QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: jpet.104.082537v1 313/2/765    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Chen, S.-R. Articles by Pan, H.-L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Chen, S.-R. Articles by Pan, H.-L.

CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR

Functional Activity of the M₂ and M₄ Receptor Subtypes in the Spinal Cord Studied with Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptor Knockout Mice

Departments of Anesthesiology (S.-R.C., H.-L.P.) and Neural and Behavioral Sciences (H.-L.P.), Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania; and Molecular Signaling Section (J.W.), Laboratory of Bioorganic Chemistry, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Maryland

Received December 20, 2004; accepted January 20, 2005.

	Abstract

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Stimulation of spinal muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (mAChRs) produces potent analgesia. Both M₂ and M₄ mAChRs are coupled to similar G proteins (G_i/o family) and play a critical role in the analgesic action of mAChR agonists. To determine the relative contribution of M₂ and M₄ subtypes to activation of G_i/o proteins in the spinal cord, we examined the receptor-mediated guanosine 5'-O-(3-[³⁵S]thio)triphosphate ([³⁵S]GTPS) binding in M₂ and M₄ subtype knockout (KO) mice. Basal [³⁵S]GTPS binding in the spinal cord was similar in the wild-type controls, M₂ and M₄ single-KO, and M₂/M₄ double-KO mice. The spinal [³⁵S]GTPS binding stimulated by either muscarine or oxotremorine-M was not significantly different among three groups of wild-type mouse strains. In M₂ single-KO and M₂/M₄ double-KO mice, the agonist-stimulated [³⁵S]GTPS binding was completely abolished in the spinal cord. Furthermore, the agonist-stimulated [³⁵S]GTPS binding in the spinal cord of M₄ single-KO mice was significantly reduced (15%), compared with that in wild-type controls. On the other hand, the spinal [³⁵S]GTPS binding stimulated by a µ-opioid agonist was not significantly different between wild-type and M₂ and M₄ KO mice. This study provides complementary new evidence that M₂ is the most predominant mAChR subtype coupled to the G_i/o proteins in the spinal cord. Furthermore, these data suggest that a small but functionally significant population of M₄ receptors exists in the mouse spinal cord. The functional activity of these M₄ receptors seems to require the presence of M₂ receptors.

Molecular cloning studies have revealed the existence of five molecularly distinct mAChR subtypes referred to as M₁ to M₅ (Wess, 1996; Caulfield and Birdsall, 1998). The M₁ to M₅ mAChRs are prototypical members of the superfamily of G protein-coupled receptors. The M₁, M₃, and M₅ receptor subtypes couple preferentially to the G_q/11 protein, whereas the M₂ and M₄ receptors are preferentially coupled to G_i/o proteins (Caulfield, 1993; Felder, 1995). In rodents, both the M₂ and M₄ subtypes that are coupled to the pertussis toxin-sensitive G_i/o proteins have been implicated in the inhibitory effect of mAChR agonists on nociception and spinal dorsal horn neurons (Ellis et al., 1999; Gomeza et al., 1999a; Duttaroy et al., 2002; Chen and Pan, 2004). Recent studies in mutant mouse lines deficient in M₂ and M₄ mAChRs [knockout (KO) mice] indicate that the spinal analgesic effect produced by mAChR agonists is mediated by M₂ and M₄ subtypes (Gomeza et al., 1999a; Duttaroy et al., 2002). Although behavioral experiments suggest the presence of the M₄ subtype in the spinal cord of mice, this subtype could not be directly demonstrated in the mouse spinal cord using immunocytochemical labeling techniques (Duttaroy et al., 2002). The guanosine 5'-O-(3-[³⁵S]thio)triphosphate ([³⁵S]GTPS) binding assay primarily determines the functional coupling of G protein-coupled receptors to the G proteins of the G_i/o family (Maher et al., 2001; Sim-Selley and Childers, 2002). In this study, we used agonist-stimulated [³⁵S]GTPS binding and M₂ and M₄ single-KO and M₂/M₄ double-KO mice to determine the relative amount and interaction between functional M₂ and M₄ subtypes in G protein coupling in the spinal cord. This study reveals a close association of M₂ and M₄ subtypes in their coupling to G_i/o proteins in the spinal cord.

