Inhibitor Binding to Type 4 Phosphodiesterase (PDE4) Assessed Using [3H]Piclamilast and [3H]Rolipram

  1. Yu Zhao,
  2. Han-Ting Zhang and
  3. James M. O'Donnell
  1. Department of Pharmacology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee
  1. Dr. James M. O'Donnell, Department of Pharmacology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, 874 Union Avenue, Memphis, TN 38163. E-mail:jodonnell{at}utmem.edu
 
Next Section

Abstract

Piclamilast is a type 4 phosphodiesterase (PDE4) inhibitor with equal affinity for the high-affinity rolipram binding site (HARBS) and low-affinity rolipram binding site (LARBS). The binding of [3H]piclamilast to preparations of rat brain and peripheral tissue was investigated and compared with that of [3H]rolipram. [3H]piclamilast binding was high-affinity, saturable, reversible, and partially Mg2+-dependent. Binding was detected both to membrane and soluble fractions, with Kd values of 3.1 and 4.5 nM, respectively. The Bmax values for [3H]piclamilast were about 1.5-fold greater than that of [3H]rolipram binding, suggesting that [3H]piclamilast, but not [3H]rolipram, binds to LARBS as well as the HARBS. The HARBS was present in all the brain regions examined, but not in peripheral tissues. All PDE4 inhibitors tested were potent competitors for [3H]piclamilast binding; the competition curves for rolipram, desmethylpiclamilast, ICI 63,197, and Ro 20-1724 were better described by a two-site model, while the competition curves for piclamilast, cilomilast, roflumilast, and CDP 840 were adequately described by a one-site model. Inhibitors of other PDE families were much less potent. The inhibition of [3H]piclamilast was further tested in the presence of 1 μM rolipram to isolate the LARBS. Under this condition, the competition curves for all the inhibitors were adequately described by a one-site model, withKi values close to that for the LARBS. The results indicated that [3H]piclamilast is a useful tool to directly study inhibitor interaction with the HARBS and the LARBS in rat brain.

Cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterases (PDEs) hydrolyze the second messengers cyclic AMP and cyclic GMP. The mammalian PDEs have been classified into 11 families (Manganiello et al., 1995; Conti and Jin, 1999; Soderling and Beavo, 2000; Francis et al., 2001). The PDE4 family, encoded by four genes (PDE4A–D), is characterized by its lowKm value for cAMP and its sensitivity to inhibition by rolipram (Beavo et al., 1994, 1995; Bolger, 1994). PDE4 inhibitors show promising pharmacological effects in a variety of disease models, particularly asthma and depression (Torphy and Undem, 1991; O'Donnell, 1993; Giembycz, 1996; O'Donnell and Frith, 1999). However, central nervous system and gastrointestinal side effects remain a problem, limiting clinical development. It has been speculated that some of the side effects may be mediated through inhibitor interaction with the high-affinity rolipram binding site (HARBS) on PDE4 (Barnette et al., 1995; Duplantier et al., 1996); rolipram and a number of other PDE4 inhibitors have been shown to bind with low nanomolar affinity to this site (Schneider et al., 1986; Torphy et al., 1992; Jacobitz et al., 1996).

In addition to binding to the HARBS, PDE4 inhibitors also bind to a low-affinity state, termed the low-affinity rolipram binding site (LARBS). It should be noted that the terminology of HARBS and LARBS refers specifically to rolipram binding. Some inhibitors bind with high affinity to both the HARBS and the LARBS (e.g., piclamilast). A study using truncated PDE4A mutants indicated that inhibitor binding to both the HARBS and the LARBS is to the catalytic site (Jacobitz et al., 1996). Binding to the HARBS, but not the LARBS, depends on the presence of the N-terminal region. Although their exact natures are still unclear, it appears the HARBS and the LARBS are more accurately described as two distinct binding affinity states, rather than separate sites (Schneider et al., 1986; Torphy et al., 1992; Souness and Scott, 1993; Jacobitz et al., 1996).

Interestingly, the rank-order potency of a variety of compounds for inhibiting PDE4 catalytic activity differs from their rank-order potency for competing with [3H]rolipram binding to the HARBS (Torphy et al., 1992; Baures et al., 1993). Although the function of the HARBS is unknown, the potency of PDE4 inhibitors to produce certain effects, such as emesis and increased gastric acid secretion, correlates with their ability to displace [3H]rolipram from this site. Other effects are more related to their ability to inhibit PDE4 catalytic activity in a cell-free system, which provides an index of inhibitor interaction with the LARBS (Harris et al., 1989; Barnette et al., 1995, 1996; Duplantier et al., 1996; Souness et al., 1996). These findings suggest that the pharmacological effects that result from the interaction of inhibitors with the HARBS and the LARBS are distinct. This is particularly evident when one compares the effects of piclamilast (RP 73,401) and rolipram. Piclamilast is about 1000-fold more potent than rolipram for inhibiting guinea pig smooth muscle PDE4, but only about 4-fold more potent for inhibiting methacholine-induced contraction of guinea pig trachealis muscle or enhancing isoproterenol-stimulated cyclic AMP formation in guinea pig eosinophils (Ashton et al., 1994; Souness et al., 1995).

