Selectivity of agonists for the active state of M1 to M4 muscarinic receptor subtypes

Signalling bias in new drug discovery: detection, quantification and therapeutic impact

Agonists of seven-transmembrane receptors, also known as G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), do not uniformly activate all cellular signalling pathways linked to a given seven-transmembrane receptor (a phenomenon termed ligand or agonist bias); this discovery has changed how high-throughput screens are designed and how lead compounds are optimized for therapeutic activity. The ability to experimentally detect ligand bias has necessitated the development of methods for quantifying agonist bias in a way that can be used to guide structure-activity studies and the selection of drug candidates. Here, we provide a viewpoint on which methods are appropriate for quantifying bias, based on knowledge of how cellular and intracellular signalling proteins control the conformation of seven-transmembrane receptors. We also discuss possible predictions of how biased molecules may perform in vivo, and what potential therapeutic advantages they may provide.

Second extracellular loop of human glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) has a critical role in GLP-1 peptide binding and receptor activation

The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) is a therapeutically important family B G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) that is pleiotropically coupled to multiple signaling effectors and, with actions including regulation of insulin biosynthesis and secretion, is one of the key targets in the management of type II diabetes mellitus. However, there is limited understanding of the role of the receptor core in orthosteric ligand binding and biological activity. To assess involvement of the extracellular loop (ECL) 2 in ligand-receptor interactions and receptor activation, we performed alanine scanning mutagenesis of loop residues and assessed the impact on receptor expression and GLP-1(1-36)-NH(2) or GLP-1(7-36)-NH(2) binding and activation of three physiologically relevant signaling pathways as follows: cAMP formation, intracellular Ca(2+) (Ca(2+)(i)) mobilization, and phosphorylation of extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1 and 2 (pERK1/2). Although antagonist peptide binding was unaltered, almost all mutations affected GLP-1 peptide agonist binding and/or coupling efficacy, indicating an important role in receptor activation. However, mutation of several residues displayed distinct pathway responses with respect to wild type receptor, including Arg-299 and Tyr-305, where mutation significantly enhanced both GLP-1(1-36)-NH(2)- and GLP-1(7-36)-NH(2)-mediated signaling bias for pERK1/2. In addition, mutation of Cys-296, Trp-297, Asn-300, Asn-302, and Leu-307 significantly increased GLP-1(7-36)-NH(2)-mediated signaling bias toward pERK1/2. Of all mutants studied, only mutation of Trp-306 to alanine abolished all biological activity. These data suggest a critical role of ECL2 of the GLP-1R in the activation transition(s) of the receptor and the importance of this region in the determination of both GLP-1 peptide- and pathway-specific effects.

Muscarinic receptor subtypes involved in regulation of colonic motility in mice: functional studies using muscarinic receptor-deficient mice

Although muscarinic M(2) and M(3) receptors are known to be important for regulation of gastric and small intestinal motility, muscarinic receptor subtypes regulating colonic function remain to be investigated. The aim of this study was to characterize muscarinic receptors involved in regulation of colonic contractility. M(2) and/or M(3) receptor knockout (KO) and wild-type mice were used in in vivo (defecation, colonic propulsion) and in vitro (contraction) experiments. Amount of feces was significantly decreased in M(3)R-KO and M(2)/M(3)R-KO mice but not in M(2)R-KO mice. Ranking of colonic propulsion was wild-type=M(2)R-KO>M(3)R-KO>M(2)/M(3)R-KO. In vitro, the amplitude of migrating motor complexes in M(2)R-KO, M(3)R-KO and M(2)/M(3)R-KO mice was significantly lower than that in wild-type mice. Carbachol caused concentration-dependent contraction of the proximal colon and distal colon from wild-type mice. In M(2)R-KO mice, the concentration-contraction curves shifted to the right and downward. In contrast, carbachol caused non-sustained contraction and relaxation in M(3)R-KO mice depending on its concentration. Carbachol did not cause contraction but instead caused relaxation of colonic strips from M(2)/M(3)R-KO mice. 4-[[[(3-chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]oxy]-N,N,N-trimethyl-2-butyn-1-aminium chloride (McN-A-343) caused a non-sustained contraction of colonic strips from wild-type mice, and this contraction was changed to a sustained contraction by tetrodotoxin, pirenzepine and L-nitroarginine methylester (L-NAME). In the colon of M(2)/M(3)R-KO mice, McN-A-343 caused only relaxation, which was decreased by tetrodotoxin, pirenzepine and L-NAME. In conclusion, M(1), M(2) and M(3) receptors regulate colonic motility of the mouse. M(2) and M(3) receptors mediate cholinergic contraction, but M(1) receptors on inhibitory nitrergic nerves counteract muscarinic contraction.

