Literature DB >> 20948611

Bitopic ligands: all-in-one orthosteric and allosteric.

Maud Kamal1, Ralf Jockers.   

Abstract

Natural ligands of G-protein-coupled receptors interact with the orthosteric ligand binding site, as do most of the classical synthetic ligands. The discovery of ligands targeting different, allosteric binding sites considerably expanded the repertoire of G-protein-coupled receptor ligands. More recently, bitopic ligands have been described that target both orthosteric and allosteric sites at the same time.

Entities:  

Year:  2009        PMID: 20948611      PMCID: PMC2948289          DOI: 10.3410/B1-77

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  F1000 Biol Rep        ISSN: 1757-594X


Introduction and context

G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) constitute the largest family of membrane proteins and are known to respond to a plethora of different stimuli by activating numerous intracellular signaling pathways. Because of their involvement in a variety of biological processes, GPCRs are the target of more than 50% of currently marketed drugs [1]. To date, most of the drugs targeting GPCRs are known to interact with the orthosteric site - that is, the endogenous ligand-binding pocket [2]. These orthosteric ligands need, however, to overcome many limitations, such as decreased selectivity, insufficient clinical efficacy, and undesirable effects on receptor regulation [3]. The past decade witnessed the discovery of new pharmaceutical compounds that modulate receptor function by targeting allosteric sites. Allosteric sites are, by definition, domains topographically distinct from the orthosteric binding pocket [4]. These allosteric modulators are very promising pharmaceutical drugs devoid of many of the disadvantages of orthosteric ligands. In fact, these allosteric compounds show higher subtype selectivity (allosteric sites are generally less conserved than orthosteric sites), often have a ‘safer’ pharmacological profile (exert their effects only in the presence of endogenous ligands) and, in some cases, do not induce receptor desensitization [4]. There are three general categories of allosteric modulators [3] (Figure 1a): first, modulators affecting the binding affinity of orthosteric ligands, such as AMNO82, which is responsible for the incomplete inhibition of orthosteric antagonist binding to the metabotropic glutamate (mGlu) 7 receptor, mGlu7R [5]; and second, modulators affecting orthosteric ligand efficacy. One example is CGP7930, which is known to enhance gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor B (GABAB)-mediated GTP’S (guanosine 5’-O-[gamma-thio]triphosphate) binding [6]. Third, allosteric agonists and inverse agonists, known to engender a unique GPCR conformation that alters receptor signaling in the absence of orthosteric ligands [3,4]. For example, MPEP (2-methyl-6-(phenylethynyl)pyridine) acts as a negative allosteric modulator of mGlu5R by inhibiting inositol phosphate production in the absence of an agonist [7]. Another example is AC42, which was first identified as a selective agonist of the M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor (M1AChR) [8]; however, mutation studies have implied that this ligand activates the receptor via an allosteric site [9].
Figure 1.

Different binding modes of orthosteric, allosteric, and bitopic ligands

(a) An allosteric ligand may modulate binding (1) and signaling (2) of orthosteric ligands or (3) induce signal transduction by its own (allosteric agonists) (adapted from Langmead and Christopoulos [3]). (b,c) Comparison of different binding modes of orthosteric (red circle) and allosteric (red triangle) ligands as monovalent ligands (b) or bivalent bitopic ligands (c). Binding of orthosteric ligands induces Signal 1, which can be modulated by allosteric ligands binding to sites that are close to or distant from the orthosteric binding site, generating Signal 1* or Signal 1**. Alternatively, the signal generated by the orthosteric ligand in one protomer can be allosterically modulated by the other protomer within a GPCR dimer, generating Signal 1***. Allosteric agonists can induce signaling by their own in the absence of orthosteric ligands (Signal 2). Signals 1*, 1**, and 1*** can also be generated by bitopic ligands. In addition, bitopic ligands could induce signals (Signals 1’, 1’’, and 1’’’) that are specific for these ligands and not observed upon simultaneous stimulation with monovalent orthosteric and allosteric ligands.

