4.5 Article

Distinct domains of the μ-opioid receptor control uncoupling and internalization

期刊

MOLECULAR PHARMACOLOGY
卷 65, 期 3, 页码 528-537

出版社

AMER SOC PHARMACOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
DOI: 10.1124/mol.65.3.528

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [R37 DA011672, DA11672, T32-DA07278] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Homologous desensitization of the mu opioid receptor (muOR) can be resolved into distinct processes that include the uncoupling of the muOR from its G-protein effectors and internalization of cell surface receptors. Using electrophysiological recordings of muOR activation of G-protein-coupled K+ channels (K(ir)3) in Xenopus laevis oocytes and AtT20 cells, confocal microscopy of receptor localization, and radioligand binding of cell surface receptors, we resolved these desensitization mechanisms to determine the domain of muOR important for receptor uncoupling. Activation of muOR by saturating concentrations of [D-Ala(2), N-Me-Phe(4), Gly(5)-ol]-enkephalin (DAMGO), methadone, or fentanyl, but not morphine, produced robust internalization of a green fluorescent protein-tagged muOR. A subsaturating concentration of DAMGO (100 nM) did not cause receptor internalization but markedly reduced the subsequent responsiveness of K(ir)3 by uncoupling muOR. muOR desensitization in AtT20 cells was confirmed to be homologous, because desensitization by 100 nM DAMGO was blocked by dominant-negative forms of either G protein-coupled receptor kinase (GRK) or arrestin, and pretreatment with DAMGO did not affect the K(ir)3 response to somatostatin receptor activation. Alanine substitution of a single threonine in the second cytoplasmic loop of the muOR ( Threonine 180) blocked agonist-dependent receptor uncoupling without affecting receptor internalization. These results suggest that GRK-dependent phosphorylation of muOR required threonine 180 for uncoupling but that a different GRK and arrestin-dependent mechanism controlled muOR internalization in AtT20 cells.

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

4.5
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