Key Points
-
Historically, efficacy was defined as the property of a molecule that produced receptor activation and a subsequent physiological tissue response.
-
New technologies have revealed that receptor proteins have a wide range of behaviours, and that some ligands can influence these behaviours without inducing a physiological response.
-
Whereas current thermodynamic models link efficacy with G-protein activation, a more flexible model based on the idea that proteins adopt numerous conformations, and that some of these have physiological significance, uniformly describes how ligands can have a number of 'efficacies'.
-
In terms of this model, ligand binding produces a different set of conformations, and, as some of these produce receptor effects, they determine the various efficacies of that molecule.
-
The model is heuristic and useful as a conceptual tool, but cannot fit data due to the large number of parameters that cannot be estimated independently.
-
Examples are given of ligands that do not produce physiological G-protein mediated response, but do cause receptor phosphorylation, dimerization and internalization.
-
In view of the relationship between efficacy and affinity, these ideas suggest that molecules that have affinity for receptors but do not produce overt physiological response should be studied for other receptor-related activities that might be useful therapeutically.
Abstract
At present, the drug-discovery process centres on ligands that either block or produce physiological responses. However, there are therapeutic uses for ligands that do neither of these things, but which still affect receptors in other ways. This review discusses the intimate relationship between the affinity of a ligand for its receptor, and the probability that the binding of the ligand will produce some change in the receptor, resulting in efficacy. This, in turn, argues that ligands that have affinity should be tested more broadly, for a wider range of efficacies, to detect hidden therapeutic activities.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Waud, D. R. Pharmacological receptors. Pharmacol. Rev. 20, 49–88 (1968).
Colquhoun, D. Binding, gating, affinity and efficacy: the interpretation of structure–activity relationships for agonists and of the effects of mutating receptors. Br. J. Pharmacol. 125, 924–947 (1998).
Kenakin, T. P. & Ross, E. in Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics 10th edn Ch. 2 (eds Hardman, J. G. & Limbird, L. E.) 31–45 (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2001).
Kenakin, T. P. Efficacy in drug receptor theory: outdated concept or under-valued tool? Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 20, 400–405 (1999).
Onaran, H. O. & Costa, T. Agonist efficacy and allosteric models of receptor action. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 812, 98–115 (1997).
Onaran, H. O., Scheer, A., Cotecchia, S. & Costa, T. in The Pharmacology of Functional, Biochemical, and Recombinant Systems Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology Vol. 148 (eds Kenakin, T. P. & Angus, J. A.) 217–280 (Springer, Heidelberg, 2000).References 5 and 6 outline a new approach to viewing receptor activation as being a process of probability of stabilization of receptor conformations for the expression of biological activity.
Ariens, E. J. Affinity and intrinsic activity in the theory of competitive inhibition. Part I. Problems and theory. Arch. Int. Pharmacodyn. Ther. 99, 32–49 (1954).The first paper to discuss the property of some molecules to induce response as an intrinsic property of the drug–receptor pair and, also, the first to attempt to quantify this property.
Kenakin, T. P. Prenalterol as a selective cardiostimulant: differences between organ and receptor selectivity. J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacol. 7, 208–210 (1985).
Stephenson, R. P. A modification of receptor theory. Br. J. Pharmacol. 11, 379–393 (1956).Following reference 7 , this work extended the concept of efficacy as being a drug–receptor property. It also introduced the important concept of the non-linear relationships between receptor occupancy, stimulus and response.
Furchgott, R. F. in Advances in Drug Research Vol. 3. (eds Harper, N. J. & Simmonds, A. B.) 21–55 (Academic, London/New York, 1966).This paper described the quantization of efficacy into 'intrinsic efficacy', namely the unit stimulus given to a single receptor by an agonist. This concept enabled comparison of stimuli using receptor systems containing different receptor densities on the cell surface.
Wyman, J. The binding potential, a neglected linkage concept. J. Mol. Biol. 11, 631–667 (1965).
Wyman, J. Allosteric linkage. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 89, 2202–2232 (1967).An important treatise on linkage-theory analysis of the reciprocal allosteric interaction of ligands and proteins.
Weber, G. Ligand binding and internal equilibria in proteins. Biochemistry 11, 864–878 (1972).
Weber, G. Energetics of ligand binding to proteins. Adv. Protein Chem. 29, 1–83 (1975).
Rodbell, M. The role of hormone receptors and GTP-regulatory proteins in membrane transduction. Nature 284, 17–22 (1980).
Gilman, A. G. G-proteins: transducers of G-protein generated signals. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 56, 615–645 (1987).
