BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Negative allosteric modulators (NAMs) that target the calcium-sensing receptor (CaS receptor) were originally developed for the treatment of osteoporosis by stimulating the release of endogenous parathyroid hormone, but failed in human clinical trials. Several chemically and structurally distinct NAM scaffolds have been described, but it is not known how these different scaffolds interact with the CaS receptor to inhibit receptor signalling in response to agonists. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: In the present study, we used a mutagenesis approach combined with analytical pharmacology and computational modelling to probe the binding sites of four distinct NAM scaffolds. KEY RESULTS: Although all four scaffolds bind to the 7-transmembrane and/or extracellular or intracellular loops, they occupy distinct regions, as previously shown for positive allosteric modulators of the CaS receptor. Furthermore, different NAM scaffolds mediate negative allosteric modulation via distinct amino acid networks. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: These findings aid our understanding of how different NAMs bind to and inhibit the CaS receptor. Elucidation of allosteric binding sites in the CaS receptor has implications for the discovery of novel allosteric modulators.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Negative allosteric modulators (NAMs) that target the calcium-sensing receptor (CaS receptor) were originally developed for the treatment of osteoporosis by stimulating the release of endogenous parathyroid hormone, but failed in human clinical trials. Several chemically and structurally distinct NAM scaffolds have been described, but it is not known how these different scaffolds interact with the CaS receptor to inhibit receptor signalling in response to agonists. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: In the present study, we used a mutagenesis approach combined with analytical pharmacology and computational modelling to probe the binding sites of four distinct NAM scaffolds. KEY RESULTS: Although all four scaffolds bind to the 7-transmembrane and/or extracellular or intracellular loops, they occupy distinct regions, as previously shown for positive allosteric modulators of the CaS receptor. Furthermore, different NAM scaffolds mediate negative allosteric modulation via distinct amino acid networks. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: These findings aid our understanding of how different NAMs bind to and inhibit the CaS receptor. Elucidation of allosteric binding sites in the CaS receptor has implications for the discovery of novel allosteric modulators.
Authors: Brian J Arey; Ramakrishna Seethala; Zhengping Ma; Aberra Fura; Jennifer Morin; Joann Swartz; Viral Vyas; Wu Yang; John K Dickson; Jean H M Feyen Journal: Endocrinology Date: 2005-01-06 Impact factor: 4.736
Authors: Anna E Davey; Katie Leach; Celine Valant; Arthur D Conigrave; Patrick M Sexton; Arthur Christopoulos Journal: Endocrinology Date: 2011-12-30 Impact factor: 4.736
Authors: Michael J Curtis; Steve Alexander; Giuseppe Cirino; James R Docherty; Christopher H George; Mark A Giembycz; Daniel Hoyer; Paul A Insel; Angelo A Izzo; Yong Ji; David J MacEwan; Christopher G Sobey; S Clare Stanford; Mauro M Teixeira; Sue Wonnacott; Amrita Ahluwalia Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: Mary Scott Roberts; Rachel I Gafni; Beth Brillante; Lori C Guthrie; Jamie Streit; David Gash; Jeff Gelb; Eva Krusinska; Sarah C Brennan; Martin Schepelmann; Daniela Riccardi; Mohd Ezuan Bin Khayat; Donald T Ward; Edward F Nemeth; Ralf Rosskamp; Michael T Collins Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Tracy M Josephs; Andrew N Keller; Elham Khajehali; Aaron DeBono; Christopher J Langmead; Arthur D Conigrave; Ben Capuano; Irina Kufareva; Karen J Gregory; Katie Leach Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: F Cosman; N Gilchrist; M McClung; J Foldes; T de Villiers; A Santora; A Leung; S Samanta; N Heyden; J P McGinnis; E Rosenberg; A E Denker Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Katie Leach; Fadil M Hannan; Tracy M Josephs; Andrew N Keller; Thor C Møller; Donald T Ward; Enikö Kallay; Rebecca S Mason; Rajesh V Thakker; Daniela Riccardi; Arthur D Conigrave; Hans Bräuner-Osborne Journal: Pharmacol Rev Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 25.468
Authors: Jinseo Park; Hao Zuo; Aurel Frangaj; Ziao Fu; Laura Y Yen; Zhening Zhang; Lidia Mosyak; Vesna N Slavkovich; Jonathan Liu; Kimberly M Ray; Baohua Cao; Francesca Vallese; Yong Geng; Shaoxia Chen; Robert Grassucci; Venkata P Dandey; Yong Zi Tan; Edward Eng; Yeji Lee; Brian Kloss; Zheng Liu; Wayne A Hendrickson; Clinton S Potter; Bridget Carragher; Joseph Graziano; Arthur D Conigrave; Joachim Frank; Oliver B Clarke; Qing R Fan Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2021-12-21 Impact factor: 12.779
Authors: Tracy M Josephs; Andrew N Keller; Elham Khajehali; Aaron DeBono; Christopher J Langmead; Arthur D Conigrave; Ben Capuano; Irina Kufareva; Karen J Gregory; Katie Leach Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 8.739