Different binding modes of orthosteric, allosteric, and bitopic ligands

(a) An allosteric ligand may modulate binding (1) and signaling (2) of orthosteric ligands or (3) induce signal transduction by its own (allosteric agonists) (adapted from Langmead and Christopoulos [3]). (b,c) Comparison of different binding modes of orthosteric (red circle) and allosteric (red triangle) ligands as monovalent ligands (b) or bivalent bitopic ligands (c). Binding of orthosteric ligands induces Signal 1, which can be modulated by allosteric ligands binding to sites that are close to or distant from the orthosteric binding site, generating Signal 1* or Signal 1**. Alternatively, the signal generated by the orthosteric ligand in one protomer can be allosterically modulated by the other protomer within a GPCR dimer, generating Signal 1***. Allosteric agonists can induce signaling by their own in the absence of orthosteric ligands (Signal 2). Signals 1*, 1**, and 1*** can also be generated by bitopic ligands. In addition, bitopic ligands could induce signals (Signals 1’, 1’’, and 1’’’) that are specific for these ligands and not observed upon simultaneous stimulation with monovalent orthosteric and allosteric ligands.

Recent advances

Recently, a new class of ligands, termed bitopic or dualsteric ligands, which simultaneously target orthosteric and allosteric sites, emerged (Figure 1b). The development of bitopic ligands is based on the idea of combining high affinity (via orthosteric sites) with high selectivity (via allosteric sites). Until now, muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (mAChRs) have proved to be a particularly fruitful receptor model for the development and characterization of bitopic ligands. In 2004, Tahtaoui et al. [10] synthesized seven fluorescent derivatives of the BODIPY-labeled pirenzipine, an M1AChR antagonist, and used fluorescent resonance energy transfer technology to study receptor-ligand interactions. The authors showed that these analogs might interact with both the acetylcholine (orthosteric) and brucine (allosteric) binding domains of the M1AChR, therefore behaving as potential bitopic ligands. The literature also reports the design of hybrid molecules from allosteric modulators of W84-type compounds and orthosteric antagonists or agonists of mAChRs to obtain subtype selective muscarinic ligands with agonistic or antagonistic properties [11]. In a recent publication [12], Christopoulos and colleagues elegantly showed that McN-A-343, a selective M2AChR partial agonist, is actually a bitopic ligand. Using several different binding and functional assays, the authors showed that McN-A-343 is composed of an orthosteric agonist coupled to an allosteric modulator (3-chlorophenylcarbamate moiety). Truncated derivatives of McN-A-343 retaining the chlorophenylcarbamate moiety were positive modulators of the orthosteric antagonist N-[3H]methylscopolamine in radioligand binding assays, but in functional assays, such as M2AChR-mediated ERK1/2 (extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2) phosphorylation, they acted as negative modulators of agonist efficacy. Finally, in 2009, Antony et al. [13] presented a novel approach to pharmacologically design subtype and signaling selective receptor agonists, once again using the mAChRs as templates. Their paper reports the synthesis of two hybrids fusing a highly potent oxotremorine-like orthosteric activator with M2-selective bis(ammonio)alkane-type allosteric fragments. Radioligand binding in wild-type and mutant receptors supplemented by receptor docking simulations showed an M2-selective and true allosteric/orthosteric binding. Moreover, G-protein activation, in this context, was mediated by the orthosteric moieties. Interestingly, hybrid compounds showed ligand-biased signaling properties.