Quantifying ligand bias at seven-transmembrane receptors

Seven transmembrane receptors (7TMRs), commonly referred to as G protein-coupled receptors, form a large part of the "druggable" genome. 7TMRs can signal through parallel pathways simultaneously, such as through heterotrimeric G proteins from different families, or, as more recently appreciated, through the multifunctional adapters, β-arrestins. Biased agonists, which signal with different efficacies to a receptor's multiple downstream pathways, are useful tools for deconvoluting this signaling complexity. These compounds may also be of therapeutic use because they have distinct functional and therapeutic profiles from "balanced agonists." Although some methods have been proposed to identify biased ligands, no comparison of these methods applied to the same set of data has been performed. Therefore, at this time, there are no generally accepted methods to quantify the relative bias of different ligands, making studies of biased signaling difficult. Here, we use complementary computational approaches for the quantification of ligand bias and demonstrate their application to two well known drug targets, the β2 adrenergic and angiotensin II type 1A receptors. The strategy outlined here allows a quantification of ligand bias and the identification of weakly biased compounds. This general method should aid in deciphering complex signaling pathways and may be useful for the development of novel biased therapeutic ligands as drugs.

Quantification of functional selectivity at the human α(1A)-adrenoceptor

Although G protein-coupled receptors are often categorized in terms of their primary coupling to a given type of Gα protein subunit, it is now well established that many show promiscuous coupling and activate multiple signaling pathways. Furthermore, some agonists selectively activate signaling pathways by promoting interaction between distinct receptor conformational states and particular Gα subunits or alternative signaling proteins. We have tested the capacity of agonists to stimulate Ca(2+) release, cAMP accumulation, and changes in extracellular acidification rate (ECAR) at the human α(1A)-adrenoceptor. Signaling bias factors were determined by novel application of an operational model of agonism and compared with the reference endogenous agonist norepinephrine; values significantly different from 1.0 indicated an agonist that promoted receptor conformations distinct from that favored by norepinephrine. Oxymetazoline was a full agonist for ECAR and a partial agonist for Ca(2+) release (bias factor 8.2) but failed to stimulate cAMP production. Phenylephrine showed substantial bias toward ECAR versus Ca(2+) release or cAMP accumulation (bias factors 21 and 33, respectively) but did not display bias between Ca(2+) and cAMP pathways. Cirazoline and N-[5-(4,5-dihydro-1H-imidazol-2-yl)-2-hydroxy-5,6,7,8-tetrahydronaphthalen-1-yl]methanesulfonamide (A61603) displayed bias toward cAMP relative to Ca(2+) release (bias factors of 7.4 and 8.6). It is noteworthy that epinephrine, a second endogenous adrenoceptor agonist, did not display bias relative to norepinephrine. Our finding that phenylephrine displayed significant signaling bias, despite being highly similar in structure to epinephrine, indicates that subtle differences in agonist-receptor interaction can affect conformational changes in cytoplasmic domains and thereby modulate the repertoire of effector proteins that are activated.