	Materials and Methods

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Animals. The generation of M₂ and M₄ mAChR single-KO and M₂/M₄ double-KO mice has been described previously (Gomeza et al., 1999a,b; Duttaroy et al., 2002). The genetic background of these mice was M₂ single-KO, 129J1/CF-1 hybrids; M₄ single-KO, 129SvEv/CF-1 hybrids; and M₂/M₄ double-KO, 129/J1/129SvEv/CF1 hybrids. Wild-type mice of the same genetic background as M₂, M₄, and M₂/M₄ KO mice served as controls. To generate mice deficient in both M₂ and M₄ mAChRs, homozygous M₂ receptor KO mice were mated with homozygous M₄ receptor KO mice (Duttaroy et al., 2002). The resulting F1 compound heterozygotes were then intercrossed to generate M₂/M₄ double-KO mice (F2 generation). In parallel, the wild-type F2 mice were interbred to obtain wild-type control mice. Thus, both M₂/M₄ double-KO mice and the corresponding wild-type control mice had an equivalent genetic background [129/SvJ1 (25%) x 129SvEv (25%) x CF1 (50%)]. Mice were maintained by intermating homozygous KO and the corresponding wild-type strains. All animals used for this study were amplified by Taconic Farms (German-town, NY), where they were raised and housed under identical conditions. Mouse genotyping was carried out by Southern blotting and polymerase chain reaction analysis of mouse-tail DNA, as described previously (Gomeza et al., 1999a,b; Duttaroy et al., 2002).

All experiments were performed using male mice (5–6 weeks old). In all experiments, KO mice and age-matched wild-type mice of the proper genetic background were performed in parallel. Mice were first anesthetized with 4 to 5% halothane, and the whole spinal cord was rapidly removed by hydraulic extrusion. The spinal cord tissue was immediately frozen in 2-methylbutane (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) in the presence of dry ice and stored at –80°C. The experimental protocols and procedures were approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine and conformed to the guidelines of the National Institutes of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.

Muscarinic Agonist-Stimulated [³⁵S]GTPS Binding in Spinal Membranes. The [³⁵S]GTPS binding stimulated by muscarinic agonists was conducted to quantify functional muscarinic receptors in the spinal cord, as described previously (Chen and Pan, 2003). The [³⁵S]GTPS binding assay is based on the principle that the inactive state of the G protein subunit has a relatively high affinity for GDP over GTP, whereas activation of a G protein-coupled receptor by its agonist shifts the subunit into a higher affinity for GTP versus GDP. The [³⁵S]GTPS is a hydrolysis-resistant form of GTP, and the degree to which an agonist stimulates [³⁵S]GTPS binding can be quantified in tissue membranes. Unlike conventional radioligand binding techniques, the agonist-stimulated [³⁵S]GTPS binding can provide functional information about the receptor (i.e., coupling of G proteins to activated receptors) (Lazareno, 1999; Sim-Selley and Childers, 2002). Two structurally different nonselective mAChR agonists, muscarine and oxotremorine-M, were used to activate mAChRs and stimulate spinal cord [³⁵S]GTPS binding. To harvest adequate amounts of membrane proteins, the spinal cords from two to three mice in the mAChR KO and corresponding wild-type groups were used in each binding experiment. The tissue was homogenized and disrupted by sonication in ice-cold 50 mM Tris buffer containing 3 mM MgCl₂ and 1 mM EGTA (pH 7.4). The homogenate was then centrifuged at 500g for 10 min at 4°C. The pellet was discarded, and the supernatant was centrifuged at 48,000g for 30 min at 4°C. The pellet was resuspended in fresh assay buffer (50 mM Tris, 3 mM MgCl₂, 100 mM NaCl, and 0.2 mM EGTA, pH 7.7) and was centrifuged again as described above. The final pellet was resuspended in 2 ml of the assay buffer and sonicated for 5 s. The protein content was measured using the Bio-Rad protein assay kit (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA).

The concentration-dependent effect of agonist-stimulated [³⁵S]-GTPS binding was determined by incubating the tissue homogenate with 0.01 to 100 µM muscarine or 0.005 to 25 µM oxotremorine-M, 30 µM GDP, 0.05 nM [³⁵S]GTPS, 4 mU/ml adenosine deaminase, 20 µg of protein, and assay buffer in a final volume of 1 ml (in duplicates). The basal binding was determined in the presence of GDP and absence of muscarinic agonists, and nonspecific binding was assessed in the presence of 10 µM unlabeled GTPS. The concentrations of muscarine and oxotremorine-M were chosen based on previous experiments (Chen and Pan, 2003) and pilot studies. After incubation at 30°C for 1 h, the reaction was terminated by filtration through Whatman GF/B filters (Whatman, Clifton, NJ) on a cell harvester with cold 50 mM Tris buffer (pH 7.4). Radioactivity was determined by immersion of filters in scintillation fluid, incubated for 2 h at room temperature, and counted by an LS6500 liquid scintillation counter (Beckman Coulter, Inc., Fullerton, CA). Nonlinear regression analyses of concentration-effect curves were performed using Prism (GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego, CA). Percentage of stimulation was calculated as (net stimulated binding/basal binding) x 100%. [³⁵S]GTPS (1250 Ci/mmol) was obtained from PerkinElmer Life and Analytical Sciences (Boston, MA).

