Pharmacological Differences between Human and Guinea Pig Histamine H1 Receptors: Asn84 (2.61) as Key Residue within an Additional Binding Pocket in the H1 Receptor

Pharmacological Characterization of the Zebrafish (Danio Rerio) Histamine H1 Receptor Reveals the Involvement of the Second Extracellular Loop in the Binding of Histamine

The zebrafish (Danio rerio) histamine H1 receptor gene (zfH1R) was cloned in 2007 and reported to be involved in fish locomotion. Yet, no detailed characterization of its pharmacology and signaling properties have so far been reported. In this study, we pharmacologically characterized the zfH1R expressed in HEK-293T cells by means of [3H]-mepyramine binding and G protein-signaling assays. The zfH1R [dissociation constant (KD), 0.7 nM] displayed similar affinity for the antagonist [3H]-mepyramine as the human histamine H1 receptor (hH1R) (KD, 1.5 nM), whereas the affinity for histamine is 100-fold higher than for the human H1R. The zfH1R couples to Gαq/11 proteins and activates several reporter genes, i.e., NFAT, NFϰB, CRE, VEGF, COX-2, SRE, and AP-1, and zfH1R-mediated signaling is prevented by the Gαq/11 inhibitor YM-254890 and the antagonist mepyramine. Molecular modeling of the zfH1R and human H1R shows that the binding pockets are identical, implying that variations along the ligand binding pathway could underly the differences in histamine affinity instead. Targeting differentially charged residues in extracellular loop 2 (ECL2) using site-directed mutagenesis revealed that Arg21045x55 is most likely involved in the binding process of histamine in zfH1R. This study aids the understanding of the pharmacological differences between H1R orthologs and the role of ECL2 in histamine binding and provides fundamental information for the understanding of the histaminergic system in the zebrafish. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The use of the zebrafish as in vivo models in neuroscience is growing exponentially, which asks for detailed characterization of the aminergic neurotransmitter systems in this model. This study is the first to pharmacologically characterize the zebrafish histamine H1 receptor after expression in HEK-293T cells. The results show a high pharmacological and functional resemblance with the human ortholog but also reveal interesting structural differences and unveils an important role of the second extracellular loop in histamine binding.

Designing drugs and chemical probes with the dualsteric approach

Traditionally, drugs are monovalent, targeting only one site on the protein surface. This includes orthosteric and allosteric drugs, which bind the protein at orthosteric and allosteric sites, respectively. Orthosteric drugs are good in potency, whereas allosteric drugs have better selectivity and are solutions to classically undruggable targets. However, it would be difficult to simultaneously reach high potency and selectivity when targeting only one site. Also, both kinds of monovalent drugs suffer from mutation-caused drug resistance. To overcome these obstacles, dualsteric modulators have been proposed in the past twenty years. Compared to orthosteric or allosteric drugs, dualsteric modulators are bivalent (or bitopic) with two pharmacophores. Each of the two pharmacophores bind the protein at the orthosteric and an allosteric site, which could bring the modulator with special properties beyond monovalent drugs. In this study, we comprehensively review the current development of dualsteric modulators. Our main effort reason and illustrate the aims to apply the dualsteric approach, including a "double win" of potency and selectivity, overcoming mutation-caused drug resistance, developments of function-biased modulators, and design of partial agonists. Moreover, the strengths of the dualsteric technique also led to its application outside pharmacy, including the design of highly sensitive fluorescent tracers and usage as molecular rulers. Besides, we also introduced drug targets, designing strategies, and validation methods of dualsteric modulators. Finally, we detail the conclusions and perspectives.

