Pharmacological Characterization of Human Histamine Receptors and Histamine Receptor Mutants in the Sf9 Cell Expression System

A large problem of histamine receptor research is data heterogeneity. Various experimental approaches, the complex signaling pathways of mammalian cells, and the use of different species orthologues render it difficult to compare and interpret the published results. Thus, the four human histamine receptor subtypes were analyzed side-by-side in the Sf9 insect cell expression system, using radioligand binding assays as well as functional readouts proximal to the receptor activation event (steady-state GTPase assays and [35S]GTPγS assays). The human H1R was co-expressed with the regulators of G protein signaling RGS4 or GAIP, which unmasked a productive interaction between hH1R and insect cell Gαq. By contrast, functional expression of the hH2R required the generation of an hH2R-Gsα fusion protein to ensure close proximity of G protein and receptor. Fusion of hH2R to the long (GsαL) or short (GsαS) splice variant of Gαs resulted in comparable constitutive hH2R activity, although both G protein variants show different GDP affinities. Medicinal chemistry studies revealed profound species differences between hH1R/hH2R and their guinea pig orthologues gpH1R/gpH2R. The causes for these differences were analyzed by molecular modeling in combination with mutational studies. Co-expression of the hH3R with Gαi1, Gαi2, Gαi3, and Gαi/o in Sf9 cells revealed high constitutive activity and comparable interaction efficiency with all G protein isoforms. A comparison of various cations (Li+, Na+, K+) and anions (Cl-, Br-, I-) revealed that anions with large radii most efficiently stabilize the inactive hH3R state. Potential sodium binding sites in the hH3R protein were analyzed by expressing specific hH3R mutants in Sf9 cells. In contrast to the hH3R, the hH4R preferentially couples to co-expressed Gαi2 in Sf9 cells. Its high constitutive activity is resistant to NaCl or GTPγS. The hH4R shows structural instability and adopts a G protein-independent high-affinity state. A detailed characterization of affinity and activity of a series of hH4R antagonists/inverse agonists allowed first conclusions about structure/activity relationships for inverse agonists at hH4R. In summary, the Sf9 cell system permitted a successful side-by-side comparison of all four human histamine receptor subtypes. This chapter summarizes the results of pharmacological as well as medicinal chemistry/molecular modeling approaches and demonstrates that these data are not only important for a deeper understanding of HxR pharmacology, but also have significant implications for the molecular pharmacology of GPCRs in general.

Molecular Modelling Approaches for the Analysis of Histamine Receptors and Their Interaction with Ligands

Several experimental techniques to analyse histamine receptors are available, e.g. pharmacological characterisation of known or new compounds by different types of assays or mutagenesis studies. To obtain insights into the histamine receptors on a molecular and structural level, crystal structures have to be determined and molecular modelling studies have to be performed. It is widely accepted to generate homology models of the receptor of interest based on an appropriate crystal structure as a template and to refine the resulting models by molecular dynamic simulations. A lot of modelling techniques, e.g. docking, QSAR or interaction fingerprint methods, are used to predict binding modes of ligands and pharmacological data, e.g. affinity or even efficacy. However, within the last years, molecular dynamic simulations got more and more important: First of all, molecular dynamic simulations are very helpful to refine the binding mode of a ligand to a histamine receptor, obtained by docking studies. Furthermore, with increasing computational performance it got possible to simulate complete binding pathways of ions or ligands from the aqueous extracellular phase into the allosteric or orthosteric binding pocket of histamine receptors.

