4.7 Review

Rational design of dualsteric GPCR ligands: quests and promise

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 159, 期 5, 页码 997-1008

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2009.00601.x

关键词

G protein-coupled receptors; allosteric; orthosteric; dualsteric; bitopic; multivalent; subtype selectivity; functional selectivity; muscarinic acetylcholine receptor

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [HO 1368/7-1, 7-4, HO 1368/12-1, MO 821/1-1, 1-4, MO 821/2-1, KO 1582/3-1]
  2. University of Milano

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dualsteric ligands represent a novel mode of targeting G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). These compounds attach simultaneously to both, the orthosteric transmitter binding site and an additional allosteric binding area of a receptor protein. This approach allows the exploitation of favourable characteristics of the orthosteric and the allosteric site by a single ligand molecule. The orthosteric interaction provides high affinity binding and activation of receptors. The allosteric interaction yields receptor subtype-selectivity and, in addition, may modulate both, efficacy and intracellular signalling pathway activation. Insight into the spatial arrangement of the orthosteric and the allosteric site is far advanced in the muscarinic acetylcholine receptor, and the design of dualsteric muscarinic agonists has now been accomplished. Using the muscarinic receptor as a paradigm, this review summarizes the way from suggestive evidence for an orthosteric/allosteric overlap binding to the rational design and experimental validation of dualsteric ligands. As allosteric interactions are increasingly described for GPCRs and as insight into the spatial geometry of ligand/GPCR-complexes is growing impressively, the rational design of dualsteric drugs is a promising new approach to achieve fine-tuned GPCR-modulation. British Journal of Pharmacology (2010) 159, 997-1008; doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2009.00601.x; published online 5 February 2010

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