4.7 Article

Successful prednisolone or calcimimetic treatment of acquired hypocalciuric hypercalcemia caused by biased allosteric CaSR autoantibodies

期刊

JCI INSIGHT
卷 7, 期 20, 页码 -

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/jci.insight.156742

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
  2. [19K08996]
  3. [19K09034]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Observations on patients with AHH have revealed common characteristics that may provide new insights into the phenotype and characteristics of AHH, as well as the mechanisms by which biased agonism of GPCRs operates.
Biased agonism is a frontier field in GPCR research. Acquired hypocalciuric hypercalcemia (AHH) is a rare disease caused by calcium-sensing receptor (CaSR) autoantibodies, to date, showing either simple blocking or biased properties (i.e., stimulatory or blocking effects on different downstream signaling pathways). This emphasizes the importance of the Gi/o (pertussis toxin-sensitive G proteins, whose beta gamma subunits activate multiple signals, including ERK1/2) in regulating parathyroid hormone secretion. We here describe 3 patients with symptomatic AHH who shared characteristics with the 2 cases we previously reported as follows: (a) elderly (74-87 years at diagnosis), (b) male, (c) unexpectedly showed no other autoimmune diseases, (d) showed spontaneously fluctuating Ca levels from approximately normal to near fatally high ranges, (e) acute exacerbations could be successfully treated with prednisolone and/or calcimimetics, (f) the presence of CaSR autoantibodies that operated as biased allosteric modulators of CaSR, and (g) were likely to be conformational (i.e., recognizing and, thereby, stabilizing a unique active conformation of CaSR that activates Gq/11, activating phosphatidylinositol turnover, but not Gi/o). Our observations with these prominent commonalities may provide new insights into the phenotype and characteristics of AHH and the mechanisms by which the biased agonism of GPCRs operate.

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

4.7
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