BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Conventional determination of agonist efficacy at G-protein coupled receptors is measured by stimulation of guanosine-5'-γ-thiotriphosphate (GTPγS) binding. We analysed the role of guanosine diphosphate (GDP) in the process of activation of the M₂ muscarinic acetylcholine receptor and provide evidence that negative cooperativity between agonist and GDP binding is an alternative measure of agonist efficacy. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Filtration and scintillation proximity assays measured equilibrium binding as well as binding kinetics of [³⁵S]GTPγS and [³H]GDP to a mixture of G-proteins as well as individual classes of G-proteins upon binding of structurally different agonists to the M₂ muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. KEY RESULTS: Agonists displayed biphasic competition curves with the antagonist [³H]-N-methylscopolamine. GTPγS (1 µM) changed the competition curves to monophasic with low affinity and 50 µM GDP produced a similar effect. Depletion of membrane-bound GDP increased the proportion of agonist high-affinity sites. Carbachol accelerated the dissociation of [³H]GDP from membranes. The inverse agonist N-methylscopolamine slowed GDP dissociation and GTPγS binding without changing affinity for GDP. Carbachol affected both GDP association with and dissociation from G(i/o) G-proteins but only its dissociation from G(s/olf) G-proteins. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: These findings suggest the existence of a low-affinity agonist-receptor conformation complexed with GDP-liganded G-protein. Also the negative cooperativity between GDP and agonist binding at the receptor/G-protein complex determines agonist efficacy. GDP binding reveals differences in action of agonists versus inverse agonists as well as differences in activation of G(i/o) versus G(s/olf) G-proteins that are not identified by conventional GTPγS binding.

Institute of Physiology Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Prague Czech Republic

See more in PubMed

Abdulaev NG, Ngo T, Ramon E, Brabazon DM, Marino JP, Ridge KD. The receptor-bound “empty pocket” state of the heterotrimeric G-protein alpha-subunit is conformationally dynamic. Biochemistry. 2006;45:12986–12997. PubMed

Alexander SPH, Mathie A, Peters JA. Guide to receptors and channels (GRAC) Br J Pharmacol. (4th edn.) 2009;158(Suppl. 1):S1–S254. PubMed PMC

Ashkenazi A, Winslow JW, Peralta EG, Peterson GL, Schimerlik MI, Capon DJ, et al. An M2 muscarinic receptor subtype coupled to both adenylyl cyclase and phosphoinositide turnover. Science. 1987;238:672–675. PubMed

Birdsall NJ, Burgen AS, Hulme EC. The binding of agonists to brain muscarinic receptors. Mol Pharmacol. 1978;14:723–736. PubMed

Burford NT, Tobin AB, Nahorski SR. Differential coupling of m1, m2 and m3 muscarinic receptor subtypes to inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate and adenosine 3′,5′-cyclic monophosphate accumulation in Chinese hamster ovary cells. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1995;274:134–142. PubMed

Burstein ES, Spalding TA, Brann MR. Pharmacology of muscarinic receptor subtypes constitutively activated by G proteins. Mol Pharmacol. 1997;51:312–319. PubMed

Cheng Y, Prusoff WH. Relationship between the inhibition constant (K1) and the concentration of inhibitor which causes 50 per cent inhibition (I50) of an enzymatic reaction. Biochem Pharmacol. 1973;22:3099–3108. PubMed

DeLapp NW, McKinzie JH, Sawyer BD, Vandergriff A, Falcone J, McClure D, et al. Determination of [35S]guanosine-5″-O-(3-thio)triphosphate binding mediated by cholinergic muscarinic receptors in membranes from Chinese hamster ovary cells and rat striatum using an anti-G protein scintillation proximity assay. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1999;289:946–955. PubMed

De Lean A, Stadel JM, Lefkowitz RJ. A ternary complex model explains the agonist-specific binding properties of the adenylate cyclase-coupled beta-adrenergic receptor. J Biol Chem. 1980;255:7108–7117. PubMed

Ehlert FJ. Estimation of the affinities of allosteric ligands using radioligand binding and pharmacological null methods. Mol Pharmacol. 1988;33:187–194. PubMed

Ferguson KM, Higashijima T, Smigel MD, Gilman AG. The influence of bound GDP on the kinetics of guanine nucleotide binding to G proteins. J Biol Chem. 1986;261:7393–7399. PubMed

Florio VA, Sternweis PC. Mechanisms of muscarinic receptor action on Go in reconstituted phospholipid vesicles. J Biol Chem. 1989;264:3909–3915. PubMed

