Xinyu Xiong1,2, Nour Nazo1,2, Ritika Revoori3, Sudarshan Rajagopal1,2, Matthew A Sparks3,4. 1. Department of Biochemistry, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Division of Cardiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Division of Nephrology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 4. Renal Section, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
Background: Endothelin-1 (ET-1) is a potent vasoconstrictor in the cardiovascular system, an effect mediated through the type A endothelin receptor (ETAR), a G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR). Antagonists of the ETAR have shown promising results in randomized clinical trials. However, side effects limit widespread use. Biased agonists have been developed to mitigate the untoward effects of a number of GPCR antagonists. These agents block deleterious G-coupled pathways while stimulating protective β-arrestin pathways. The goal of this study was to test whether there was any significant ligand bias between endothelin derivatives, and whether this could have any physiologic effects in the cardiovascular system. Methods: A panel of endothelin derivatives were tested in assays of G protein signaling and β-arrestin 2 recruitment at the ETAR. We then tested the effects of ET-1 on the vasopressor response in wild-type and β-arrestin 1 and 2 KO mice. Results: We found the endothelins activated a wide range of G proteins at the ETAR, but none of the endothelin derivatives demonstrated significant biased agonism. Endothelin derivatives did display structure-activity relationships with regards to their degrees of agonism. β-arrestin 1 and 2 knockout mice did not display any differences to wild-type mice in the acute pressor response to ET-1, and β-arrestin 2 knockout mice did not display any blood pressure differences to wild-type mice in the chronic responses to ET-1. Conclusions: Our findings are consistent with vasoconstriction being mediated by G proteins with a lack of significant desensitization by β-arrestins at the ETAR. These findings suggest that G protein- and β-arrestin-biased ETAR agonists could have distinct physiologic effects from balanced agonists, although the endothelin peptide scaffold does not appear suitable for designing such ligands.
Background: Endothelin-1 (ET-1) is a potent vasoconstrictor in the cardiovascular system, an effect mediated through the type A endothelin receptor (ETAR), a G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR). Antagonists of the ETAR have shown promising results in randomized clinical trials. However, side effects limit widespread use. Biased agonists have been developed to mitigate the untoward effects of a number of GPCR antagonists. These agents block deleterious G-coupled pathways while stimulating protective β-arrestin pathways. The goal of this study was to test whether there was any significant ligand bias between endothelin derivatives, and whether this could have any physiologic effects in the cardiovascular system. Methods: A panel of endothelin derivatives were tested in assays of G protein signaling and β-arrestin 2 recruitment at the ETAR. We then tested the effects of ET-1 on the vasopressor response in wild-type and β-arrestin 1 and 2 KO mice. Results: We found the endothelins activated a wide range of G proteins at the ETAR, but none of the endothelin derivatives demonstrated significant biased agonism. Endothelin derivatives did display structure-activity relationships with regards to their degrees of agonism. β-arrestin 1 and 2 knockout mice did not display any differences to wild-type mice in the acute pressor response to ET-1, and β-arrestin 2 knockout mice did not display any blood pressure differences to wild-type mice in the chronic responses to ET-1. Conclusions: Our findings are consistent with vasoconstriction being mediated by G proteins with a lack of significant desensitization by β-arrestins at the ETAR. These findings suggest that G protein- and β-arrestin-biased ETAR agonists could have distinct physiologic effects from balanced agonists, although the endothelin peptide scaffold does not appear suitable for designing such ligands.
Authors: Alice C Holloway; Hongwei Qian; Luisa Pipolo; James Ziogas; Shin-ichiro Miura; Sadashiva Karnik; Bridget R Southwell; Michael J Lew; Walter G Thomas Journal: Mol Pharmacol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 4.436
Authors: Diane Gesty-Palmer; Pat Flannery; Ling Yuan; Leonor Corsino; Robert Spurney; Robert J Lefkowitz; Louis M Luttrell Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2009-10-07 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Aashish Manglik; Henry Lin; Dipendra K Aryal; John D McCorvy; Daniela Dengler; Gregory Corder; Anat Levit; Ralf C Kling; Viachaslau Bernat; Harald Hübner; Xi-Ping Huang; Maria F Sassano; Patrick M Giguère; Stefan Löber; Grégory Scherrer; Brian K Kobilka; Peter Gmeiner; Bryan L Roth; Brian K Shoichet Journal: Nature Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: L Rosanò; R Cianfrocca; P Tocci; F Spinella; V Di Castro; F Spadaro; E Salvati; A M Biroccio; P G Natali; A Bagnato Journal: Oncogene Date: 2012-12-03 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Roberta Cianfrocca; Piera Tocci; Elisa Semprucci; Francesca Spinella; Valeriana Di Castro; Anna Bagnato; Laura Rosanò Journal: Life Sci Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 5.037