To determine whether the reduced [³⁵S]GTPS binding stimulated by muscarinic agonists in KO mice was due to altered G protein levels or agonist-induced G protein coupling, we repeated agonist-stimulated [³⁵S]GTPS binding using a selective opioid agonist, (D-Ala², N-Me-Phe⁴,Gly-ol⁵)-enkephalin (DAMGO), as the control. The DAMGO concentration used was 0.001 to 10 µM (Chen et al., 2002). [³⁵S]GTPS binding assays and data calculation were performed as described above. GDP, muscarine, oxotremorine-M, atropine, DAMGO, and adenosine deaminase were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich. GTPS was purchased from Roche Diagnostics (Indianapolis, IN). All other reagent grade chemicals were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich.

Quantification of M₂ Receptors Using Immunoprecipitation and Radioactive Binding Assay. Because we observed that muscarinic agonist-stimulated [³⁵S]GTPS binding was significantly reduced in M₄ KO mice (see Results), the following immunoprecipitation and radioligand binding experiments were performed to determine whether the M₂ receptor levels are reduced in the spinal cord of M₄ KO mice. An M₂ subtype-specific antiserum was raised against a nonconserved region of the third cytoplasmic loop of the mouse M₂ receptor protein (Gomeza et al., 1999a,b). The mice were decapitated, and the spinal cords were quickly harvested. Two spinal cords were used to obtain adequate membrane proteins for each assay. The spinal tissue was homogenized in ice-cold 0.32 M sucrose in 5 mM Tris-HCl buffer containing 1 mM phenylmethanesulfonyl fluoride. The homogenate was centrifuged at 500g for 10 min at 4°C. The pellet was discarded, and the supernatant was centrifuged again at 48,000g for 20 min at 4°C. Then the pellet was resuspended in assay buffer (25 mM phosphate buffer containing 5 mM MgCl₂ and 1 mM phenylmethanesulfonyl fluoride, pH 7.4) and was centrifuged as described above. The final pellet was resuspended in 3 ml of the same buffer and disrupted by sonication for 5 s. The membrane protein was subsequently incubated for 1 h with 2 nM [³H]quinuclidinyl benzilate ([³H]QNB), the nonselective muscarinic antagonist (42 Ci/mmol; PerkinElmer Life and Analytical Sciences), in the final volume of 1 ml. After washing thoroughly, the labeled membranes were solubilized with 1% digitonin and followed by immunoprecipitation of solubilized [³H]QNB-labeled receptors with the M₂ subtype-selective antiserum, as described previously (Gomeza et al., 1999a,b). Radioactivity was quantified using a Beckman LS6500 scintillation counter. Data were analyzed using the GraphPad Prism program.

Data Analysis. Data are presented as means ± S.E.M. The saturation binding data were processed and fit using nonlinear regression analysis (GraphPad Prism software). For computation of EC₅₀ values, [³⁵S]GTPS binding data were converted to the percentage of stimulation by muscarine and oxotremorine based on the following calculation: [(net stimulated binding/maximal net stimulated binding)] x 100%. The EC₅₀ values of muscarine and oxotremorine-M were determined by nonlinear regression analyses of the concentration-response curves using GraphPad Prism software. The binding data between matched pairs were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. For comparisons in more than two groups, the Kruskal-Wallis test was performed followed by the Mann-Whitney U post hoc test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

	Results

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Basal [³⁵S]GTPS Binding in the Spinal Cord. The basal [³⁵S]GTPS binding, in the absence of muscarinic receptor agonists, was almost identical in the spinal cord from the three wild-type mouse strains (Fig. 1). Basal [³⁵S]GTPS levels were also similar in spinal cord tissues in the muscarine and oxotremorine control groups. Furthermore, the basal [³⁵S]GTPS binding in the spinal cord from M₂ single-KO, M₄ single-KO, and M₂/M₄ double-KO mice was not significantly different from the corresponding wild-type controls (Fig. 1).