Haga K, Haga T, Ichiyama A. Reconstitution of the muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. Guanine nucleotide-sensitive high affinity binding of agonists to purified muscarinic receptors reconstituted with GTP-binding proteins (Gi and Go) J Biol Chem. 1986;261:10133–10140. PubMed

Hein P, Frank M, Hoffmann C, Lohse MJ, Bünemann M. Dynamics of receptor/G protein coupling in living cells. EMBO J. 2005;24:4106–4114. PubMed PMC

Hulme EC, Lu ZL, Saldanha JW, Bee MS. Structure and activation of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. Biochem Soc Trans. 2003;31:29–34. PubMed

Jakubík J, Bačáková L, el-Fakahany EE, Tuček S. Constitutive activity of the M1-M4 subtypes of muscarinic receptors in transfected CHO cells and of muscarinic receptors in the heart cells revealed by negative antagonists. FEBS Lett. 1995;377:275–279. PubMed

Jakubík J, Bačáková L, Lisá V, el-Fakahany EE, Tuček S. Activation of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors via their allosteric binding sites. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;93:8705–8709. PubMed PMC

Jakubík J, Bačáková L, El-Fakahany EE, Tuček S. Positive cooperativity of acetylcholine and other agonists with allosteric ligands on muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. Mol Pharmacol. 1997;52:172–179. PubMed

Jakubík J, El-Fakahany EE, Doležal V. Differences in kinetics of xanomeline binding and selectivity of activation of G proteins at M(1) and M(2) muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. Mol Pharmacol. 2006;70:656–666. PubMed

Johnston CA, Siderovski DP. Receptor-mediated activation of heterotrimeric G-proteins: current structural insights. Mol Pharmacol. 2007;72:219–230. PubMed

Kenakin T. Ligand-selective receptor conformations revisited: the promise and the problem. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2003;24:346–354. PubMed

Kent RS, De Lean A, Lefkowitz RJ. A quantitative analysis of beta-adrenergic receptor interactions: resolution of high and low affinity states of the receptor by computer modeling of ligand binding data. Mol Pharmacol. 1980;17:14–23. PubMed

Michal P, Lysíková M, Tuček S. Dual effects of muscarinic M(2) acetylcholine receptors on the synthesis of cyclic AMP in CHO cells: dependence on time, receptor density and receptor agonists. Br J Pharmacol. 2001;132:1217–1228. PubMed PMC

Michal P, El-Fakahany EE, Doležal V. Muscarinic M2 receptors directly activate Gq/11 and Gs G-proteins. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2007;320:607–614. PubMed

Oldham WM, Hamm HE. Heterotrimeric G protein activation by G-protein-coupled receptors. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2008;9:60–71. PubMed

Seifert R, Wenzel-Seifert K, Gether U, Kobilka BK. Functional differences between full and partial agonists: evidence for ligand-specific receptor conformations. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2001;297:1218–1226. PubMed

Shea L, Linderman JJ. Mechanistic model of G-protein signal transduction. Determinants of efficacy and effect of precoupled receptors. Biochem Pharmacol. 1997;53:519–530. PubMed

Shiozaki K, Haga T. Effects of magnesium ion on the interaction of atrial muscarinic acetylcholine receptors and GTP-binding regulatory proteins. Biochemistry. 1992;31:10634–10642. PubMed

Thomas TC, Schmidt CJ, Neer EJ. G-protein alpha o subunit: mutation of conserved cysteines identifies a subunit contact surface and alters GDP affinity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993;90:10295–10298. PubMed PMC

Tota MR, Schimerlik MI. Partial agonist effects on the interaction between the atrial muscarinic receptor and the inhibitory guanine nucleotide-binding protein in a reconstituted system. Mol Pharmacol. 1990;37:996–1004. PubMed

Wenzel-Seifert K, Seifert R. Molecular analysis of beta(2)-adrenoceptor coupling to G(s)-, G(i)-, and G(q)-proteins. Mol Pharmacol. 2000;58:954–966. PubMed

Wess J. G-protein-coupled receptors: molecular mechanisms involved in receptor activation and selectivity of G-protein recognition. FASEB J. 1997;11:346–354. PubMed

Fusion with Promiscuous Gα16 Subunit Reveals Signaling Bias at Muscarinic Receptors

The operational model of allosteric modulation of pharmacological agonism

Applications and limitations of fitting of the operational model to determine relative efficacies of agonists

Changes in Membrane Cholesterol Differentially Influence Preferential and Non-preferential Signaling of the M1 and M3 Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptors

Subtype differences in pre-coupling of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors