4.4 Article

Identification of Endomorphin-1 and Endomorphin-2 Binding Sites in Human μ-Opioid Receptor by Antisense Oligonucleotide Strategy

期刊

CHEMICAL BIOLOGY & DRUG DESIGN
卷 72, 期 6, 页码 507-512

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-0285.2008.00725.x

关键词

aequorin luminescence-based calcium assay; endogenous opioid peptide; MOR agonist; real-time RT PCR

资金

  1. Medical University of Lodz [502-11-460, 502-11-461, 503-10-99-1]
  2. Bilateral Scientific Cooperation between Flanders and Poland [BIL05/17]
  3. Foundation for Polish Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects of phosphorothioate antisense oligodeoxynucleotides against exons-1, -2, -3 and -4 of the human mu-opioid receptor were studied in the CHO-mu-opioid receptor cells using aequorin luminescence-based calcium assay. All four antisense oligodeoxynucleotides significantly decreased the level of mu-opioid receptor mRNA in comparison with the non-treated cells, used as control. However, no statistically significant differences between antisense oligodeoxynucleotides were observed. antisense oligodeoxynucleotides against exon-2 attenuated endomorphin-1-induced intracellular calcium response in a concentration-dependent manner. antisense oligodeoxynucleotides against exons-1, -2, -3 and -4 inhibited endomorphin-2-induced intracellular calcium response in a concentration-dependent manner and the effect of antisense oligodeoxynucleotides against exons-3 and -4 was most pronounced. The mismatch oligodeoxynucleotides against respective exons failed to exert any effect. The selective actions of antisense probes directed against different exons of the human mu-opioid receptor gene, that resulted, at the protein level, in attenuation of calcium responses induced by endomorphin-1 and endomorphin-2, suggest that the binding sites for endomorphins are structurally and functionally different. The presence of functionally distinct binding sites might play a crucial role in the modulation of pain and may be important clinically.

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

4.4
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