View larger version (43K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Basal [35S]GTPS binding in the spinal cord of M2 and M4 single-KO and M2/M4 double-KO mice and corresponding wild-type controls. A and B are basal-binding [35S]GTPS data in the muscarine and oxotremorine-M group, respectively. Data are presented in means ± S.E.M. (n = 4 experiments in each group).

Spinal [³⁵S]GTPS Binding Stimulated by Muscarinic Agonists in Wild-Type and KO Mice. The two nonselective mAChR agonists muscarine and oxotremorine-M produced a significant and concentration-dependent increase in [³⁵S]GTPS binding in the spinal cord of all three strains of wild-type mice (Figs. 2 and 3). In the presence of 10 µM atropine, muscarine and oxotremorine-M failed to cause a detectable increase in the spinal [³⁵S]GTPS binding in wild-type mice (data not shown). Both 50 to 100 µM muscarine and 10 to 25 µM oxotremorine-M produced saturable [³⁵S]GTPS binding in the spinal cord, the magnitude of which was comparable in three different wild-type strains (Figs. 2 and 3). The EC₅₀ values for muscarine in the M₂, M₄, and M₂/M₄ wild-type groups were 3.54 ± 0.12, 3.61 ± 0.12, and 3.58 ± 0.16 µM (P < 0.05), respectively. For oxotremorine-M-stimulated [³⁵S]GTPS binding, the EC₅₀ values in the M₂, M₄, and M₂/M₄ wild-type groups were 0.61 ± 0.05, 0.63 ± 0.02, and 0.62 ± 0.02 µM (P < 0.05), respectively. Notably, the maximal increase in spinal [³⁵S]GTPS binding produced by muscarine was significantly less than that stimulated by oxotremorine-M, and the EC₅₀ value of muscarine was about 6-fold greater than that of oxotremorine-M (Figs. 2 and 3).

View larger version (34K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. A, concentration-effect curves of [35S]GTPS binding stimulated by muscarine in the spinal cord membranes of M2 and M4 single-KO and M2/M4 double-KO mice and the three respective WT strains. B, comparison of maximal stimulated [35S]GTPS binding by 100 µM muscarine in the spinal cord from M2 and M4 single-KO and M2/M4 double-KO mice and corresponding wild-type controls. The binding data are expressed as the percentage of basal [35S]GTPS binding. Data are presented in means ± S.E.M. (n = 4). *, P < 0.05 compared with the value in the respective wild-type controls.

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. A, concentration-effect curves of [35S]GTPS binding stimulated by oxotremorine-M in the spinal cord membranes of M2 and M4 single-KO and M2/M4 double-KO mice and the three respective WT strains. B, comparison of maximal stimulated [35S]GTPS binding by 25 µM oxotremorine-M in the spinal cord from M2 and M4 single-KO and M2/M4 double-KO mice and corresponding wild-type controls. The binding data are expressed as the percentage of basal [35S]GTPS binding. Data are presented in means ± S.E.M. (n = 4). *, P < 0.05 compared with the value in the respective wild-type controls.

In M₂/M₄ double-KO mice, the [³⁵S]GTPS binding stimulated by muscarine and oxotremorine-M was completely eliminated (Figs. 2 and 3). By comparison, there was a small but significant reduction in stimulated [³⁵S]GTPS binding in the spinal cord of M₄ single-KO mice, compared with the corresponding wild-type controls (Figs. 2 and 3). The level of attenuation of the maximal stimulated [³⁵S]GTPS binding in M₄ single-KO mice was similar in muscarine- and oxotremorine-M-treated groups (14.7 ± 0.5 versus 15.1 ± 0.4%). Similar to M₂/M₄ double-KO mice, both muscarine and oxotremorine-M failed to cause any increase in [³⁵S]GTPS binding in the spinal cord of M₂ single-KO mice (Figs. 2 and 3).

Quantification of Spinal M₂ Receptors in Wild-Type and mAChR KO Mice. To determine M₂ receptor expression levels in the spinal cord of wild-type and mAChR KO mice (n = 4 in each group), mouse spinal cord membranes were labeled with a saturating concentration (2 nM) of the nonselective mAChR antagonist [³H]QNB, solubilized with 1% digitonin, and then immunoprecipitated using an M₂ receptor-selective antiserum (Gomeza et al., 1999a,b). This analysis showed that the three wild-type mouse strains expressed similar levels of spinal M₂ receptors (data not shown). Strikingly, [³H]QNB binding was completely eliminated in spinal cord membranes from M₂ KO mice (Fig. 4). However, there was no significant difference in the amount of immunoprecipitated M₂ receptors in the spinal cord between wild-type and M₄ KO mice (Fig. 4).