Piclamilast is a selective and potent PDE4 inhibitor (Karlsson et al., 1993; Ashton et al., 1994). PDE4 isolated from various cell types is inhibited by piclamilast with a Kivalue of about 1 nM (Ashton et al., 1994). Piclamilast displays similar potency for inhibition of PDE4 regardless of the source and the procedure used to prepare the enzyme; rolipram potency, by contrast, is dependent on such factors (Schwabe et al., 1976; Fredholm et al., 1979;Ruckstuhl and Landry, 1981; Lugnier et al., 1983; Davis, 1984;Schneider et al., 1986). Piclamilast does not exhibit differential affinity for the HARBS and the LARBS; it binds with low nanomolar affinity to both states of PDE4 (Souness et al., 1995). Rolipram, by contrast, exhibits approximately 500-fold greater affinity for the HARBS relative to the LARBS (Schneider et al., 1986; Torphy et al., 1992; Jacobitz et al., 1996). Thus, [3H]piclamilast appears to be a useful tool to directly study inhibitor interaction with the high- and low-affinity binding sites on PDE4. The present study was conducted to characterize the binding of [3H]piclamilast in rat brain, to compare it with [3H]rolipram binding, and to determine the affinity of PDE4 inhibitors for the HARBS and the LARBS using these two radioligands.

Previous SectionNext Section

Materials and Methods

Animals.

Male Sprague-Dawley rats (Harlan, Indianapolis, IN) were housed in a temperature- (22–24°C) and light- (on 6:00 AM–6:00 PM) controlled room and were allowed free access to food pellets and water. Their use in studies reported in this article have been carried out in accordance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals as adopted and promulgated by the National Institutes of Health and have been approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Tennessee Health Science Center.

Radioligand Binding Assays.

Rats were killed by decapitation. Brain regions (cerebral cortex, hippocampus, amygdala, hypothalamus, neostriatum, cerebellum, and brain stem) and peripheral tissues (heart, liver, and skeletal muscle) were dissected on ice and homogenized in binding buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, 5 mM MgCl2, pH 7.5) using a Polytron homogenizer (Brinkman Instruments, Westbury, NY). Separation of supernatant and particulate fractions was achieved by centrifugation at 15,000g for 15 min; the pellet then was resuspended in binding buffer.

[3H]Rolipram and [3H]piclamilast binding was measured by a modification of the method of Schneider and coworkers (1986). Membrane or cytosolic preparations containing 200 to 300 μg of protein were incubated in duplicate at 30°C in 250 μl of binding buffer containing [3H]rolipram or [3H]piclamilast. Nonspecific binding was defined in the presence of 10 μM unlabeled Ro 20-1724 for [3H]rolipram binding or 1 mM unlabeled rolipram for [3H]piclamilast binding. Reactions were stopped after 1 h by the addition of 5 ml of ice-cold binding buffer and rapid vacuum filtration through glass fiber filters that had been soaked in 0.3% polyethyleneimine. The filters were washed twice with 5 ml of ice-cold buffer, and radioactivity measured by liquid scintillation counting.

For the saturation binding studies, different concentrations of [3H]rolipram (0.5–50 nM) and [3H]piclamilast (0.01–20 nM) were used. For the competition studies, a 2 nM concentration of [3H]rolipram or [3H]piclamilast was used in the presence of different concentrations of unlabeled inhibitors.

Statistical Analysis.

Data were analyzed by nonlinear regression to determine whether inhibitor binding to PDE4 was better described by an interaction with one or two binding sites (Draper and Smith, 1966; O'Donnell et al., 1984). Binding to a single site was assumed unless the data were better described by a two-site binding equation. This was indicated when the residual sum of square was reduced significantly (F ratio, p < 0.01).

Bmax andKd values were determined for saturation experiments. EC50 values were determined for competition experiments;Ki values were calculated from EC50 values using the method of Cheng and Prusoff (1973). All values are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. from at least three independent experiments carried out in duplicate.

Materials.

[3H]Rolipram was purchased from American Radiolabeled Chemicals Inc. (St. Louis, MO). [3H]Piclamilast was a gift from GlaxoSmithKline (Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK). Piclamilast was provided by Aventis (Strasbourg, France). Desmethylpiclamilast, cilomilast, and roflumilast were provided by Memory Pharmaceuticals (Montvale, NJ). Rolipram was provided by Schering AG (Berlin, Germany). Milrinone and zaprinast were purchased from Calbiochem (San Diego, CA). Other drugs and chemicals were obtained from Fisher Scientific (Pittsburgh, PA) or Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO).

Previous SectionNext Section

Results

Association and Dissociation.

Specific binding of [3H]piclamilast at 30°C increased rapidly to reach maximal binding in about 2 min, with a half-time of association of 24 s, after which binding remained stable up to 2 h (Fig.1). Dissociation of [3H]piclamilast, determined following the addition of 1 mM rolipram, was equally rapid, with a half-time of 11 s (Fig. 1). The amount of radioactivity bound reached the level of nonspecific binding within 3 min of the addition of rolipram. By contrast, the association of [3H]rolipram was better described by a two-phase model, with half-times of association of 24 s and 40 min. The dissociation of [3H]rolipram was relatively slow, with a half-time of 6 min (Fig. 1).

Figure 1
View larger version:
Figure 1

Time course of association (A, C) and dissociation (B, D) of [3H]piclamilast and [3H]rolipram binding. Rat cerebral cortical membranes were incubated at 30°C with either 2 nM [3H]piclamilast or [3H]rolipram. Association was started by the addition of membranes. Dissociation was started by the addition of 1 mM rolipram after 1 h preincubation with either 2 nM [3H]piclamilast or [3H]rolipram. Binding was terminated by rapid filtration at different times. Results are from at least three independent experiments (mean ± S.E.M.).

Mg2+ Dependence.

Binding of [3H]piclamilast (2 nM) and [3H]rolipram (2 nM) was determined at three concentrations of Mg2+ (Fig.2). Mg2+ increased the specific binding of both radioligands in a concentration-dependent manner. In the presence of 5 mM Mg2+, the specific binding of [3H]piclamilast was about 4-fold higher than the specific binding in the absence of Mg2+; for rolipram, the Mg2+-dependent increase was about 3-fold.

