Biochemical pharmacology · 2007
Differences in motilin receptor desensitization after stimulation with motilin or motilides are due to alternative receptor trafficking.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mitselos Anna, Vanden Berghe Pieter, Peeters Theo L, Depoortere Inge
Аннотация
BACKGROUNDS & AIMS: The motilin receptor (MTLR) is an important therapeutic target for treatment of hypomotility disorders. The negative outcome in clinical trials with the motilin agonist, ABT-229, indicated that desensitization may limit the therapeutic usefulness of motilides. We therefore compared the mechanisms involved in the intracellular trafficking of the MTLR after stimulation with motilin, erythromycin-A (EM-A) or ABT-229.
METHODS: Desensitization was studied by measuring changes in Ca2+ rises and by receptor binding studies in CHO cells co-expressing the Ca2+ indicator apoaequorin and the MTLR, C-terminally tagged with EGFP. Receptor phosphorylation was studied by immunoprecipitation. MTLR-EGFP trafficking to organelles and translocation of beta-arrestins were visualized by fluorescence microscopy.
RESULTS: Agonist-induced desensitization of the MTLR was due to receptor internalization with potencies (p-int50) in the order of: ABT-229 (8.3)>motilin (7.86)>EM-A (4.77) but with no differences in the internalization kinetics (t(1/2): approximately 25 min). The percentage cell surface receptor loss was more profound after exposure to ABT-229 (88+/-1%) than to motilin (63+/-10%) or EM-A (34+/-2%). For motilin and EM-A MTLR phosphorylation probably occurs via G protein-coupled receptor kinases while for ABT-229 phosphorylation was also protein kinase C dependent. All agonists translocated cytosolic beta-arrestin-2 with greater affinity to the plasma membrane than beta-arrestin-1. After internalization the MTLR co-localized with transferrin but not with cathepsin D. After stimulation with motilin and EM-A the t(1/2) for MTLR resensitization was 3h and 1h, respectively but amounted 26h for ABT-229.
CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the resensitization kinetics determine the desensitization properties of the motilin agonists.
METHODS: Desensitization was studied by measuring changes in Ca2+ rises and by receptor binding studies in CHO cells co-expressing the Ca2+ indicator apoaequorin and the MTLR, C-terminally tagged with EGFP. Receptor phosphorylation was studied by immunoprecipitation. MTLR-EGFP trafficking to organelles and translocation of beta-arrestins were visualized by fluorescence microscopy.
RESULTS: Agonist-induced desensitization of the MTLR was due to receptor internalization with potencies (p-int50) in the order of: ABT-229 (8.3)>motilin (7.86)>EM-A (4.77) but with no differences in the internalization kinetics (t(1/2): approximately 25 min). The percentage cell surface receptor loss was more profound after exposure to ABT-229 (88+/-1%) than to motilin (63+/-10%) or EM-A (34+/-2%). For motilin and EM-A MTLR phosphorylation probably occurs via G protein-coupled receptor kinases while for ABT-229 phosphorylation was also protein kinase C dependent. All agonists translocated cytosolic beta-arrestin-2 with greater affinity to the plasma membrane than beta-arrestin-1. After internalization the MTLR co-localized with transferrin but not with cathepsin D. After stimulation with motilin and EM-A the t(1/2) for MTLR resensitization was 3h and 1h, respectively but amounted 26h for ABT-229.
CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the resensitization kinetics determine the desensitization properties of the motilin agonists.