A Dynamic, Split-Luciferase-Based Mini-G Protein Sensor to Functionally Characterize Ligands at All Four Histamine Receptor Subtypes

In drug discovery, assays with proximal readout are of great importance to study target-specific effects of potential drug candidates. In the field of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), the determination of GPCR-G protein interactions and G protein activation by means of radiolabeled GTP analogs ([³⁵S]GTPγS, [γ-³²P]GTP) has widely been used for this purpose. Since we were repeatedly faced with insufficient quality of radiolabeled nucleotides, there was a requirement to implement a novel proximal functional assay for the routine characterization of putative histamine receptor ligands. We applied the split-NanoLuc to the four histamine receptor subtypes (H₁R, H₂R, H₃R, H₄R) and recently engineered minimal G (mini-G) proteins. Using this method, the functional response upon receptor activation was monitored in real-time and the four mini-G sensors were evaluated by investigating selected standard (inverse) agonists and antagonists. All potencies and efficacies of the studied ligands were in concordance with literature data. Further, we demonstrated a significant positive correlation of the signal amplitude and the mini-G protein expression level in the case of the H₂R, but not for the H₁R or the H₃R. The pEC₅₀ values of histamine obtained under different mini-G expression levels were consistent. Moreover, we obtained excellent dynamic ranges (Z’ factor) and the signal spans were improved for all receptor subtypes in comparison to the previously performed [³⁵S]GTPγS binding assay.

Highly Potent, Stable, and Selective Dimeric Hetarylpropylguanidine-Type Histamine H2 Receptor Agonists

On the basis of the long-known prototypic pharmacophore 3-(1H-imidazol-4-yl)propylguanidine (SK&F 91486, 2), monomeric, homodimeric, and heterodimeric bisalkylguanidine-type histamine H₂ receptor (H₂R) agonists with various alkyl spacers were synthesized. Aiming at increased H₂R selectivity of the ligands, the imidazol-4-yl moiety was replaced by imidazol-1-yl, 2-aminothiazol-5-yl or 2-amino-4-methylthiazol-5-yl according to a bioisosteric approach. All compounds turned out to be partial or full agonists at the h/gp/rH₂R. The most potent analogue, the thiazole-type heterodimeric ligand 63 (UR-Po461), was a partial agonist (E_max = 88%) and 250 times more potent than histamine (pEC₅₀: 8.56 vs 6.16, gpH₂R, atrium). The homodimeric structures 56 (UR-Po395) and 58 (UR-Po448) exhibited the highest hH₂R affinities (pK_i: 7.47, 7.33) in binding studies. Dimeric amino(methyl)thiazole derivatives, such as 58, generated an increased hH₂R selectivity compared to the monomeric analogues, e.g., 139 (UR-Po444). Although monomeric ligands showed up lower affinities and potencies at the H₂R, compounds with a short alkylic side chain like 129 (UR-Po194) proved to be highly affine hH₄R ligands.

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 Gα_q. 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 (Gsα_L) or short (Gsα_S) splice variant of Gα_s 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 Gα_i1, Gα_i2, Gα_i3, and Gα_i/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 Gα_i2 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 H_xR pharmacology, but also have significant implications for the molecular pharmacology of GPCRs in general.

