude membrane preparations of rabbit prostate and the results were compared with alpha(1)-adrenoceptor-mediated prostate contraction. KEY RESULTS: [3H]-Silodosin at subnanomolar concentrations bound specifically to intact tissue segments of rabbit prostate. However, [3H]-prazosin at the same range of concentrations failed to bind to alpha(1)-adrenoceptors of intact segments. Binding sites of [3H]-silodosin in intact segments were composed of alpha(1L) phenotype with low affinities for prazosin (pKi=7.1), 5-methyurapidil and N-[2-(2-cyclopropylmethoxyphenoxy)ethyl]-5-chloro-alpha,alpha-dimethyl-1H-indole-3-ethamine hydrochloride (RS-17053), and alpha(1A)-like phenotype with moderate affinity for prazosin (pKi=8.8) but high affinity for 5-methyurapidil and RS-17053. In contrast, both radioligands bound to a single population of alpha(1)-adrenoceptors in the membrane preparations at the same density with a subnanomolar affinity, showing a typical profile of 'classical' alpha(1A)-adrenoceptors (pKi for prazosin=9.8). The pharmacological profile of alpha(1)-adrenoceptor-mediated prostate contraction was in accord with the alpha(1L) phenotype observed by intact segment binding approach. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Three distinct phenotypes (alpha(1L) and alpha(1A)-like phenotypes in the intact segments and a classical alpha(1A) phenotype in the membranes) with different affinities for prazosin were detected in rabbit prostate. It appears that the three phenotypes are phenotypic subtypes of alpha(1A)-adrenoceptors, but are not genetically different subtypes.
Authors: D V Daniels; J R Gever; J R Jasper; M S Kava; J D Lesnick; T D Meloy; G Stepan; T J Williams; D E Clarke; D J Chang; A P Ford Journal: Eur J Pharmacol Date: 1999-04-16 Impact factor: 4.432
Authors: S Morishima; F Suzuki; H Yoshiki; A S Md Anisuzzaman; Z S Sathi; T Tanaka; I Muramatsu Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2008-01-28 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: I Muramatsu; S Morishima; F Suzuki; H Yoshiki; A S M Anisuzzaman; T Tanaka; M C Rodrigo; B E Myagmar; P C Simpson Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2008-09-22 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: L Quinton; E Girard; A Maiga; M Rekik; P Lluel; G Masuyer; M Larregola; C Marquer; J Ciolek; T Magnin; R Wagner; J Molgó; R Thai; C Fruchart-Gaillard; G Mourier; J Chamot-Rooke; A Ménez; S Palea; D Servent; N Gilles Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2009-12-15 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: I Muramatsu; F Suzuki; A Nishimune; A S M Anisuzzaman; H Yoshiki; T-H Su; C-K Chang; S Morishima Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2009-05-12 Impact factor: 8.739