Function and Role of Histamine H1 Receptor in the Mammalian Heart

Histamine can change the force of cardiac contraction and alter the beating rate in mammals, including humans. However, striking species and regional differences have been observed. Depending on the species and the cardiac region (atrium versus ventricle) studied, the contractile, chronotropic, dromotropic, and bathmotropic effects of histamine vary. Histamine is present and is produced in the mammalian heart. Thus, histamine may exert autocrine or paracrine effects in the mammalian heart. Histamine uses at least four heptahelical receptors: H₁, H₂, H₃ and H₄. Depending on the species and region studied, cardiomyocytes express only histamine H₁ or only histamine H₂ receptors or both. These receptors are not necessarily functional concerning contractility. We have considerable knowledge of the cardiac expression and function of histamine H₂ receptors. In contrast, we have a poor understanding of the cardiac role of the histamine H₁ receptor. Therefore, we address the structure, signal transduction, and expressional regulation of the histamine H₁ receptor with an eye on its cardiac role. We point out signal transduction and the role of the histamine H₁ receptor in various animal species. This review aims to identify gaps in our knowledge of cardiac histamine H₁ receptors. We highlight where the published research shows disagreements and requires a new approach. Moreover, we show that diseases alter the expression and functional effects of histamine H₁ receptors in the heart. We found that antidepressive drugs and neuroleptic drugs might act as antagonists of cardiac histamine H₁ receptors, and believe that histamine H₁ receptors in the heart might be attractive targets for drug therapy. The authors believe that a better understanding of the role of histamine H₁ receptors in the human heart might be clinically relevant for improving drug therapy.

Abolishing Dopamine D2long/D3 Receptor Affinity of Subtype-Selective Carbamoylguanidine-Type Histamine H2 Receptor Agonists

3-(2-Amino-4-methylthiazol-5-yl)propyl-substituted carbamoylguanidines are potent, subtype-selective histamine H₂ receptor (H₂R) agonists, but their applicability as pharmacological tools to elucidate the largely unknown H₂R functions in the central nervous system (CNS) is compromised by their concomitant high affinity toward dopamine D₂-like receptors (especially to the D₃R). To improve the selectivity, a series of novel carbamoylguanidine-type ligands containing various heterocycles, spacers, and side residues were rationally designed, synthesized, and tested in binding and/or functional assays at H_1-4 and D_2long/3 receptors. This study revealed a couple of selective candidates (among others 31 and 47), and the most promising ones were screened at several off-target receptors, showing good selectivities. Docking studies suggest that the amino acid residues (3.28, 3.32, E2.49, E2.51, 5.42, and 7.35) are responsible for the different affinities at the H₂- and D_2long/3-receptors. These results provide a solid base for the exploration of the H₂R functions in the brain in further studies.

G protein-coupled receptors as candidates for modulation and activation of the chemical senses in decapod crustaceans

Many studies have characterized class A GPCRs in crustaceans; however, their expression in crustacean chemosensory organs has yet to be detailed. Class A GPCRs comprise several subclasses mediating diverse functions. In this study, using sequence homology, we classified all putative class A GPCRs in two chemosensory organs (antennular lateral flagellum [LF] and walking leg dactyls) and brain of four species of decapod crustaceans (Caribbean spiny lobster Panulirus argus, American lobster Homarus americanus, red-swamp crayfish Procambarus clarkii, and blue crab Callinectes sapidus). We identified 333 putative class A GPCRs– 83 from P. argus, 81 from H. americanus, 102 from P. clarkii, and 67 from C. sapidus–which belong to five distinct subclasses. The numbers of sequences for each subclass in the four decapod species are (in parentheses): opsins (19), small-molecule receptors including biogenic amine receptors (83), neuropeptide receptors (90), leucine-rich repeat-containing GPCRs (LGRs) (24), orphan receptors (117). Most class A GPCRs are predominately expressed in the brain; however, we identified multiple transcripts enriched in the LF and several in the dactyl. In total, we found 55 sequences with higher expression in the chemosensory organs relative to the brain across three decapod species. We also identified novel transcripts enriched in the LF including a metabotropic histamine receptor and numerous orphan receptors. Our work establishes expression patterns for class A GPCRs in the chemosensory organs of crustaceans, providing insight into molecular mechanisms mediating neurotransmission, neuromodulation, and possibly chemoreception.

