N-terminally and C-terminally truncated forms of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide are high-affinity competitive antagonists of the human GIP receptor

Background and Purpose

Glucose‐dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) affects lipid, bone and glucose homeostasis. High‐affinity ligands for the GIP receptor are needed to elucidate the physiological functions and pharmacological potential of GIP in vivo. GIP(1–30)NH₂ is a naturally occurring truncation of GIP(1–42). Here, we have characterized eight N‐terminal truncations of human GIP(1–30)NH₂.

Experimental Approach

COS‐7 cells were transiently transfected with human GIP receptors and assessed for cAMP accumulation upon ligand stimulation or competition binding with ¹²⁵I‐labelled GIP(1–42), GIP(1–30)NH₂, GIP(2–30)NH₂ or GIP(3–30)NH₂.

Key Results

GIP(1–30)NH₂ displaced ¹²⁵I‐GIP(1–42) as effectively as GIP(1–42) (K_i 0.75 nM), whereas the eight truncations displayed lower affinities (K_i 2.3–347 nM) with highest affinities for GIP(3–30)NH₂ and GIP(5–30)NH₂ (5–30)NH₂. Only GIP(1–30)NH₂ (E_max 100% of GIP(1–42)) and GIP(2–30)NH₂ (E_max 20%) were agonists. GIP(2‐ to 9–30)NH₂ displayed antagonism (IC₅₀ 12–450 nM) and Schild plot analyses identified GIP(3–30)NH₂ and GIP(5–30)NH₂ as competitive antagonists (K_i 15 nM). GIP(3–30) NH₂ was a 26‐fold more potent antagonist than GIP(3–42). Binding studies with agonist (¹²⁵I‐GIP(1–30)NH₂), partial agonist (¹²⁵I‐GIP(2–30)NH₂) and competitive antagonist (¹²⁵I‐GIP(3–30)NH₂) revealed distinct receptor conformations for these three ligand classes.

Conclusions and Implications

The N‐terminus is crucial for GIP agonist activity. Removal of the C‐terminus of the endogenous GIP(3–42) creates another naturally occurring, more potent, antagonist GIP(3–30)NH₂, which like GIP(5–30)NH₂, was a high‐affinity competitive antagonist. These peptides may be suitable tools for basic GIP research and future pharmacological interventions.

Species-specific action of (Pro3)GIP - a full agonist at human GIP receptors, but a partial agonist and competitive antagonist at rat and mouse GIP receptors

Background and Purpose

Specific, high potency receptor antagonists are valuable tools when evaluating animal and human physiology. Within the glucose‐dependent, insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) system, considerable attention has been given to the presumed GIP receptor antagonist, (Pro3)GIP, and its effect in murine studies. We conducted a pharmacological analysis of this ligand including interspecies differences between the rodent and human GIP system.

Experimental Approach

Transiently transfected COS‐7 cells were assessed for cAMP accumulation upon ligand stimulation and assayed in competition binding using ¹²⁵I‐human GIP. Using isolated perfused pancreata both from wild type and GIP receptor‐deficient rodents, insulin‐releasing, glucagon‐releasing and somatostatin‐releasing properties in response to species‐specific GIP and (Pro3)GIP analogues were evaluated.

Key Results

Human (Pro3)GIP is a full agonist at human GIP receptors with similar efficacy (E_max) for cAMP production as human GIP, while both rat and mouse(Pro3)GIP were partial agonists on their corresponding receptors. Rodent GIPs are more potent and efficacious at their receptors than human GIP. In perfused pancreata in the presence of 7 mM glucose, both rodent (Pro3)GIP analogues induced modest insulin, glucagon and somatostatin secretion, corresponding to the partial agonist activities observed in cAMP production.

Conclusions and Implications

When evaluating new compounds, it is important to consider interspecies differences both at the receptor and ligand level. Thus, in rodent models, human GIP is a comparatively weak partial agonist. Human (Pro3)GIP was not an antagonist at human GIP receptors, so there is still a need for a potent antagonist in order to elucidate the physiology of human GIP.

Gating function of isoleucine-116 in TM-3 (position III:16/3.40) for the activity state of the CC-chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

A conserved amino acid within a protein family indicates a significance of the residue. In the centre of transmembrane helix (TM)-5, position V:13/5.47, an aromatic amino acid is conserved among class A 7TM receptors. However, in 37% of chemokine receptors - a subgroup of 7TM receptors - it is a leucine indicating an altered function. Here, we describe the significance of this position and its possible interaction with TM-3 for CCR5 activity.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

The effects of [L203F]-CCR5 in TM-5 (position V:13/5.47), [I116A]-CCR5 in TM-3 (III:16/3.40) and [L203F;G286F]-CCR5 (V:13/5.47;VII:09/7.42) were determined in G-protein- and β-arrestin-coupled signalling. Computational modelling monitored changes in amino acid conformation.

KEY RESULTS

[L203F]-CCR5 increased the basal level of G-protein coupling (20-70% of Emax ) and β-arrestin recruitment (50% of Emax ) with a threefold increase in agonist potency. In silico, [I116A]-CCR5 switched χ1-angle in [L203F]-CCR5. Furthermore, [I116A]-CCR5 was constitutively active to a similar degree as [L203F]-CCR5. Tyr(244) in TM-6 (VI:09/6.44) moved towards TM-5 in silico, consistent with its previously shown function for CCR5 activation. On [L203F;G286F]-CCR5 the antagonist aplaviroc was converted to a superagonist.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The results imply that an aromatic amino acid in the centre of TM-5 controls the level of receptor activity. Furthermore, Ile(116) acts as a gate for the movement of Tyr(244) towards TM-5 in the active state, a mechanism proposed previously for the β2 -adrenoceptor. The results provide an understanding of chemokine receptor function and thereby information for the development of biased and non-biased antagonists and inverse agonists.