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

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: jpet.105.097923v1 317/1/139    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 Xie, S.-X. Articles by Seifert, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Xie, S.-X. Articles by Seifert, R.

CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR

Probing Ligand-Specific Histamine H₁- and H₂-Receptor Conformations with N^G-Acylated Imidazolylpropylguanidines

High Throughput Screening Laboratory, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas (S.-X.X., Q.-Z.Y.); Departments of Medicinal Chemistry II (P.G., A.B.) and Pharmacology and Toxicology (R.S.), University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany; and Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas (R.S.)

Received October 31, 2005; accepted January 3, 2006.

	Abstract

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Impromidine (IMP) and arpromidine (ARP)-derived guanidines are more potent and efficacious guinea pig (gp) histamine H₂-receptor (gpH₂R) than human (h) H₂R agonists and histamine H₁-receptor (H₁R) antagonists with preference for hH₁R relative to gpH₁R. We examined N^G-acylated imidazolylpropylguanidines (AIPGs), which are less basic than guanidines, at hH₂R, gpH₂R, rat H₂R (rH₂R), hH₁R, and gpH₁R expressed in Sf9 cells as probes for ligand-specific receptor conformations. AIPGs were similarly potent H₂R 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 hH₂R-G_s fusion protein and gpH₂R-G_s identified so far. Some AIPGs were similarly potent and efficacious at hH₂R-G_s and gpH₂R-G_s. AIPGs stabilized the ternary complex in hH₂R-G_s and gpH₂R-G_s differently than the corresponding guanidines. Guanidines, AIPGs, and small H₂R agonists exhibited distinct agonist properties at hH₂R, gpH₂R, and rH₂R measuring adenylyl cyclase activity. In contrast to ARP and IMP, AIPGs were partial H₁R agonists exhibiting higher efficacies at hH₁R than at gpH₁R. This is remarkable because, so far, all bulky H₁R agonists exhibited higher efficacies at gpH₁R than at hH₁R. Collectively, our data suggest that AIPGs stabilize different active conformations in hH₂R, gpH₂R, and rH₂R than guanidines and that, in contrast to guanidines, AIPGs are capable of stabilizing a partially active state of hH₁R.

s

s

H₂R agonists are divided into two classes. The first class comprises small molecules related to HIS (compound 1), most importantly AMT (compound 2), and DIM (compound 3) (Fig. 1). The amino group of HIS forms an ionic interaction with Asp-98 in TM3, and the imidazole ring interacts with Tyr-182 and Asp-186 in TM5 (Gantz et al., 1992; Nederkoorn et al., 1994). Small H₂R agonists activate hH₂R-G_sS and gpH₂R-G_sS with similar potency and efficacy (Kelley et al., 2001). The second class of H₂R agonists comprises long-chained and more bulky molecules, with IMP (compound 4) and ARP (compound 6) being the prototypes (Durant et al., 1978; Buschauer, 1989). The guanidino group and the imidazolylpropyl moieties of IMP and ARP form similar interactions with H₂Rs as the amino group and imidazole groups of HIS, respectively (Kelley et al., 2001). In addition, the 2-(5-methylimidazol-4-ylmethylthio)ethyl moiety of IMP and the 3-(4-fluorophenyl)-3-pyridylpropyl substituents of ARP interact with a pocket formed by multiple residues in TM3, 6, and 7 (Kelley et al., 2001). At gpH₂R-G_sS, IMP and ARP are full agonists and are 30- and 16-fold more potent, respectively, than HIS. At hH₂R-G_sS, IMP and ARP are only partial agonists and are just 6-fold more potent than HIS (Kelley et al., 2001). Modeling and mutagenesis studies revealed that the pharmacological differences between hH₂R and gpH₂R are attributable to the nonconserved Asp-271 in TM7 of gpH₂R (Ala-271 in hH₂Rs) and Tyr-17 in TM1 of gpH₂R (Cys-17 in hH₂R). Furthermore, the comparison of agonist efficacies in the GTPase assay with the efficacies of agonists at stabilizing the high-affinity ternary complex of the H₂R with nucleotide-free G_s indicated that guanidines stabilize ligand-specific H₂R conformations (Kelley et al., 2001). Finally, ARP-derived compounds are H₁R antagonists with a preference for gpH₁R relative to hH₁R, with Asn-84 in TM2 playing a crucial role in determining species selectivity of H₁R ligands (Seifert et al., 2003; Bruysters et al., 2005).

View larger version (20K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Structures of H2R agonists. Compounds 1 through 3 represent small H2R agonists; compounds 4 through 17 represent bulky H2R agonists. Compounds 4 and 6 are guanidines, and compounds 5 and 7 through 17 are AIPGs. Note that compounds 4 and 5 as well as 6 and 7 represent guanidine/AIPG couples; compound 17 represents the imidazolylethyl analog of 11.

The aim of this study was to further probe the concept of ligand-specific H₁R and H₂R conformations. Therefore, we analyzed the interactions of H₁R and H₂R species isoforms with N^G-acylated imidazolylpropylguanidines (AIPGs), which are less basic than guanidines (Ghorai, 2005). UR-PG146 (compound 5) is the AIPG analog of IMP (compound 4), and UR-PG136 (compound 7) is the AIPG analog of ARP (compound 6). In AIPGs 8 through 16, various substituents were introduced at the imidazolylpropyl moiety, and compound 17 represents an imidazolylethyl analog, the shorter homolog, of UR-PG80 (compound 11).