Figure 2
View larger version:
Figure 2

Mg2+-dependent binding of [3H]piclamilast and [3H]rolipram. Rat cerebral cortical membranes were incubated with either 2 nM [3H]piclamilast (A) or 2 nM [3H]rolipram (B) in the presence of different concentrations of Mg2+ at 30°C for 1 h. Binding was terminated by rapid filtration. Results are from at least three independent experiments (mean ± S.E.M.). ∗, significantly different from value in the absence of Mg2+, p < 0.05; ∗∗,p < 0.01.

Saturation Binding.

Saturation binding of [3H]piclamilast and [3H]rolipram was carried out using whole homogenates of rat cerebral cortex and crude membrane and soluble (i.e., cytosolic) fractions (Fig. 3; Table 1). Specific binding of both [3H]piclamilast and [3H]rolipram to homogenate, membrane, and cytosolic preparations of rat cerebral cortex was saturable and of high affinity. Using nonlinear regression analysis, the binding of each radioligand was found to be adequately described by a one-site model. Adjusted for protein content, the Bmaxvalues for [3H]piclamilast binding to membranes and whole homogenate were similar; theBmax value for binding to the cytosolic fraction was slightly less, but the difference was not significant.

Figure 3
View larger version:
Figure 3

Saturation analysis of [3H]piclamilast (A) and [3H]rolipram (B) binding to membrane preparations of rat cerebral cortex. For [3H]piclamilast binding, concentrations used were 0.01 to 20 nM. For [3H]rolipram, concentrations used were 0.5 to 50 nM. Binding was carried out at 30°C for 1 h. Results are from three independent experiments (mean ± S.E.M.). Bmax andKd values, determined by nonlinear regression analysis, are shown in Table 1.

View this table:
Table 1

[3H]Piclamilast and [3H]rolipram binding to whole homogenate, membrane, and cytosolic preparations of rat cerebral cortex

Compared with that of [3H]rolipram binding, theBmax value for [3H]piclamilast binding was about 1.5-fold greater in all three preparations. For [3H]rolipram binding, the affinity was higher to membranes than to cytosolic and whole homogenate preparations (Kd = 4.8 ± 0.5, 12.1 ± 2.2, and 19.2 ± 10.1 nM, respectively); theKd values obtained using membrane and cytosolic fractions were significantly different (p < 0.05). By contrast, [3H]piclamilast exhibited similar affinity for all the fractions (Kd = 3.1 ± 0.2, 4.5 ± 1.1, and 6.7 ± 2.3 nM, respectively). For membrane and cytosolic preparations, the Kd values for [3H]rolipram and [3H]piclamilast differed significantly (p < 0.05).

Distribution of High- and Low-Affinity Sites.

[3H]Piclamilast binding to preparations of various regions of brain and peripheral tissues was determined in the presence of different concentrations of rolipram. Data were analyzed by nonlinear regression to assess potential one- or two-site binding. Rolipram inhibition using preparations of the brain regions was better described by a two-site model, while the inhibition using the peripheral tissue preparations was adequately described by a one-site model (Fig. 4; Table2). In all the brain regions examined, approximately 60% of the total specific binding was to the high-affinity binding site; this was quite consistent across the different regions as well as for homogenate, membrane, and cytosolic preparations. High-affinity binding was not detected in peripheral tissues (Fig. 4; Table 2). The affinity values for the binding of rolipram to the low-affinity binding site were consistent for all the brain regions and the peripheral tissues, except for liver, for which an almost 100-fold lower affinity was observed.

Figure 4
View larger version:
Figure 4

Rolipram inhibition of [3H]piclamilast binding to membranes prepared from rat cerebral cortex, skeletal muscle, liver, and heart. Membranes were incubated with 2 nM [3H]piclamilast and various concentrations of rolipram at 30°C for 1 h. Data shown are from one of three experiments. The competition curve obtained using cerebral cortical membranes was better described by a two-site model, while the competition curves using the membranes prepared from peripheral tissues were adequately described by a one-site model. Ki values are shown in Table 2.

View this table:
Table 2

Binding of [3H]piclamilast to membrane preparations of rat brain regions and peripheral tissues

Inhibition of [3H]Piclamilast and [3H]Rolipram Binding.

A variety of specific PDE4 inhibitors and inhibitors of other PDE families were tested for their potency to inhibit [3H]piclamilast and [3H]rolipram binding to rat cerebral cortical membranes; the Ki values are shown in Table 3. For [3H]piclamilast binding (Fig.5), the competition curves for rolipram, desmethylpiclamilast, ICI 63,197, Ro 20-1724, and cilomilast were better described by a two-site model; the competition curves for piclamilast, roflumilast, and CDP 840 were adequately described by a one-site model. For those inhibitors that bound to two sites, theKi values for the high-affinity interaction were all in the nanomolar range, while theKi values for low-affinity interaction were all in the low micromolar range.

View this table:
Table 3

Ki values for PDE4 inhibitors and non-PDE4 inhibitors determined from competition assays using [3H]piclamilast and [3H]rolipram binding to rat cerebral cortical membranes

Figure 5
View larger version:
Figure 5

Inhibition of [3H]-piclamilast binding by PDE4 inhibitors. Rat cerebral cortical membranes were incubated with 2 nM [3H]-piclamilast and various concentrations of inhibitors at 30°C for 1 h. Data shown are from one of three experiments. The competition curves for rolipram, desmethylpiclamilast (DMP), ICI 63,197, and Ro 20-1724 were better described by a two-site model, while the competition curves for piclamilast, cilomilast, roflumilast, and CDP 840 were adequately described by a one-site model.Ki values are shown in Table 3.