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Quantification of M2 mAChRs in the spinal cord of WT and M2 and M4 KO mice. Spinal cord membranes were incubated with 2 nM [3H]QNB, the nonselective muscarinic antagonist. [3H]QNB-labeled muscarinic receptors were solubilized and immunoprecipitated with an M2 receptor-selective antiserum. Data are presented in means ± S.E.M. (n = 4). *, P < 0.05 compared with the wild-type control.

DAMGO-Stimulated [³⁵S]GTPS Binding in the Spinal Cord of Wild-Type and mAChR KO Mice. To exclude the possibility that the reduction in mAChR agonist-induced [³⁵S]GTPS binding in the M₄ single-KO mice was due to reduced levels of spinal cord G_i/o proteins, we carried out a series of control experiments using the µ opioid DAMGO as an agonist. DAMGO produced a concentration-dependent increase in the [³⁵S]GTPS binding in the spinal cord of M₂ and M₄ KO and wild-type mice (n = 4 in each group; Fig. 5). The spinal [³⁵S]GTPS binding stimulated by DAMGO was similar among the three different wild-type strains (data not shown). Furthermore, the DAMGO-stimulated [³⁵S]GTPS binding in the spinal cord of M₂ or M₄ KO mice was not significantly different from that in wild-type mice (Fig. 5).

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Concentration-effect curves of [35S]GTPS binding stimulated by DAMGO in spinal cord membranes of WT and M2 and M4 KO mice. Data are presented in means ± S.E.M. (n = 4). The data are expressed as the percentage of increase over basal [35S]GTPS binding.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
The spinal mAChRs are important for regulation of nociception. There are five subtypes of closely homologous mAChRs that are coupled to heterotrimeric G proteins, resulting in a multitude of cellular effects through a variety of signaling pathways (Caulfield, 1993; Wess, 1996). Most available mAChR agonists or antagonists are unable to clearly discriminate among individual mAChR subtypes because of the close homology of the orthosteric binding site. Data from mAChR subtype KO mice have unequivocally demonstrated that both the M₂ and M₄ subtypes are involved in mediating analgesia produced by muscarinic agonists (Gomeza et al., 1999a,b; Duttaroy et al., 2002). The M₂ and M₄ subtypes have been demonstrated in the superficial dorsal horn of the spinal cord in rodents and humans (Potter et al., 1996; Hoglund and Baghdoyan, 1997; Duttaroy et al., 2002; Li et al., 2002). Also, spinal [³⁵S]GTPS binding stimulated by a mAChR agonist is primarily located in the superficial dorsal horn (Maher et al., 2001). In the present study, we determined the relative contribution of the M₂ and M₄ subtypes to activation of G_i/o proteins in the spinal cord using M₂ and M₄ single- and M₂/M₄ double-KO mice.

Unlike conventional receptor binding techniques, [³⁵S] GTPS binding assays directly assess the efficiency of receptor-G protein coupling. It has been shown that the activation of receptors coupled to the G_i/o family of G proteins is readily detected with [³⁵S]GTPS binding techniques (Maher et al., 2001; Sim-Selley and Childers, 2002). Thus, the M₂ and M₄ subtypes likely are the mAChRs measured in the present study since they are both coupled to G_i/o proteins. The recently developed mAChR subtype KO mice are particularly useful experimental tools because inactivation of one specific subtype does not seem to affect the expression levels of the remaining mAChR subtypes (Wess, 2004). We found that basal [³⁵S]GTPS binding in the spinal cord was similar in wild-type and M₂ and M₄ KO mice, suggesting that basal levels of G_i/o proteins and the affinity of G proteins for GDP and GTP are not altered in M₂ and M₄ KO mice. We observed that both muscarine and oxotremorine-M produced profound increases in the [³⁵S]GTPS binding in the spinal cord of wild-type mice, indicating the presence of functional M₂ and/or M₄ mAChR subtypes in the spinal cord. Interestingly, oxotremorine-M displayed significantly greater potency and efficacy than muscarine in stimulating [³⁵S]GTPS binding in the mouse spinal cord. The level of stimulation of [³⁵S]GTPS binding is directly proportional to the magnitude of biological effects displayed by these two mAChR agonists in other pharmacological assays (Kurihara et al., 1993; Duttaroy et al., 2002; Chen and Pan, 2004). Thus, these data reinforce the concept that agonist-stimulated [³⁵S]GTPS binding is a valuable functional assay that can be used to estimate the efficacy and potency of the biological action of G protein-coupled receptor agonists.