	Materials and Methods

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Materials. Construction of baculoviruses encoding hH₂R-G_sS, gpH₂R-G_sS, hH₁R, and gpH₁R was described previously (Kelley et al., 2001; Seifert et al., 2003). Baculoviruses encoding RGS proteins 4 and 19 were a gift from Dr. E. Ross (Department of Pharmacology, University of Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX). Baculovirus encoding rH₂R was a gift from Dr. C. Harteneck (Department of Pharmacology, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany). Guanidines 4 and 6 were synthesized as described previously (Durant et al., 1978; Buschauer, 1989). AIPGs 5 and 7 through 17 were prepared as described previously (Ghorai, 2005). Structures of synthesized compounds were confirmed by ¹H nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and high-resolution mass spectrometry. Purity of compounds was >98% as determined by high-performance liquid chromatography or capillary electrophoresis (Schuster et al., 1997). AIPGs 5 and 7 through 17 were prepared as trifluoroacetate salts to ensure water solubility. Stock solutions of compounds 1 through 17 (0.1, 1, and 10 mM) each were prepared in distilled water and stored at –20°C. Under these conditions, compounds were stable for at least 2 years (longer periods of time were not studied). Further dilutions of compounds 1 through 17 were prepared fresh daily. Sources of other materials are described elsewhere (Kelley et al., 2001; Houston et al., 2002; Seifert et al., 2003). Baculovirus infection and culture of Sf9 cells and membrane preparation were performed as described previously (Kelley et al., 2001). H₂R-G_s expression levels were 5 to 6 pmol/mg as assessed by immunoblotting using the M1 monoclonal antibody and ₂-adrenoceptor expressed at defined levels as standard (Kelley et al., 2001). H₁R expression levels were 4 to 6 pmol/mg as assessed by [³H]mepyramine saturation binding (Seifert et al., 2003).

Steady-State GTPase Activity Assay. GTP hydrolysis in Sf9 membranes expressing H₂R-G_s fusion proteins or H₁R isoforms plus RGS proteins was determined as described previously (Kelley et al., 2001; Seifert et al., 2003). In brief, assay tubes (100 µl) contained Sf9 membranes (10 µg of protein per tube), various ligands, 1.0 mM MgCl₂, 0.1 mM EDTA, 0.1 mM ATP, 100 nM GTP, 1 mM adenylyl imidodiphosphate, 5 mM creatine phosphate, 40 µg of creatine kinase, and 0.2% (w/v) bovine serum albumin in 50 mM Tris/HCl, pH 7.4, and [-³²P]GTP (0.2–0.5 µCi/tube). Reactions were conducted for 20 min at 25°C and terminated by the addition of 900 µl of slurry consisting of 5% (w/v) activated charcoal and 50 mM NaH₂PO₄, pH 2.0. ³²P_i in supernatant fluids of reaction mixtures was determined by liquid scintillation counting.

AC Assay. AC activity in Sf9 membranes expressing nonfused hH₂R, gpH₂R, and rH₂R was determined as described previously (Houston et al., 2002). In brief, assay tubes (50 µl) contained Sf9 membranes (50–100 µg of protein per tube), various ligands, 5.0 mM MgCl₂, 0.4 mM EDTA, 40 µM ATP, [-³²P]ATP (1.0–1.5 µCi/tube), 100 µM GTP, 100 µM cAMP, and an ATP-regenerating system consisting of phosphoenolpyruvate, pyruvate kinase, and myokinase in 30 mM Tris/HCl, pH 7.4. Reactions were conducted for 20 min at 37°C and terminated by the addition of 20 µl of 2.2 N HCl. [-³²P]ATP was separated from [³²P]cAMP by column chromatography as described previously (Liu et al., 2001), and [³²P]cAMP was determined by liquid scintillation counting.

Radioligand Binding Assays. [³H]Tiotidine competition binding experiments with Sf9 membranes expressing hH₂R-G_sS or gpH₂R-G_sS were performed as described previously (Kelley et al., 2001). In brief, assay tubes (250 µl) contained membranes (200–250 µg of protein per tube), 10 nM [³H]tiotidine, and unlabeled ligands in binding buffer (12.5 mM MgCl₂, 1 mM EDTA, and 75 mM Tris/HCl, pH 7.4). [³H]Mepyramine competition binding experiments with Sf9 membranes expressing hH₁R or gpH₁R plus RGS proteins were performed as described previously (Seifert et al., 2003). In brief, assay tubes (500 µl) contained membranes (20–25 µg of protein per tube), 2 nM [³H]mepyramine, and unlabeled ligands in binding buffer. Bound radioligand was separated from free radioligand by filtration through GF/C filters, and filter-bound radioactivity was determined by liquid scintillation counting.

Miscellaneous. Protein concentrations were determined using the Bio-Rad DC protein assay kit (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA). All analyses of experimental data were performed with Prism 4.02 software (GraphPad-Prism, San Diego, CA). K_i and K_B values were calculated using the Cheng and Prusoff (1973) equation. Statistical comparisons in Table 1 were performed with the t test; statistical comparisons in Table 2 were performed with analysis of variance.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   TABLE 1 Agonist potencies and efficacies of HIS, guanidines, and AIPGs at hH2R-GsS and gpH2R-GsS in the GTPase assay Steady-state GTPase activity in Sf9 membranes expressing hH2R-GsS and gpH2R-GsS was determined as described under Materials and Methods. Reaction mixtures contained ligands at concentrations from 1 nM to 100 µM as appropriate to generate saturated concentration-response curves. Data were analyzed by nonlinear regression and were best fit to sigmoid concentration-response curves. Typical basal GTPase activities ranged between 1 and 2 pmol/mg/min, and the maximal stimulatory effect of histamine (100 µM) amounted to 250 to 350% above basal. The efficacy (Emax) of histamine was determined by nonlinear regression and was set at 1.00. The Emax values of other agonists were referred to this value. Data shown are the means ± S.D. of five to eight experiments each performed in duplicate. The relative potency of histamine was set at 100, and the potencies of other agonists were referred to this value. We also calculated the ratio of the EC50 values of H2R agonists for hH2R-GsS and gpH2R-GsS.