All the curves for inhibition of [3H]rolipram binding by PDE4 inhibitors were adequately described by a one-site model, with Ki values in the low-to-mid-nanomolar range (Fig. 6). For inhibition of [3H]rolipram binding piclamilast was the most potent, followed by roflumilast, rolipram, desmethylpiclamilast, cilomilast, Ro 20-1724, ICI 63,197, and CDP 840. Inhibition of [3H]piclamilast binding for some inhibitors was tested in the presence of 1 μM rolipram to isolate the LARBS (Fig. 7). The competition curves under this condition all were consistent with a one-site model.

Figure 6
View larger version:
Figure 6

Inhibition of [3H]rolipram binding by PDE4 inhibitors. Rat cerebral cortical membranes were incubated with 2 nM [3H]rolipram and various concentrations of inhibitors at 30°C for 1 h. Data shown are from one of three experiments. The competition curves for the PDE4 inhibitors were adequately described by a one-site model. Ki values are shown in Table 3.

Figure 7
View larger version:
Figure 7

Inhibition of [3H]piclamilast binding in the presence of 1 μM rolipram (to isolate the LARBS). Rat cerebral cortical membranes were incubated with 2 nM [3H]piclamilast and 1 μM rolipram, together with various concentrations of different inhibitors at 30°C for 1 h. Data shown are from one of three experiments; 100% binding was defined as that in the presence of 2 nM [3H]piclamilast and 1 μM rolipram. The competition curves for the PDE4 inhibitors were adequately described by a one-site model. Kivalues are shown in Table 3.

Some non-PDE4 inhibitors were tested against both [3H]piclamilast and [3H]rolipram binding. The inhibition of the binding of each radioligand by non-PDE4 inhibitors was similar (Table3). Milrinone, trequinsin, and papaverine inhibition of both [3H]piclamilast and [3H]rolipram was adequately described by a one-site model, with Ki values in the low micromolar range; similar data were obtained with the nonselective PDE inhibitor 3-isobutyl-1-methylxanthine. Vinpocetine, 9-erythro-(2-hydroxy-3-nonyl)adenine, and zaprinast, at a concentration of 1 mM, inhibited less than 50% of the total specific binding of either radioligand.

Previous SectionNext Section

Discussion

In the present study, the binding of [3H]piclamilast to preparations of rat brain was compared with that of [3H]rolipram. The results indicated that [3H]piclamilast labels both the LARBS and the HARBS with high affinity. [3H]rolipram, by contrast, at the concentration range examined, bound only to the HARBS.

Studies have investigated the relationship between the biological effects of PDE4 inhibitors and their interaction with the HARBS and the LARBS (Souness et al., 1995, 1996; Barnette et al., 1996; Duplantier et al., 1996; Kelly et al., 1996; Souness et al., 1999). In most of these studies, inhibition of [3H]rolipram binding is used to evaluate affinity for the HARBS, while inhibition of PDE4 hydrolytic activity in a cell-free system is used to evaluate affinity for the LARBS. The LARBS is difficult to study using [3H]rolipram binding.

Jacobitz and colleagues (1996) used an equilibrium filtration technique to detect both low- and high-affinity rolipram binding; by using this method, the filter washing protocol is eliminated. Because the ligand/receptor complex is not diluted during the separation procedure, the equilibrium condition is maintained and the ligand bound to the low-affinity site does not dissociate. However, as a consequence, nonspecific binding in this assay is highly variable. Equilibrium dialysis is another method used to study the LARBS (Rocque et al., 1997). A true equilibrium binding constant can be measured by using this method. However, a high protein concentration is required to obtain an adequate signal-to-noise ratio.

Recombinant systems that express either high- or low-affinity conformations of PDE4 have been developed to evaluate inhibitors (Bardelle et al., 1999; Allen et al., 1999). PDE4A330, a PDE4A truncate, expressed in Chinese hamster ovary cells exhibits only the low-affinity conformation, while PDE4A4, 4B2, 4C2, and 4D3 all adopt a high-affinity binding conformation for rolipram. These systems can be used to screen and optimize inhibitors against the low-affinity conformation of PDE4.

Piclamilast is a selective and very potent PDE4 inhibitor (Karlsson et al., 1993; Ashton et al., 1994). In contrast to rolipram, piclamilast binds with high affinity to both the HARBS and the LARBS (Souness et al., 1995). Thus, [3H]piclamilast is a potential tool to study the LARBS and the HARBS. The association and dissociation of [3H]piclamilast were both fast and exhibited first-order kinetics, which is consistent with the saturation binding data. By contrast, the association of [3H]rolipram binding was better described by a two-component model; its dissociation, however, was adequately described by a one-site model. Previously, Schneider and coworkers (1986) reported that both the association and dissociation of rolipram binding are biphasic.

At the active site of PDE4 there are two divalent metal ions in a binuclear motif that are involved in both cAMP binding and catalysis (Laliberte et al., 2000; Xu et al., 2000). [3H]rolipram binding is Mg2+-dependent (Schneider et al., 1986). It has been suggested that the HARBS and the LARBS are the consequence of PDE4 binding to its metal cofactor, such as Mg2+(Laliberte et al., 2000). Mg2+, Mn2+, and Co2+ all stabilize high-affinity rolipram binding to the PDE4 holoenzyme. In the absence of the divalent cations, only low-affinity rolipram binding to the apoenzyme is detected (Liu et al., 2001). Furthermore, in vitro, protein kinase A phosphorylation of PDE4A4, which shifts the potencies of (R)/(S)-rolipram toward their holoenzyme binding affinities, activates the enzyme by increasing its sensitivity to the Mg2+ cofactor. Piclamilast exhibits equal affinity for the HARBS and the LARBS. However, in the present study, piclamilast binding to PDE4 was increased in the presence of Mg2+. Huang and coworkers (2000) also found that piclamilast binds preferentially to the holoenzyme. This suggests that Mg2+ dependence of inhibitor binding does not fully predict the nature of inhibitor interaction with the HARBS and the LARBS.