Isoform-Specific Biased Agonism of Histamine H3 Receptor Agonists

The human histamine H₃ receptor (hH₃R) is subject to extensive gene splicing that gives rise to a large number of functional and nonfunctional isoforms. Despite the general acceptance that G protein-coupled receptors can adopt different ligand-induced conformations that give rise to biased signaling, this has not been studied for the H₃R; further, it is unknown whether splice variants of the same receptor engender the same or differential biased signaling. Herein, we profiled the pharmacology of histamine receptor agonists at the two most abundant hH₃R splice variants (hH₃R₄₄₅ and hH₃R₃₆₅) across seven signaling endpoints. Both isoforms engender biased signaling, notably for 4-[3-(benzyloxy)propyl]-1H-imidazole (proxyfan) [e.g., strong bias toward phosphorylation of glycogen synthase kinase 3β (GSK3β) via the full-length receptor] and its congener 3-(1H-imidazol-4-yl)propyl-(4-iodophenyl)-methyl ether (iodoproxyfan), which are strongly consistent with the former's designation as a "protean" agonist. The 80 amino acid IL3 deleted isoform hH₃R₃₆₅ is more permissive in its signaling than hH₃R₄₄₅: 2-(1H-imidazol-5-yl)ethyl imidothiocarbamate (imetit), proxyfan, and iodoproxyfan were all markedly biased away from calcium signaling, and principal component analysis of the full data set revealed divergent profiles for all five agonists. However, most interesting was the identification of differential biased signaling between the two isoforms. Strikingly, hH₃R₃₆₅ was completely unable to stimulate GSK3β phosphorylation, an endpoint robustly activated by the full-length receptor. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first quantitative example of differential biased signaling via isoforms of the same G protein-coupled receptor that are simultaneously expressed in vivo and gives rise to the possibility of selective pharmacological targeting of individual receptor splice variants.

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.

The histamine H4-receptor and the central and peripheral nervous system: A critical analysis of the literature

Expression and function of histamine H4R in central and peripheral nervous system have been a matter of controversy for more than a decade. The scientific discussion is often limited to a few publications postulating the presence of functional H4R on neurons of the central and peripheral nervous system, but the even larger number of reports showing negative data is often neglected. In this article, we critically review the existing literature on H4R in central and peripheral nervous system and discuss the weak points often overlooked by the community. We identified as most important problems (i) insufficient validation or quality of antibodies, (ii) missing knockout controls, (iii) uncritical interpretation of RT-PCR results instead of qPCR experiments, (iv) insufficient controls to confirm specificity of pharmacological tools, (v) uncritical reliance on results produced by a single method and (vi) uncritical reliance on results not reproduced by independent research groups. Additionally, there may be a publication as well as a citation bias favoring the awareness of positive results, but neglecting negative data. We conclude that H4R expression on neurons of the brain is not convincingly supported by the current literature, at least as long as the positive data are not reproduced by independent research groups. Expression and function of H4R on peripheral neurons or non-neuronal cells of the nervous system, specifically on microglia is an interesting alternative hypothesis that, however, requires further verification. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled 'Histamine Receptors'.

Conformational Restriction and Enantioseparation Increase Potency and Selectivity of Cyanoguanidine-Type Histamine H4 Receptor Agonists

2-Cyano-1-[4-(1H-imidazol-4-yl)butyl]-3-[2-(phenylsulfanyl)ethyl]guanidine (UR-PI376, 1) is a potent and selective agonist of the human histamine H4 receptor (hH4R). To gain information on the active conformation, we synthesized analogues of 1 with a cyclopentane-1,3-diyl linker. Affinities and functional activities were determined at recombinant hHxR (x: 1-4) subtypes on Sf9 cell membranes (radioligand binding, [(35)S]GTPγS, or GTPase assays) and in part in luciferase assays on human or mouse H4R (HEK-293 cells). The most potent H4R agonists among 14 racemates were separated by chiral HPLC, yielding eight enantiomerically pure compounds. Configurations were assigned based on X-ray structures of intermediates and a stereocontrolled synthetic pathway. (+)-2-Cyano-1-{[trans-(1S,3S)-3-(1H-imidazol-4-yl)cyclopentyl]methyl}-3-[2-(phenylsulfanyl)ethyl]guanidine ((1S,3S)-UR-RG98, 39a) was the most potent H4R agonist in this series (EC50 11 nM; H4R vs H3R, >100-fold selectivity; H1R, H2R, negligible activities), whereas the optical antipode proved to be an H4R antagonist ([(35)S]GTPγS assay). MD simulations confirmed differential stabilization of the active and inactive H4R state by the enantiomers.

