4.5 Article

The structural basis for GTS-21 selectivity between human and rat nicotinic α7 receptors

Journal

MOLECULAR PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 66, Issue 1, Pages 14-24

Publisher

AMER SOC PHARMACOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
DOI: 10.1124/mol.66.1.14

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM57481-01A2] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The alpha7 nAChR-selective partial agonist 3-(2,4-dimethoxybenzylidene)anabaseine (GTS-21) is more efficacious and potent for rat receptors than for human alpha7 receptors. Four single amino acid differences exist between human and rat alpha7 in the agonist binding site, two in the C loop, and one each in the E and F loops. Reciprocal mutations were made in these three domains and evaluated in Xenopus laevis oocytes. Mutations in the C and F loops significantly increased the efficacy of GTS-21 for the human receptor mutants but not to the level of the wild-type, and reciprocal mutations in rat alpha7 did not decrease responses to GTS-21. Whereas mutations in the E loop alone were without effect, the E- and F-loop mutations together increased GTS-21 efficacy and potency for human receptors, but the EF mutations in the rat receptors decreased the GTS-21 potency without changing the efficacy. The only mutants that showed a full reversal of the efficacy differences between human and rat alpha7 contained complete exchange of all four sites in the C, E, and F loops or just the sites in the C and F loops. However, the reversal of the potency ratio seen with the EF mutants was not evident in the CEF mutants. Our data therefore indicate that the pharmacological differences between rat and human alpha7 receptors are caused by reciprocal differences in sites within and around the binding site. Specific features in the agonist molecule itself are also identified that interact with these structural features of the receptor agonist binding site.

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