[3H]Piclamilast binding was saturable and reversible. The Bmax value for [3H]piclamilast was about 1.5-fold greater than that of [3H]rolipram. Jacobitz and coworkers (1997) reported that the Bmax value for [3H]piclamilast binding to human recombinant PDE4 was 2- to 3-fold greater than that for [3H]rolipram binding. These results likely reflect the fact that [3H]piclamilast binds to both the HARBS and the LARBS at nanomolar concentrations, while [3H]rolipram only binds to HARBS at these concentrations. The saturation curve for [3H]piclamilast binding, however, was consistent with a one-site model, suggesting that piclamilast binds to the two sites with similar affinity.

Schneider and the coworkers (1986) reported that the maximal [3H]rolipram binding to membranes was higher than that to the cytosolic preparations. In the present study, theBmax value for both [3H]piclamilast and [3H]rolipram binding to membranes tended to be higher than to the cytosolic fractions; however, these difference were not significant. The Kd values for [3H]piclamilast binding to whole homogenate, membrane, and cytosolic preparations were similar, while [3H]rolipram exhibited a lowerKd value for binding to the membrane fraction than to the cytosolic fraction or whole homogenate. Souness and coworkers (1992) reported that the binding of rolipram, but not piclamilast, to eosinophils is altered by solubilization or treatment with vanadate/glutathione. These results suggest that the affinity of rolipram binding, but not that of piclamilast, is sensitive to the conformational state of PDE4. The difference inKd values for [3H]rolipram binding to membrane and cytosolic fractions may be due in part to the differential expression pattern of PDE4 variants. For example, PDE4A1 is expressed solely in membrane fractions, while PDE4A5 is present in both membrane and cytosolic fractions (McPhee et al., 1995; Huston et al., 1996; Pooley et al., 1997). Slight differences in affinity for the differentially distributed variants could translate into a difference inKd values. In addition, association of PDE4 with membrane-associated proteins such as receptor for activated c-kinase (RACK) might result in a different rolipram affinity for membrane and cytosolic preparations containing PDE4 (Yarwood et al., 1999).

All the brain regions tested exhibited the HARBS, with the percentage varying from 47 to 66%. By contrast, the HARBS was not detected in peripheral tissues. The HARBS in rat brain was first demonstrated bySchneider and coworkers (1986). They reported that the peripheral organs tested showed either no detectable [3H]rolipram binding or a very low specific binding capacity. Although the nature of the HARBS is not yet clear, it has been suggested to be one of the two distinct conformations of PDE4 (Torphy et al., 1992; Souness and Scott, 1993). Consistent with this interpretation, the present results showed that the rolipram competition curve for [3H]piclamilast is biphasic, indicating [3H]piclamilast labels two sites on PDE4 that exhibit different affinities for rolipram. [3H]piclamilast showed the highest total binding in hippocampus. The binding also was high in hypothalamus, neostriatum, cerebellum, and amygdala. An autoradiographic study using [3H]rolipram binding revealed high binding densities for the HARBS in the cerebellum, olfactory bulb, frontal cortex, subiculum, and the CA1 region of the hippocampus (Kaulen et al., 1989).

For [3H]piclamilast binding, the competition curves for rolipram, desmethylpiclamilast, ICI 63,197, and Ro 20-1724 were better described by a two-site model, while the competition curves for piclamilast, cilomilast, roflumilast, and CDP 840 were adequately described by a one-site model. For those inhibitors that bound differentially to two states, there was approximately 100-fold greater affinity for the HARBS compared with the LARBS.Ki1 values, which represent binding to the HARBS, exhibited more variability compared withKi2 values, which represent binding to the LARBS. The competition curve for piclamilast was adequately described by a one-site model. This is consistent with the finding from saturation analyses that piclamilast binds to both sites with equal affinity. The potency order of PDE4 inhibitors tested in this study was in agreement with the potency orders of these inhibitors reported previously for inhibition of enzyme activity (Schneider et al., 1986;Souness et al., 1997, 1999; Saldou et al., 1998). The competition curves for [3H]rolipram binding all were adequately described by a one-site model, with a potency order that was the same as that for inhibition of [3H]piclamilast binding. The inhibition of [3H]piclamilast and [3H]rolipram binding by non-PDE4 inhibitors was less potent and showed no significant differences between the two radioligands. Consistent with their low binding affinities, these drugs also have been shown to be very poor inhibitors of PDE4 enzymatic activity (Schneider et al., 1986; Souness and Scott, 1993; Makhay et al., 2001).

The LARBS can be studied directly using [3H]piclamilast binding in the presence of 1 μM rolipram, which blocked >90% of the ligand binding to the HARBS. The remaining [3H]piclamilast binding was further inhibited by PDE4 inhibitors withKi values in the micromolar range and with competition curves consistent with a one-site model. TheseKi values were close to theKi2 values from the competition study carried out in the absence of 1 μM rolipram, which represent the binding affinity for the LARBS. These results indicate that while [3H]piclamilast binds to both the LARBS and the HARBS, inhibitor affinity for the LARBS can be evaluated using [3H]piclamilast in the presence of a proper concentration of rolipram.

In summary, it has been shown that [3H]piclamilast labels both the LARBS and the HARBS of PDE4 in rat brain with similar affinity. [3H]piclamilast binds only to the LARBS, when the HARBS is blocked with a low concentration of rolipram. All these properties should make [3H]piclamilast a useful tool to study the interaction of PDE4 inhibitors with the LARBS to assess the relationship between inhibitor interactions with this site and their pharmacological effects.

Previous SectionNext Section

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. David Edwards (GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals) for providing [3H]piclamilast and Dr. Allen Hopper (Memory Pharmaceuticals) for synthesizing desmethylpiclamilast.