Dibenzo[b,f][1,4]oxazepines and dibenzo[b,e]oxepines: Influence of the chlorine substitution pattern on the pharmacology at the H1R, H4R, 5-HT2AR and other selected GPCRs

Inspired by VUF6884 (7-Chloro-11-(4-methylpiperazin-1-yl)dibenzo[b,f][1,4]oxazepine), reported as a dual H₁/H₄ receptor ligand (pK_i: 8.11 (human H₁R (hH₁R)), 7.55 (human H₄R (hH₄R))), four known and 28 new oxazepine and related oxepine derivatives were synthesised and pharmacologically characterized at histamine receptors and selected aminergic GPCRs. In contrast to the oxazepine series, within the oxepine series, the new compounds showed high affinity to the hH₁R (pK_i: 6.8-8.7), but no or moderate affinity to the hH₄R (pK_i:≤5.3). For one oxepine derivative (1-(2-Chloro-6,11-dihydrodibenzo[b,e]oxepin-11-yl)-4-methylpiperazine), the enantiomers were separated and the R-enantiomer was identified as the eutomer at the hH₁R (pK_i: 8.83 (R), 7.63 (S)) and the guinea-pig H₁R (gpH₁R) (pK_i: 8.82 (R), 7.41 (S)). Molecular dynamic studies suggest that the tricyclic core of the compounds is bound in a similar mode into the binding pocket, as described for doxepine in the hH₁R crystal structure. Moreover, docking studies of all oxepine derivatives at the hH₁R indicate that the oxygen and the position of the chlorine in the tricyclic core determines, if the R- or the S-enantiomer is the eutomer. For some of the oxazepines and oxepines the affinity to other aminergic GPCRs is in the same range as to hH₁R or hH₄R, thus, those compounds have to be classified as dirty drugs. However, one oxazepine derivative (3,7-Dichloro-11-(4-methylpiperazin-1-yl)dibenzo[b,f][1,4]oxazepine was identified as dual hH₁/h5-HT_2A receptor ligand (pK_i: 9.23 (hH₁R), 8.74 (h5-HT_2AR), ≤7 at other analysed GPCRs), whereas one oxepine derivative (1-(3,8-Dichloro-6,11-dihydrodibenzo[b,e]oxepin-11-yl)-4-methylpiperazine) was identified as selective hH₁R antagonist (pK_i: 8.44 (hH₁R), ≤6.7 at other analyzed GPCRs). Thus, the pharmacological results suggest that the oxazepine/oxepine moiety and additionally the chlorine substitution pattern toggles receptor selectivity and specificity.

Endogenous N-terminal Domain Cleavage Modulates α1D-Adrenergic Receptor Pharmacodynamics

The α1D-adrenergic receptor (ADRA1D) is a key regulator of cardiovascular, prostate, and central nervous system functions. This clinically relevant G protein-coupled receptor has proven difficult to study, as it must form an obligate modular homodimer containing the PDZ proteins scribble and syntrophin or become retained in the endoplasmic reticulum as non-functional protein. We previously determined that targeted removal of the N-terminal (NT) 79 amino acids facilitates ADRA1D plasma membrane expression and agonist-stimulated functional responses. However, whether such an event occurs in physiological contexts was unknown. Herein, we report the ADRA1D is subjected to innate NT processing in cultured human cells. SNAP near-infrared imaging and tandem-affinity purification revealed the ADRA1D is expressed as both full-length and NT truncated forms in multiple human cell lines. Serial truncation mapping identified the cleavage site as Leu(90)/Val(91) in the 95-amino acid ADRA1D NT domain, suggesting human cells express a Δ1-91 ADRA1D species. Tandem-affinity purification MS/MS and co-immunoprecipitation analysis indicate NT processing of ADRA1D is not required to form scribble-syntrophin macromolecular complexes. Yet, label-free dynamic mass redistribution signaling assays demonstrate that Δ1-91 ADRA1D agonist responses were greater than WT ADRA1D. Mutagenesis of the cleavage site nullified the processing event, resulting in ADRA1D agonist responses less than the WT receptor. Thus, we propose that processing of the ADRA1D NT domain is a physiological mechanism employed by cells to generate a functional ADRA1D isoform with optimal pharmacodynamic properties.

