4.5 Article

Generation of an agonistic binding site for blockers of the M3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL JOURNAL
卷 412, 期 -, 页码 103-112

出版社

PORTLAND PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1042/BJ20071366

关键词

allosteric protein; G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR); inverse agonist; M-3 muscarmic acetylcholine receptor (M3R); mutagenesis; signal transduction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

GPCRs (G-protein-coupled receptors) exist in a spontaneous equilibrium between active and inactive conformations that are stabilized by agonists and inverse agonists respectively. Because ligand binding of agonists and inverse agonists often occurs in a competitive manner, one can assume an overlap between both binding sites. Only a few studies report mutations in GPCRs that convert receptor blockers into agonists by unknown mechanisms. Taking advantage of a genetically modified yeast strain, we screened libraries of mutant M(3)Rs {M-3 mAChRs [muscarinic ACh (acetylcholine) receptors)]l and identified 13 mutants which could be activated by atropine (EC50 0.3-10 mu M), an inverse agonist on wild-type M3R. Many of the mutations sensitizing M,R to atropine activation were located at the junction of intracellular loop 3 and helix 6, a region known to be involved in G-protein coupling. In addition to atropine, the pharmacological switch was found for other M3R blockers such as scopolamine, pirenzepine and oxybutynine. However, atropine functions as an agonist on the mutant M,R only when expressed in yeast, but not in mammalian COS-7 cells, although high-affinity ligand binding was comparable in both expression systems. Interestingly, we found that atropine still blocks carbachol-induced activation of the M3R mutants in the yeast expression system by binding at the high-affinity-binding site (K-i similar to 10 nM). Our results indicate that blocker-to-agonist converting mutations enable atropine to function as both agonist and antagonist by interaction with two functionally distinct binding sites.

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