3.8 Article

Analysis of binding sites and efficacy of a species-specific peptide at rat and human neurotensin receptors

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEPTIDE RESEARCH
Volume 55, Issue 1, Pages 72-80

Publisher

MUNKSGAARD INT PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.1034/j.1399-3011.2000.00153.x

Keywords

efficacy; neurotensin; neurotensin receptor; peptide analog; phosphatidylinositol turnover; radioligand binding

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We have developed;a neurotensin analog, L-[3,1-naphthylalanine(11)]NT(8-13). NT34, that can distinguish between rat and human neurotensin receptors, and exhibits more than a 100-fold difference in binding affinities and a 60-fold difference in functional coupling to phosphatidylinositol turnover. Using cells transfected with different numbers of the appropriate receptors, we measured the changes in phosphatidylinositol production, and then evaluated the efficiency of receptor effector coupling based on Furchgott's design. The binding of NT34 at both rat and human neurotensin receptors stably expressed in CHO-K1 cells was to two sites, while the binding of NT was to one site. at the rat receptor the equilibrium dissociation constant (K-d) for NT34 at the high-affinity site was 0.058 nM, while that at the low-affinity site was 3.1 nM. For the human receptor at the high-affinity site, the K-d for NT34 was 18 nM. while that at the low-affinity site was 180 nM. For both species the percentage of receptors representing the high-affinity site was approximate to 60-70% with 30-40% at the low-affinity site. We derived agonist dissociation constants (K-a) for NT and NT34, which suggest that for NT34, the low-affinity site is functionally coupled to phosphatidy[inositol turnover. Finally, we compared the relative efficacies of both compounds and found that NT34 was was about 2-fold and 4-fold more efficacious than NT in stimulating phosphatidy[inositol turnover in rat and human MT receptors, respectively.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available