Chemical modification of adenosine A1 receptors. Implications for the interaction with R-PIA, DPCPX and amiloride

Design and Characterization of an Intracellular Covalent Ligand for CC Chemokine Receptor 2

Covalently acting inhibitors constitute a large and growing fraction of approved small-molecule therapeutics as well as useful tools for a variety of in vitro and in vivo applications. Here, we aimed to develop a covalent antagonist of CC chemokine receptor 2 (CCR2), a class A GPCR that has been pursued as a therapeutic target in inflammation and immuno-oncology. Based on a known intracellularly binding CCR2 antagonist, several covalent derivatives were synthesized and characterized by radioligand binding and functional assays. These studies revealed compound 14 as an intracellular covalent ligand for CCR2. In silico modeling followed by site-directed mutagenesis confirmed that 14 forms a covalent bond with one of three proximal cysteine residues, which can be engaged interchangeably. To our knowledge, compound 14 represents the first covalent ligand reported for CCR2. Due to its unique properties, it may represent a promising tool for ongoing and future studies of CCR2 pharmacology.

Allosteric ligands for G protein-coupled receptors: a novel strategy with attractive therapeutic opportunities

Allosteric receptor ligands bind to a recognition site that is distinct from the binding site of the endogenous messenger molecule. As a consequence, allosteric agents may attach to receptors that are already transmitter-bound. Ternary complex formation opens an avenue to qualitatively new drug actions at G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), in particular receptor subtype selective potentiation of endogenous transmitter action. Consequently, suitable exploitation of allosteric recognition sites as alternative molecular targets could pave the way to a drug discovery paradigm different from those aimed at mimicking or blocking the effects of endogenous (orthosteric) receptor activators. The number of allosteric ligands reported to modulate GPCR function is steadily increasing and some have already reached routine clinical use. This review aims at introducing into this fascinating field of drug discovery and at providing an overview about the achievements that have already been made. Various case examples will be discussed in the framework of GPCR classification (family A, B, and C receptors). In addition, the behavior at muscarinic receptors of hybrid derivatives incorporating both an allosteric and an orthosteric fragment in a common molecular skeleton will be illustrated.

Allosteric modulation of adenosine receptors

Allosteric ligands for G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) may alter receptor conformations induced by an orthosteric ligand. These modulators can thus fine-tune classical pharmacological responses. In this review we will describe efforts to synthesize and characterize allosteric modulators for one particular GPCR subfamily, the adenosine receptors. There are four subtypes of these receptors: A(1), A(2A), A(2B) and A(3). Allosteric enhancers for the adenosine A(1) receptor may have anti-arrythmic and anti-lipolytic activity. They may also act as analgesics and neuroprotective agents. A(3) allosteric enhancers are thought to be beneficial in ischemic conditions or as antitumor agents. We will summarize recent developments regarding the medicinal chemistry of such compounds. Most data have been and are published about the adenosine A(1) and A(3) receptor, whereas limited or no information is available for the A(2A) and A(2B) receptor, respectively. Receptor mutation studies are also discussed, as they may shed light on the localization of the allosteric binding sites. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: "Adenosine Receptors".

Allosteric modulation of adenosine receptors

Allosteric modulators for adenosine receptors may have potential therapeutic advantage over orthosteric ligands. Allosteric enhancers at the adenosine A₁ receptor have been linked to antiarrhythmic and antilipolytic activity. They may also have therapeutic potential as analgesics and neuroprotective agents. A₃ allosteric enhancers are postulated to be useful against ischemic conditions or as antitumor agents. In this review, we address recent developments regarding the medicinal chemistry of such compounds. Most efforts have been and are directed toward adenosine A₁ and A₃ receptors, whereas limited or no information is available for A_2A and A_2B receptors. We also discuss some findings, mostly receptor mutation studies, regarding localization of the allosteric binding sites on the receptors.