Future directions

Due to the unique features of bitopic ligands, their number is likely to expand in the near future. This may include the re-examination of already existing ligands, as was the case with McN-A-343 [12], and the de novo design of bitopic ligands as shown by Antony et al. [13]. Where can we expect to see the fastest progress? The number of already existing ligands that might turn out to be bitopic is difficult to estimate and will strongly depend on the degree of information available for these putative bitopic molecules. However, most progress is expected to come from newly designed ligands. The design of new bitopic ligands requires extensive knowledge about orthosteric and allosteric ligands available for a given GPCR as well as its ligand binding sites. This may explain the fact that bitopic ligands have predominantly been described for muscarinic receptors, for which detailed knowledge on allosteric binding sites and ligands is indeed available. Once allosteric ligands have been identified, the choice of an optimal linker has to be considered. The extensive literature on the design and synthesis of bivalent ligands intended to target two orthosteric ligand binding sites within a GPCR dimer will be a rich source of inspiration for the synthesis of bitopic ligands [14]. As illustrated by compound McN-A-343 and hybrid compounds described by Antony et al. [13], linker length can vary considerably even for the same receptor. Obviously, the better the structural knowledge about orthosteric and allosteric binding sites, the easier the rational design of the linker (chemical nature and length of linker, linker attachment point to pharmacophores) will be. Recently solved GPCR structures will assist the design and synthesis of bitopic ligands that bind to identified orthosteric and allosteric binding pockets. Such GPCR structures have not only provided detailed knowledge about orthosteric binding pockets, but also revealed the important role of extracellular receptor domains in guiding small molecular weight ligands to their high affinity ligand binding pockets within the transmembrane domain [15]. These ‘ligand entrance channels’ are interesting new targets for allosteric modulation by bitopic ligands. Finally, the concept of bitopic ligands may also be extended to GPCR dimers, where the orthosteric and allosteric pharmacophores bind to two different protomers in the receptor dimer (Figure 1b) [14].
  15 in total

1.  Discovery of an ectopic activation site on the M(1) muscarinic receptor.

Authors:  Tracy A Spalding; Carol Trotter; Niels Skjaerbaek; Terri L Messier; Erika A Currier; Ethan S Burstein; Donghui Li; Uli Hacksell; Mark R Brann
Journal:  Mol Pharmacol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.436

Review 2.  G-protein coupled receptors as allosteric machines.

Authors:  Terry Kenakin
Journal:  Receptors Channels       Date:  2004

3.  Positive allosteric modulation of native and recombinant gamma-aminobutyric acid(B) receptors by 2,6-Di-tert-butyl-4-(3-hydroxy-2,2-dimethyl-propyl)-phenol (CGP7930) and its aldehyde analog CGP13501.

Authors:  S Urwyler; J Mosbacher; K Lingenhoehl; J Heid; K Hofstetter; W Froestl; B Bettler; K Kaupmann
Journal:  Mol Pharmacol       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 4.436

4.  A selective metabotropic glutamate receptor 7 agonist: activation of receptor signaling via an allosteric site modulates stress parameters in vivo.

Authors:  Kayo Mitsukawa; Rina Yamamoto; Silvio Ofner; Joachim Nozulak; Oliver Pescott; Snezana Lukic; Natacha Stoehr; Cedric Mombereau; Rainer Kuhn; Kevin H McAllister; Herman van der Putten; John F Cryan; Peter J Flor
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-12-09       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 5.  Allosteric agonists of 7TM receptors: expanding the pharmacological toolbox.

Authors:  Christopher J Langmead; Arthur Christopoulos
Journal:  Trends Pharmacol Sci       Date:  2006-08-04       Impact factor: 14.819

Review 6.  Allosteric modulation of G protein-coupled receptors.

Authors:  Lauren T May; Katie Leach; Patrick M Sexton; Arthur Christopoulos
Journal:  Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 13.820

7.  Fenobam: a clinically validated nonbenzodiazepine anxiolytic is a potent, selective, and noncompetitive mGlu5 receptor antagonist with inverse agonist activity.

Authors:  Richard H P Porter; Georg Jaeschke; Will Spooren; Theresa M Ballard; Bernd Büttelmann; Sabine Kolczewski; Jens-Uwe Peters; Eric Prinssen; Jürgen Wichmann; Eric Vieira; Andreas Mühlemann; Silvia Gatti; Vincent Mutel; Pari Malherbe
Journal:  J Pharmacol Exp Ther       Date:  2005-07-22       Impact factor: 4.030

8.  Dualsteric GPCR targeting: a novel route to binding and signaling pathway selectivity.

Authors:  Johannes Antony; Kerstin Kellershohn; Marion Mohr-Andrä; Anna Kebig; Stefanie Prilla; Mathias Muth; Eberhard Heller; Teresa Disingrini; Clelia Dallanoce; Simona Bertoni; Jasmin Schrobang; Christian Tränkle; Evi Kostenis; Arthur Christopoulos; Hans-Dieter Höltje; Elisabetta Barocelli; Marco De Amici; Ulrike Holzgrabe; Klaus Mohr
Journal:  FASEB J       Date:  2008-10-08       Impact factor: 5.191

9.  Fluorescent pirenzepine derivatives as potential bitopic ligands of the human M1 muscarinic receptor.

Authors:  Chouaib Tahtaoui; Isabelle Parrot; Philippe Klotz; Fabrice Guillier; Jean-Luc Galzi; Marcel Hibert; Brigitte Ilien
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2004-08-12       Impact factor: 7.446

Review 10.  New G-protein-coupled receptor crystal structures: insights and limitations.