	Results

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Agonist Potencies and Efficacies of Guanidines and AIPGs at hH₂R-G_sS and gpH₂R-G_sS in the GTPase Assay. All AIPGs studied, with the exception of compound 12 at hH₂R, exhibited agonistic activity at H₂R isoforms (Table 1). At hH₂R-G_sS, exchange of the methylene group against a carbonyl group had little effect on the potency and efficacy of the couple 4 and 5 and moderately reduced potency but not efficacy in the couple 6 and 7. Omission of the p-fluoro substituent of the phenyl group in AIPGs (7 8) had little effect on potency and efficacy. The same was true for the exchange of the pyridyl group against an imidazolyl group (8 9). Substitution of the imidazolyl ring with an additional benzyl group (9 10) substantially reduced efficacy at hH₂R. Most prominently, exchange of the pyridyl group against a phenyl group (8 11) increased potency by almost 10-fold, whereas efficacy was slightly reduced. Shortening of the linker between the carbonyl group and the phenyl rings was deleterious for agonist efficacy (11 12), whereas introduction of p-fluoro substituents at both phenyl rings (11 15, UR-PG55B) resulted in the most potent hH₂R agonist known so far (25-fold more potent than HIS). Changes of the fluoro substitution pattern (compare 15 with 13 and 14) and exchange of one phenyl ring by a thiazole ring (compare 14 and 16) reduced agonist potency. Exchange of the imidazolylpropyl group against an imidazolylethyl group (11 17) strongly reduced efficacy at hH₂R, whereas it reduced potency only moderately.

Potencies and efficacies of AIPGs were higher at gpH₂R-G_sS than at hH₂R-G_sS (Table 1). These differences in interaction of AIPGs with hH₂R and gpH₂R resulted in correlations of efficacies (Fig. 2A) and potencies (Fig. 2B) that were shifted toward gpH₂R. A shift toward higher potencies and efficacies at gpH₂R relative to hH₂R was also observed for guanidines (Kelley et al., 2001). However, compared with the data obtained with guanidines, more AIPGs deviated from the correlation between gpH₂R and hH₂R. Most notably, AIPG 10 was more efficacious at hH₂R than at gpH₂R, and compound 17 was a similarly potent partial agonist at hH₂R and gpH₂R. AIPGs 10 and 15 were also just 2-fold more potent agonists at gpH₂R-G_sS than at hH₂R-G_sS.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Correlation between efficacies and potencies of AIPGs at hH2R-GsS and gpH2R-GsS. Agonist efficacies were taken from Table 1, and pEC50 values were derived from the EC50 values shown in Table 1. Solid lines represent the actual correlations obtained. Dashed lines represent the 95% confidence intervals of the correlations. The straight dotted lines represent the correlations that would have been obtained if efficacies and pEC50 values, respectively, had been identical in the two systems compared with each other. The theoretical curves have a slope of 1.00. A, correlation of efficacies of AIPGs at hH2R-GsS versus gpH2R-GsS. Slope, 0.72 ± 0.17; r2 = 0.64; p = 0.0019 (significant). B, correlation of potencies of AIPGs at hH2R-GsS versus gpH2R-GsS. Slope, 1.00 ± 0.24; r2 = 0.65; p = 0.0027 (significant).

s

sS

Whereas at hH₂R-G_sS and gpH₂R-G_sS, HIS is a similarly potent agonist (Table 1), HIS was 6-fold less potent at nonfused gpH₂R than at hH₂R (Table 2). A similar potency difference was observed between hH₂R and rH₂R. Therefore, agonist potencies among the three receptor systems could only be compared on the basis of relative agonist potencies, HIS being the reference for each H₂R isoform. At gpH₂R, DIM was similarly potent as HIS, whereas AMT was an almost 6-fold more potent agonist than HIS. ARP, IMP, and UR-PG61 were up to 170-fold more potent gpH₂R agonists than HIS. In terms of efficacy, the compounds studied were all strong partial agonists, with DIM being the least efficacious agonist. In contrast, at gpH₂R-G_sS, DIM is a full agonist (Kelley et al., 2001).

At rH₂R, DIM was 2-fold less potent than HIS, whereas AMT was 6-fold more potent than HIS. IMP and ARP were up to 19-fold more potent agonists than HIS, and UR-PG61 was the most potent agonist among the compounds studied, surpassing the potency of HIS by 67-fold. At rH₂R, ARP was almost a full agonist; compounds 2 through 4 were strong partial agonists, and compound 14 exhibited only moderate efficacy.