Mutagenesis of nucleophilic residues near the orthosteric binding pocket of M1 and M2 muscarinic receptors: effect on the binding of nitrogen mustard analogs of acetylcholine and McN-A-343

Investigating how a test drug alters the reaction of a site-directed electrophile with a receptor is a powerful method for determining whether the drug acts competitively or allosterically, provided that the binding site of the electrophile is known. In this study, therefore, we mutated nucleophilic residues near and within the orthosteric pockets of M(1) and M(2) muscarinic receptors to identify where acetylcholine mustard and 4-[(2-bromoethyl)methyl-amino]-2-butynyl-N-(3-chlorophenyl)carbamate (BR384) bind covalently. BR384 is the nitrogen mustard analog of [4-[[N-(3-chlorophenyl)carbamoyl]oxy]-2-butynyl]trimethylammonium chloride (McN-A-343). Mutation of the highly conserved aspartic acid in M(1) (Asp105) and M(2) (Asp103) receptors to asparagine largely prevented receptor alkylation by acetylcholine mustard, although modest alkylation still occurred at M(2) D103N at high concentrations of the mustard. Receptor alkylation by BR384 was also greatly inhibited in the M(1) D105N mutant, but some alkylation still occurred at high concentrations of the compound. In contrast, BR384 rapidly alkylated the M(2) D103N mutant. Its affinity was reduced to one tenth, however. The alkylation of M(2) D103N by BR384 was competitively inhibited by N-methylscopolamine and allosterically inhibited by gallamine. Mutation of a variety of other nucleophilic residues, some in combination with D103N, had little effect on M(2) receptor alkylation by BR384. Our results suggest that BR384 alkylates at least one residue other than the conserved aspartic acid at the ligand-binding site of M(1) and M(2) receptors. This additional residue seems to be located within or near the orthosteric-binding pocket and is not part of the allosteric site for gallamine.

Investigating the interaction of McN-A-343 with the M muscarinic receptor using its nitrogen mustard derivative and ACh mustard

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We investigated how McN-A-343 inhibited the alkylation of the M(1) muscarinic receptor by its nitrogen mustard derivative and that of ACh to identify whether it interacts allosterically or orthosterically.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

We incubated the M(1) muscarinic receptor expressed in Chinese hamster ovary cells with ACh mustard for various periods of time in the presence of McN-A-343 or known allosteric and orthosteric ligands. After stopping the reaction and removing unreacted ligands, unalkylated receptors were measured using [(3)H]N-methylscopolamine. Analogous experiments were done using a nitrogen mustard analog of McN-A-343. Affinity constants, cooperativity values for allosteric interactions and rate constants for receptor alkylation were estimated using a mathematical model.

KEY RESULTS

The kinetics of receptor alkylation by the nitrogen mustard derivatives of ACh and McN-A-343 were consistent with a two-step model in which the aziridinium ion rapidly forms a reversible receptor complex, which converts to a covalent complex at a slower rate. The inhibition of receptor alkylation by acetycholine, N-methylscopolamine and McN-A-343 was consistent with competitive inhibition, whereas that caused by gallamine was consistent with allosterism. Affinity constants estimated from alkylation kinetics agreed with those measured by displacement of [(3)H]N-methylscopolamine binding.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Our results suggest that McN-A-343 and its nitrogen mustard derivative interact competitively with ACh and N-methylscopolamine at the orthosteric site on the M(1) muscarinic receptor. Measuring how drugs modulate the kinetics of receptor alkylation by an irreversible ligand is a powerful approach for distinguishing between negative allosteric modulators and competitive inhibitors.

Allosteric ligands of the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor (GLP-1R) differentially modulate endogenous and exogenous peptide responses in a pathway-selective manner: implications for drug screening

The glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor is a key regulator of insulin secretion and a major therapeutic target for treatment of diabetes. However, GLP-1 receptor function is complex, with multiple endogenous peptides that can interact with the receptor, including full-length (1-37) and truncated (7-37) forms of GLP-1 that can each exist in an amidated form and the related peptide oxyntomodulin. We have investigated two GLP-1 receptor allosteric modulators, Novo Nordisk compound 2 (6,7-dichloro2-methylsulfonyl-3-tert-butylaminoquinoxaline) and quercetin, and their ability to modify binding and signaling (cAMP formation, intracellular Ca(2+) mobilization, and extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 phosphorylation) of each of the naturally occurring endogenous peptide agonists, as well as the clinically used peptide mimetic exendin-4. We identified and quantified stimulus bias across multiple endogenous peptides, with response profiles for truncated GLP-1 peptides distinct from those of either the full-length GLP-1 peptides or oxyntomodulin, the first demonstration of such behavior at the GLP-1 receptor. Compound 2 selectively augmented cAMP signaling but did so in a peptide-agonist dependent manner having greatest effect on oxyntomodulin, weaker effect on truncated GLP-1 peptides, and negligible effect on other peptide responses; these effects were principally driven by parallel changes in peptide agonist affinity. In contrast, quercetin selectively modulated calcium signaling but with effects only on truncated GLP-1 peptides or exendin and not oxyntomodulin or full-length peptides. These data have significant implications for how GLP-1 receptor targeted drugs are screened and developed, whereas the allosterically driven, agonist-selective, stimulus bias highlights the potential for distinct clinical efficacy depending on the properties of individual drugs.