Single cell transcriptomes reveal expression patterns of chemoreceptor genes in olfactory sensory neurons of the Caribbean spiny lobster, Panulirus argus

BACKGROUND

Crustaceans express several classes of receptor genes in their antennules, which house olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs) and non-olfactory chemosensory neurons. Transcriptomics studies reveal that candidate chemoreceptor proteins include variant Ionotropic Receptors (IRs) including both co-receptor IRs and tuning IRs, Transient Receptor Potential (TRP) channels, Gustatory Receptors, epithelial sodium channels, and class A G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs). The Caribbean spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, expresses in its antennules nearly 600 IRs, 17 TRP channels, 1 Gustatory Receptor, 7 epithelial sodium channels, 81 GPCRs, 6 G proteins, and dozens of enzymes in signaling pathways. However, the specific combinatorial expression patterns of these proteins in single sensory neurons are not known for any crustacean, limiting our understanding of how their chemosensory systems encode chemical quality.

RESULTS

The goal of this study was to use transcriptomics to describe expression patterns of chemoreceptor genes in OSNs of P. argus. We generated and analyzed transcriptomes from 7 single OSNs, some of which were shown to respond to a food odor, as well as an additional 7 multicell transcriptomes from preparations containing few (2-4), several (ca. 15), or many (ca. 400) OSNs. We found that each OSN expressed the same 2 co-receptor IRs (IR25a, IR93a) but not the other 2 antennular coIRs (IR8a, IR76b), 9-53 tuning IRs but only one to a few in high abundance, the same 5 TRP channels plus up to 5 additional TRPs, 12-17 GPCRs including the same 5 expressed in every single cell transcriptome, the same 3 G proteins plus others, many enzymes in the signaling pathways, but no Gustatory Receptors or epithelial sodium channels. The greatest difference in receptor expression among the OSNs was the identity of the tuning IRs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide an initial view of the combinatorial expression patterns of receptor molecules in single OSNs in one species of decapod crustacean, including receptors directly involved in olfactory transduction and others likely involved in modulation. Our results also suggest differences in receptor expression in OSNs vs. other chemosensory neurons.

Helix 8 is the essential structural motif of mechanosensitive GPCRs

G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) are versatile cellular sensors for chemical stimuli, but also serve as mechanosensors involved in various (patho)physiological settings like vascular regulation, cardiac hypertrophy and preeclampsia. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying mechanically induced GPCR activation have remained elusive. Here we show that mechanosensitive histamine H₁ receptors (H₁Rs) are endothelial sensors of fluid shear stress and contribute to flow-induced vasodilation. At the molecular level, we observe that H₁Rs undergo stimulus-specific patterns of conformational changes suggesting that mechanical forces and agonists induce distinct active receptor conformations. GPCRs lacking C-terminal helix 8 (H8) are not mechanosensitive, and transfer of H8 to non-responsive GPCRs confers, while removal of H8 precludes, mechanosensitivity. Moreover, disrupting H8 structural integrity by amino acid exchanges impairs mechanosensitivity. Altogether, H8 is the essential structural motif endowing GPCRs with mechanosensitivity. These findings provide a mechanistic basis for a better understanding of the roles of mechanosensitive GPCRs in (patho)physiology.

GPCRs are versatile cellular sensors for chemical stimuli but the molecular mechanisms underlying mechanically induced GPCR activation have remained elusive. Here authors identify the C-terminal helix 8 (H8) as the essential structural motif endowing H₁R and other GPCRs with mechanosensitivity.

Aminergic GPCR-Ligand Interactions: A Chemical and Structural Map of Receptor Mutation Data

The aminergic family of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) plays an important role in various diseases and represents a major drug discovery target class. Structure determination of all major aminergic subfamilies has enabled structure-based ligand design for these receptors. Site-directed mutagenesis data provides an invaluable complementary source of information for elucidating the structural determinants of binding of different ligand chemotypes. The current study provides a comparative analysis of 6692 mutation data points on 34 aminergic GPCR subtypes, covering the chemical space of 540 unique ligands from mutagenesis experiments and information from experimentally determined structures of 52 distinct aminergic receptor-ligand complexes. The integrated analysis enables detailed investigation of structural receptor-ligand interactions and assessment of the transferability of combined binding mode and mutation data across ligand chemotypes and receptor subtypes. An overview is provided of the possibilities and limitations of using mutation data to guide the design of novel aminergic receptor ligands.