Mathematical analysis of the sodium sensitivity of the human histamine H3 receptor

Purpose

It was shown by several experimental studies that some G protein coupled receptors (GPCR) are sensitive to sodium ions. Furthermore, mutagenesis studies or the determination of crystal structures of the adenosine A_2A or δ-opioid receptor revealed an allosteric Na⁺ binding pocket near to the highly conserved Asp^2.50. Within a previous study, the influence of NaCl concentration onto the steady-state GTPase activity at the human histamine H₃ receptor (hH₃R) in presence of the endogenous histamine or the inverse agonist thioperamide was analyzed. The purpose of the present study was to examine and quantify the Na⁺-sensitivity of hH₃R on a molecular level.

Methods

To achieve this, we developed a set of equations, describing constitutive activity and the different ligand-receptor equilibria in absence or presence of sodium ions. Furthermore, in order to gain a better understanding of the ligand- and Na⁺-binding to hH₃R on molecular level, we performed molecular dynamic (MD) simulations.

Results

The analysis of the previously determined experimental steady-state GTPase data with the set of equations presented within this study, reveals that thioperamide binds into the orthosteric binding pocket of the hH₃R in absence or presence of a Na⁺ in its allosteric binding site. However, the data suggest that thioperamide binds preferentially into the hH₃R in absence of a sodium ion in its allosteric site. These experimental results were supported by MD simulations of thioperamide in the binding pocket of the inactive hH₃R. Furthermore, the MD simulations revealed two different binding modes for thioperamide in presence or absence of a Na⁺ in its allosteric site.

Conclusion

The mathematical model presented within this study describes the experimental data regarding the Na⁺-sensitivity of hH₃R in an excellent manner. Although the present study is focused onto the Na⁺-sensitivity of the hH₃R, the resulting equations, describing Na⁺- and ligand-binding to a GPCR, can be used for all other ion-sensitive GPCRs.

Synthesis, biological evaluation, and computational studies of Tri- and tetracyclic nitrogen-bridgehead compounds as potent dual-acting AChE inhibitors and hH3 receptor antagonists

Combination of AChE inhibiting and histamine H3 receptor antagonizing properties in a single molecule might show synergistic effects to improve cognitive deficits in Alzheimer's disease, since both pharmacological actions are able to enhance cholinergic neurotransmission in the cortex. However, whereas AChE inhibitors prevent hydrolysis of acetylcholine also peripherally, histamine H3 antagonists will raise acetylcholine levels mostly in the brain due to predominant occurrence of the receptor in the central nervous system. In this work, we designed and synthesized two novel classes of tri- and tetracyclic nitrogen-bridgehead compounds acting as dual AChE inhibitors and histamine H3 antagonists by combining the nitrogen-bridgehead moiety of novel AChE inhibitors with a second N-basic fragment based on the piperidinylpropoxy pharmacophore with different spacer lengths. Intensive structure-activity relationships (SARs) with regard to both biological targets led to compound 41 which showed balanced affinities as hAChE inhibitor with IC50 = 33.9 nM, and hH3R antagonism with Ki = 76.2 nM with greater than 200-fold selectivity over the other histamine receptor subtypes. Molecular docking studies were performed to explain the potent AChE inhibition of the target compounds and molecular dynamics studies to explain high affinity at the hH3R.

Synthesis and functional characterization of imbutamine analogs as histamine H3 and H4 receptor ligands

Imbutamine (4-(1H-imidazol-4-yl)butanamine) is a potent histamine H3 (H3R) and H4 receptor (H4R) agonist (EC50 values: 3 and 66 nM, respectively). Aiming at improved selectivity for the H4R, the imidazole ring in imbutamine was methyl-substituted or replaced by various differently substituted heterocycles (1,2,3-triazoles, 1,2,4-triazoles, pyridines, pyrimidines) as potential bioisosteres. Investigations in [(35)S]GTPγS binding assays using membranes of Sf9 insect cells expressing the respective human histamine receptor subtype revealed only very weak activity of most of the synthesized hetarylalkylamines at both receptors. By contrast, the introduction of substituents at the 4-imidazolyl ring was most effective regarding H4R selectivity. This holds for methyl substitution in position 2 and, especially, in position 5. 5-Methylimbutamine (H4R: EC50  = 59 nM, α = 0.8) was equipotent with imbutamine at the hH4R, but revealed about 16-fold selectivity for the hH4R compared to the hH3R (EC50 980 nM, α = 0.36), whereas imbutamine preferred the hH3R. The functional activities were in agreement with radioligand binding data. The results support the hypothesis that, by analogy with histamine, methyl substitution in histamine homologs offers a way to shift the selectivity in favor of the H4R.