Investigating the interaction of McN-A-343 with the M2 muscarinic receptor using its nitrogen mustard derivative

We investigated whether the aziridinium ion formed from a nitrogen mustard derivative (4-[(2-bromoethyl)methyl-amino]-2-butynyl N-(3-chlorophenyl)carbamate; BR384) structurally related to McN-A-343 (4-(trimethyl-amino)-2-butynyl N-(3-chlorophenyl)carbamate) interacts allosterically or orthosterically with the M(2) muscarinic receptor. Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing the human M(2) muscarinic receptor were incubated with the aziridinium ion of BR384 in combination with McN-A-343 or other known orthosteric and allosteric ligands for various incubation times. After removing unreacted ligands, we measured the binding of [(3)H]N-methylscopolamine to residual unalkylated receptors. Affinity constants, rate constants for alkylation, and cooperativity constants were estimated for the interacting ligands using a mathematical model. Receptor alkylation by BR384 was consistent with a two-step process. After rapidly equilibrating with the receptor (step one), the aziridinium ion-receptor complex became covalently linked with a first order rate constant of about 0.95min(-1) (step two). McN-A-343, acetylcholine and N-methylscopolamine competitively protected the M(2) receptor from irreversible alkylation by BR384. In contrast, the allosteric modulators, gallamine and WIN 51,708 (17-beta-hydroxy-17-alpha-ethynyl-5-alpha-androstano[3,2-beta]pyrimido[1,2-alpha]benzimidazole), allosterically inhibited or had no effect on, respectively, receptor alkylation by BR384. There was good agreement between affinity constants estimated from the kinetics of receptor alkylation and by displacement of [(3)H]N-methylscopolamine binding. Our results suggest that BR384 covalently binds to the orthosteric site of the M(2) receptor and that McN-A-343 binds reversibly at the same locus. Our method of analyzing allosteric interactions does not suffer from the limitations of more conventional approaches and can be adapted to detect allosteric interactions at receptors other than the muscarinic subtypes.

Differential regulation of muscarinic M1 receptors by orthosteric and allosteric ligands

Background

Activation of muscarinic M₁ receptors is mediated via interaction of orthosteric agonists with the acetylcholine binding site or via interaction of allosteric agonists with different site(s) on the receptor. The focus of the present study was to determine if M₁ receptors activated by allosteric agonists undergo the same regulatory fate as M₁ receptors activated by orthosteric agonists.

Results

The orthosteric agonists carbachol, oxotremorine-M and pilocarpine were compared to the allosteric agonists AC-42, AC-260584, N-desmethylclozapine and xanomeline. All ligands activated M₁ receptors and stimulated interaction of the receptors with β-arrestin-1. All ligands reduced cell surface binding and induced the loss of total receptor binding. Receptor internalization was blocked by treatment with hypertonic sucrose indicating that all ligands induced formation of clathrin coated vesicles. However, internalized receptors recycled to the cell surface following removal of orthosteric, but not allosteric agonists. Whereas all ligands induced loss of cell surface receptor binding, no intracellular vesicles could be observed after treatment with AC-260584 or xanomeline. Brief stimulation of M₁ receptors with AC-260584 or xanomeline resulted in persistent activation of M₁ receptors, suggesting that continual receptor signaling might impede or delay receptor endocytosis into intracellular vesicles.

Conclusion

These results indicate that allosteric agonists differ from orthosteric ligands and among each other in their ability to induce different regulatory pathways. Thus, signaling and regulatory pathways induced by different allosteric ligands are ligand specific.