Previous SectionNext Section

Footnotes

  • This work was supported by research grants and an Independent Scientist Award from the National Institute of Mental Health.

  • Meeting presentation: Characterization of the binding of [3H]-piclamilast to rat cerebral cortex, comparison with [3H]-rolipram; Gordon Research Conference on Cyclic Nucleotide Phosphodiesterases, South Hadley, Massachusetts, 2002.

  • DOI: 10.1124/jpet.102.47407

  • Abbreviations:
    PDE
    phosphodiesterase
    HARBS
    high-affinity rolipram binding site
    LARBS
    low-affinity rolipram binding site
    • Received December 3, 2002.
    • Accepted January 14, 2003.
Previous Section
 

References

  1. ↵
    1. Allen RA,
    2. Merriman MW,
    3. Perry MJ,
    4. Owens RJ
    (1999) Development of a recombinant cell-based system for the characterisation of phosphodiesterase 4 isoforms and evaluation of inhibitors. Biochem Pharmacol 57:1375–1382.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Ashton MJ,
    2. Cook DC,
    3. Fenton G,
    4. Karlsson JA,
    5. Palfreyman MN,
    6. Raeburn D,
    7. Ratcliffe AJ,
    8. Souness JE,
    9. Thurairatnam S,
    10. Vicker N
    (1994) Selective type IV phosphodiesterase inhibitors as antiasthmatic agents. The syntheses and biological activities of 3-(cyclopentyloxy)-4-methoxybenzamides and analogues. J Med Chem 37:1696–1703.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Bardelle C,
    2. Smales C,
    3. Ito M,
    4. Nomoto K,
    5. Wong EY,
    6. Kato H,
    7. Saeki T,
    8. Staddon JM
    (1999) Phosphodiesterase 4 conformers: preparation of recombinant enzymes and assay for inhibitors. Anal Biochem 275:148–155.
    CrossRefMedline
  4. ↵
    1. Barnette MS,
    2. Bartus JO,
    3. Burman M,
    4. Christensen SB,
    5. Cieslinski LB,
    6. Esser KM,
    7. Prabhakar US,
    8. Rush JA,
    9. Torphy TJ
    (1996) Association of the anti-inflammatory activity of phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors with either inhibition of PDE4 catalytic activity or competition for [3H]-rolipram binding. Biochem Pharmacol 51:949–956.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    1. Barnette MS,
    2. Grous M,
    3. Cieslinski LB,
    4. Burman M,
    5. Christensen SB,
    6. Torphy TJ
    (1995) Inhibitors of phosphodiesterase IV (PDE IV) increase acid secretion in rabbit isolated gastric glands: correlation between function and interaction with a high-affinity rolipram binding site. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 273:1396–1402.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Baures PW,
    2. Eggleston DS,
    3. Erhard KF,
    4. Cieslinski LB,
    5. Torphy TJ,
    6. Christensen SB
    (1993) The crystal structure, absolute configuration and phosphodiesterase inhibitory activity of (+)-1-(4-bromobenzyl)-4-(3-(cyclopentyloxy)- 4-methoxyphenyl)-pyrrolidin-2-one. J Med Chem 36:3274–3277.
    CrossRefMedline
  7. ↵
    1. Beavo JA
    (1995) Cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterases: functional implications of multiple isoforms. Physiol Rev 75:725–748.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Beavo JA,
    2. Conti M,
    3. Heaslip RJ
    (1994) Multiple cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterases. Mol Pharmacol 46:399–405.
    Abstract
  9. ↵
    1. Bolger GB
    (1994) Molecular biology of the cyclic AMP-specific cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterases: a diverse family of regulatory enzymes. Cell Signal 6:851–859.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Cheng Y,
    2. Prusoff WH
    (1973) Relationship between the inhibition constant (KI) and the concentration of inhibitor which causes 50% inhibition (I50) of an enzymatic reaction. Biochem Pharmacol 22:3099–3108.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. Conti M,
    2. Jin SL
    (1999) The molecular biology of cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterases. Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol 63:1–38.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  12. ↵
    1. Davis CW
    (1984) Assessment of selective inhibition of rat cerebral cortical calcium-independent and calcium-dependent phosphodiesterases in crude extracts using deoxycyclic AMP and potassium ions. Biochim Biophys Acta 797:354–362.
    Medline
  13. ↵
    1. Draper NR,
    2. Smith H
    (1966) Applied Regression Analysis (John Wiley & Sons, New York).
  14. ↵
    1. Duplantier AJ,
    2. Biggers MS,
    3. Chambers RJ,
    4. Cheng JB,
    5. Cooper K,
    6. Damon DB,
    7. Eggler JF,
    8. Kraus KG,
    9. Marfat A,
    10. Masamune H,
    11. et al.
    (1996) Biarylcarboxylic acids and amides: inhibition of phosphodiesterase type IV versus [3H]rolipram binding activity and their relationship to emetic behavior in the ferret. J Med Chem 39:120–125.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    1. Francis SH,
    2. Turko IV,
    3. Corbin JD
    (2001) Cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterases: relating structure and function. Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol 65:1–52.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Fredholm BB,
    2. Brodin K,
    3. Strandberg K
    (1979) On the mechanism of relaxation of tracheal muscle by theophylline and other cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterase inhibitors. Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenhagen) 45:336–344.
    Medline