Molecular mechanisms of ligand binding, signaling, and regulation within the superfamily of G-protein-coupled receptors: molecular modeling and mutagenesis approaches to receptor structure and function

The superfamily of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) could be subclassified into 7 families (A, B, large N-terminal family B-7 transmembrane helix, C, Frizzled/Smoothened, taste 2, and vomeronasal 1 receptors) among mammalian species. Cloning and functional studies of GPCRs have revealed that the superfamily of GPCRs comprises receptors for chemically diverse native ligands including (1) endogenous compounds like amines, peptides, and Wnt proteins (i.e., secreted proteins activating Frizzled receptors); (2) endogenous cell surface adhesion molecules; and (3) photons and exogenous compounds like odorants. The combined use of site-directed mutagenesis and molecular modeling approaches have provided detailed insight into molecular mechanisms of ligand binding, receptor folding, receptor activation, G-protein coupling, and regulation of GPCRs. The vast majority of family A, B, C, vomeronasal 1, and taste 2 receptors are able to transduce signals into cells through G-protein coupling. However, G-protein-independent signaling mechanisms have also been reported for many GPCRs. Specific interaction motifs in the intracellular parts of these receptors allow them to interact with scaffold proteins. Protein engineering techniques have provided information on molecular mechanisms of GPCR-accessory protein, GPCR-GPCR, and GPCR-scaffold protein interactions. Site-directed mutagenesis and molecular dynamics simulations have revealed that the inactive state conformations are stabilized by specific interhelical and intrahelical salt bridge interactions and hydrophobic-type interactions. Constitutively activating mutations or agonist binding disrupts such constraining interactions leading to receptor conformations that associates with and activate G-proteins.

Allosteric modulation of A(2A) adenosine receptors by amiloride analogues and sodium ions

Allosteric regulation of rat A(2A) adenosine receptors by amiloride, amiloride analogues, and sodium ions was studied by investigating their ability to influence the dissociation of [(3)H]4-2-[7-amino-2-(2-furyl)-1,2,4-triazolo[1,5-a][1,3, 5]triazin-5-yl-amino]ethylphenol ([(3)H]ZM241385) from receptors in rat striatal membranes. Both amiloride and its analogues accelerated the dissociation, the analogues being more potent than amiloride itself. In contrast, sodium ions decreased the rate of [(3)H]ZM241385 dissociation in a concentration-dependent manner, and this rate was not influenced by guanosine triphosphate, N-ethylmaleimide, suramin, or the selective A(2A) adenosine receptor antagonist, 5-amino-2-(2-furyl)-7(2-phenylethyl)pyrazolo[4,3-e]-1,2, 4-triazolo[1,5-c]pyrimidine (SCH58261). The effect of competition between the amiloride analogue 5-(N,N-hexamethylene)amiloride (HMA) and sodium ions on [(3)H]ZM241385 dissociation was also explored. The addition of sodium ions resulted in a concentration-dependent rightward shift of the HMA response curve. The slopes of the HMA concentration-response curves in the presence and absence of sodium ions were not significantly different, which suggests that sodium ions and amiloride analogues act at a common allosteric site on the A(2A) adenosine receptor. There was a lack of correlation between the displacement of ligand binding and the allosteric potencies of the amiloride analogues.

Mechanisms of inhibitory effects of zinc and cadmium ions on agonist binding to adenosine A1 receptors in rat brain