International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. XCVIII. Histamine Receptors

Histamine is a developmentally highly conserved autacoid found in most vertebrate tissues. Its physiological functions are mediated by four 7-transmembrane G protein-coupled receptors (H1R, H2R, H3R, H4R) that are all targets of pharmacological intervention. The receptors display molecular heterogeneity and constitutive activity. H1R antagonists are long known antiallergic and sedating drugs, whereas the H2R was identified in the 1970s and led to the development of H2R-antagonists that revolutionized stomach ulcer treatment. The crystal structure of ligand-bound H1R has rendered it possible to design new ligands with novel properties. The H3R is an autoreceptor and heteroreceptor providing negative feedback on histaminergic and inhibition on other neurons. A block of these actions promotes waking. The H4R occurs on immuncompetent cells and the development of anti-inflammatory drugs is anticipated.

2,4-Diaminopyrimidines as dual ligands at the histamine H1 and H4 receptor-H1/H4-receptor selectivity

Distinct diaminopyrimidines, for example, 4-(4-methylpiperazin-1-yl)-5,6-dihydrobenzo[h]quinazolin-2-amine are histamine H4 receptor (H4R) antagonists and show high affinity to the H4R, but only a moderate affinity to the histamine H1 receptor (H1R). Within previous studies it was shown that an aromatic side chain with a distinct distance to the basic amine and aromatic core is necessary for affinity to the human H1R (hH1R). Thus, a rigid aminopyrimidine with a tricyclic core was used as a lead structure. There, (1) the flexible aromatic side chain was introduced, (2) the substitution pattern of the pyrimidine core was exchanged and (3) rigidity was decreased by opening the tricyclic core. Within the present study, two compounds with similar affinity in the one digit μM range to the human H1R and H4R were identified. While the affinity at the hH1R increased about 4- to 8-fold compared to the parent diaminopyrimidine, the affinity to the hH4R decreased about 5- to 8-fold. In addition to the parent diaminopyrimidine, two selected compounds were docked into the H1R and H4R and molecular dynamic studies were performed to predict the binding mode and explain the experimental results on a molecular level. The two new compounds may be good lead structures for the development of dual H1/H4 receptor ligands with affinities in the same range.

Cherry-picked ligands at histamine receptor subtypes

Histamine, a biogenic amine, is considered as a principle mediator of multiple physiological effects through binding to its H1, H2, H3, and H4 receptors (H1-H4Rs). Currently, the HRs have gained attention as important targets for the treatment of several diseases and disorders ranging from allergy to Alzheimer's disease and immune deficiency. Accordingly, medicinal chemistry studies exploring histamine-like molecules and their physicochemical properties by binding and interacting with the four HRs has led to the development of a diversity of agonists and antagonists that display selectivity for each HR subtype. An overview on H1-R4Rs and developed ligands representing some key steps in development is provided here combined with a short description of structure-activity relationships for each class. Main chemical diversities, pharmacophores, and pharmacological profiles of most innovative H1-H4R agonists and antagonists are highlighted. Therefore, this overview should support the rational choice for the optimal ligand selection based on affinity, selectivity and efficacy data in biochemical and pharmacological studies. This article is part of the Special Issue entitled 'Histamine Receptors'.

Functional pharmacology of H1 histamine receptors expressed in mouse preoptic/anterior hypothalamic neurons

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Histamine H1 receptors are highly expressed in hypothalamic neurons and mediate histaminergic modulation of several brain-controlled physiological functions, such as sleep, feeding and thermoregulation. In spite of the fact that the mouse is used as an experimental model for studying histaminergic signalling, the pharmacological characteristics of mouse H1 receptors have not been studied. In particular, selective and potent H1 receptor agonists have not been identified.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Ca(2+) imaging using fura-2 fluorescence signals and whole-cell patch-clamp recordings were carried out in mouse preoptic/anterior hypothalamic neurons in culture.