  17. ↵
    1. Giembycz MA
    (1996) Phosphodiesterase 4 and tolerance to beta 2-adrenoceptor agonists in asthma. Trends Pharmacol Sci 17:331–336.
    CrossRefMedline
  18. ↵
    1. Harris AL,
    2. Connell MJ,
    3. Ferguson EW,
    4. Wallace AM,
    5. Gordon RJ,
    6. Pagani ED,
    7. Silver PJ
    (1989) Role of low Km cyclic AMP phosphodiesterase inhibition in tracheal relaxation and bronchodilation in the guinea pig. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 251:199–206.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Huston E,
    2. Pooley L,
    3. Julien P,
    4. Scotland G,
    5. McPhee I,
    6. Sullivan M,
    7. Bolger G,
    8. Houslay MD
    (1996) The human cyclic AMP-specific phosphodiesterase PDE-46 (HSPDE4A4B) expressed in transfected COS7 cells occurs as both particulate and cytosolic species that exhibit distinct kinetics of inhibition by the antidepressant rolipram. J Biol Chem 271:31334–31344.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Jacobitz S,
    2. McLaughlin MM,
    3. Livi GP,
    4. Burman M,
    5. Torphy TJ
    (1996) Mapping the functional domains of human recombinant phosphodiesterase 4A: structural requirements for catalytic activity and rolipram binding. Mol Pharmacol 50:891–899.
    Abstract
  21. ↵
    1. Jacobitz S,
    2. Ryan MD,
    3. McLaughlin MM,
    4. Livi GP,
    5. DeWolf WE, Jr,
    6. Torphy TJ
    (1997) Role of conserved histidines in catalytic activity and inhibitor binding of human recombinant phosphodiesterase 4A. Mol Pharmacol 51:999–1006.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Jolles G,
    2. Karlsson J-A,
    3. Taylor J
    1. Karlsson JA,
    2. Souness J,
    3. Raeburn D,
    4. Palfreyman M,
    5. Ashton M
    (1993) Anti-inflammatory effects of novel selective cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterase inhibitors. in T-Lymphocyte and Inflammatory Cell Research in Asthma, eds Jolles G, Karlsson J-A, Taylor J (Academic Press, London), pp 323–351.
  23. ↵
    1. Kaulen P,
    2. Bruning G,
    3. Schneider HH,
    4. Sarter M,
    5. Baumgarten HG
    (1989) Autoradiographic mapping of a selective cyclic adenosine monophosphate phosphodiesterase in rat brain with the antidepressant [3H]rolipram. Brain Res 503:229–245.
    CrossRefMedline
  24. ↵
    1. Kelly JJ,
    2. Barnes PJ,
    3. Giembycz MA
    (1996) Phosphodiesterase 4 in macrophages: relationship between cAMP accumulation, suppression of cAMP hydrolysis and inhibition of [3H]R-(−)-rolipram binding by selective inhibitors. Biochem J 318:425–436.
  25. ↵
    1. Laliberte F,
    2. Han Y,
    3. Govindarajan A,
    4. Giroux A,
    5. Liu S,
    6. Bobechko B,
    7. Lario P,
    8. Bartlett A,
    9. Gorseth E,
    10. Gresser M,
    11. et al.
    (2000) Conformational difference between PDE4 apoenzyme and holoenzyme. Biochemistry 39:6449–6458.
    CrossRefMedline
  26. ↵
    1. Liu S,
    2. Laliberte F,
    3. Bobechko B,
    4. Bartlett A,
    5. Lario P,
    6. Gorseth E,
    7. Van Hamme J,
    8. Gresser MJ,
    9. Huang Z
    (2001) Dissecting the cofactor-dependent and independent bindings of PDE4 inhibitors. Biochemistry 40:10179–10186.
    CrossRefMedline
  27. ↵
    1. Lugnier C,
    2. Stierle A,
    3. Beretz A,
    4. Schoeffter P,
    5. Lebec A,
    6. Wermuth CG,
    7. Cazenave JP,
    8. Stoclet JC
    (1983) Tissue and substrate specificity of inhibition by alkoxy-aryl-lactams of platelet and arterial smooth muscle cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterases relationship to pharmacological activity. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 113:954–959.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    1. Makhay MM,
    2. Houslay MD,
    3. O'Donnell JM
    (2001) Discriminative stimulus effects of the type-4 phosphodiesterase inhibitor rolipram in rats. Psychopharmacology 158:297–304.
    CrossRefMedline
  29. ↵
    1. McPhee I,
    2. Pooley L,
    3. Lobban M,
    4. Bolger G,
    5. Houslay MD
    (1995) Identification, characterization and regional distribution in brain of RPDE-6 (RNPDE4A5), a novel splice variant of the PDE4A cyclic AMP phosphodiesterase family. Biochem J 310:965–974.
  30. ↵
    1. Manganiello VC,
    2. Murata T,
    3. Taira M,
    4. Belfrage P,
    5. Degerman E
    (1995) Diversity in cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterase isoenzyme families. Arch Biochem Biophys 322:1–13.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    1. O'Donnell JM
    (1993) Antidepressant-like effects of rolipram and other inhibitors of cyclic adenosine monophosphate phosphodiesterase on behavior maintained by differential reinforcement of low response rate. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 264:1168–1178.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. O'Donnell JM,
    2. Frith S
    (1999) Behavioral effects of family-selective inhibitors of cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterases. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 63:185–192.
    CrossRefMedline
  33. ↵
    1. O'Donnell JM,
    2. Wolfe BB,
    3. Frazer A
    (1984) Agonist interactions with beta adrenergic receptors in rat brain. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 228:640–647.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Pooley L,
    2. Shakur Y,
    3. Rena G,
    4. Houslay MD
    (1997) Intracellular localization of the PDE4A cAMP-specific phosphodiesterase splice variant RD1 (RNPDE4A1A) in stably transfected human thyroid carcinoma FTC cell lines. Biochem J 321:177–185.
