Functional Selectivity of Natural and Synthetic Prostaglandin EP4 Receptor Ligands

  1. Martin Leduc,
  2. Billy Breton,
  3. Céline Galés1,
  4. Christian Le Gouill,
  5. Michel Bouvier,
  6. Sylvain Chemtob and
  7. Nikolaus Heveker
  1. Department of Biochemistry, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada (M.L., B.B., C.G., C.L.G., M.B., N.H.); Research Center/CHU Sainte-Justine, Montréal, Québec, Canada (M.L., S.C., N.H.); and Department of Pharmacology, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada (S.C.)
  1. Address correspondence to:
    Dr. Nikolaus Heveker, Centre de Recherche, 6737 CHU Sainte-Justine, 3175 Chemin de la Côte Sainte-Catherine, Montréal, QC H3T 1C5, Canada. E-mail: nikolaus.heveker{at}recherche-ste-justine.qc.ca

Abstract

Classically, the prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) receptor EP4 has been classified as coupling to the Gαs subunit, leading to intracellular cAMP increases. However, EP4 signaling has been revealed to be more complex and also involves coupling to pertussis toxin-sensitive Gαi proteins and β-arrestin-mediated effects. There are now many examples of selective activation of independent pathways by G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) ligands, a concept referred to as functional selectivity. Because most EP4 ligands had thus far only been functionally characterized by their ability to stimulate cAMP production, we systematically determined the potencies and efficacies of a panel of EP4 ligands for activation of Gαs, Gαi, and β-arrestin relative to the endogenous ligand PGE2. For this purpose, we adapted three bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) assays to evaluate the respective pathways in living cells. Our results suggest considerable functional selectivity among the tested, structurally related agonists. PGE2 was the most selective in activating Gαs, whereas PGF and PGE1 alcohol were the most biased for activating Gαi1 and β-arrestin, respectively. We observed reversal in order of potencies between β-arrestin 2 and Gαi1 functional assays comparing PGE1 alcohol and either PGF, PGD2, or 7-[(1R,2R)-2-[(E,3R)-3-hydroxy-4-(phenoxy)but-1-enyl]-5-oxocyclopentyl]heptanoic acid (M&B28767). Most ligands were full agonists for the three pathways tested. Our results have implications for the use of PGE2 analogs in experimental and possibly clinical settings, because their activity spectra on EP4 differ from that of the native agonist. The BRET-based methodology used for this first systematic assessment of a set of EP4 agonists should be applicable for the study of other GPCRs.

Footnotes

  • Graphic The online version of this article (available at http://jpet.aspetjournals.org) contains supplemental material.

  • This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research [Grant CTP-79848].

  • M.L. was supported by studentships from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and Fondation de l’Hôpital Sainte-Justine.

  • S.C. and M.B. hold Canada Research Chairs in Perinatology and in Signal Transduction and Molecular Pharmacology, respectively.

  • N.H. is a Canadian Institutes of Health Research New Investigator.

  • M.L., B.B., C.L.G., M.B., S.C., and N.H. are members of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Team in GPCR Allosteric Regulation.

  • Article, publication date, and citation information can be found at http://jpet.aspetjournals.org.

  • ABBREVIATIONS:

  • 1 Current affiliation: Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Toulouse, France.

    • Received May 19, 2009.
    • Accepted July 6, 2009.
« Previous | Next Article »Table of Contents