Bourne, H. R. How receptors talk to trimeric G-proteins. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 9, 134–142 (1997).
Chen, W.-J. et al. Expression cloning and receptor pharmacology of human calcitonin receptors from MCF-7 cells and their relationship to amylin receptors. Mol. Pharmacol. 52, 1164–1175 (1997).
Kenakin, T. Differences between natural and recombinant G protein-coupled receptor systems with varying receptor/G protein stoichiometry. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 18, 456–464 (1997).
Watson, C. et al. The use of stimulus-biased assay systems to detect agonist-specific receptor active states: implications for the trafficking of receptor stimulus by agonists. Mol. Pharmacol. 58, 1230–1238 (2000).
Clarke, W. P. & Bond, R. A. The elusive nature of intrinsic efficacy. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 19, 271–277 (1998).
Frauenfelder, H., Parak, F. & Young, R. D. Conformational substrates in proteins. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biophys. Chem. 17, 451–479 (1988).
Frauenfelder, H., Sligar, S. G. & Wolynes, P. G. The energy landscapes and motions of proteins. Science 254, 1598–1603 (1991).
Hvidt, A. & Nielsen, S. Hydrogen exchange in proteins. Adv. Protein Chem. 21, 287–386 (1966).
Woodward, C. Is the slow-exchange core the protein folding core? Trends Biol. Sci. 18, 359–360 (1993).
Woodward, C., Simon, I. & Tuchsen, E. Hydrogen exchange and the dynamic structure of proteins. Mol. Cell. Biochem. 48, 135–160 (1982).
Hilser, V. J. & Freire, E. Structure-based calculation of the equilibrium folding pathway of proteins: correlation with hydrogen exchange protection factors. J. Mol. Biol. 262, 756–772 (1996).
Hilser, V. J. & Freire, E. Predicting the equilibrium protein folding pathway: structure-based analysis of staphylococcal nuclease. Protein Struct. Funct. Genet. 27, 171–183 (1997).
Hilser, V. J., Dowdy, D., Oas, T. G. & Freire, E. The structural distribution of cooperative interactions in proteins: analysis of the native state ensemble. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 9903–9908 (1998).
Bai, Y., Sosnick, T. R., Mayne, L. & Englander, S. W. Protein folding intermediates: native-state hydrogen exchange. Science 269, 192–197 (1995).
Milne, J. S., Mayne, L., Roder, H., Wand, A. J. & Englander, S. W. Determinants of protein hydrogen exchange studied in equine cytochrome c. Protein Sci. 7, 739–745 (1998).
Milne, J. S., Xu, Y., Mayne, L. C. & Englander, S. W. Experimental study of the protein folding landscape: unfolding reactions in cytochrome c. J. Mol. Biol. 290, 811–822 (1999).
Ikezu, T., Okamoto, T., Ogata, E. & Nishimoto, I. Amino acids 356–372 constitute a Gi-activator sequence of the α2-adrenergic receptor and have a Phe substitute in the G-protein-activator sequence motif. FEBS Lett. 31, 29–32 (1992).
Eason, M. G. & Liggett, S. B. Identification of a Gs coupling domain in the amino terminus of the third intracellular loop of the α2A-adrenergic receptor. Evidence for distinct structural determinants that confer Gs versus Gi coupling. J. Biol. Chem. 270, 24753–24760 (1995).
Nasman, J., Jansson, C. C. & Akerman, K. E. The second intracellular loop of the α2-adrenergic receptor determines subtype-specific coupling to cAMP production. J. Biol. Chem. 272, 9703–9708 (1997).
Burt, A. R. et al. Agonist occupation of an α2A-adrenoceptor–Gi1α fusion protein results in activation of both receptor-linked and endogenous Gi-proteins. Comparisons of their contributions to GTPase activity and signal transduction and analysis of receptor G-protein activation stoichiometry. J. Biol. Chem. 273, 10367–10375 (1998).
Wade, S. M. et al. Gi activator region of α2A-adrenergic receptors: distinct basic residues mediate Gi versus Gs activation. Mol. Pharmacol. 56, 1005–1013 (1999).
McLatchie, L. M. et al. RAMPs regulate the transport and ligand specificity of the calcitonin-receptor-like receptor. Nature 393, 333–339 (1998).This paper is one of the first to describe accessory proteins that completely change receptor phenotypes by physical association.
Foord, S. M. & Marshall, F. H. RAMPS: Accessory proteins for seven transmembrane domain receptors. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 20, 184–187 (1999).