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.

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.

A structural chemogenomics analysis of aminergic GPCRs: lessons for histamine receptor ligand design

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Chemogenomics focuses on the discovery of new connections between chemical and biological space leading to the discovery of new protein targets and biologically active molecules. G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) are a particularly interesting protein family for chemogenomics studies because there is an overwhelming amount of ligand binding affinity data available. The increasing number of aminergic GPCR crystal structures now for the first time allows the integration of chemogenomics studies with high-resolution structural analyses of GPCR-ligand complexes.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

In this study, we have combined ligand affinity data, receptor mutagenesis studies, and amino acid sequence analyses to high-resolution structural analyses of (hist)aminergic GPCR-ligand interactions. This integrated structural chemogenomics analysis is used to more accurately describe the molecular and structural determinants of ligand affinity and selectivity in different key binding regions of the crystallized aminergic GPCRs, and histamine receptors in particular.

KEY RESULTS

Our investigations highlight interesting correlations and differences between ligand similarity and ligand binding site similarity of different aminergic receptors. Apparent discrepancies can be explained by combining detailed analysis of crystallized or predicted protein-ligand binding modes, receptor mutation studies, and ligand structure-selectivity relationships that identify local differences in essential pharmacophore features in the ligand binding sites of different receptors.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

We have performed structural chemogenomics studies that identify links between (hist)aminergic receptor ligands and their binding sites and binding modes. This knowledge can be used to identify structure-selectivity relationships that increase our understanding of ligand binding to (hist)aminergic receptors and hence can be used in future GPCR ligand discovery and design.

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.

Mepyramine-JNJ7777120-hybrid compounds show high affinity to hH(1)R, but low affinity to hH(4)R

In literature, a synergism between histamine H(1) and H(4) receptor is discussed. Furthermore, it was shown, that the combined application of mepyramine, a H(1) antagonist and JNJ7777120, a H(4) receptor ligand leads to a synergistic effect in the acute murine asthma model. Thus, the aim of this study was to develop new hybrid ligands, containing one H(1) and one H(4) pharmacophor, connected by an appropriate spacer, in order to address both, H(1)R and H(4)R. Within this study, we synthesized nine hybrid compounds, which were pharmacologically characterized at hH(1)R and hH(4)R. The new compounds revealed (high) affinity to hH(1)R, but showed only low affinity to hH(4)R. Additionally, we performed molecular dynamic studies for some selected compounds at hH(1)R, in order to obtain information about the binding mode of these compounds on molecular level.

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.

Effects of impromidine- and arpromidine-derived guanidines on recombinant human and guinea pig histamine H1 and H2 receptors

Imidazolylpropylguanidines derived from impromidine and arpromidine are more potent and efficacious agonists at the guinea pig histamine H2 receptor (gpH2R) than at the human H2R (hH2R) in the GTPase assay. Additionally, such guanidines are histamine H1 receptor (H1R) antagonists with preference for the human relative to the guinea pig receptor. The purpose of this study was to examine structure-activity relationships of guanidines at human and guinea pig H1R and H2R species isoforms expressed in Sf9 insect cells. Three impromidine analogues and six arpromidine analogues exhibited agonistic activity at H2R and antagonistic activity at H1R as assessed in the steady-state GTPase assay. Species selectivity of derivatives was similar as compared with the parent compounds. None of the structural modifications examined (different aromatic ring systems and different ring substituents) was superior in terms of H2R potency and efficacy relative to impromidine and arpromidine, respectively. These data point to substantial structural constraints at the agonist binding site of H2R. Guanidines exhibited distinct structure-activity relationships for H1R antagonism in a radioligand competition binding assay and the GTPase assay and for H1R inverse agonism. Our data indicate that it is difficult to obtain guanidine-type agonists with high potency and high efficacy for hH2R, but those compounds may be useful tools for exploring the antagonist binding site and constitutive activity of H1R.