Ternary Complex Formation at hH₂R-G_sS and gpH₂R-G_sS. Agonists stabilize a high-affinity ternary complex with GPCR and the guanine nucleotide-free G-protein (De Lean et al., 1980; Seifert et al., 1998, 1999b). In many systems, stable GTP analogs, such as GTPS, disrupt the ternary complex and thereby reduce the agonist affinity of GPCR (De Lean et al., 1980; Seifert et al., 1998, 1999b). Interestingly, various guanidines differentially stabilize the ternary complex at hH₂R-G_sS and gpH₂R-G_sS, pointing to the existence of agonist-specific H₂R conformations (Kelley et al., 2001). Figure 3 shows the agonist competition curves of UR-PG146 (compound 5) and UR-PG136 (compound 7) on [³H]tiotidine (antagonist) binding to hH₂R-G_sS and gpH₂R-G_sS in the absence and presence of GTPS. Table 3 shows a summary of the binding properties of compounds 5 and 7 as well as the corresponding guanidines IMP (compound 4) and ARP (compound 6). UR-PG146 did not measurably stabilize the ternary complex in hH₂R-G_sS, as indicated by the missing rightward shift of the agonist competition curve in the presence of GTPS. In contrast, GTPS shifted the IMP competition curve at hH₂R-G_sS 4-fold to the right. Compared with hH₂R-G_sS, UR-PG146 was much more efficient at stabilizing the ternary complex at gpH₂R-G_sS, as indicated by the high fraction of high-affinity binding sites in the absence of GTPS and the strong rightward shift of the agonist competition curve by GTPS. UR-PG146 stabilized the ternary complex at gpH₂R-G_sS more efficiently than IMP.

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Competition of [3H]tiotidine binding by AIPGs in Sf9 membranes expressing hH2R-GsS and gpH2R-GsS. [3H]Tiotidine binding was determined as described under Materials and Methods. Reaction mixtures contained Sf9 membranes (200–250 µg of protein per tube) expressing fusion proteins, 10 nM [3H]tiotidine, and AIPGs at the concentrations indicated on the abscissa. Reaction mixtures additionally contained distilled water (control) or GTPS (10 µM). A and B, analysis of UR-PG136 (compound 7); C and D, analysis of UR-PG146 (compound 5). Data were analyzed for best fit to monophasic and biphasic competition curves (F test). Data points shown are the means ± S.D. of five to seven experiments performed in duplicate.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   TABLE 3 Agonist binding properties of guanidines and AIPGs at hH2R-GsS and gpH2R-GsS Agonist competition binding was determined as described under Materials and Methods. Data shown in Fig. 3 were analyzed by nonlinear regression for best fit to monophasic or biphasic competition curves. Data shown are the means of five to seven experiments performed in duplicate. Numbers in parentheses represent the 95% confidence intervals. Kh and Kl designate the dissociation constants for the high- and low-affinity state of H2R, respectively. %Rh indicates the percentage of high-affinity binding sites. The corresponding values in the presence of GTPS (10 µM) are referred to as KhGTPS, KlGTPS, and %RhGTPS, respectively. If data were best fit to monophasic curves, data are listed under Kl and KlGTPS, respectively.

In contrast to UR-PG146, UR-PG136 efficiently stabilized the ternary complex at hH₂R-G_sS, as indicated by the strong rightward shift of the agonist competition curve by GTPS. ARP also stabilized the ternary complex at hH₂R-G_sS, but unlike with UR-PG136, distinct high-affinity binding sites were discriminated with ARP. UR-PG136 stabilized the ternary complex in gpH₂R-G_sS less efficiently than in hH₂R-G_sS, as evident from the smaller shift of the agonist competition curve by GTPS. At gpH₂R-G_sS, ARP was an efficient stabilizer of the ternary complex, but this ternary complex formation was insensitive to guanine nucleotides, as seen from the preservation of distinct high-affinity binding sites in the presence of GTPS.

Interaction of Guanidines and AIPGs with the H₁R. Because guanidines are H₁R antagonists with up to 10-fold selectivity for the gpH₁R relative to the hH₁R (Seifert et al., 2003), we also examined the interactions of AIPGs with H₁Rs. Compared with the agonist HIS, the antagonist ARP exhibited 6-fold higher affinity to hH₁R in [³H]mepyramine competition binding experiments, and the affinity of ARP to gpH₁R was 150-fold higher (Table 4). IMP exhibited selectivity for the gpH₁R relative to the hH₁R as well. Strikingly, the exchange of a methylene group against a carbonyl group (4 5 and 6 7) reduced the affinity of AIPGs for H₁R up to 300-fold. In general, AIPGs exhibited higher affinity for gpH₁R than for hH₁R, but the gpH₁R selectivity for AIPGs was less pronounced than for guanidines (4 5 and 6 7). In addition, in the case of UR-PG131A (compound 9) and UR-PG55B (compound 15), affinity for both H₁R isoforms was similar.