Armour, S. L., Foord, S., Kenakin, T. & Chen, W.-J. Pharmacological characterization of receptor-activity-modifying proteins (RAMPs) and the human calcitonin receptor. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 42, 217–224 (1999).
Sato, M. et al. Factors determining specificity of signal transduction by G-protein coupled receptors. J. Biol. Chem. 270, 15269–15276 (1993).
Nanoff, C., Mitteraurer, T., Roka, F., Hohenegger, M. & Friessmuth, M. Species differences in A1 adenosine/G-protein coupling: identification of a membrane protein that stabilizes the association of the receptor/G-protein complex. Mol. Pharmacol. 48, 806–817 (1995).
Hall, R. A. et al. The β2-adrenergic receptor interacts with the Na+/H+-exchanger regulatory factor to control Na+/H+ exchange. Nature 392, 626–630 (1998).
Ullmer, C., Schmuck, K., Figge, A. & Lubbert, H. Cloning and characterization of MUPP1, a novel PDZ domain protein. FEBS Lett. 424, 63–68 (1998).
Hall, R. A., Premont, R. T. & Lefkowitz, R. J. Heptahelical receptor signaling: beyond the G-protein paradigm. J. Cell Biol. 145, 927–932 (1999).
Abdalla, S., Lother, H. & Quitterer, U. AT1-receptor heterodimers show enhanced G-protein activation and altered receptor sequestration. Nature 407, 94–98 (2000).
Rocheville, M. et al. Receptors for dopamine and somatostatin: formation of hetero-oligomers with enhanced functional activity. Science 288, 154–157 (2000).
Smith, M. W. et al. Contrasting genetic influence of CCR2 and CCR5 variants on HIV-1 infection and disease progression. Hemophilia Growth and Development Study (HGDS), Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS), Multicenter Hemophilia Cohort Study (MHCS), San Francisco City Cohort (SFCC), ALIVE Study. Science 277, 959–965 (1997).
Costa, T. & Herz, A. Antagonists with negative intrinsic activity at δ-opioid receptors coupled to GTP-binding proteins. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 86, 7321–7325 (1989).The first clear demonstration of constitutive activity for GPCRs that was not due to residual agonist in the medium. This work necessitated the complete revision of the ternary complex model.
Katz, B. & Thesleff, S. A study of the 'desensitization' produced by acetylcholine at the motor end plate. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 138, 63–80 (1957).
Del Castillo, J. & Katz, B. Interaction at end-plate receptors between different choline derivatives. Proc. R. Soc. London B 146, 369–381 (1957).
Colquhoun, D. Imprecision in presentation of binding studies. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 6, 197 (1985).
Karlin, A. On the application of 'a plausible model' of allosteric proteins to the receptor for acetylcholine. J. Theoret. Biol. 16, 306–320 (1967).
Thron, C. D. On the analysis of pharmacological experiments in terms of an allosteric receptor model. Mol. Pharmacol. 9, 1–9 (1973).
Leff, P. The two-state model of receptor activation. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 16, 89–97 (1995).
Gether, U., Lin, S. & Kobilka, B. K. Fluorescent labeling of purified β2-adrenergic receptor: evidence for ligand specific conformational changes. J. Biol. Chem. 270, 28268–28275 (1995).
Bohm, S. K., Grady, E. F. & Bunnett, N. W. Regulatory mechanisms that modulate signaling by G-protein-coupled receptors. Biochem. J. 322, 1–18 (1997).
Koenig, J. A. & Edwardson, J. M. Endocytosis and recycling of G-protein-coupled receptors. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 18, 276–287 (1997).
Riccobene, T. A., Omann, G. M. & Linderman, J. J. Modeling activation and desensitization of G-protein coupled receptors provides insight into ligand efficacy. J. Theor. Biol. 200, 207–222 (1999).
Remmers, A. E., Clark, M. J., Ynag, X. & Medzihradsky, F. δ-opioid receptor down-regulation is independent of functional G-protein yet is dependent on agonist efficacy. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 287, 625–632 (1998).
Zaki, P. A. et al. Agonist-, antagonist- and inverse agonist-regulated trafficking of the δ-opioid receptor correlates with, but does not require, G-protein activation. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 298, 1015–1020 (2001).
Roettger, B. F. et al. Antagonist-stimulated internalization of the G protein-coupled cholecystokinin receptor. Mol. Pharmacol. 51, 357–366 (1997).
Alkhatib, G. et al. A RANTES, MIP-1α, MIP-1β receptor as a fusion co-factor for macrophage-tropic HIV-1. Science 272, 1955–1958 (1996).