Contractile properties of various histaprodifen derivatives in guinea pig isolated ileum and trachea

We characterized the histamine H(1) receptor agonism of various histaprodifen derivatives in guinea pig isolated ileum and trachea in comparison with histamine. Based on their affinity (calculated pK(A) values for ileum and trachea, respectively), the compounds were ranked as follows: suprahistaprodifen (8.31/8.08) > N(alpha)-(4-phenylbutyl)histaprodifen (7.22/5.93) >or= histamine (5.79/5.19) approximately methylhistaprodifen (5.57/6.07). Based on their efficacy (calculated tau values for ileum and trachea, respectively), the compounds were ranked as follows: methylhistaprodifen (37.67/2.50) > histamine (5.64/1.80) > suprahistaprodifen (1.63/1.42) >or= N(alpha)-(4-phenylbutyl)histaprodifen (0.083/1.54). In the ileum, histamine and methylhistaprodifen showed a high histamine H(1) receptor reserve while suprahistaprodifen and N(alpha)-(4-phenylbutyl)histaprodifen are devoid of any histamine H(1 )receptor reserve. On the trachea, no histamine H(1 )receptor reserve was demonstrable with the four tested agonists. The kinetic of contraction/relaxation of the ileum was faster with histamine and methylhistaprodifen than with suprahistaprodifen and N(alpha)-(4-phenylbutyl)histaprodifen. Histamine contracted the trachea faster than histaprodifen derivatives. Levocetirizine antagonized contractions induced by histamine and histaprodifen derivatives in both tissues. The differences observed in the calculated pA(2) (7.60-8.29) and/or pD'(2) values (6.28-7.90) depending on the tissue and/or the agonist are discussed.

Striking differences of action of lisuride stereoisomers at histamine H1 receptors

This study has characterised the pharmacological profile of some dopaminergic agents of the ergoline family including the antiparkinsonian drug 8S-lisuride at native guinea pig histamine H(1) receptors and recombinant human and guinea pig H(1) receptors. We used segments of guinea pig ileum to study contractile responses, Sf9 insect cell membranes expressing the guinea pig H(1) receptor (gpH(1)R) and the human H(1) receptor (hH(1)R) to analyse GTPase activity of G(q)-proteins and we conducted [(3)H]mepyramine binding studies using recombinant gpH(1)Rs and hH(1)Rs. 8S-Lisuride acted as a potent partial agonist at H(1)Rs of guinea pig ileum (pD(2) 7.6, E (max) 28% of histamine-induced maximum response) and as a silent antagonist at recombinant gpH(1)Rs (pA(2) 7.5) and hH(1)Rs (pA(2) 7.7) in GTPase studies. In contrast, its epimeric counterpart, 8R-lisuride, lacked efficacy and showed much lower affinity for H(1)Rs of both species than 8S-lisuride. High affinity of 8S-lisuride and low affinity of 8R-lisuride was also estimated for gpH(1)Rs and hH(1)Rs in radioligand binding studies. The 1-allylated derivative of 8S-lisuride, 1-allyl-8S-lisuride, was equipotent with its parent compound (pD(2) 7.7) and showed enhanced efficacy in guinea pig ileum and at recombinant gpH(1)Rs in GTPase studies (E (max) 53%, 32%). Other antiparkinsionian drugs such as 8S-terguride, pergolide, cabergoline and bromocriptine displayed lower affinities for H(1)Rs than 8S-lisuride. In conclusion, our results show that the antiparkinsonian drug 8S-lisuride is dramatically more potent than its epimeric counterpart 8R-lisuride in all assays used. 8S-Lisuride behaved as a partial agonist at gpH(1)Rs and as a silent antagonist at hH(1)Rs. Thus 8S-lisuride may act as an antagonist in vivo. This may be of potential importance since H(1)Rs modulate dopaminergic transmission in the brain.