KEY RESULTS

The H1 receptor antagonists mepyramine and trans-triprolidine potently antagonized the activation by histamine of these receptors with IC50 values of 0.02 and 0.2 μM respectively. All H1 receptor agonists studied had relatively low potency at the H1 receptors expressed by these neurons. Methylhistaprodifen and 2-(3-trifluoromethylphenyl)histamine had full-agonist activity with potencies similar to that of histamine. In contrast, 2-pyridylethylamine and betahistine showed only partial agonist activity and lower potency than histamine. The histamine receptor agonist, 6-[2-(4-imidazolyl)ethylamino]-N-(4-trifluoromethylphenyl)heptanecarboxamide (HTMT) had no agonist activity at the H1 receptors H1 receptors expressed by mouse preoptic/anterior hypothalamic neurons but displayed antagonist activity.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Methylhistaprodifen and 2-(3-trifluoromethylphenyl)histamine were identified as full agonists of mouse H1 receptors. These results also indicated that histamine H1 receptors in mice exhibited a pharmacological profile in terms of agonism, significantly different from those of H1 receptors expressed in other species.

Characterization of the simultaneous decay kinetics of metarhodopsin states II and III in rhodopsin by solution-state NMR spectroscopy

The mammalian visual dim-light photoreceptor rhodopsin is considered a prototype G protein-coupled receptor. Here, we characterize the kinetics of its light-activation process. Milligram quantities of α,ε-(15)N-labeled tryptophan rhodopsin were produced in stably transfected HEK293 cells. Assignment of the chemical shifts of the indole signals was achieved by generating the single-point-tryptophan to phenylalanine mutants, and the kinetics of each of the five tryptophan residues were recorded. We find kinetic partitioning in rhodopsin decay, including three half-lives, that reveal two parallel processes subsequent to rhodopsin activation that are related to the photocycle. The meta II and meta III states emerge in parallel with a relative ratio of about 3:1. Transient formation of the meta III state was confirmed by flash photolysis experiments. From analysis of the site-resolved kinetic data we propose the involvement of the E2 -loop in the formation of the meta III state.

Role of the N-terminal region in G protein-coupled receptor functions: negative modulation revealed by 5-HT2B receptor polymorphisms

The putative role of the N-terminal region of rhodopsin-like 7 transmembrane biogenic amine receptors in agonist-induced signaling has not yet been clarified despite recent advances in 7 transmembrane receptor structural biology. Given the existence of N-terminal nonsynonymous polymorphisms (R6G;E42G) within the HTR2B gene in a drug-abusing population, we assessed whether these polymorphisms affect 5-hydroxytryptamine 2B (5-HT2B) receptor in vitro pharmacologic and coupling properties in transfected COS-7 cells. Modification of the 5-HT2B receptor N terminus by the R6G;E42G polymorphisms increases such agonist signaling pathways as inositol phosphate accumulation as assessed by either classic or operational models. The N-terminal R6G;E42G mutations of the 5-HT2B receptor also increase cell proliferation and slow its desensitization kinetics compared with the wild-type receptor, further supporting a role for the N terminus in transduction efficacy. Furthermore, by coexpressing a tethered wild-type 5-HT2B receptor N terminus with a 5-HT2B receptor bearing a N-terminal deletion, we were able to restore original coupling. This reversion to normal activity of a truncated 5-HT2B receptor by coexpression of the membrane-tethered wild-type 5-HT2B receptor N terminus was not observed using a membrane-tethered 5-HT2B receptor R6G;E42G N terminus. These data suggest that the N terminus exerts a negative control over basal as well as agonist-stimulated receptor activity that is lost in the R6G;E42G mutant. Our findings reveal a new and unanticipated role of the 5-HT2B receptor N terminus as a negative modulator, affecting both constitutive and agonist-stimulated activity. Moreover, our data caution against excluding the N terminus and extracellular loops in structural studies of this 7 transmembrane receptor family.

Molecular and cellular analysis of human histamine receptor subtypes

The human histamine receptors hH(1)R and hH(2)R constitute important drug targets, and hH(3)R and hH(4)R have substantial potential in this area. Considering the species-specificity of pharmacology of H(x)R orthologs, it is important to analyze hH(x)Rs. Here, we summarize current knowledge of hH(x)Rs endogenously expressed in human cells and hH(x)Rs recombinantly expressed in mammalian and insect cells. We present the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. We also discuss problems associated with the use of hH(x)R antibodies, an issue of general relevance for G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). There is much greater overlap in activity of 'selective' ligands for other hH(x)Rs than the cognate receptor subtype than generally appreciated. Studies with native and recombinant systems support the concept of ligand-specific receptor conformations, encompassing agonists and antagonists. It is emerging that for characterization of hH(x)R ligands, one cannot rely on a single test system and a single parameter. Rather, multiple systems and parameters have to be studied. Although such studies are time-consuming and expensive, ultimately, they will increase drug safety and efficacy.

