3.9 Article

Pharmacological Characterization of Receptor Redistribution and β-Arrestin Recruitment Assays for the Cannabinoid Receptor 1

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMOLECULAR SCREENING
卷 14, 期 7, 页码 811-823

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1087057109337937

关键词

cannabinoid receptor 1; redistribution; beta-arrestin recruitment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Receptor redistribution and beta-arrestin recruitment assays provide a G-protein-subtype-independent method to measure ligand-stimulated activation of G-protein-coupled receptors. In particular beta-arrestin assays are becoming an increasingly popular tool for drug discovery. The authors have compared a high-content-imaging-based Redistribution (R) assay and 2 nonimaging-based beta-arrestin recruitment assays, Tango (TM) and PathHunter (TM), for the cannabinoid receptor 1. Inasmuch as all 3 assays use receptors that are modified at the C-terminus, the authors verified their pharmacology via detection of G alpha(i) coupling of the receptor in cAMP assays using reference ligands. The potencies and efficacies of the cannabinoid receptor agonists CP55,940 and WIN55,212-2 correlated well between the 3 assays, and are comparable with the measured ligand binding affinities. The inverse agonist SR141716 decreased basal signal in all 3 assays, but only in the Tango bla assay a reliable EC50 could be determined for this compound, suggesting that Tango is the most suitable assay for the identification of new inverse agonists. Both the Redistribution and the PathHunter assay could discriminate partial agonists from full agonists, whereas in the Tango assay partial agonists behaved as full agonists. Only the PathHunter cells allowed detection of cannabinoid receptor activation via beta-arrestin recruitment and G alpha(i)-protein-mediated inhibition of cAMP, thus enabling the identification of biased ligands that differ in these cellular effects. The characteristics and limitations of the different assays are discussed. (Journal of Biomolecular Screening 2009:811-823)

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

3.9
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