  35. ↵
    1. Rocque WJ,
    2. Tian G,
    3. Wiseman JS,
    4. Holmes WD,
    5. Zajac-Thompson I,
    6. Willard DH,
    7. Patel IR,
    8. Wisely GB,
    9. Clay WC,
    10. Kadwell SH,
    11. et al.
    (1997) Human recombinant phosphodiesterase 4B2B binds (R)-rolipram at a single site with two affinities. Biochemistry 36:14250–14261.
    CrossRefMedline
  36. ↵
    1. Ruckstuhl M,
    2. Landry Y
    (1981) Inhibition of lung cyclic AMP- and cyclic GMP-phosphodiesterases by flavonoids and other chromone-like compounds. Biochem Pharmacol 30:697–702.
    CrossRefMedline
  37. ↵
    1. Saldou N,
    2. Obernolte R,
    3. Huber A,
    4. Baecker PA,
    5. Wilhelm R,
    6. Alvarez R,
    7. Li B,
    8. Xia L,
    9. Callan O,
    10. Su C,
    11. et al.
    (1998) Comparison of recombinant human PDE4 isoforms: interaction with substrate and inhibitors. Cell Signal 10:427–440.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  38. ↵
    1. Schneider HH,
    2. Schmiechen R,
    3. Brezinski M,
    4. Seidler J
    (1986) Stereospecific binding of the antidepressant rolipram to brain protein structures. Eur J Pharmacol 127:105–115.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  39. ↵
    1. Schwabe U,
    2. Miyake M,
    3. Ohga Y,
    4. Daly JW
    (1976) 4-(3-Cyclopentyloxy-4-methoxyphenyl)-2-pyrrolidone (ZK 62711): a potent inhibitor of adenosine cyclic 3′, 5′-monophosphate phosphodiesterases in homogenates and tissue slices from rat brain. Mol Pharmacol 12:900–910.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Soderling SH,
    2. Beavo JA
    (2000) Regulation of cAMP and cGMP signaling: new phosphodiesterases and new functions. Curr Opin Cell Biol 12:174–179.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  41. ↵
    1. Souness JE,
    2. Griffin M,
    3. Maslen C,
    4. Ebsworth K,
    5. Scott LC,
    6. Pollock K,
    7. Palfreyman MN,
    8. Karlsson JA
    (1996) Evidence that cyclic AMP phosphodiesterase inhibitors suppress TNF alpha generation from human monocytes by interacting with a “low-affinity” phosphodiesterase 4 conformer. Br J Pharmacol 118:649–658.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  42. ↵
    1. Souness JE,
    2. Houghton C,
    3. Sardar N,
    4. Withnall MT
    (1997) Evidence that cyclic AMP phosphodiesterase inhibitors suppress interleukin-2 release from murine splenocytes by interacting with a “low-affinity” phosphodiesterase 4 conformer. Br J Pharmacol 121:743–750.
    CrossRefMedline
  43. ↵
    1. Souness JE,
    2. Houghton C,
    3. Sardar N,
    4. Withnall MT
    (1999) Suppression of anti-CD3-induced interleukin-4 and interleukin-5 release from splenocytes of Mesocestoides corti-infected BALB/c mice by phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors. Biochem Pharmacol 58:991–999.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  44. ↵
    1. Souness JE,
    2. Maslen C,
    3. Scott LC
    (1992) Effects of solubilization and vanadate/glutathione complex on inhibitor potencies against eosinophil cyclic AMP-specific phosphodiesterase. FEBS Lett 302:181–184.
    CrossRefMedline
  45. ↵
    1. Souness JE,
    2. Maslen C,
    3. Webber S,
    4. Foster M,
    5. Raeburn D,
    6. Palfreyman MN,
    7. Ashton MJ,
    8. Karlsson JA
    (1995) Suppression of eosinophil function by RP 73401, a potent and selective inhibitor of cyclic AMP-specific phosphodiesterase: comparison with rolipram. Br J Pharmacol 115:39–46.
    Medline
  46. ↵
    1. Souness JE,
    2. Scott LC
    (1993) Stereospecificity of rolipram actions on eosinophil cyclic AMP-specific phosphodiesterase. Biochem J 291:389–395.
  47. ↵
    1. Torphy TJ,
    2. Stadel JM,
    3. Burman M,
    4. Cieslinski LB,
    5. McLaughlin MM,
    6. White JR,
    7. Livi GP
    (1992) Coexpression of human cAMP-specific phosphodiesterase activity and high affinity rolipram binding in yeast. J Biol Chem 267:1798–1804.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    1. Torphy TJ,
    2. Undem BJ
    (1991) Phosphodiesterase inhibitors: new opportunities for the treatment of asthma. Thorax 46:512–523.
    FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    1. Xu RX,
    2. Hassell AM,
    3. Vanderwall D,
    4. Lambert MH,
    5. Holmes WD,
    6. Luther MA,
    7. Rocque WJ,
    8. Milburn MV,
    9. Zhao Y,
    10. Ke H,
    11. et al.
    (2000) Atomic structure of PDE4: insights into phosphodiesterase mechanism and specificity. Science (Wash DC) 288:1822–1825.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Yarwood SJ,
    2. Steele MR,
    3. Scotland G,
    4. Houslay MD,
    5. Bolger GB
    (1999) The RACK1 signaling scaffold protein selectively interacts with the cAMP-specific phosphodiesterase PDE4D5 isoform. J Biol Chem 274:14909–14917.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
« Previous | Next Article »Table of Contents

This Article

  1. Published online before print January 24, 2003, doi: 10.1124/jpet.102.047407 JPET May 1, 2003 vol. 305 no. 2 565-572
  1. AbstractFree
  2. » Full Text
  3. Full Text (PDF)
  4. A correction has been published
  5. All Versions of this Article:
    1. jpet.102.047407v1
    2. 305/2/565 most recent

Classifications

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Navigate This Article

Current Issue

  1. November 2009, 331 (2)
  1. Current Issue
  1. Alert me to new issues of JPET