In the spinal cord, muscarinic agonist-stimulated [³⁵S]-GTPS binding was completely eliminated in M₂/M₄ double-KO mice. This observation is consistent with our recent finding that the inhibitory effect of muscarinic agonists on spinal dorsal horn neurons is abolished in rats pretreated with intrathecal pertussis toxin (Chen and Pan, 2004). Furthermore, both muscarine and oxotremorine-M failed to increase [³⁵S]GTPS binding in the spinal cord of M₂ single-KO mice. Radioligand binding studies suggest that the M₂ subtype represents 90% of the total spinal cord mAChR population in mice (Duttaroy et al., 2002). The [³⁵S]GTPS binding data therefore provide further evidence that the M₂ subtype is the predominant mAChR coupled to G_i/o proteins in the spinal cord.

The presence of spinal cord M₄ mAChRs has been predicted based on competition radioligand binding using rat spinal cord homogenates (Hoglund and Baghdoyan, 1997). Also, because intrathecal injection of the selective M₄ receptor antagonist muscarinic toxin-3 reduces the antinociceptive effect of mAChR agonists in mice (Ellis et al., 1999), functional M₄ mAChRs are likely to exist in the mouse spinal cord dorsal horn. Additionally, the analgesic action of intrathecal muscarinic agonists is largely attenuated (by 60–90%), but not abolished, in M₂ single-KO mice (Duttaroy et al., 2002). Because the analgesic effect of intrathecal muscarinic agonists is completely eliminated in M₂/M₄ double-KO mice (Duttaroy et al., 2002), spinal M₄ mAChRs are considered responsible for the residual muscarinic analgesic effect in M₂ single-KO mice. However, spinal M₄ mAChRs could not be detected by using immunocytochemical techniques in mice (Duttaroy et al., 2002). One possibility is that the number of M₄ mAChRs in the mouse spinal cord is too low to be detected by immunocytochemical techniques. In the present study, by comparing agonist-stimulated [³⁵S]GTPS binding in M₄ single-KO and M₂/M₄ double-KO and wild-type mice, we found that the M₄ subtype mediated a small but significant [³⁵S]GTPS response in the mouse spinal cord. The [³⁵S]GTPS assay therefore seems to be more sensitive than the immunocytochemistry method in detecting spinal M₄ mAChRs. The reduction in muscarinic agonist-stimulated spinal [³⁵S]GTPS binding in M₄ KO mice is not due to a decrease in M₂ mAChR levels because the amount of spinal M₂ receptors measured by a [³H]QNB binding/immunoprecipitation assay was not significantly different between the wild-type and M₄ KO mice. Also, we found that DAMGO-stimulated [³⁵S]GTPS binding was similar in wild-type and M₂ and M₄ KO mice, suggesting that the G protein levels and receptor-G protein coupling are not generally altered in mAChR KO mice. Therefore, this study provides complementary new information for the presence of a small population of functionally significant M₄ mAChRs in the mouse spinal cord.

The complete loss of muscarinic agonist-stimulated [³⁵S]GTPS binding in M₂ single-KO mice is an unexpected but important finding. Because the mAChR agonist-stimulated [³⁵S]GTPS binding in the spinal cord was abolished in M₂/M₄ double-KO mice and reduced by about 15% in M₄ single-KO mice, one would predict a certain degree of residual [³⁵S]GTPS binding in M₂ single-KO mice. Surprisingly, however, the muscarinic agonist-stimulated [³⁵S]GTPS binding was abolished in the spinal cord of M₂ single-KO mice. These data suggest that M₄ receptor activity requires the presence of M₂ mAChRs in the mouse spinal cord. Alternatively, M₄ mAChRs may be able to form functional oligomers with spinal M₂ mAChRs. Consistent with this notion, it has been demonstrated that most G protein-coupled receptors can exist structurally or functionally as dimers or as part of larger oligomeric complexes (Angers et al., 2002; George et al., 2002).

In summary, [³⁵S]GTPS binding assays showed that the mouse spinal cord expresses a small but significant number of functional M₄ mAChRs, in addition to the predominant population of M₂ mAChRs. Importantly, our data suggest that functional activity of spinal M₄ mAChRs may be dependent on the presence of M₂ mAChRs, possibly reflecting the existence of functional M₂/M₄ mAChR oligomers. Data from this study are important for our understanding of the cellular function and drug action mediated by M₂ and M₄ mAChR subtypes.