Cocchi, F., DeVico, A. L., Garzino-Demo, A., Cara, R. C. & Lusso, P. The V3 domain of the HIV gp120 envelope glycoprotein is critical for chemokine-mediated blockade of infection. Nature Med. 2, 1244–1247 (1996).
Simmons, G. et al. Potential inhibition of HIV-1 infectivity in macrophages and lymphocytes by a novel CCR5 antagonist. Science 276, 276–279 (1997).
Amara, A. et al. HIV co-receptor down-regulation as an antiviral principle: SDF-1 α-dependent internalization of the chemokine receptor CXCR4 contributes to inhibition of HIV replication. J. Exp. Med. 186, 139–146 (1997).
Mack, M. et al. Aminooxypentane–RANTES induces CCR5 internalization but inhibits recycling: a novel inhibitory mechanism of HIV infectivity. J. Exp. Med. 187, 1215–2438 (1998).
Rodriguez-Frade, J. M. et al. Similarities and differences in RANTES- and (AOP)-RANTES-triggered signals: implications for chemotaxis. J. Cell Biol. 144, 755–765 (1999).
Thomas, W. G., Quian, H., Chang, C.-S. & Karnik, S. Agonist-induced phosphorylation of the angiotensin II (AT1A) receptor requires generation of a conformation that is distinct from the inositol phosphate-signaling state. J. Biol. Chem. 275, 2893–2900 (2000).
Chakrabarti, S., Law, P. Y. & Loh, H. H. Distinct differences between morphine- and [δ-Ala2,N-MePhe4,Gly-ol5]enkephalin-μ-opioid complexes demonstrated by cyclic independent protein kinase phosphorylation. J. Neurochem. 71, 231–239 (1998).
Yu, Y. et al. μ-Opioid receptor phosphorylation, desensitization, and ligand efficacy. J. Biol. Chem. 272, 28869–28874 (1997).
Blake, A. D., Bot, G., Freeman, J. C. & Reisine, T. Differential opioid agonist regulation of the mouse μ-opioid receptor. J. Biol. Chem. 272, 782–790 (1997).
Keith, D. E. et al. Morphine activates opioid receptors without causing their rapid internalization. J. Biol. Chem. 271, 19021–19249 (1996).
Morisset, S. et al. High constitutive activity of native H3 receptors regulates histamine neurons in brain. Nature 408, 860–864 (2000).
Kenakin, T. P. Drug efficacy at G-protein coupled receptors. FASEB J. 15, 598–611 (2001).
Morris, B. J. & Millan, M. J. Inability of an opioid antagonist lacking negative intrinsic activity to induce opioid receptor up-regulation in vivo. Br. J. Pharmacol. 102, 883–886 (1991).
Smit, M. J. et al. Inverse agonism of histamine H2 antagonists accounts for up-regulation of spontaneously active histamine H2 receptors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 6802–6807 (1996).
MacEwan, D. J. & Milligan, G. Inverse agonist-induced up-regulation of the human β2-adrenoceptor in transfected neuroblastoma X glioma hybrid cells. Mol. Pharmacol. 50, 1479–1486 (1996).
Milligan, G. & Bond, R. A. Inverse agonism and the regulation of receptor number. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 18, 468–474 (1997).
Berg, K. A., Stout, B. D., Cropper, J. D., Maayani, S. & Clarke, W. P. Novel actions of inverse agonists on 5-HT2C receptor systems. Mol. Pharmacol. 55, 863–872 (1999).
Nagaraja, S., Iyer, S., Liu, X., Eichberg, J. & Bond, R. A. Treatment with inverse agonists enhances baseline atrial contractility in transgenic mice with chronic β2-adrenoceptor activation. Br. J. Pharmacol. 127, 1099–1104 (1999).
Chen, G. et al. Use of constitutive G protein-coupled receptor activity for drug discovery. Mol. Pharmacol. 57, 125–134 (1999).
Chen, G. et al. Constitutive receptor systems for drug discovery. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 42, 199–206 (1999).
Jayawickreme, C. K., Graminski, G. F., Quillan, J. M. & Lerner, M. R. Creation and functional screening of a multi-use peptide library. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 91, 1614–1618 (1994).
Jayawickreme, C. K., Graminski, G. F., Quillan, J. M. & Lerner, M. R. Discovery and structure–function analysis of α-melanocyte-stimulating hormone antagonists. J. Biol. Chem. 269, 29846–29854 (1994).
Lerner, M. R. Tools for investigating functional interactions between ligands and G-protein-coupled receptors. Trends Neurosci. 17, 142–146 (1994).