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.

Synthesis and histamine H(3) and H(4) receptor activity of conformationally restricted cyanoguanidines related to UR-PI376

Recently, we identified highly potent agonists of the human histamine H(4) receptor (hH(4) R) among a series of imidazolylbutylcyanoguanidines. Aiming at improved selectivity for the hH(4) R relative to the H(3) receptor (hH(3) R), the flexible tetramethylene linker connecting imidazole ring and cyanoguanidine group was replaced by conformationally restricted carbocycles. Introduction of a para- or a meta-phenylene spacer yielded only very weakly active compounds at both hH(3) R and hH(4) R (investigated in [(35) S]GTPγS binding assays using Sf9 insect cell membranes expressing hH(x) R subtypes). By contrast, the incorporation of a more flexible cyclohexane-1,4-diyl linker resulted in EC(50) or K(B) values ≥110 nM at hH(4) R and hH(3) R. Quality of action, potency and receptor subtype selectivity of the investigated compounds depend on the stereochemistry: Cis-configured diastereomers prefer the hH(4) R and are partial agonists, whereas trans-isomers are antagonists at the hH(4) R. At the hH(3) R the trans-diastereomers are superior to the cis-isomers by a factor of 10. The results on imidazolylcycloalkylcyanoguanidines suggest that variation of ring size and optimization of the stereochemistry may be useful to increase the potency and selectivity of hH(4) R agonists relative to the hH(3) R.

Histamine H1, H3 and H4 receptors are involved in pruritus

Histamine has long been recognised as a classical inducer of pruritus. However, the specific mechanism of histamine-induced itch has still not been fully understood. The H1 and H4 receptor appear to be key components in the induction of itch. The specific role of the H3 receptor in histamine-induced itch remains unclear. The aim of our study was to investigate the role of the four known histamine receptors (H1-4) in acute itch in mice. Intradermal injection of the selective H3R inverse agonist pitolisant induced strong itch in mice. Pitolisant (50 nmol/injection)-induced pruritus could be completely blocked by a combined treatment with the H1R antagonist cetirizine (15 mg/kg) and the H4R antagonist JNJ 7777120 (15 mg/kg), whereas the H2R antagonist ranitidine (15 mg/kg) failed to inhibit the scratch response. Next, expression and function of histamine receptors on sensory neurons isolated from dorsal root ganglia of mice were investigated. As the itch sensation results from the excitation of sensory nerves in the skin, we further focused on skin specific sensory neurons. Therefore, neurons were retrograde labelled from the skin by means of a fluorescent tracer. Expression of H1R, H3R and H4R on skin innervating sensory neurons was detected. By single-cell calcium imaging, it was demonstrated that histamine induces a calcium increase in a subset of (skin-specific) sensory neurons via activation of the H1R and H4R as well as inhibition of the H3R. It is assumed that the decreased threshold in response to H3R antagonism activates H1R and H4R on sensory neurons, which in turn results in the excitation of histamine-sensitive afferents and therefore elicits the sensation of itch.

Impact of fusion to Gα(i2) and co-expression with RGS proteins on pharmacological properties of human cannabinoid receptors CB₁R and CB₂R

OBJECTIVES

G protein coupled receptor (GPCR)-Gα fusion proteins are often employed to investigate receptor/G protein interaction. In this study, the impact of Gα fusion proteins on pharmacology of CBRs, both mediating signals through Gα(i) proteins, were investigated. Gα(i2) was fused to the C-terminus of the CBRs or co-expressed with non-fused Gα(i2) in Sf9 cells, always together with Gβ₁γ₂. Furthermore, the impact of RGS proteins on CBR signaling in combination with the CBR fusion approach was examined, using RGS4 and RGS19 as paradigms.