The dose-dependent inhibition of zinc and cadmium ions of agonist binding to A1 adenosine receptors in rat brain is prevented by histidine and cysteine, respectively. In the present study, the possible different mechanisms of Zn2+ and Cd2+ inhibitions were examined. The effects of Zn2+ and Cd2+ on equilibrium binding parameters of the agonists N6-cyclohexyl-[2,8-3H]-adenosine ([3H]CHA) or chloro-N6-cyclopentyl-adenosine ([3H]CCPA) and the antagonist cyclopentyl-1,3-dipropylxanthine ([3H]DPCPX) were compared with those effects of reagents or binding conditions which altered histidyl or cysteinyl residues of the A1 receptor. Zn2+ pretreatment did not change A1 agonist or antagonist affinity, but did reduce the Bmax. The inhibitory effects of Zn2+ pretreatments were also maintained after several membrane washings. Diethylpyrocarbonate, a histidine-specific alkylating reagent, behaved like zinc ions: pretreatment with A1 agonist protected the histidyl residues of the [3H]CHA binding site against modification by Zn2+, while the modification of the protonation state of the nitrogen of the imidazole group of histidines by changing pH indicated that the interactions of Zn2+ with the histidyl residues were feasible with their unprotonated form. These findings suggest the formation of coordination bonds between Zn2+ and histidines critical for [3H]CHA or [3H]DPCPX binding, which may prevent the ligand interaction with the specific sites without modifying the binding kinetics of radioligand to the non-chelated recognition sites. Cd2+ pretreatment reduced the [3H]CCPA affinity, but did not modify the affinity of the antagonist [3H]DPCPX, the Bmax remaining unaffected. As with cadmium effects, the oxidation of the thiol group of cysteine by dithionitrobenzoic acid (DTNB) reduced [3H]CCPA affinity without changing the number of binding sites. The reducing reagent dithiothreitol, which alone was unable to modify [3H]CCPA binding, overcame the inhibiting effects of both Cd2+ and DTNB. These findings suggest that cadmium ions may oxidize SH groups of cysteines localized on the A1 receptor molecule or a cysteine localized in the region of G(i)alpha subunit involved in the coupling with receptors. This mechanism can justify potential conformational modifications of the receptor molecule producing the decrease in affinity.

Role of cysteine residues of rat A2a adenosine receptors in agonist binding

In the present study, we investigated the role of disulfide bridges and sulfhydryl groups in A2a adenosine receptor binding of the agonist 2-p-(2-carboxyethyl)phenylethylamino)-5'-N-ethylcarboxamidoadenosi ne (CGS 21680). To evaluate the presence of essential disulfide bridges, rat striatal membranes were incubated with [3H]CGS 21680 in the presence of dithiothreitol and binding of the agonist to membranes was measured. The amount of [3H]CGS 21680 which specifically bound, decreased progressively upon pretreatment of membranes with increasing concentrations of dithiothreitol. Pretreatment of rat striatal membranes with 12.5 mM dithiothreitol for 15 min at 25 degrees C resulted in a 2-fold decrease of A2a adenosine receptor affinity for [3H]CGS 21680, and a reduction in the maximal number of binding sites. The presence of agonist or antagonist ligands protected the A2a adenosine receptor sites from the effect of dithiothreitol. We also examined the susceptibility of A2a adenosine receptors to inactivation by the sulfhydryl alkylating reagent, N-ethylmaleimide. When rat striatal membranes were pretreated with N-ethylmaleimide for 30 minutes at 37 degrees C, a decrease in specific [3H]CGS 21680 binding was observed. Pretreatment of membranes with 1 mM N-ethylmaleimide also resulted in a 2-fold reduction of A2a adenosine receptor affinity for [3H]CGS 21680, as well as a slight decrease in the maximal number of binding sites. Neither agonist nor antagonist ligands were effective in protecting the receptor sites from inactivation by N-ethylmaleimide. In contrast, addition of 100 microM guanosine-5'-O-(3-thiotriphosphate) or 5'-guanylylimidodiphosphate were both effective in protecting the receptor sites from inactivation by N-ethylmaleimide. This protective effect was significant but not complete. Our data suggest that disulfide bridges play a role in the structural integrity of the A2a adenosine receptor, furthermore, reduced sulfhydryl groups appear to be important but we do not yet know if they are on the receptor or on the Gs alpha subunit.