Chen, W.-J. et al. Recombinant human CXC-chemokine receptor-4 in melanophores are linked to Gi protein: seven transmembrane coreceptors for human immunodeficiency virus entry into cells. Mol. Pharmacol. 53, 177–181 (1998).
Kenakin, T. P. in Biomedical Applications of Computer Modeling (ed. Christopoulos, A.) 1–20 (CRC Press, Florida, 2000).
Samama, P., Cotecchia, S., Costa, T. & Lefkowitz, R. J. A mutation-induced activated state of the β2-adrenergic receptor: extending the ternary complex model. J. Biol. Chem. 268, 4625–4636 (1993).This paper discusses the intrinsic property of receptors to form an active state in the absence of ligand, and so is the first to introduce the extended ternary complex model for GPCRs.
Weiss, J. M., Morgan, P. H., Lutz, M. W. & Kenakin, T. P. The cubic ternary complex receptor-occupancy model. I. Model description. J. Theor. Biol. 178, 151–167 (1996).
Weiss, J. M., Morgan, P. H., Lutz, M. W. & Kenakin, T. P. The cubic ternary complex receptor-occupancy model. II. Understanding apparent affinity. J. Theor. Biol. 178, 169–182 (1996).
Weiss, J. M., Morgan, P. H., Lutz, M. W. & Kenakin, T. P. The cubic ternary complex receptor-occupancy model. III. Resurrecting efficacy. J. Theor. Biol. 181, 381–397 (1996).References 90–92 describe a more thermodynamically complete (but more complex) version of the extended ternary complex model. It allows non-activated receptors to interact with G proteins to produce non-signalling species.
Freire, E. Can allosteric regulation be predicted from structure? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 11680–11682 (2000).
Acknowledgements
T.K. would like to thank O. Onaran, University of Ankara, Turkey, for insightful discussions on mechanisms of efficacy.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Related links
Related links
DATABASES
FURTHER INFORMATION
Glossary
- LINKAGE THEORY
-
Based on the first law of thermodynamics, linkage theory creates models of protein species that are connected, and which can interconvert either spontaneously or through interaction with other species, such as ligands and G proteins. The interconversion pathways between any species are of equal energy, so none are preferred.
- PLEIOTROPIC RECEPTOR
-
A receptor that couples to more than one G protein. An example is the human calcitonin receptor, which couples to Gi, Gs and Gq proteins.
- PLEIOTROPIC COUPLING
-
Literally meaning 'having mulitple phenotypic expressions', in this case, pleiotropic coupling refers to the ability of some receptors to activate more than one G protein and therefore stimulate multiple response pathways in cells.
- ENSEMBLE THEORY
-
This usage refers to the study of proteins as collections of microconformations, some being energetically preferred over others. The interaction of these collections of conformations with ligands causes them to redistribute the relative conformations into a new ensemble.
- PDZ DOMAIN
-
(PSD-95, Dlg and ZO-1/2). Protein–protein interaction domain that binds to carboxy-terminal polypeptides in particular.
- SH2 DOMAIN
-
(Src-homology domain 2). A protein motif that recognizes and binds tyrosine-phosphorylated sequences, and thereby has a key role in relaying cascades of signal transduction.
- SH3 DOMAIN
-
(Src-homology domain 3.) A protein sequence of ∼50 amino acids that recognizes and binds sequences that are rich in proline.
- MACRO-AFFINITY
-
Although some ligands will bind preferentially to some receptor conformations over others, the weighted average affinity that a ligand has for a receptor ensemble is known as the 'macro-affinity' of the ligand for the receptor. It is the concentration of ligand that is bound to 50% of the receptors at any one instant.
- TACHYPHYLLAXIS
-
The reduction in response during repeated receptor stimulation by an agonist; usually ascribed to the production of a desensitized state of the receptor.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kenakin, T. Efficacy at g-protein-coupled receptors. Nat Rev Drug Discov 1, 103–110 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd722
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd722
This article is cited by
-
Vibrational spectroscopy analysis of ligand efficacy in human M2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor (M2R)
Communications Biology (2021)
-
Functional approaches to the study of G-protein-coupled receptors in postmortem brain tissue: [35S]GTPγS binding assays combined with immunoprecipitation
Pharmacological Reports (2021)
-
Targeting the endocannabinoid system: a predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine-directed approach to the management of brain pathologies
EPMA Journal (2020)
-
Targeting G protein-coupled receptor signaling at the G protein level with a selective nanobody inhibitor
Nature Communications (2018)
-
G protein stoichiometry dictates biased agonism through distinct receptor-G protein partitioning
Scientific Reports (2017)