To answer the question whether AIPGs are H₁R agonists or antagonists, we examined the effects of the compounds on GTPase activity (Table 5). AIPGs exhibited weak to moderate partial agonistic activity at hH₁R, with UR-PG126 (compound 16) being the most efficacious compound. AIPGs were 10- to 70-fold less potent than HIS at hH₁R. At gpH₁R, AIPGs were considerably less efficacious partial agonists than at hH₁R, rendering calculation of agonist potencies impossible. For those compounds, antagonist potencies were calculated. The GTPase antagonist studies corroborated the notion that AIPGs exhibit only low affinity for hH₁R and gpH₁R with K_B values in the 2 to 15 µM range. Of note, in the functional antagonist assay, AIPG 11 exhibited 2-fold higher affinity for hH₁R than for gpH₁R.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Previous studies with HL-60 promyelocytes and H₂R-G_s fusion proteins provided the first evidence for the notion that H₂R agonists stabilize distinct ligand-specific H₂R conformations, i.e., multiple active H₂R states (Gespach et al., 1982; Seifert et al., 1992; Kelley et al., 2001; Wenzel-Seifert et al., 2001). A multiple-state model is a fundamental concept because it implies more versatile manipulation of GPCR-mediated signaling than within a two-state model assuming a single inactive (R) and a single active (R*) state (Seifert and Wenzel-Seifert, 2002; Kenakin, 2003). An increasing number of reports indicate that ligand-specific active states are a general property of GPCRs encompassing adrenoceptors, dopamine receptors, serotonin receptors, and cannabinoid receptors (Seifert et al., 1999a, 2001; Villazon et al., 2003; Gay et al., 2004; Clarke, 2005; Mukhopadhyay and Howlett, 2005). With respect to the H₁R and H₂R, ARP-derived guanidines are particularly useful conformational probes because these ligands discriminate between species isoforms of those GPCRs (Kelley et al., 2001; Wenzel-Seifert et al., 2001; Seifert et al., 2003). These data prompted us to examine a series of ARP-derived compounds in which the N^G-alkyl substituent was replaced against an N^G-alkanoyl group (compare compounds 4 and 6 versus 5 and 7 through 17) (Fig. 1). The resulting AIPGs are less basic than the corresponding guanidines. According to a two-state model, a change in basicity would be expected to result in quantitative changes in interactions of compounds with GPCRs, whereas within the framework of a multiple-state model, qualitative changes would be expected to occur.

The AIPG UR-PG55B (compound 15) is the most potent hH₂R agonist known so far, surpassing the potency of ARP, the prototypical guanidine, by almost 4-fold (Table 1). However, at gpH₂R-G_s, UR-PG80 (compound 11) rather than compound 15 is the most potent gpH₂R agonist. Whereas ARP-derived guanidines exhibit similar affinity for the couples hH₁R/hH₂R and gpH₁R/gpH₂R (Kelley et al., 2001; Seifert et al., 2003), AIPGs exhibit up to 1000-fold selectivity for H₂Rs relative to Hs₁Rs (Tables 1, 4, and 5). These differences between AIPGs and guanidines were the first indication for distinct interactions of AIPGs with H₁R and H₂R.

Ionic interaction of the amino group of HIS and the guanidino group of IMP, ARP, and related compounds with Asp-98 in TM3 is important for high-affinity ligand-H₂R interaction (Gantz et al., 1992; Kelley et al., 2001). Regardless of the reduced pK_a values (in the range of 7–8 for AIPGs compared with 12.5 for guanidines), the compounds are sufficiently basic to form an ionic interaction or charge-assisted hydrogen bond of the N^G-acylguanidino group with Asp-98 at physiological pH. The geometry of both series of compounds, N^G-alkylguanidines and N^G-acylguanidines, is sufficiently similar to assume comparable binding modes to H₂Rs (Fig. 1). Surprisingly, certain AIPGs even surpass guanidines in terms of agonistic potency at H₂R isoforms from various species (Tables 1 and 2). With respect to AIPG substitution, the most striking result is that the exchange of the pyridyl group against a second phenyl group (8 11) increased agonist potency up to 10-fold (Fig. 1; Table 1). For hH₂R, the increase in affinity of AIPGs by the diphenyl substitution was expected because Ala-271 in TM7 facilitates hydrophobic interactions (Kelley et al., 2001). However, in gpH₂R, the pyridyl group of ARP participates in ion dipole interactions with Asp-271, which cannot take place with a phenyl ring (Kelley et al., 2001). These data are explained by a model in which AIPG 11 adopts a different orientation in gpH₂R than in guanidines, allowing it to interact with hydrophobic amino acids present in TM3, 6, and 7.

Although, in general, AIPGs are more potent and efficacious at gpH₂R than at hH₂R (Fig. 2), we observed some exceptions from this rule. Notably, the hH₂R tolerates introduction of an additional benzyl group at the imidazolyl group better in terms of efficacy than the gpH₂R (9 10) (Fig. 1; Table 1). In addition, the hH₂R tolerates an imidazolylethyl group better concerning agonist potency than the gpH₂R (11 17). Moreover, AIPGs 10 and 15 are similarly potent agonists at hH₂R and gpH₂R. The potency-enhancing effect of the second phenyl ring in both hH₂R and gpH₂R (8 11) and the distinct structure-activity relationships of AIPGs at hH₂R and gpH₂R (9 10 and 11 17, 10, and 15) in the GTPase assay prompted us to examine ternary complex formation because this parameter is sensitive at unmasking ligand-specific GPCR conformations (Kelley et al., 2001; Seifert et al., 2001). Indeed, although the couples IMP (compound 4)/UR-PG146 (compound 5) and ARP (compound 6)/UR-PG136 (compound 7) resemble each other with respect to efficacy in the GTPase assay (Table 1), the compounds differ substantially from each other regarding ternary complex formation (Fig. 3; Table 3). At gpH₂R-G_sS, UR-PG146 was particularly efficient at ternary complex formation. Efficient ternary complex formation that is not accompanied by a correspondingly high efficacy in terms of steady-state GTP turnover is indicative of the formation of nonsignaling (frozen) ternary complexes (Seifert et al., 2001; Kenakin, 2003). The existence of ligand-specific H₂R conformations stabilized by AIPGs is further supported by the fact that, at hH₂R, the K_lGTPS values of UR-PG146 (compound 5) and UR-PG136 (compound 7) are similar to agonist potencies in the GTPase assay, suggesting that the low-agonist affinity state of hH₂R bound to AIPG promotes efficient guanine nucleotide exchange. Efficient coupling of the low-agonist affinity state of GPCR to G-proteins in terms of guanine nucleotide exchange was also shown for the human formyl peptide receptor (Wenzel-Seifert et al., 1999). In contrast, at gpH₂R, the K_h value of UR-PG146 (compound 5) resembles the EC₅₀ value in the GTPase assay, suggesting that the high-affinity state of gpH₂R bound to compound 5 mediates guanine nucleotide exchange.

