4.6 Article

Location and Cell-Type-Specific Bias of Metabotropic Glutamate Receptor, mGlu5, Negative Allosteric Modulators

Journal

ACS CHEMICAL NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 10, Issue 11, Pages 4558-4570

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acschemneuro.9b00415

Keywords

GPCR; mGlu(5); NAM; intracellular; calcium; neuron

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [MH109019, NS102783]
  2. IDDRC Grant [U54 HD087011]
  3. Lilly Research Award Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Emerging data indicate that G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling is determined by not only the agonist and a given receptor but also a variety of cell-type-specific factors that can influence a receptor's response. For example, the metabotropic glutamate receptor, mGlu(5), which is implicated in a number of neuropsychiatric disorders such as depression, anxiety, and autism, also signals from inside the cell which leads to sustained Ca2+ mobilization versus rapid transient responses. Because mGlu(5) is an important drug target, many negative allosteric modulators (NAMs) have been generated to modulate its activity. Here we show that NAMs such as AFQ056, AZD2066, and RG7090 elicit very different end points when tested in postnatal neuronal cultures expressing endogenous mGlu s receptors. For example, AFQ056 fails to block intracellular mGlu(5) mediated Ca2+ increases whereas RG7090 is very effective. These differences are not due to differential receptor levels, since about the same number of mGlu(5) receptors are present on neurons from the cortex, hippocampus, and striatum based on pharmacological, biochemical, and molecular data. Moreover, biotinylation studies reveal that more than 90% of the receptor is intracellular in these neurons. Taken together, these data indicate that the tested NAMs exhibit both location-dependent and cell type specific bias for mGlu(5)-mediated Ca2+ mobilization which may affect clinical outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available