Effects of redox reagents and arsenical compounds on [3H]-cytisine binding to immunoisolated nicotinic acetylcholine receptors from chick brain containing alpha 4 beta 2 subunits

21st century neontology and the comparative development of the vertebrate skull

Classic neontology (comparative embryology and anatomy), through the application of the concept of homology, has demonstrated that the development of the gnathostome (jawed vertebrate) skull is characterized both by a fidelity to the gnathostome bauplan and the exquisite elaboration of final structural design. Just as homology is an old concept amended for modern purposes, so are many of the questions regarding the development of the skull. With due deference to Geoffroy-St. Hilaire, Cuvier, Owen, Lankester et al., we are still asking: How are bauplan fidelity and elaboration of design maintained, coordinated, and modified to generate the amazing diversity seen in cranial morphologies? What establishes and maintains pattern in the skull? Are there universal developmental mechanisms underlying gnathostome autapomorphic structural traits? Can we detect and identify the etiologies of heterotopic (change in the topology of a developmental event), heterochronic (change in the timing of a developmental event), and heterofacient (change in the active capacetence, or the elaboration of capacity, of a developmental event) changes in craniofacial development within and between taxa? To address whether jaws are all made in a like manner (and if not, then how not), one needs a starting point for the sake of comparison. To this end, we present here a "hinge and caps" model that places the articulation, and subsequently the polarity and modularity, of the upper and lower jaws in the context of cranial neural crest competence to respond to positionally located epithelial signals. This model expands on an evolving model of polarity within the mandibular arch and seeks to explain a developmental patterning system that apparently keeps gnathostome jaws in functional registration yet tractable to potential changes in functional demands over time. It relies upon a system for the establishment of positional information where pattern and placement of the "hinge" is driven by factors common to the junction of the maxillary and mandibular branches of the first arch and of the "caps" by the signals emanating from the distal-most first arch midline and the lamboidal junction (where the maxillary branch meets the frontonasal processes). In this particular model, the functional registration of jaws is achieved by the integration of "hinge" and "caps" signaling, with the "caps" sharing at some critical level a developmental history that potentiates their own coordination. We examine the evidential foundation for this model in mice, examine the robustness with which it can be applied to other taxa, and examine potential proximate sources of the signaling centers. Lastly, as developmental biologists have long held that the anterior-most mesendoderm (anterior archenteron roof or prechordal plate) is in some way integral to the normal formation of the head, including the cranial skeletal midlines, we review evidence that the seminal patterning influences on the early anterior ectoderm extend well beyond the neural plate and are just as important to establishing pattern within the cephalic ectoderm, in particular for the "caps" that will yield medial signaling centers known to coordinate jaw development.

Localization of agonist and competitive antagonist binding sites on nicotinic acetylcholine receptors

Identification of all residues involved in the recognition and binding of cholinergic ligands (e.g. agonists, competitive antagonists, and noncompetitive agonists) is a primary objective to understand which structural components are related to the physiological function of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (AChR). The picture for the localization of the agonist/competitive antagonist binding sites is now clearer in the light of newer and better experimental evidence. These sites are located mainly on both alpha subunits in a pocket approximately 30-35 A above the surface membrane. Since both alpha subunits are identical, the observed high and low affinity for different ligands on the receptor is conditioned by the interaction of the alpha subunit with other non-alpha subunits. This molecular interaction takes place at the interface formed by the different subunits. For example, the high-affinity acetylcholine (ACh) binding site of the muscle-type AChR is located on the alphadelta subunit interface, whereas the low-affinity ACh binding site is located on the alphagamma subunit interface. Regarding homomeric AChRs (e.g. alpha7, alpha8, and alpha9), up to five binding sites may be located on the alphaalpha subunit interfaces. From the point of view of subunit arrangement, the gamma subunit is in between both alpha subunits and the delta subunit follows the alpha aligned in a clockwise manner from the gamma. Although some competitive antagonists such as lophotoxin and alpha-bungarotoxin bind to the same high- and low-affinity sites as ACh, other cholinergic drugs may bind with opposite specificity. For instance, the location of the high- and the low-affinity binding site for curare-related drugs as well as for agonists such as the alkaloid nicotine and the potent analgesic epibatidine (only when the AChR is in the desensitized state) is determined by the alphagamma and the alphadelta subunit interface, respectively. The case of alpha-conotoxins (alpha-CoTxs) is unique since each alpha-CoTx from different species is recognized by a specific AChR type. In addition, the specificity of alpha-CoTxs for each subunit interface is species-dependent. In general terms we may state that both alpha subunits carry the principal component for the agonist/competitive antagonist binding sites, whereas the non-alpha subunits bear the complementary component. Concerning homomeric AChRs, both the principal and the complementary component exist on the alpha subunit. The principal component on the muscle-type AChR involves three loops-forming binding domains (loops A-C). Loop A (from mouse sequence) is mainly formed by residue Y(93), loop B is molded by amino acids W(149), Y(152), and probably G(153), while loop C is shaped by residues Y(190), C(192), C(193), and Y(198). The complementary component corresponding to each non-alpha subunit probably contributes with at least four loops. More specifically, the loops at the gamma subunit are: loop D which is formed by residue K(34), loop E that is designed by W(55) and E(57), loop F which is built by a stretch of amino acids comprising L(109), S(111), C(115), I(116), and Y(117), and finally loop G that is shaped by F(172) and by the negatively-charged amino acids D(174) and E(183). The complementary component on the delta subunit, which corresponds to the high-affinity ACh binding site, is formed by homologous loops. Regarding alpha-neurotoxins, several snake and alpha-CoTxs bear specific residues that are energetically coupled with their corresponding pairs on the AChR binding site. The principal component for snake alpha-neurotoxins is located on the residue sequence alpha1W(184)-D(200), which includes loop C. In addition, amino acid sequence 55-74 from the alpha1 subunit (which includes loop E), and residues gammaL(119) (close to loop F) and gammaE(176) (close to loop G) at the low-affinity binding site, or deltaL(121) (close to the homologous region of loop G) at the high-affinity binding site, are i