We performed structure-activity relationship studies on guanidines and AIPGs with H₂R-G_s fusion proteins measuring the outcome of ligand-receptor interactions at a proximal point of the signal transduction cascade, namely the steady-state GTPase activity (Kelley et al., 2001) (Table 1). This approach ensured comparison of H₂R species isoforms under identical experimental conditions, with the endogenous agonist HIS (compound 1) being similarly potent at both GPCRs. Complementary studies with nonfused hH₂R, gpH₂R, and rH₂R in the AC assay corroborated the notion that guanidines and AIPGs are potent H₂R agonists (Table 2). Surprisingly however, in contrast to fusion proteins, up to 6-fold differences in HIS potency between nonfused H₂R isoforms were observed (Tables 1 and 2). In addition, at nonfused H₂R, we observed species differences in potency and efficacy among the small synthetic agonists AMT (compound 2) and DIM (compound 3) (Table 2) that were not apparent in the corresponding fusion proteins (Table 2) (Kelley et al., 2001). Moreover, like the hH₂R, the rH₂R contains Ala-271 in TM7 (Ruat et al., 1991). Accordingly, we expected similar potencies of guanidines and AIPGs at hH₂R and rH₂R in the AC assay, but this was not the case using the relative potency of HIS (compound 1) as reference (Table 2). Most prominently, the relative potency of compound 14 at rH₂R was more than 10-fold higher than at hH₂R. Furthermore, the system with nonfused H₂R did not reveal the species-differences in efficacy of guanidines and AIPGs seen in the fusion proteins (Tables 1 and 2) (Kelley et al., 2001). Instead, the small agonist DIM (compound 3) exhibited lower efficacy at gpH₂R than at hH₂R. The different agonist profiles of H₂R in the GTPase and AC assay fit to the concept of ligand-specific GPCR conformations, which differ from each other in their ability to promote guanine nucleotide exchange at G_s relative to AC activation. Dissociations in ligand efficacies at promoting nucleotide exchange relative to AC activation were previously reported for the ₂-adrenoceptor fused to G_s (Seifert et al., 1999a).

Whereas for the H₂R, the exchange of a methylene group against a carbonyl group had little impact on ligand potency (Fig. 1; Table 1), this exchange substantially decreased the affinity of compounds for the H₁R (compare couple 6/7 in Tables 4 and 5 and couple 4/5 in Table 4) and thereby increased H₂R selectivity. Unexpectedly, we also observed a change in quality of the effects of AIPGs at H₁R. Specifically, most AIPGs are partial hH₁R agonists (Table 5), whereas guanidines are H₁R antagonists (Seifert et al., 2003). The effects of AIPGs and guanidines were studied side by side and in membranes expressing hH₁R and gpH₁R at similar expression levels, ruling out differences in GPCR expression level or GPCR/G-protein stoichiometry accounting for the differences between the two classes of compounds. These data indicate that guanidines and AIPGs also stabilize distinct H₁R conformations. It is particularly noteworthy that AIPGs exhibit higher efficacies at hH₁R than at gpH₁R (Table 5). Moreover, some AIPGs exhibit similar (compounds 9 and 15) or higher affinity (compound 11) for hH₁R relative to gpH₁R (Tables 4 and 5). All bulky agonists studied so far exhibited a preference for gpH₁R relative to hH₁R in terms of affinity and/or efficacy (Seifert et al., 2003).

In conclusion, AIPGs stabilize different active conformations in hH₂R, gpH₂R, and rH₂R than guanidines. Moreover, AIPGs are more efficient at stabilizing a partially active state in hH₁R than in gpH₁R. Our data corroborate the concept that a multiple-state model is more appropriate to describe ligand/GPCR interactions than a two-state model.

	Acknowledgements

 
We thank Dr. G. Georg (Department of Medicinal Chemistry, University of Kansas, KS) for continuous support and encouragement and the reviewers of this article for constructive critique.

	Footnotes

 
This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health Center of Biomedical Research Excellence Award 1 P20 RR15563 and matching support from the State of Kansas and the University of Kansas (to R.S. and Q.-Z.Y.) and the Graduate Training Program (Graduiertenkolleg) 760 "Medicinal Chemistry: Molecular Recognition-Ligand-Receptor Interactions" of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (to R.S. and A.B.).

doi:10.1124/jpet.105.097923.