	Footnotes

 
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health Grants NS45602 and GM64830.

doi:10.1124/jpet.104.082537.

ABBREVIATIONS: mAChR, muscarinic acetylcholine receptor; KO, knockout; [³⁵S]GTPS, guanosine 5'-O-(3-[³⁵S]thio)triphosphate; GDP, guanosine diphosphate; DAMGO, (D-Ala², N-Me-Phe⁴,Gly-ol⁵)-enkephalin; GTP, guanosine triphosphate; QNB, quinuclidinyl benzilate; WT, wild-type.

Address correspondence to: Dr. Hui-Lin Pan, Department of Anesthesiology, H187, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA 17033. E-mail: hpan{at}psu.edu

	References

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 

Angers S, Salahpour A, and Bouvier M (2002) Dimerization: an emerging concept for G protein-coupled receptor ontogeny and function. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 42: 409–435.[CrossRef][Medline]

Caulfield MP (1993) Muscarinic receptors–characterization, coupling and function. Pharmacol Ther 58: 319–379.[CrossRef][Medline]

Caulfield MP and Birdsall NJ (1998) International Union of Pharmacology. XVII. Classification of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. Pharmacol Rev 50: 279–290.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Chen SR and Pan HL (2001) Spinal endogenous acetylcholine contributes to the analgesic effect of systemic morphine in rats. Anesthesiology 95: 525–530.[CrossRef][Medline]

Chen SR and Pan HL (2003) Up-regulation of spinal muscarinic receptors and increased antinociceptive effect of intrathecal muscarine in diabetic rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 307: 676–681.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Chen SR and Pan HL (2004) Activation of muscarinic receptors inhibits spinal dorsal horn projection neurons: role of GABA_B receptors. Neuroscience 125: 141–148.[CrossRef][Medline]

Chen SR, Sweigart KL, Lakoski JM, and Pan HL (2002) Functional µ opioid receptors are reduced in the spinal cord dorsal horn of diabetic rats. Anesthesiology 97: 1602–1608.[CrossRef][Medline]

Duttaroy A, Gomeza J, Gan JW, Siddiqui N, Basile AS, Harman WD, Smith PL, Felder CC, Levey AI, and Wess J (2002) Evaluation of muscarinic agonist-induced analgesia in muscarinic acetylcholine receptor knockout mice. Mol Pharmacol 62: 1084–1093.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Ellis JL, Harman D, Gonzalez J, Spera ML, Liu R, Shen TY, Wypij DM, and Zuo F (1999) Development of muscarinic analgesics derived from epibatidine: role of the M4 receptor subtype. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 288: 1143–1150.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Felder CC (1995) Muscarinic acetylcholine receptors: signal transduction through multiple effectors. FASEB J 9: 619–625.[Abstract]

George SR, O'Dowd BF, and Lee SP (2002) G-protein-coupled receptor oligomerization and its potential for drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 1: 808–820.[CrossRef][Medline]

Gomeza J, Shannon H, Kostenis E, Felder C, Zhang L, Brodkin J, Grinberg A, Sheng H, and Wess J (1999a) Pronounced pharmacologic deficits in M₂ muscarinic acetylcholine receptor knockout mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96: 1692–1697.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Gomeza J, Zhang L, Kostenis E, Felder C, Bymaster F, Brodkin J, Shannon H, Xia B, Deng C, and Wess J (1999b) Enhancement of D1 dopamine receptor-mediated locomotor stimulation in M₄ muscarinic acetylcholine receptor knockout mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96: 10483–10488.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Hoglund AU and Baghdoyan HA (1997) M2, M3 and M4, but not M1, muscarinic receptor subtypes are present in rat spinal cord. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 281: 470–477.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Hood DD, Mallak KA, James RL, Tuttle R, and Eisenach JC (1997) Enhancement of analgesia from systemic opioid in humans by spinal cholinesterase inhibition. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 282: 86–92.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Iwamoto ET and Marion L (1993) Characterization of the antinociception produced by intrathecally administered muscarinic agonists in rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 266: 329–338.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Kurihara T, Suzuki H, Yanagisawa M, and Yoshioka K (1993) Muscarinic excitatory and inhibitory mechanisms involved in afferent fibre-evoked depolarization of motoneurones in the neonatal rat spinal cord. Br J Pharmacol 110: 61–70.[Medline]