Species-dependent activities of G-protein-coupled receptor ligands: lessons from histamine receptor orthologs

Histamine is a biogenic amine that exerts its biological effects as a neurotransmitter and local mediator via four histamine receptor (HR) subtypes (H(x)Rs) - H(1)R, H(2)R, H(3)R, and H(4)R - belonging to the superfamily of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). All four H(x)Rs exhibit pronounced differences in agonist and/or antagonist pharmacology among various species orthologs. The species differences constitute a problem for animal experiments and drug development. This problem applies to GPCRs with diverse ligands. Here, we summarize our current knowledge on H(x)R orthologs as a case study for species-dependent activity of GPCR ligands. We show that species-specific pharmacology also provides unique opportunities to study important aspects of GPCR pharmacology in general, including ligand-binding sites, the roles of extracellular domains in ligand binding and receptor activation, agonist-independent (constitutive) receptor activity, thermodynamics of ligand/receptor interaction, receptor-activation mechanisms, and ligand-specific receptor conformations.

Involvement of the first transmembrane segment of human α(2) -adrenoceptors in the subtype-selective binding of chlorpromazine, spiperone and spiroxatrine

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Some large antagonist ligands (ARC239, chlorpromazine, prazosin, spiperone, spiroxatrine) bind to the human α(2A) -adrenoceptor with 10- to 100-fold lower affinity than to the α(2B)- and α(2C)-adrenoceptor subtypes. Previous mutagenesis studies have not explained this subtype selectivity.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

The possible involvement of the extracellular amino terminus and transmembrane domain 1 (TM1) in subtype selectivity was elucidated with eight chimaeric receptors: six where TM1 and the N-terminus were exchanged between the α(2)-adrenoceptor subtypes and two where only TM1 was exchanged. Receptors were expressed in CHO cells and tested for ligand binding with nine chemically diverse antagonist ligands. For purposes of interpretation, molecular models of the three human α(2)-adrenoceptors were constructed based on the β(2)-adrenoceptor crystal structure.

KEY RESULTS

The affinities of three antagonists (spiperone, spiroxatrine and chlorpromazine) were significantly improved by TM1 substitutions of the α(2A)-adrenoceptor, but reciprocal effects were not seen for chimaeric receptors based on α(2B)- and α(2C)-adrenoceptors. Molecular docking of these ligands suggested that binding occurs in the orthosteric ligand binding pocket.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

TM1 is involved in determining the low affinity of some antagonist ligands at the human α(2A)-adrenoceptor. The exact mechanism is not known, but the position of TM1 at a large distance from the binding pocket indicates that TM1 does not participate in specific side-chain interactions with amino acids within the binding pocket of the receptor or with ligands bound therein. Instead, molecular models suggest that TM1 has indirect conformational effects related to the charge distribution or overall shape of the binding pocket.

Sf9 cells: a versatile model system to investigate the pharmacological properties of G protein-coupled receptors