Biomimetic hydrogels for enhanced loading and extended release of ocular therapeutics

We have applied the principles of biomimesis by incorporating a natural receptor-based rational design strategy in the synthesis of novel recognitive soft contact lenses. We have demonstrated the potential of biomimetic carriers to load significant amounts of ocular medication such as H(1)-antihistamines, as well as to release a therapeutic dosage of drug in vitro in a controlled fashion for 5 days, with an even further extension in the presence of protein. Gels of multiple complexation points with varying functionalities outperformed gels formed with less diverse functional monomers and showed superior loading with a six-fold difference over control gels and a three-fold difference over less biomimetic gels. Moreover, mechanical and optical properties of these hydrogels agreed with conventional lenses, and increased loading was reflected in a reduced propagation of polymer chains. This approach can be extended to a wider biological spectrum in the design of novel, controlled and modulated delivery devices to alleviate ocular disorders and provide an alternative to topical therapy.

N1-(3-Cyclohexylbutanoyl)-N2-[3-(1H-imidazol-4-yl)propyl]guanidine (UR-AK57), a Potent Partial Agonist for the Human Histamine H1- and H2-Receptors

Both the histamine H1-receptor (H1R) and H2-receptor (H2R) exhibit pronounced species selectivity in their pharmacological properties; i.e., bulky agonists possess higher potencies and efficacies at guinea pig (gp) than at the corresponding human (h) receptor isoforms. In this study, we examined the effects of NG-acylated imidazolylpropylguanidines substituted with a single phenyl or cyclohexyl substituent on H1R and H2R species isoforms expressed in Sf9 insect cells. N1-(3-Cyclohexylbutanoyl)-N2-[3-(1H-imidazol-4-yl)propyl]guanidine (UR-AK57) turned out to be the most potent hH2R agonist identified so far (EC50 of 23 nM in the GTPase assay at the hH2R-Gsalpha fusion protein expressed in Sf9 insect cells). UR-AK57 was almost a full-hH2R agonist and only slightly less potent and efficacious than at gpH2R-Gsalpha. Several NG-acylated imidazolylpropylguanidines showed similar potency at hH2R and gpH2R. Most unexpectedly, UR-AK57 exhibited moderately strong partial hH1R agonism with a potency similar to that of histamine, whereas at gpH1R, UR-AK57 was only a very weak partial agonist. Structure/activity relationship studies revealed that both the alkanoyl chain connecting the aromatic or alicyclic substituent with the guanidine moiety and the nature of the carbocycle (cyclohexyl versus phenyl ring) critically determine the pharmacological properties of this class of compounds. Collectively, our data show that gpH1R and gpH R do not necessarily exhibit preference for bulky agonists (2) compared with hH1R and hH2R, respectively, and that UR-AK57 is a promising starting point for the development of both potent and efficacious hH1R and hH2R agonists.

Probing Ligand-Specific Histamine H1- and H2-Receptor Conformations withNG-Acylated Imidazolylpropylguanidines

Impromidine (IMP) and arpromidine (ARP)-derived guanidines are more potent and efficacious guinea pig (gp) histamine H(2)-receptor (gpH(2)R) than human (h) H(2)R agonists and histamine H(1)-receptor (H(1)R) antagonists with preference for hH(1)R relative to gpH(1)R. We examined N(G)-acylated imidazolylpropylguanidines (AIPGs), which are less basic than guanidines, at hH(2)R, gpH(2)R, rat H(2)R (rH(2)R), hH(1)R, and gpH(1)R expressed in Sf9 cells as probes for ligand-specific receptor conformations. AIPGs were similarly potent H(2)R agonists as the corresponding guanidines IMP and ARP, respectively. Exchange of pyridyl in ARP against phenyl increased AIPG potency 10-fold, yielding the most potent agonists at the hH(2)R-G(salpha) fusion protein and gpH(2)R-G(salpha) identified so far. Some AIPGs were similarly potent and efficacious at hH(2)R-G(salpha) and gpH(2)R-G(salpha). AIPGs stabilized the ternary complex in hH(2)R-G(salpha) and gpH(2)R-G(salpha) differently than the corresponding guanidines. Guanidines, AIPGs, and small H(2)R agonists exhibited distinct agonist properties at hH(2)R, gpH(2)R, and rH(2)R measuring adenylyl cyclase activity. In contrast to ARP and IMP, AIPGs were partial H(1)R agonists exhibiting higher efficacies at hH(1)R than at gpH(1)R. This is remarkable because, so far, all bulky H(1)R agonists exhibited higher efficacies at gpH(1)R than at hH(1)R. Collectively, our data suggest that AIPGs stabilize different active conformations in hH(2)R, gpH(2)R, and rH(2)R than guanidines and that, in contrast to guanidines, AIPGs are capable of stabilizing a partially active state of hH(1)R.