ABBREVIATIONS: HIS, histamine; H₁R, histamine H₁-receptor; H₂R, histamine H₂-receptor; H₃R, histamine H₃-receptor; H₄R, histamine H₄-receptor; AC, adenylyl cyclase; GPCR, G-protein-coupled receptor; RGS, regulator of G-protein signaling; AMT, amthamine; DIM, dimaprit; TM, transmembrane domain; hH₂R-G_sS, fusion protein of the human histamine H₂-receptor and the short splice variant of G_s; gpH₂R-G_sS, fusion protein of the guinea pig histamine H₂-receptor and the short splice variant of G_s; IMP, impromidine; ARP, arpromidine; hH₂R, human histamine H₂-receptor; gpH₂R, guinea pig histamine H₂-receptor; AIPG, N^G-acylated imidazolylpropylguanidine; hH₁R, human histamine H₁-receptor; gpH₁R, guinea pig histamine H₁-receptor; rH₂R, rat histamine H₂-receptor; GTPS, guanosine 5'-[-thio]triphosphate.

Address correspondence to: Dr. Roland Seifert, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Regensburg, Universitätsstrapße 31, D-93053 Regensburg, Germany. E-mail: roland.seifert{at}chemie.uni-regensburg.de

	References

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 

Beukers MW, Klaassen CH, De Grip WJ, Verzijl D, Timmerman H, and Leurs R (1997) Heterologous expression of rat epitope-tagged H₂ receptors in insect Sf9 cells. Br J Pharmacol 122: 867–874.[Medline]

Bruysters M, Jongejan A, Gillard M, van de Manakker F, Bakker RA, Chatelain P, and Leurs R (2005) 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. Mol Pharmacol 67: 1045–1052.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Buschauer A (1989) Synthesis and in vitro pharmacology of arpromidine and related phenyl(pyridylalkyl)guanidines, a potential new class of positive inotropic drugs. J Med Chem 32: 1963–1970.[CrossRef][Medline]

Cheng Y and Prusoff WH (1973) Relationship between the inhibition constant (K_i) and the concentration of inhibitor which causes 50 percent inhibition (I₅₀) of an enzymatic reaction. Biochem Pharmacol 22: 3099–3108.[CrossRef][Medline]

Clarke WP (2005) What's for lunch at the conformational cafeteria? Mol Pharmacol 67: 1819–1821.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

De Lean A, Stadel JM, and Lefkowitz RJ (1980) A ternary complex model explains the agonist-specific binding properties of the adenylate cyclase-coupled -adrenergic receptor. J Biol Chem 255: 7108–7117.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Dove S, Elz S, Seifert R, and Buschauer A (2004) Structure-activity relationships of histamine H₂ receptor ligands. Mini Rev Med Chem 4: 941–954.[Medline]

Durant GJ, Duncan WA, Ganellin CR, Parsons ME, Blakemore RC, and Rasmussen AC (1978) Impromidine (SK&F 92676) is a very potent and specific agonist for histamine H₂ receptors. Nature (Lond) 276: 403–405.[CrossRef][Medline]

Fukushima Y, Oka Y, Saitoh T, Katagiri H, Asano T, Matsuhashi N, Takata K, van Breda E, Yazaki Y, and Sugano K (1995) Structural and functional analysis of the canine histamine H₂ receptor by site-directed mutagenesis: N-glycosylation is not vital for its function. Biochem J 310: 553–558.[Medline]

Gantz I, DelValle J, Wang LD, Tashiro T, Munzert G, Guo YJ, Konda Y, and Yamada T (1992) Molecular basis for the interaction of histamine with the histamine H₂ receptor. J Biol Chem 267: 20840–20843.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Gay EA, Urban JD, Nichols DE, Oxford GS, and Mailman RB (2004) Functional selectivity of D₂ receptor ligands in a Chinese hamster ovary hD_2L cell line: evidence for induction of ligand-specific states. Mol Pharmacol 66: 97–105.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Gespach C, Saal F, Cost H, and Abita JP (1982) Identification and characterization of surface receptors for histamine in the human promyelocytic leukemia cell line HL-60: comparison with human peripheral neutrophils. Mol Pharmacol 22: 547–553.[Abstract]

Ghorai P (2005) Arpromidine-Related Acylguanidines: Synthesis and Structure-Activity Relationships of a New Class of Guanidine-Type Histamine H₂ Receptor Agonists with Reduced Basicity. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Regensburg, Germany.

Hill SJ, Ganellin CR, Timmerman H, Schwartz JC, Shankley NP, Young JM, Schunack W, Levi R, and Haas HL (1997) International Union of Pharmacology. XIII. Classification of histamine receptors. Pharmacol Rev 49: 253–278.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Hough LB (2001) Genomics meets histamine receptors: new subtypes, new receptors. Mol Pharmacol 59: 415–419.[Free Full Text]

Houston C, Wenzel-Seifert K, Bürckstümmer T, and Seifert R (2002) The human histamine H₂-receptor couples more efficiently to Sf9 insect cell G_s-proteins than to insect cell G_q-proteins: limitations of Sf9 cells for the analysis of receptor/G_q-protein coupling. J Neurochem 80: 678–696.[CrossRef][Medline]

Kelley MT, Bürckstümmer T, Wenzel-Seifert K, Dove S, Buschauer A, and Seifert R (2001) Distinct interaction of human and guinea pig histamine H₂-receptor with guanidine-type agonists. Mol Pharmacol 60: 1210–1225.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Kenakin T (2003) Ligand-selective receptor conformations revisited: the promise and the problem. Trends Pharmacol Sci 24: 346–354.[CrossRef][Medline]

Klinker JF, Wenzel-Seifert K, and Seifert R (1996) G-protein-coupled receptors in HL-60 human leukemia cells. Gen Pharmacol 27: 33–54.[CrossRef][Medline]

