4.5 Article

A Novel Method for Analyzing Extremely Biased Agonism at G Protein-Coupled Receptors

Journal

MOLECULAR PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 87, Issue 5, Pages 866-877

Publisher

AMER SOC PHARMACOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
DOI: 10.1124/mol.114.096503

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Addiction [R01-DA031927]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Seven transmembrane receptors were originally named and characterized based on their ability to couple to heterotrimeric G proteins. The assortment of coupling partners for G protein-coupled receptors has subsequently expanded to include other effectors (most notably the barrestins). This diversity of partners available to the receptor has prompted the pursuit of ligands that selectively activate only a subset of the available partners. A biased or functionally selective ligand may be able to distinguish between different active states of the receptor, and this would result in the preferential activation of one signaling cascade more than another. Although application of the standard operational model for analyzing ligand bias is useful and suitable in most cases, there are limitations that arise when the biased agonist fails to induce a significant response in one of the assays being compared. In this article, we describe a quantitative method for measuring ligand bias that is particularly useful for such cases of extreme bias. Using simulations and experimental evidence from several kappa opioid receptor agonists, we illustrate a competitive model for quantitating the degree and direction of bias. By comparing the results obtained from the competitive model with the standard model, we demonstrate that the competitive model expands the potential for evaluating the bias of very partial agonists. We conclude the competitive model provides a useful mechanism for analyzing the bias of partial agonists that exhibit extreme bias.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available