communication in theorganism fileantagonist effect competitive antagonist • competes with the...

51
Release of Signal Binding of Ligand to Receptor Signal Transduction and Amplification Cellular Response Response of Organ and Organism Communication in the Organism

Upload: tranliem

Post on 20-Aug-2019

221 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

• Release of Signal

• Binding of Ligand toReceptor

• Signal Transductionand Amplification

• Cellular Response

• Response of Organ and Organism

Communication in the Organism

Page 2: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

Principles in intercellular communication:Release of Signals

GAP-Junction Receptor mediated

Secreted molecules Membrane boundligand

Hormone

granulocytes/endothel. cells via selectineT-cell receptor/MHC complex

autocrineparacrineendocrineEicosanoideNeurotrans-mitter, NO

Interleukine

A B

Page 3: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

3

Model ofGap-Junction:

6 TM-Proteins/cellform Connexon

GAP-Junctions

Page 4: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

4

Cell‐Cell Contact

Page 5: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

5

Principles in intercellular communication

Endocrine pathway

Cell of Gland

Hormone receptor

Targetcell

HormoneBlood stream

Page 6: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

paracrine

autocrine

Principles in intercellular communication

…synapse

Page 7: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

Receptor Binding

7

Describes how and where the ligand interacts with the receptor!

Page 8: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

8

Signal Transduction

Page 9: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

Affinity and Activity

[c4,C7] Chem9 derivates

-12 -10 -8 -6

0

50

100

150

Chemerin-9

cp5 cp7

cp2log c [M], peptide

Res

pons

e [%

]concentration/response

versusdose/response

Page 10: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

• Frequently no linear correlation: semilogarithmic scale

• Effect correlates with occupied receptors, but frequently more, because of second messenger: maximal effect achieved before all receptors are occupied.

Dose/Concentration-Response Curves

Page 11: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

11

Emax

Emax2

EC50

Efficacy = Maximal effect, correlates with intrinisic activity

EC50 = concentration of half maximal activity

EC80, EC20 = concentration with 80% or 20 % max. effectPotency = pEC50 = negative Log of molar EC50-concentration

Intrinsic Activity = Efficacy

Definition

Conc. Ligand

Effe

ct

Page 12: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

12

Important Values

Page 13: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

13

Full/Partial Agonist

• A und B full agonists with different affinity• A is a partial agonist• Different slope, different binding mechanism

Efficacy:C<A=B

EC50:C<A<B

Potency:C>A>B

Page 14: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

14

Antagonist Effect

Competitive antagonist• Competes with the agonist • Shifts concetration-response curve of agonist• Has no influence on maximal activity of agonist• Effect can be reverted with high concentrations of agonist

Receptor Antagonist Complex

noagonistbinding

Page 15: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

15

Antagonist Effect

Receptor Agonist Complex

noeffect

Non competitive antagonist•Different binding site of agonist and antagonist •Lowers maximal effect of agonist, EC50 is maintained•Curve gets less steep•Effect cannot be reverted with high concentrations of agonist

Antagonist

Page 16: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

16

Inverse Agonists

Page 17: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

17

Introduction in Receptor Theory

Induced Fit: Receptor conformation is changed by the bindingof a ligand (agonist), which leads tosignal transduction. Antagonists bind, but do not lead to a conformational change

Conformational Selection: There exists an equilibrium ofdifferent receptor conformations, agonistsshift the equilibrium to the active conformation,inverse agonists to the inactive,antagonists don‘t change the equilibrium.

Page 18: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

18

R

R

Agonist:Stabilizes active conformation

EffectorInverse Agonist:Stabilizes inactiveconformation

Conformational Selection

Antagonist: stabilisation of equilibrium

Constitutively activereceptors

R*

R*

L

KAKA*

R*

Page 19: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

19

Advanced Pharmacology

Page 20: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

Methods to Study Receptors

Cell System

Ligand-Receptor InteractionAgonist-Antagonist-inverse Agonist

BindingSignal Transduction

Receptor Mutagenesis

Protein-Protein InteractionReceptor DimerisationInteracting MoleculesReceptor Trafficking

Page 21: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

Cell Systems

• Tissue, which is rich of endogenously expressedreceptors, e. g. homogenized brain, rat liver, rabbit kidney….

