3.9 Article

Evaluating Cellular Impedance Assays for Detection of GPCR Pleiotropic Signaling and Functional Selectivity

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMOLECULAR SCREENING
Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages 246-255

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1087057108330115

Keywords

GPCR; cellular impedance assays; functional selectivity; biased-agonism

Ask authors/readers for more resources

G-protein-coupled receptors can couple to different signal transduction pathways in different cell types (termed cell-specific signaling) and can activate different signaling pathways depending on the receptor conformation(s) stabilized by the activating ligand (functional selectivity). These concepts offer potential for developing pathway-specific drugs that increase efficacy and reduce side effects. Despite significant interest, functional selectivity has been difficult to exploit in drug discovery, in part due to the burden of multiple assays. Cellular impedance assays use an emerging technology that can qualitatively distinguish Gs, Gi/o, and Gq signaling in a single assay and is thereby suited for studying these pharmacological concepts. Cellular impedance confirmed cell-specific Gs and Gq coupling for the melanocortin-4 receptor and dual Gi and Gs signaling with the cannabinoid-1 (CB1) receptor. The balance of Gi versus Gs signaling depended on the cell line. In CB1-HEKs, Gi-and Gs-like responses combined to yield a novel impedance profile demonstrating the dynamic nature of these traces. Cell-specific signaling was observed with endogenous D1 receptor in U-2 cells and SK-N-MC cells, yet the pharmacological profile of partial and full agonists was similar in both cell lines. We conclude that the dynamic impedance profile encodes valuable relative signaling information and is sufficiently robust to help evaluate cell-specific signaling and functional selectivity. (Journal of Biomolecular Screening 2009:246-255)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available