The Sf9 cell/baculovirus expression system is widely used for high-level protein expression, often with the purpose of purification. However, proteins may also be functionally expressed in the defined Sf9 cell environment. According to the literature, the pharmacology of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) functionally reconstituted in Sf9 cells is similar to the receptor properties in mammalian cells. Sf9 cells express both recombinant GPCRs and G-proteins at much higher levels than mammalian cells. Sf9 cells can be grown in suspension culture, providing an inexpensive way of obtaining large protein amounts. Co-infection with various baculoviruses allows free combination of GPCRs with different G-proteins. The absence of constitutively active receptors in Sf9 cells provides an excellent signal-to background ratio in functional assays, allowing the detection of agonist-independent receptor activity and of small ligand-induced signals including partial agonistic and inverse agonistic effects. Insect cell Gα(i)-like proteins mostly do not couple productively to mammalian GPCRs. Thus, unlike in mammalian cells, Sf9 cells do not require pertussis toxin treatment to obtain a Gα(i)-free environment. Co-expression of GPCRs with Gα(i1), Gα(i2), Gα(i3) or Gα(o) in Sf9 cells allows the generation of a selectivity profile for these Gα(i/o)-isoforms. Additionally, GPCR-G-protein combinations can be compared with defined 1:1 stoichiometry by expressing GPCR-Gα fusion proteins. Sf9 cells can also be employed for ligand screening in medicinal chemistry programs, using radioligand binding assays or functional assays, like the steady-state GTPase- or [(35)S]GTPγS binding assay. This review shows that Sf9 cells are a versatile model system to investigate the pharmacological properties of GPCRs.

Comparison of the pharmacological properties of human and rat histamine H(3)-receptors

Ligand pharmacology of histamine H(3)-receptors is species-dependent. In previous studies, two amino acids in transmembrane domain 3 (TM III) were shown to play a significant role. In this study, we characterized human and rat histamine H(3)-receptors (hH(3)R and rH(3)R, respectively), co-expressed with mammalian G proteins in Sf9 insect cell membranes. We compared a series of imidazole-containing H(3)R ligands in radioligand binding and steady-state GTPase assays. H(3)Rs similarly coupled to Gα(i/o)-proteins. Affinities and potencies of the agonists histamine, N(α)-methylhistamine and R-(α)-methylhistamine were in the same range. Imetit was only a partial agonist. The pharmacology of imetit and proxifan was similar at both species. However, impentamine was more potent and efficacious at rH(3)R. The inverse agonists ciproxifan and thioperamide showed higher potency but lower efficacy at rH(3)R. Clobenpropit was not species-selective. Strikingly, imoproxifan was almost full agonist at hH(3)R, but an inverse agonist at rH(3)R. Imoproxifan was docked into the binding pocket of inactive and active hH(3)R- and rH(3)R-models and molecular dynamic simulations were performed. Imoproxifan bound to hH(3)R and rH(3)R in E-configuration, which represents the trans-isomer of the oxime-moiety as determined in crystallization studies, and stabilized active hH(3)R-, but inactive rH(3)R-conformations. Large differences in electrostatic surfaces between TM III and TM V cause differential orientation of the oxime-moiety of imoproxifan, which then differently interacts with the rotamer toggle switch Trp(6.48) in TM VI. Collectively, the substantial species differences at H(3)Rs are explained at a molecular level by the use of novel H(3)R active-state models.

Interactions of histamine H1-receptor agonists and antagonists with the human histamine H4-receptor

The human histamine H(4)-receptor (hH(4)R) possesses high constitutive activity and, like the human H(1)-receptor (hH(1)R), is involved in the pathogenesis of type-I allergic reactions. The study aims were to explore the value of dual H(1)/H(4)R antagonists as antiallergy drugs and to address the question of whether H(1)R ligands bind to hH(4)R. In an acute murine asthma model, the H(1)R antagonist mepyramine and the H(4)R antagonist 1-[(5-chloro-1H-indol-2-yl)carbonyl]-4-methyl-piperazine (JNJ 7777120) exhibited synergistic inhibitory effects on eosinophil accumulation in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. At the hH(4)R expressed in Sf9 insect cells, 18 H(1)R antagonists and 22 H(1)R agonists showed lower affinity to hH(4)R than to hH(1)R as assessed in competition binding experiments. For a small number of H(1)R antagonists, hH(4)R partial agonism was observed in the steady-state GTPase assay. Most compounds were neutral antagonists or inverse agonists. Twelve phenylhistamine-type hH(1)R partial agonists were also hH(4)R partial agonists. Four histaprodifen-type hH(1)R partial agonists were hH(4)R inverse agonists. Dimeric histaprodifen was a more efficacious hH(4)R inverse agonist than the reference compound thioperamide. Suprahistaprodifen was the only histaprodifen acting as hH(4)R partial agonist. Suprahistaprodifen was docked into the binding pocket of inactive and active hH(4)R models in two different orientations, predominantly stabilizing the active state of hH(4)R. Collectively, the synergistic effects of H(1)R and H(4)R antagonists in an acute asthma model and the overlapping interaction of structurally diverse H(1)R ligands with hH(1)R and hH(4)R indicate that the development of dual H(1)R/H(4)R antagonists is a worthwhile and technically feasible goal for the treatment of type-I allergic reactions.

