4.6 Article

Lipid G Protein-coupled Receptor Ligand Identification Using β-Arrestin PathHunter™ Assay

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 284, 期 18, 页码 12328-12338

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M806516200

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A growing number of orphan G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) have been reported to be activated by lipid ligands, such as lysophosphatidic acid, sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P), and cannabinoids, for which there are already well established receptors. These new ligand claims are controversial due to either lack of independent confirmations or conflicting reports. We used the beta-arrestin PathHunter (TM) assay system, a newly developed, generic GPCR assay format that measures beta-arrestin binding to GPCRs, to evaluate lipid receptor and ligand pairing. This assay eliminates interference from endogenous receptors on the parental cells because it measures a signal that is specifically generated by the tagged receptor and is immediately downstream of receptor activation. We screened a large number of newly deorphaned receptors (GPR23, GPR92, GPR55, G2A, GPR18, GPR3, GPR6, GPR12, and GPR63) and control receptors against a collection of similar to 400 lipid molecules to try to identify the receptor ligand in an unbiased fashion. GPR92 was confirmed to be a lysophosphatidic acid receptor with weaker responses to farnesyl pyrophosphate and geranylgeranyl diphosphate. The putative cannabinoid receptor GPR55 responded strongly to AM251, rimonabant, and lysophosphatidylinositol but only very weakly to endocannabinoids. G2A receptor was confirmed to be an oxidized free fatty acid receptor. In addition, we discovered that 3,3'-diindolylmethane, a dietary molecule from cruciferous vegetables, which has known anti-cancer properties, to be a CB2 receptor partial agonist, with binding affinity around 1 mu M. The anti-inflammatory effect of 3,3-diindolylmethane in RAW264.7 cells was shown to be partially mediated by CB2.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据