• Cell lines that endogenously express the receptorImmortilized cells (tumor or induced immortality)

ATCC (SK-NM-C, MCF7, etc.)Primary cells

• Transfected cell lines (stabile or transcient)

Page 22: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

Cell line Origin Properties

CHO hamster Stable, transcient

BHK hamster Stable, transcient

HEK 293 human Stable, transcient

COS monkey SV40 antigene,Only transcient

Page 23: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

Expression vector(plasmid)

Origin of replication

Beta-Lactamase (resistance gene E. coli)

Eukaryotic transcription unit:

Receptor

Selection marker

Page 24: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

mutant cell

Defect is complemented by plasmid

Cells die as theyMiss something

Minimal media

transfectionRezessiv marker

Page 25: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

normal cell

detoxification by plasmid

Cells die in toxicmilieu

toxic media

transfectiondominant marker

Page 26: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

Frequently used genes for selection marker

Page 27: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

Lipofection

defect cell

endocytosis

Mix Lipid solution

Page 28: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

slow degradation offoreign DNA

Page 29: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

Assays to test receptors

Affinity: Binding assays: Kd-Value, BmaxAutoradiography: Receptor distribution

Activity: functional assaysAgonistsAntagonistsSuperagonistsinverse Agonists

Activity without ligand: constitutive activity

Page 30: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

30

Receptor Binding Assay

Page 31: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

Receptor Binding

Cell lineCell line

centrifugationorfiltration

Page 32: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

32

Radioactive labelling of hormones

Why?• Tracer for binding studies and autoradiography• Biodistribution and pharmacokinetics (stability)

How?• Direct iodination of tyrosine• Bolton‐Hunter (like) reaction of lysine

Page 33: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

33

Direct iodination of tyrosine

Autoradiography of brain slices with125I nociceptin

Classical procedure

separation

Chloramine T

Page 34: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

34

Bolton‐Hunter (like) reaction of lysine

125I

Lys

ON

O

O

O3H3H

3H

3H 3HTritiation by propionic acid NHS

NHS N‐hydroxy succinimide, Lys lysine, SFB = Succinimidyl‐fluorobenzoate

18F

O

ON

O

O

[18F]‐SFB

[18F]‐Fluoride

18F

NH

O

Peptid

[18F]‐Fluorobenzoyl‐Peptide

(Cyclotron)

+ Peptid

Page 35: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

Affinity: specific binding at receptor

Specific bindingBinding of compound to receptor,saturable

Non specific binding1. Binding of ligand to other binding sites (same receptor, other

enzyme, transporter, etc. ), saturable2. Binding to non-receptor components of the tissue, membrane,

uptake in cells, or vesicle, non-saturable3. Unbound ligand that could not be separated from the bound ligand,

non-saturable

Page 36: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

RBC3 - 36

total binding: Variation of concentration of radioligand

non-specific binding: Variation of concentration of radioligand in the presence of unlabelled ligand (c > 100-1000-fold Kd)

Kd represents affinity

Bmax receptor number per cell

Saturation Experiment, Kd-Value

Kd

Bmax

[L] Occupation of receptor

0 0%

1 x Kd 50%

4 x Kd 80%

9 x Kd 90%

99 x Kd 99%

Bmax – all receptors are occupied with ligand

Kd – conentration of ligand required for 50 % occupied receptors

Page 37: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

• Specific binding of ligand and receptor is saturable and goes along classic kinetics

L + R LRkon

koff

LR

LRRLLR

RL max

on

offd

kkK• equilibrium:

bindingspec.L

LR[LR]d

max

K

kon: constant of association velocitykoff: constant of dissociation velocity

• Kd : equilibirum dissociation constant for a specific ligand L

… direct test to test binding of a radioligand to the specific receptor, determination of Kd and Bmax

max

Saturation Experiment, Kd-Value

Page 38: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

Receptor Binding: Melatonin

Page 39: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

RBC3 - 39

Typical values Bmax 10-1000 fmol binding sites per milligram of protein, Kd between 10 pM and 100 nM.Determination of Bmax and Kd:Past: Scatchard plot, today:fit data to the equation using nonlinear regression.