Contribution of binding enthalpy and entropy to affinity of antagonist and agonist binding at human and guinea pig histamine H(1)-receptor

For several GPCRs, discrimination between agonism and antagonism is possible on the basis of thermodynamics parameters, such as binding enthalpy and entropy. In this study, we analyze whether agonists and antagonists can also be discriminated thermodynamically at the histamine H(1) receptor (H(1)R). Because previous studies revealed species differences in pharmacology between human H(1)R (hH(1)R) and guinea pig H(1)R (gpH(1)R), we analyzed a broad spectrum of H(1)R antagonists and agonists at hH(1)R and gpH(1)R. [(3)H]Mepyramine competition binding assay were performed at five different temperatures in a range from 283.15 to 303.15 K. In addition, we performed a temperature-dependent three-dimensional quantitative structure activity relationship study to predict binding enthalpy and entropy for histaprodifen derivatives, which can bind to H(1)R in two different orientations. Our studies revealed significant species differences in binding enthalpy and entropy between hH(1)R and gpH(1)R for some antagonists and agonists. Furthermore, in some cases, we found changes in heat capacity of the binding process that were different from zero. Differences in flexibility of the ligands may be responsible for this observation. For most ligands, the binding process to hH(1)R and gpH(1)R is clearly entropy-driven. In contrast, for the endogenous ligand histamine, the binding process is significantly enthalpy-driven at both species isoforms. Thus, a definite discrimination between antagonism and agonism based on thermodynamic parameters is possible for neither hH(1)R nor gpH(1)R, but thermodynamic analysis of ligand-binding may be a novel approach to dissect agonist- and antagonist-specific receptor conformations.

Characterization of the A2B adenosine receptor from mouse, rabbit, and dog

We have cloned and pharmacologically characterized the A(2B) adenosine receptor (AR) from the dog, rabbit, and mouse. The full coding regions of the dog and mouse A(2B)AR were obtained by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction, and the rabbit A(2B)AR cDNA was obtained by screening a rabbit brain cDNA library. It is noteworthy that an additional clone was isolated by library screening that was identical in sequence to the full-length rabbit A(2B)AR, with the exception of a 27-base pair deletion in the region encoding amino acids 103 to 111 (A(2B)AR(103-111)). This 9 amino acid deletion is located in the second intracellular loop at the only known splice junction of the A(2B)AR and seems to result from the use of an additional 5' donor site found in the rabbit and dog but not in the human, rat, or mouse sequences. [(3)H]3-Isobutyl-8-pyrrolidinoxanthine and 8-[4-[((4-cyano-[2,6-(3)H]-phenyl)carbamoylmethyl)oxy]phenyl]-1,3-di(n-propyl)xanthine ([(3)H]MRS 1754) bound with high affinity to membranes prepared from human embryonic kidney (HEK) 293 cells expressing mouse, rabbit, and dog A(2B)ARs. Competition binding studies performed with a panel of agonist (adenosine and 2-amino-3,5-dicyano-4-phenylpyridine analogs) and antagonist ligands identified similar potency orders for the A(2B)AR orthologs, although most xanthine antagonists displayed lower binding affinity for the dog A(2B)AR compared with A(2B)ARs from rabbit and mouse. No specific binding could be detected with membranes prepared from HEK 293 cells expressing the rabbit A(2B)AR(103-111) variant. Furthermore, the variant failed to stimulate adenylyl cyclase or calcium mobilization. We conclude that significant differences in antagonist pharmacology of the A(2B)AR exist between species and that some species express nonfunctional variants of the A(2B)AR due to "leaky" splicing.