Changes in pH differently affect the binding properties of histamine H1 receptor antagonists

We investigated the effect of acidic pH, a condition that can be encountered during inflammation accompanying allergic reaction, on the binding properties of histamine H1 receptor antagonists, including levocetirizine ((2-(4-[(R)-(4-chlorophenyl)(phenyl)methyl]piperazin-1-yl)ethoxy)acetic acid; Xyzal ), fexofenadine (rac-2-[4-[1-Hydroxy-4-[4-(hydroxydiphenylmethyl) piperidin-1-yl]butyl]phenyl]-2-methylpropionic acid hydrochloride; Allegra) and desloratadine (8-Chloro-6,11-dihydro-11-(4-piperidylidene)-5H-benzo[5,6]cyclohepta[1,2-b]pyridine; Clarinex ). Lowering the pH from 7.4 to 5.8 decreased the affinity of [3H]mepyramine for histamine H1 receptors from 1.7 to 7.5 nM while the opposite was observed with [3H]levocetirizine, whose affinity increased from 4.1 to 1.5 nM. Competition curves with [3H]mepyramine indicated that decreasing the pH from 7.4 to 5.8 led to a 2- to 5-fold increase in the affinity of fexofenadine and levocetirizine, no change in affinity for desloratadine and a 5- to 10-fold decrease in affinity for mepyramine and histamine. Kinetic experiments showed that the increase in affinity of levocetirizine and, to a lesser extent, fexofenadine were totally attributable to a lower dissociation rate at acidic pH (t1/2 increasing from 77 to 266 min and from 71 to 135 min, respectively). Although the affinity of desloratadine remained unchanged, lowering the pH caused a decrease in its dissociation rate (t1/2 of 50 and 256 min at pH 7.5 and 5.8, respectively) accompanied by a concomitant 3.5-fold decrease in its association rate constant. The loss of affinity of mepyramine at acidic pH was driven by a decrease in its association rate constant. Interaction between the carboxylic moiety of levocetirizine and Lys191 is responsible for its slow dissociation rate from the receptor. We found that the magnitude of the pH effect on the dissociation rate of levocetirizine was maintained after mutating Lys191 into alanine, suggesting that a tighter interaction of levocetirizine with Lys191 at lower pH is not the cause of its even slower dissociation rate from the receptor. Although these changes may seem limited in amplitude, we show that they may have substantial effects on receptor occupancy in vivo.

Delineation of Receptor-Ligand Interactions at the Human Histamine H1 Receptor by a Combined Approach of Site-Directed Mutagenesis and Computational Techniques - or - How to Bind the H1 Receptor

Histamine H(1) antagonists or "antihistamines" are one of the most prescribed drug families in Western countries. They exert their effect by binding to the histamine H(1) receptor, a receptor belonging to the class of rhodopsin-like G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). In this review, the binding of ligands to the human histamine H(1) receptor with respect to site-directed mutagenesis studies and molecular modeling techniques is described. The ligands described include agonists (histamine and histaprodifens), a stereoselective partial agonist (lisuride), and selected inverse agonists (mepyramine, acrivastine and triprolidine).