METHODS

CBR ligands were characterized in the steady-state GTPase assay and pharmacological properties of ligands in the different test systems were correlated.

KEY FINDINGS

Fusion of CBRs to Gα(i2) enhanced the maximal stimulatory effects of ligands compared to the co-expression system, especially for CB₂R. RGS4, but not RGS19, behaved as a GTPase-activating protein at CBRs in the Gα(i2) co-expression and fusion system. Fusion of GPCR, most prominently CB₂R, to Gα(i2) , and co-expression with RGS4 altered the pharmacological properties of ligands.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that fusion of CB₂R to Gα(i2) and co-expression with RGS4 impedes with conformational changes. Moreover, our results support the concept of ligand-specific receptor conformations. Finally, this paper describes the most sensitive CBR test system currently available.

Fusion proteins as model systems for the analysis of constitutive GPCR activity

In many cases, the coexpression of GPCRs with G-proteins and/or regulators of G-protein signaling (RGS-proteins) allows a successful reconstitution of high-affinity agonist binding and functional responses. However, in some cases, coexpressed GPCRs and G-proteins interact inefficiently, resulting in weak [³⁵S]GTPγS- and steady-state GTPase assay signals. This may be, for example, caused by a rapid dissociation of the G-protein from the plasma membrane, as has been reported for Gα(s). Moreover, for a detailed characterization of GPCR/G-protein interactions, it may be required to work with a defined GPCR/G-protein stoichiometry and to avoid cross-interaction with endogenous G-proteins. Cross-talk to endogenous G-proteins has been shown to play a role in some mammalian expression systems. These problems can be addressed by the generation of GPCR-Gα fusion proteins and their expression in Sf9 insect cells. When the C-terminus of the receptor is fused to the N-terminus of the G-protein, a 1:1 stoichiometry of both proteins is achieved. In addition, the close proximity of GPCR and G-protein in fusion proteins leads to enhanced interaction efficiency, resulting in increased functional signals. This approach can also be extended to fusion proteins of GPCRs with RGS-proteins, specifically when steady-state GTP hydrolysis is used as read-out. GPCR-RGS fusion proteins optimize the interaction of RGS-proteins with coexpressed Gα subunits, since the location of the RGS-protein is close to the site of receptor-mediated G-protein activation. Moreover, in contrast to coexpression systems, GPCR-Gα and GPCR-RGS fusion proteins provide a possibility to imitate physiologically occurring interactions, for example, the precoupling of receptors and G-proteins or the formation of complexes between GPCRs, G-proteins and RGS-proteins (transducisomes). In this chapter, we describe the technique for the generation of fusion proteins and show the application of this approach for the characterization of constitutively active receptors.

Expression and functional properties of canine, rat, and murine histamine H₄ receptors in Sf9 insect cells

The histamine H₄ receptor (H₄R) is expressed on cells of the immune system including eosinophils, dendritic cells, and T cells and plays an important role in the pathogenesis of bronchial asthma, atopic dermatitis, and pruritus. Analysis of the H₄R in these diseases depends on the use of animal models. However, there are substantial pharmacological differences between various H₄R species orthologs. The purpose of this study was to analyze the pharmacological properties of canine, rat, and murine H₄R in comparison to human H₄R expressed in Sf9 insect cells. Only hH₄R and cH₄R exhibited a sufficiently high [³H]histamine affinity for radioligand binding studies. Generally, cH₄R exhibited lower ligand-affinities than hH₄R. Similarly, in high-affinity GTPase studies, ligands were more potent at hH₄R than at other H₄R species orthologs. Unlike the other H₄R species orthologs, hH₄R exhibited high agonist-independent (constitutive) activity. Most strikingly, the prototypical H₄R antagonist (1-[(5-chloro-1H-indol-2-yl)carbonyl]-4-methylpiperazine) (JNJ7777120) exhibited partial agonistic activity at cH₄R, rH₄R, and mH₄R, whereas at hH₄R, JNJ7777120 was a partial inverse agonist. H₄R agonists from the class of N ( G )-acylated imidazolylpropylguanidines and cyanoguanidines exhibited substantial differences in terms of affinity, potency, and efficacy among H₄R species orthologs, too. The species-dependent pharmacological profiles are not due to the highly variable amino acid sequence position 341. Finally, H₄R species orthologs differ from each other in terms of regulation by NaCl. Collectively, there are profound pharmacological differences between H₄R species orthologs. Most importantly, caution must be exerted when interpreting pharmacological effects of "the prototypical H₄R antagonist" JNJ7777120 as H₄R antagonism.