Topology of ligand binding sites on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor

The nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (AChR) presents two very well differentiated domains for ligand binding that account for different cholinergic properties. In the hydrophilic extracellular region of both alpha subunits there exist the binding sites for agonists such as the neurotransmitter acetylcholine (ACh) and for competitive antagonists such as d-tubocurarine. Agonists trigger the channel opening upon binding while competitive antagonists compete for the former ones and inhibit its pharmacological action. Identification of all residues involved in recognition and binding of agonist and competitive antagonists is a primary objective in order to understand which structural components are related to the physiological function of the AChR. The picture for the localisation of the agonist/competitive antagonist binding sites is now clearer in the light of newer and better experimental evidence. These sites are mainly located on both alpha subunits in a pocket approximately 30-35 A above the surface membrane. Since both alpha subunits are sequentially identical, the observed high and low affinity for agonists on the receptor is conditioned by the interaction of the alpha subunit with the delta or the gamma chain, respectively. This relationship is opposite for curare-related drugs. This molecular interaction takes place probably at the interface formed by the different subunits. The principal component for the agonist/competitive antagonist binding sites involves several aromatic residues, in addition to the cysteine pair at 192-193, in three loops-forming binding domains (loops A-C). Other residues such as the negatively changed aspartates and glutamates (loop D), Thr or Tyr (loop E), and Trp (loop F) from non-alpha subunits were also found to form the complementary component of the agonist/competitive antagonist binding sites. Neurotoxins such as alpha-, kappa-bungarotoxin and several alpha-conotoxins seem to partially overlap with the agonist/competitive antagonist binding sites at multiple point of contacts. The alpha subunits also carry the binding site for certain acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as eserine and for the neurotransmitter 5-hydroxytryptamine which activate the receptor without interacting with the classical agonist binding sites. The link between specific subunits by means of the binding of ACh molecules might play a pivotal role in the relative shift among receptor subunits. This conformational change would allow for the opening of the intrinsic receptor cation channel transducting the external chemical signal elicited by the agonist into membrane depolarisation. The ion flux activity can be inhibited by non-competitive inhibitors (NCIs). For this kind of drugs, a population of low-affinity binding sites has been found at the lipid-protein interface of the AChR. In addition, several high-affinity binding sites have been found to be located at different rings on the M2 transmembrane domain, namely luminal binding sites. In this regard, the serine ring is the locus for exogenous NCIs such as chlorpromazine, triphenylmethylphosphonium, the local anaesthetic QX-222, phencyclidine, and trifluoromethyliodophenyldiazirine. Trifluoromethyliodophenyldiazirine also binds to the valine ring, which is the postulated site for cembranoids. Additionally, the local anaesthetic meproadifen binding site seems to be located at the outer or extracellular ring. Interestingly, the M2 domain is also the locus for endogenous NCIs such as the neuropeptide substance P and the neurotransmitter 5-hydroxytryptamine. In contrast with this fact, experimental evidence supports the hypothesis for the existence of other NCI high-affinity binding sites located not at the channel lumen but at non-luminal binding domains. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Interaction of p-aminophenyldichloroarsine, an arsenical with specificity for vicinal cysteines, with [3H]cytisine binding sites in rat brain membranes

The arsenical compound p-aminophenyldichloroarsine (APA) is selective for spatially close thiols with which it forms a stable complex. The alpha subunits of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors are defined by the presence of a pair of adjacent cysteines close to the agonist binding site. Here the interaction of APA with [3H]cytisine binding sites, which correspond to the major subtype of nicotinic receptors in rat brain has been examined. Incubation of brain membranes with 10 microM APA abolished [3H]cytisine binding. The action of APA was dependent on prior reduction of sulphydryls with dithiothreitol. APA effects could not be reversed by oxidizing agents but could be reversed by the antiarsenical reagent 2,3-dimercapto-1-propane sulphonic acid. Under the conditions used, the concentration of APA producing a half-maximal decrease in binding was 130 nM. The loss of [3H]cytisine binding was due to a decrease in the number of binding sites (Bmax) with no effect on affinity for the radioligand (Kd). Nicotinic ligands failed to protect against the reduction and arsenylation of neuronal receptor sites. These observations are consistent with the potent interaction of APA with this neuronal nicotinic receptor.