Lazareno S (1999) Measurement of agonist-stimulated [³⁵S]GTP S binding to cell membranes. Methods Mol Biol 106: 231–245.[Medline]

Li DP, Chen SR, Pan YZ, Levey AI, and Pan HL (2002) Role of presynaptic muscarinic and GABA_B receptors in spinal glutamate release and cholinergic analgesia in rats. J Physiol 543: 807–818.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Maher CE, Eisenach JC, Pan HL, Xiao R, and Childers SR (2001) Chronic intrathecal morphine administration produces homologous µ receptor/G-protein desensitization specifically in spinal cord. Brain Res 895: 1–8.[CrossRef][Medline]

Naguib M and Yaksh TL (1994) Antinociceptive effects of spinal cholinesterase inhibition and isobolographic analysis of the interaction with µ and ₂ receptor systems. Anesthesiology 80: 1338–1348.[Medline]

Naguib M and Yaksh TL (1997) Characterization of muscarinic receptor subtypes that mediate antinociception in the rat spinal cord. Anesth Analg 85: 847–853.[Abstract]

Pan HL, Chen SR, and Eisenach JC (1999) Intrathecal clonidine alleviates allodynia in neuropathic rats: interaction with spinal muscarinic and nicotinic receptors. Anesthesiology 90: 509–514.[CrossRef][Medline]

Potter LT, Borenstein DW, and Levey AI (1996) Muscarinic receptors in the superficial dorsal horn of the human, rat and mouse spinal cord (Abstract). Life Sci 64: 585.

Ribeiro-da-Silva A and Cuello AC (1990) Choline acetyltransferase-immunoreactive profiles are presynaptic to primary sensory fibers in the rat superficial dorsal horn. J Comp Neurol 295: 370–384.[CrossRef][Medline]

Sim-Selley LJ and Childers SR (2002) Neuroanatomical localization of receptor-activated G proteins in brain. Methods Enzymol 344: 42–58.[Medline]

Villiger JW and Faull RL (1985) Muscarinic cholinergic receptors in the human spinal cord: differential localization of [³H]pirenzepine and [³H]quinuclidinylbenzilate binding sites. Brain Res 345: 196–199.[CrossRef][Medline]

Wess J (1996) Molecular biology of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. Crit Rev Neurobiol 10: 69–99.[Medline]

Wess J (2004) Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor knockout mice: novel phenotypes and clinical implications. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 44: 423–450.[CrossRef][Medline]

Wetts R and Vaughn JE (1994) Choline acetyltransferase and NADPH diaphorase are co-expressed in rat spinal cord neurons. Neuroscience 63: 1117–1124.[CrossRef][Medline]

Yamamura HI, Wamsley JK, Deshmukh P, and Roeske WR (1983) Differential light microscopic autoradiographic localization of muscarinic cholinergic receptors in the brainstem and spinal cord of the rat using [³H]pirenzepine. Eur J Pharmacol 91: 147–149.[CrossRef][Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H.-M. Zhang, H.-Y. Zhou, S.-R. Chen, D. Gautam, J. Wess, and H.-L. Pan Control of Glycinergic Input to Spinal Dorsal Horn Neurons by Distinct Muscarinic Receptor Subtypes Revealed Using Knockout Mice J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., December 1, 2007; 323(3): 963 - 971. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H.-M. Zhang, S.-R. Chen, and H.-L. Pan Regulation of Glutamate Release From Primary Afferents and Interneurons in the Spinal Cord by Muscarinic Receptor Subtypes J Neurophysiol, January 1, 2007; 97(1): 102 - 109. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H.-M. Zhang, S.-R. Chen, M. Matsui, D. Gautam, J. Wess, and H.-L. Pan Opposing Functions of Spinal M2, M3, and M4 Receptor Subtypes in Regulation of GABAergic Inputs to Dorsal Horn Neurons Revealed by Muscarinic Receptor Knockout Mice Mol. Pharmacol., March 1, 2006; 69(3): 1048 - 1055. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				X.-L. Wang, H.-M. Zhang, D.-P. Li, S.-R. Chen, and H.-L. Pan Dynamic regulation of glycinergic input to spinal dorsal horn neurones by muscarinic receptor subtypes in rats J. Physiol., March 1, 2006; 571(2): 403 - 413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: jpet.104.082537v1 313/2/765    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Chen, S.-R. Articles by Pan, H.-L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Chen, S.-R. Articles by Pan, H.-L.