M Chisari1, K Wu, C F Zorumski, S Mennerick. 1. Departments of Psychiatry Anatomy & Neurobiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A 'lock-and-key' binding site typically accounts for the effect of receptor antagonists. However, sulphated neurosteroids are potent non-competitive antagonists of GABA(A) receptors without a clear structure-activity relationship. To gain new insights, we tested two structurally unrelated hydrophobic anions with superficially similar properties to sulphated neurosteroids. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: We used voltage-clamp techniques in Xenopus oocytes and hippocampal neurons to characterize dipicrylamine (DPA) and tetraphenylborate (TPB), compounds previously used to probe membrane structure and voltage-gated ion channel function. KEY RESULTS: Both DPA and TPB potently antagonized GABA(A) receptors. DPA exhibited an IC₅₀ near 60 nM at half-maximal GABA concentration and antagonism with features indistinguishable from pregnenolone sulphate antagonism, including sensitivity to a point mutation in transmembrane domain 2 of the α1 subunit. Bovine serum albumin, which scavenges free membrane-associated DPA, accelerated both capacitance offset and antagonism washout. Membrane interactions and antagonism were explored using the voltage-dependent movement of DPA between membrane leaflets. Washout of DPA antagonism was strongly voltage-dependent, paralleling DPA membrane loss, although steady-state antagonism lacked voltage dependence. At antagonist concentrations, DPA failed to affect inhibitory post-synaptic current (IPSC) amplitude or decay, but DPA accelerated pharmacologically prolonged IPSCs. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Neurosteroid-like GABA(A) receptor antagonism appears to lacks a conventional binding site. These features highlight key roles of membrane interactions in antagonism. Because its membrane mobility can be controlled, DPA may be a useful probe of GABA(A) receptors, but its effects on excitability via GABA(A) receptors raise caveats for its use in monitoring neuronal activity.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A 'lock-and-key' binding site typically accounts for the effect of receptor antagonists. However, sulphated neurosteroids are potent non-competitive antagonists of GABA(A) receptors without a clear structure-activity relationship. To gain new insights, we tested two structurally unrelated hydrophobic anions with superficially similar properties to sulphated neurosteroids. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: We used voltage-clamp techniques in Xenopus oocytes and hippocampal neurons to characterize dipicrylamine (DPA) and tetraphenylborate (TPB), compounds previously used to probe membrane structure and voltage-gated ion channel function. KEY RESULTS: Both DPA and TPB potently antagonized GABA(A) receptors. DPA exhibited an IC₅₀ near 60 nM at half-maximal GABA concentration and antagonism with features indistinguishable from pregnenolone sulphate antagonism, including sensitivity to a point mutation in transmembrane domain 2 of the α1 subunit. Bovine serum albumin, which scavenges free membrane-associated DPA, accelerated both capacitance offset and antagonism washout. Membrane interactions and antagonism were explored using the voltage-dependent movement of DPA between membrane leaflets. Washout of DPA antagonism was strongly voltage-dependent, paralleling DPA membrane loss, although steady-state antagonism lacked voltage dependence. At antagonist concentrations, DPA failed to affect inhibitory post-synaptic current (IPSC) amplitude or decay, but DPA accelerated pharmacologically prolonged IPSCs. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Neurosteroid-like GABA(A) receptor antagonism appears to lacks a conventional binding site. These features highlight key roles of membrane interactions in antagonism. Because its membrane mobility can be controlled, DPA may be a useful probe of GABA(A) receptors, but its effects on excitability via GABA(A) receptors raise caveats for its use in monitoring neuronal activity.
Authors: Hong-Jin Shu; Lawrence N Eisenman; Deepani Jinadasa; Douglas F Covey; Charles F Zorumski; Steven Mennerick Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2004-07-28 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Mariangela Chisari; Lawrence N Eisenman; Kathiresan Krishnan; Achintya K Bandyopadhyaya; Cunde Wang; Amanda Taylor; Ann Benz; Douglas F Covey; Charles F Zorumski; Steven Mennerick Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2009-06-24 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Andrew J Linsenbardt; Mariangela Chisari; Andrew Yu; Hong-Jin Shu; Charles F Zorumski; Steven Mennerick Journal: Mol Pharmacol Date: 2012-11-09 Impact factor: 4.436
Authors: K Hoestgaard-Jensen; R M O'Connor; N O Dalby; C Simonsen; B C Finger; A Golubeva; H Hammer; M L Bergmann; U Kristiansen; P Krogsgaard-Larsen; H Bräuner-Osborne; B Ebert; B Frølund; J F Cryan; A A Jensen Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: Charles F Zorumski; Steven M Paul; Yukitoshi Izumi; Douglas F Covey; Steven Mennerick Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 8.989