Authors:  Brian Kobilka; Gebhard F X Schertler
Journal:  Trends Pharmacol Sci       Date:  2008-01-14       Impact factor: 14.819

View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  G Protein-Coupled Receptors in Asthma Therapy: Pharmacology and Drug Action.

Authors:  Stacy Gelhaus Wendell; Hao Fan; Cheng Zhang
Journal:  Pharmacol Rev       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 25.468

2.  Simplified models for heterobivalent ligand binding: when are they applicable and which are the factors that affect their target residence time.

Authors:  Georges Vauquelin
Journal:  Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol       Date:  2013-06-28       Impact factor: 3.000

Review 3.  Computational Advances for the Development of Allosteric Modulators and Bitopic Ligands in G Protein-Coupled Receptors.

Authors:  Zhiwei Feng; Guanxing Hu; Shifan Ma; Xiang-Qun Xie
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2015-05-05       Impact factor: 4.009

4.  'Partial' competition of heterobivalent ligand binding may be mistaken for allosteric interactions: a comparison of different target interaction models.

Authors:  Georges Vauquelin; David Hall; Steven J Charlton
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  2015-03-17       Impact factor: 8.739

Review 5.  Allosteric Modulation: An Alternate Approach Targeting the Cannabinoid CB1 Receptor.

Authors:  Thuy Nguyen; Jun-Xu Li; Brian F Thomas; Jenny L Wiley; Terry P Kenakin; Yanan Zhang
Journal:  Med Res Rev       Date:  2016-11-23       Impact factor: 12.944

6.  Novobiocin and peptide analogs of α-factor are positive allosteric modulators of the yeast G protein-coupled receptor Ste2p.

Authors:  Jeffrey K Rymer; Melinda Hauser; Allen K Bourdon; Shawn R Campagna; Fred Naider; Jeffrey M Becker
Journal:  Biochim Biophys Acta       Date:  2015-01-07

Review 7.  Dysfunctional Heteroreceptor Complexes as Novel Targets for the Treatment of Major Depressive and Anxiety Disorders.

Authors:  Miguel Pérez de la Mora; Dasiel O Borroto-Escuela; Minerva Crespo-Ramírez; José Del Carmen Rejón-Orantes; Daniel Alejandro Palacios-Lagunas; Magda K Martínez-Mata; Daniela Sánchez-Luna; Emiliano Tesoro-Cruz; Kjell Fuxe
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 7.666

8.  Insights into the Allosteric Mechanism of Setmelanotide (RM-493) as a Potent and First-in-Class Melanocortin-4 Receptor (MC4R) Agonist To Treat Rare Genetic Disorders of Obesity through an in Silico Approach.

Authors:  Bethany A Falls; Yan Zhang
Journal:  ACS Chem Neurosci       Date:  2018-08-13       Impact factor: 4.418

9.  Cannabinoid Receptor 2 Signalling Bias Elicited by 2,4,6-Trisubstituted 1,3,5-Triazines.

Authors:  Caitlin R M Oyagawa; Sara M de la Harpe; Yurii Saroz; Michelle Glass; Andrea J Vernall; Natasha Lillia Grimsey
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 5.810

10.  Design, synthesis and biological evaluation of novel orthosteric-allosteric ligands of the cannabinoid receptor type 2 (CB2R).

Authors:  Rebecca Ferrisi; Francesca Gado; Beatrice Polini; Caterina Ricardi; Kawthar A Mohamed; Lesley A Stevenson; Gabriella Ortore; Simona Rapposelli; Giuseppe Saccomanni; Roger G Pertwee; Robert B Laprairie; Clementina Manera; Grazia Chiellini
Journal:  Front Chem       Date:  2022-09-27       Impact factor: 5.545

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.