BRET-Based Biosensors to Measure Agonist Efficacies in Histamine H1 Receptor-Mediated G Protein Activation, Signaling and Interactions with GRKs and β-Arrestins

The histamine H₁ receptor (H₁R) is a G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) and plays a key role in allergic reactions upon activation by histamine which is locally released from mast cells and basophils. Consequently, H₁R is a well-established therapeutic target for antihistamines that relieve allergy symptoms. H₁R signals via heterotrimeric G_q proteins and is phosphorylated by GPCR kinase (GRK) subtypes 2, 5, and 6, consequently facilitating the subsequent recruitment of β-arrestin1 and/or 2. Stimulation of a GPCR with structurally different agonists can result in preferential engagement of one or more of these intracellular signaling molecules. To evaluate this so-called biased agonism for H₁R, bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET)-based biosensors were applied to measure H₁R signaling through heterotrimeric G_q proteins, second messengers (inositol 1,4,5-triphosphate and Ca²⁺), and receptor-protein interactions (GRKs and β-arrestins) in response to histamine, 2-phenylhistamines, and histaprodifens in a similar cellular background. Although differences in efficacy were observed for these agonists between some functional readouts as compared to reference agonist histamine, subsequent data analysis using an operational model of agonism revealed only signaling bias of the agonist Br-phHA-HA in recruiting β-arrestin2 to H₁R over G_q biosensor activation.

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.

Split luciferase-based assay for simultaneous analyses of the ligand concentration- and time-dependent recruitment of β-arrestin2

Functional selectivity of agonists has gained increasing interest in G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) research, e.g. due to expectations of drugs with reduced adverse effects. Different agonist-dependent GPCR conformations are conceived to selectively activate a balanced or imbalanced intracellular signalling response, involving e.g. different Gα subtypes, Gβγ-subunits and β-arrestins. To discriminate between the different signalling pathways (bias), sensitive techniques are needed that do not interfere with signalling. We applied split luciferase complementation to the GPCR/β-arrestin2 interaction and thoroughly analysed the influence of its implementation on intracellular signalling. This led to an assay enabling the functional characterization of ligands at the hH₁R, the hM_1,5R and the hNTS₁R in live HEK293T cells. As demonstrated at the hM_1,5R, the assay was sensitive enough to identify iperoxo as a superagonist. Time-dependent analyses of the recruitment of β-arrestin2 became possible, allowing the identification of class A and class B GPCRs, due to the differential duration of their interaction with β-arrestin2 and their recycling to the cell membrane. The developed β-arrestin2 recruitment assay, which provides concentration- and time-dependent information on the interaction between GPCRs and β-arrestin2 upon stimulation of the receptor, should be broadly applicable and of high value for the analysis of agonist bias.

A split luciferase-based probe for quantitative proximal determination of Gαq signalling in live cells

The earlier an activation of a G protein-dependent signalling cascade at a G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) is probed, the less amplificatory effects contribute to the measured signal. This is especially useful in case of a precise quantification of agonist efficacies, and is of paramount importance, when determining agonist bias in relation to the β-arrestin pathway. As most canonical assays with medium to high throughput rely on the quantification of second messengers, and assays affording more proximal readouts are often limited in throughput, we developed a technique with a proximal readout and sufficiently high throughput that can be used in live cells. Split luciferase complementation (SLC) was applied to assess the interaction of Gα_q with its effector phospholipase C-β3. The resulting probe yielded an excellent Z' value of 0.7 and offers a broad and easy applicability to various Gα_q-coupling GPCRs (hH₁R, hM_1,3,5R, hNTS₁R), expressed in HEK293T cells, allowing the functional characterisation of agonists and antagonists. Furthermore, the developed sensor enabled imaging of live cells by luminescence microscopy, as demonstrated for the hM₃R. The versatile SLC-based probe is broadly applicable e.g. to the screening and the pharmacological characterisation of GPCR ligands as well as to molecular imaging.

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.

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.

Label-free versus conventional cellular assays: Functional investigations on the human histamine H1 receptor

A set of histamine H₁ receptor (H₁R) agonists and antagonists was characterized in functional assays, using dynamic mass redistribution (DMR), electric cell-substrate impedance sensing (ECIS) and various signaling pathway specific readouts (Fura-2 and aequorin calcium assays, arrestin recruitment (luciferase fragment complementation) assay, luciferase gene reporter assay). Data were gained from genetically engineered HEK293T cells and compared with reference data from GTPase assays and radioligand binding. Histamine and the other H₁R agonists gave different assay-related pEC₅₀ values, however, the order of potency was maintained. In the luciferase fragment complementation assay, the H₁R preferred β-arrestin2 over β-arrestin1. The calcium and the impedimetric assay depended on G_q coupling of the H₁R, as demonstrated by complete inhibition of the histamine-induced signals in the presence of the G_q inhibitor FR900359 (UBO-QIC). Whereas partial inhibition by FR900359 was observed in DMR and the gene reporter assay, pertussis toxin substantially decreased the response in DMR, but increased the luciferase signal, reflecting the contribution of both, G_q and G_i, to signaling in these assays. For antagonists, the results from DMR were essentially compatible with those from conventional readouts, whereas the impedance-based data revealed a trend towards higher pK_b values. ECIS and calcium assays apparently only reflect G_q signaling, whereas DMR and gene reporter assays appear to integrate both, G_q and G_i mediated signaling. The results confirm the value of the label-free methods, DMR and ECIS, for the characterization of H₁R ligands. Both noninvasive techniques are complementary to each other, but cannot fully replace reductionist signaling pathway focused assays.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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