Paradoxical stimulatory effects of the "standard" histamine H4-receptor antagonist JNJ7777120: the H4 receptor joins the club of 7 transmembrane domain receptors exhibiting functional selectivity

The histamine H(4) receptor (H(4)R) is expressed in several cell types of the immune system and is assumed to play an important pro-inflammatory role in various diseases, including bronchial asthma, atopic dermatitis, and pruritus. Accordingly, H(4)R antagonists have been suggested to provide valuable drugs for the treatment of these diseases. Over the past decade, the indole derivative 1-[(5-chloro-1H-indol-2-yl)carbonyl]-4-methylpiperazine (JNJ7777120) has become the "standard" H(4)R antagonist and has been extensively used to assess the pathophysiological role of the H(4)R. However, the situation has now become more complicated by recent data (p. 749 and Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol doi: 10.1007/s00210-011-0612-3) showing that JNJ7777120 can also activate β-arrestin in a supposedly G(i)-protein-independent (pertussis toxin-insensitive) manner and that at certain H(4)R species orthologs, JNJ7777120 exhibits partial agonist efficacy with respect to G(i)-protein activation (steady-state high-affinity GTPase activity). These novel findings can be explained within the concept of functional selectivity or biased signaling, assuming unique ligand-specific receptor conformations with distinct signal transduction capabilities. Thus, great caution must be exerted when interpreting in vivo effects of JNJ7777120 as H(4)R antagonism. We discuss future directions to get out of the current dilemma in which there is no "standard" H(4)R antagonist available to the scientific community.

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.

Impact of the DRY motif and the missing "ionic lock" on constitutive activity and G-protein coupling of the human histamine H4 receptor

It is assumed that many G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are restrained in an inactive state by the "ionic lock," an interaction between an arginine in transmembrane domain (TM) 3 (R3.50) and a negatively charged residue in TM6 (D/E6.30). In the human histamine H4 receptor (hH4R), alanine is present in position 6.30. To elucidate whether this mutation causes the high constitutive activity of hH4R, we aimed to reconstitute the ionic lock by constructing the A6.30E mutant. The role of R3.50 was investigated by generating hH4R-R3.50A. Both mutants were expressed alone or together with Galpha(i2) and Gbeta1gamma2 in Sf9 cells and characterized in GTPase, 35S-labeled guanosine 5'-[gamma-thio]triphosphate binding, and high-affinity agonist binding assays. Unexpectedly, compared with hH4R, hH4R-A6.30E showed only nonsignificant reduction of constitutive activity and G protein-coupling efficiency. The KD of [3H]histamine was unaltered. By contrast, hH4R-R3.50A did not stimulate G proteins. Thioperamide affinity at hH(4)R-R3.50A was increased by 300 to 400%, whereas histamine affinity was reduced by approximately 50%. A model of the active hH4R state in complex with the Galpha(i2) C terminus was compared with the crystal structures of turkey beta1 and human beta2 adrenoceptors. We conclude that 1) constitutive activity of hH4R is facilitated by the salt bridge D5.69-R6.31 rather than by the missing ionic lock, 2) Y3.60 may form alternative locks in active and inactive GPCR states, 3) R3.50 is crucial for hH4R-G protein coupling, and 4) hH4R-R3.50A represents an inactive state with increased inverse agonist and reduced agonist affinity. Thus, the ionic lock, although stabilizing the inactive rhodopsin state, is not generally important for all class A GPCRs.