Relative binding orientations of adenosine A1 receptor ligands--a test case for Distributed Multipole Analysis in medicinal chemistry

The electrostatic properties of adenosine-based agonists and xanthine-based antagonists for the adenosine A1 receptor were used to assess various proposals for their relative orientation in the unknown binding site. The electrostatic properties were calculated from distributed multipole representations of SCF wavefunctions. A range of methods of assessing the electrostatic similarity of the ligands were used in the comparison. One of the methods, comparing the sign of the potential around the two molecules, gave inconclusive results. The other approaches, however, provided a mutually complementary and consistent picture of the electrostatic similarity and dissimilarity of the molecules in the three proposed relative orientations. This was significantly different from the results obtained previously with MOPAC AM1 point charges. In the standard model overlay, where the aromatic nitrogen atoms of both agonists and antagonists are in the same position relative to the binding site, the electrostatic potentials are so dissimilar that binding to the same receptor site is highly unlikely. Overlaying the N6-region of adenosine with that near C8 of theophylline (the N6-C8 model) produces the greatest similarity in electrostatic properties for these ligands. However, N6-cyclopentyladenosine (CPA) and 1,3-dipropyl-8-cyclopentyl-xanthine (DPCPX) show greater electrostatic similarity when the aromatic rings are superimposed according to the flipped model, in which the xanthine ring is rotated around its horizontal axis. This difference is mainly attributed to the change in conformation of N6-substituted adenosines and could result in a different orientation for theophylline and DPCPX within the receptor binding site. However, it is more likely that DPCPX also binds according to the N6-C8 model, as this model gives the best steric overlay and would be favoured by the lipophilic forces, provided that the binding site residues could accommodate the different electrostatic properties in the N6/N7-region. Finally, we have shown that Distributed Multipole Analysis (DMA) offers a new, feasible tool for the medicinal chemist, because it provides the use of reliable electrostatic models to determine plausible relative binding orientations.

Role of histidine residues in agonist and antagonist binding sites of A1 adenosine receptor

The influence of pH on the equilibrium dissociation constant and on kinetic association and dissociation constants was studied for adenosine receptor agonist L-N6-[adenine-2,8-3H, ethyl-2-3H]phenylisopropyladenosine ([3H]R-PIA) and antagonist 8-cyclopentyl-1,3-[3H]-dipropylxanthine ([3H]DPCPX). Two ionizable groups, of pK 7.0 and pK 7.4, are involved in the [3H]R-PIA associations with high- and low-affinity states of the receptor, and another group, of pK 6.0, is involved in the association with the low-affinity state. No ionizable group is involved in the dissociation process for the high-affinity state, whereas two ionizable groups, of pK 6.0 and 6.5, are involved in the low-affinity state. For [3H]DPCPX, three ionizable groups (pK 6.0, 7.4, and 8.0) are involved in the association process and only one group, (pK 6.0), is involved in the dissociation step. The apparent pK values obtained agree with histidine residues. We thus studied the effect of diethylpyrocarbonate (DEP), which reacts irreversibly with histidine residues, on agonist and antagonist binding to A1 adenosine receptors from pig brain cortical membranes. DEP treatment of membrane reduced the affinity (KD) and the total binding (R) of the agonist and the antagonist. Membrane preincubation with unlabeled ligand (R-PIA or DPCPX) prevented the effect of DEP modification observed when the same ligand, but with label, is added to the same membranes, but did not prevent the DEP modification on different, labeled ligand.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Chemical modification of cholecystokinin-A receptors in rat pancreatic membranes

