4.6 Article

Molecular identification and functional expression of μ3, a novel alternatively spliced variant of the human μ opiate receptor gene

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 170, 期 10, 页码 5118-5123

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.170.10.5118

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA09010] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies from our laboratory have revealed a novel mu opiate receptor, mu(3), which is expressed in both vascular tissues and leukocytes. The mu(3) receptor is selective for opiate alkaloids and is insensitive to opioid peptides. We now identify the mu(3) receptor at the molecular level using a 441-bp conserved region of the mu(1), receptor. Sequence analysis of the isolated cDNA suggests that it is a novel, alternatively spliced variant of the mu opiate receptor gene. To determine whether protein expressed from this cDNA exhibits the biochemical characteristics expected of the mu(3) receptor, the cDNA clone was expressed in a heterologous system. At the functional level, COS-1 cells transfected with the mu(3) receptor cDNA exhibited dose-dependent release of NO following treatment with morphine, but not opioid peptides (i.e., Met-enkephalin). Naloxone was able to block the effect of morphine on COS-1 transfected cells. Nontransfected COS-1 cells did not produce NO in the presence of morphine or the opioid peptides at similar concentrations. Receptor binding analysis with [H-3]dihydromorphine further supports the opiate alkaloid selectivity and opioid peptide insensitivity of this receptor. These data suggest that this new mu opiate receptor cDNA encodes the mu(3) opiate receptor, since it exhibits biochemical characteristics known to be unique to this receptor (opiate alkaloid selective and opioid peptide insensitive). Furthermore, using Northern blot, RT-PCR, and sequence analysis, we have demonstrated the expression of this new mu variant in human vascular tissue, mononuclear cells, polymorphonuclear cells, and human neuroblastoma. 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

4.6
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