This analysis is based on these assumptions:• Binding follows the law of mass action and has equilibrated.• There is only one population of receptors.• Only a small fraction of the radioligand binds so that the free

concentration is essentially identical to the concentration added.• There is no cooperativity. Binding of a ligand to one binding site does

not alter the affinity of another binding site. In other words,the Kd is constant during the experiment.

Receptor Binding

Page 40: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

RBC3 - 40

max

Receptor Analysis of Scatchard

-1/Kd

Page 41: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

41

Binding Assays

Radiolabelled ligand; Saturation curve3H oxytocine, 125I insuline

Page 42: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

Competition Binding

Constant amount oftracerVarying concentrationof unlabeled competitor

Page 43: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

RBC3 - 43

Competition Binding , KI- and IC50-Values

Relevant to determine dissociation constants of unlabelled ligands that compete with the radiotracer for the same binding site

• Constant amount of radiotracer L ([L]), usually lower than KD• Variation of concentration of unlabelled ligand/inhibitor

IC50 : Concentration of Inhibitor/Ligand, required to displace 50 % of specific binding of tracer

Log IC50

0,5B0+NS

B0+NS

NS[L][I]1

[L]

ID

maxI

KK

BB

Page 44: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

• Specific binding in absence of the inhibitors B0:

• if [L] = IC50, then BI = 0,5B0

• After rearrangement Cheng-Prusoff-Gleichung

[L][L]

Dmax0

K

BB

[L][L]0,5

[L]IC1

[L]D

max

I

50D

maxIC50

K

B

KK

BB

DK

K[L]1

IC50I

Competition Binding , KI- and IC50-Values

Concentration of tracerand KD of tracer

Page 45: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

Competition binding [3H]DHA and β2-adrenergic ligands for human β2-adrenoceptors expressed in the CHO cells

David A. Sykes et al. Mol Pharmacol 2014;85:608-617

DHA:[3H]-dihydroalprenololantagonist

Page 46: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

46

Competition  Binding Curve

Fixed concentration of tracer: 1 nM 3H cannabinoid

Cannabinoid receptor

Page 47: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

47

Competition  Binding Curve

More advanced….two binding sites and Hill slope

• Heterogeneous receptors. The receptors do not all bind the unlabeled drug with the same affinity. This can be due to the presence of different receptor subtypes, or due to hetero-geneity in receptor coupling to other molecules such as G proteins.

• Negative cooperativity. Binding sites are clustered (perhapsseveral binding sites per molecule) and binding of the unlabeled ligand to one site causes the remaining site(s) to bind the unlabeled ligand withlower affinity.

• Curve fitting problems.

Page 48: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

48

Radiobinding versus Fluorescence

Page 49: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

49

Novel attempts: Fluorescently labelled ligands+ no radioctivity‐ High unspecific binding‐ Autofluorescence of cells‐ Sensitivity‐ Fluorescence bleaching‐ Effect affinity due to size

Fluorescene polarisation

Radiobinding versus Fluorescence

+ Solubile receptors (TF)+ Extracellular domain (RTK)- Membrane bound receptors

(GPCR, ion channel)

Tamra(tetramethylrhodamin)

Page 50: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

50

Page 51: Communication in theOrganism fileAntagonist Effect Competitive antagonist • Competes with the agonist • Shiftsconcetration-response curveof agonist • Hasnoinfluenceon maximal

51

Tb-labeled SNAP-CB2R monitored by HTRFScheme of the homogenous HTRF-based binding technique.

Eva Martínez-Pinilla et al. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2016;358:580-587

Binding ligandNon binding ligand