Chemical modification of amino acids was used to probe the molecular structure of the cholecystokinin-A (CCK-A) receptor on rat pancreatic membranes. Radioligand binding studies with [3H]N-(2,3-dihydro-1-methyl-2-oxo-5-phenyl-1H-1,4-benzodiazepin-3- yl)1H- 2-carboxamide [(+/-)-[3H]L-364,718], a tritiated highly potent CCK-A receptor antagonist, enabled the evaluation of the effects caused by the modifying reagents. The apparent fragility of the receptor protein necessitated the development of a modification procedure without wash and centrifugation steps. Treatment of a concentrated membrane preparation with the group-specific agents N-ethylmaleimide, phenylglyoxal and diethylpyrocarbonate, subsequent dilution and incubation at lower temperatures (20 degrees C instead of the more generally used 37 degrees C) proved successful. All modifiers affected the binding characteristics for both agonists and antagonists considerably. CCK-A receptor coupling to guanosine-nucleotide-binding proteins was substantially diminished upon modification with N-ethylmaleimide and diethylpyrocarbonate, as could be concluded from the effects on the (+/-)-[3H]L-364,718 displacement by the cholecystokinin C-terminal octapeptide (CCK-8). The ligand-binding site was affected by all three reagents, as could be inferred from the specific protection obtained with the CCK-A receptor antagonist, lorglumide. It therefore appears that sulfhydryl, arginyl, and histidyl residues form an essential part of the ligand-binding domain on the CCK-A receptor and that sulfhydryl and histidyl residues are also involved in the signal-transduction pathway.

The mode of interaction of amiloride and some of its analogues with the adenosine A1 receptor

Amiloride, a potassium sparing diuretic, inhibits adenosine A1 receptor-radioligand binding in calf and rat brain membranes in the low micromolar range. The drug interacted with the A1 receptor in a manner different from classical A1 ligands, but structure-activity relationship studies indicated that this inhibitory effect is not related to the ion transport inhibiting properties of amiloride (Garritsen et al., 1990a,b) In the present study, the question is addressed how amiloride interacts with the adenosine A1 receptor. Amiloride and two of its analogues, in concentrations equivalent to their Ki values in displacement studies, decrease the affinity of the A1 antagonist [3H]8-cyclopentyl-1,3-dipropylxanthine, but not the maximal binding capacity of the radioligand. Furthermore, the dissociation rate of the receptor-ligand complex is unaltered in the presence of amiloride or its analogues in a concentration exceeding the Ki value 10-fold. These characteristics argue for a purely competitive mode of interaction. The functional consequences of the interaction between amiloride analogues and the A1 receptor were investigated at the level of cyclic adenosine 3',5'-monophosphate (cAMP) formation. The amiloride analogue 5-(N-butyl-N-methyl) amiloride (MBA) reversed A1-receptor mediated inhibition of forskolin-stimulated cAMP formation in rat fat cell membranes. In this model, the antagonist potency of MBA is ca 5 microM. This value is in fair agreement with a Ki value of 3.5 microM in binding assays under similar conditions. In conclusion, amiloride inhibits A1 receptor binding in an apparently competitive manner. This suggests that the binding sites of amiloride and the classic A1 receptor ligands may at least partially overlap.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

N-ethylmaleimide affects agonist binding to A1 adenosine receptors differently in the presence than in the absence of ligand

The effect of sulphydryl reagents (N-ethylmaleimide-NEM-4- hydroxymercuriobenzoate-HMB- and 5-5'-dithio-bis-2-nitrobenzoate-DTNB-) on agonist and antagonist binding to A1 adenosine receptors from pig brain was studied. The action of the mercurial agent HMB was found to be strong and seemed to be nonspecific. The effects of either NEM or DTNB were milder and more specific. The characterization of the agonist binding in membranes pretreated with moderate concentrations of DTNB and NEM led to reduced affinities for both high- and low-affinity sites without marked modifications of maximal binding or of proportion of affinity states. These results for NEM are surprising since the compound is usually used to mimick the effects of Gpp(NH)p, i.e. to shift high-affinity states to low-affinity states. It was found that this Gpp(NH)p-like effect of NEM is only possible when the compound is included in the assay medium. Similarly, Gpp(NH)p produces the uncoupling of the receptor molecule from G protein if included in the assay medium. Thus, membranes pretreated with Gpp(NH)p exhibited both affinity states and with similar equilibrium binding parameter values to those of the crude membranes.