Kühn B, Schmid A, Harteneck C, Gudermann T, and Schultz G (1996) G proteins of the G_q family couple the H₂ histamine receptor to phospholipase C. Mol Endocrinol 10: 1697–1707.[Abstract]

Leopoldt D, Harteneck C, and Nürnberg B (1997) G proteins endogenously expressed in Sf9 cells: interactions with mammalian histamine receptors. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Arch Pharmacol 356: 216–224.[CrossRef][Medline]

Liu H-Y, Wenzel-Seifert K, and Seifert R (2001) The olfactory G-protein G_olf possesses a lower GDP-affinity and deactivates more rapidly than G_sshort: consequences for receptor-coupling and adenylyl cyclase activation. J Neurochem 78: 325–338.[CrossRef][Medline]

Mukhopadhyay S and Howlett AC (2005) Chemically distinct ligands promote differential CB₁ cannabinoid receptor-G_i protein interactions. Mol Pharmacol 67: 2016–2024.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Nederkoorn PH, Vernooijs P, Donne-Op den Kelder GM, Baerends EJ, and Timmerman H (1994) A new model for the agonistic binding site on the histamine H₂-receptor: the catalytic triad in serine proteases as a model for the binding site of histamine H₂-receptor agonists. J Mol Graph 12: 242–256.[Medline]

Ruat M, Traiffort E, Arrang JM, Leurs R, and Schwartz JC (1991) Cloning and tissue expression of a rat histamine H₂-receptor gene. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 179: 1470–1478.[CrossRef][Medline]

Schuster A, Bernhardt G, and Buschauer A (1997) Determination of the arpromidine-type histamine H₂-receptor agonist N¹-[3–(3,4-difluorophenyl)-3–(2-pyridyl)propyl]-N²-[3-(1H-imidazol-4-yl)propyl]guanidine and corresponding N³-alkoxycarbonylguanidines by HPLC and CE. Eur J Pharm Sci 5: 79–88.[Medline]

Seifert R, Gether U, Wenzel-Seifert K, and Kobilka BK (1999a) Effects of guanine, inosine and xanthine nucleotides on ₂-adrenergic receptor/G_s interactions: evidence for multiple receptor conformations. Mol Pharmacol 56: 348–358.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Seifert R, Höer A, Schwaner I, and Buschauer A (1992) Histamine increases cytosolic Ca²⁺ in HL-60 promyelocytes predominantly via H₂ receptors with an unique agonist/antagonist profile and induces functional differentiation. Mol Pharmacol 42: 235–241.[Abstract]

Seifert R and Wenzel-Seifert K (2002) Constitutive activity of G-protein-coupled receptors: cause of disease and common property of wild-type receptors. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Arch Pharmacol 366: 381–416.[CrossRef][Medline]

Seifert R, Wenzel-Seifert K, Bürckstümmer T, Pertz HH, Schunack W, Dove S, Buschauer A, and Elz S (2003) Multiple differences in agonist and antagonist pharmacology between human and guinea pig histamine H₁-receptor. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 305: 1104–1115.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Seifert R, Wenzel-Seifert K, Gether U, and Kobilka BK (2001) Functional differences between full and partial agonists: evidence for ligand-specific receptor conformations. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 297: 1218–1226.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Seifert R, Wenzel-Seifert K, and Kobilka BK (1999b) GPCR-G fusion proteins: an approach for the molecular analysis of receptor/G-protein coupling. Trends Pharmacol Sci 20: 383–389.[CrossRef][Medline]

Seifert R, Wenzel-Seifert K, Lee TW, Gether U, Sanders-Bush E, and Kobilka BK (1998) Different effects of G_s splice variants on ₂-adrenoreceptor-mediated signaling: the ₂-adrenoreceptor coupled to the long splice variant of G_s has properties of a constitutively active receptor. J Biol Chem 273: 5109–5116.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Villazon M, Enguix MJ, Tristan H, Honrubia MA, Brea J, Maayani S, Cadavid MI, and Loza MI (2003) Different pharmacological properties of two equipotent antagonists (clozapine and rauwolscine) for 5-HT_2B receptors in rat stomach fundus. Biochem Pharmacol 66: 927–937.[Medline]

Wenzel-Seifert K, Arthur JM, Liu HY, and Seifert R (1999) Quantitative analysis of formyl peptide receptor coupling to G_i1, G_i2, and G_i3. J Biol Chem 274: 33259–33266.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Wenzel-Seifert K, Kelley MT, Buschauer A, and Seifert R (2001) Similar apparent constitutive activity of human histamine H₂-receptor fused to long and short splice variants of G_s. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 299: 1013–1020.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. Preuss, P. Ghorai, A. Kraus, S. Dove, A. Buschauer, and R. Seifert Constitutive Activity and Ligand Selectivity of Human, Guinea Pig, Rat, and Canine Histamine H2 Receptors J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., June 1, 2007; 321(3): 983 - 995. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Preuss, P. Ghorai, A. Kraus, S. Dove, A. Buschauer, and R. Seifert Mutations of Cys-17 and Ala-271 in the Human Histamine H2 Receptor Determine the Species Selectivity of Guanidine-Type Agonists and Increase Constitutive Activity J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., June 1, 2007; 321(3): 975 - 982. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S.-X. Xie, A. Kraus, P. Ghorai, Q.-Z. Ye, S. Elz, A. Buschauer, and R. Seifert 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 J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., June 1, 2006; 317(3): 1262 - 1268. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: jpet.105.097923v1 317/1/139    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