Phenoxybenzamine binding reveals the helical orientation of the third transmembrane domain of adrenergic receptors.

Phenoxybenzamine (PB), a classical alpha-adrenergic antagonist, binds irreversibly to the alpha-adrenergic receptors (ARs). Amino acid sequence alignments and the predicted helical arrangement of the seven transmembrane (TM) domains suggested an accessible cysteine residue in transmembrane 3 of the alpha(2)-ARs, in position C(3.36) (in subtypes A, B, and C corresponding to amino acid residue numbers 117/96/135, respectively), as a possible site for the PB interaction. Irreversible binding of PB to recombinant human alpha(2)-ARs (90 nm, 30 min) reduced the ligand binding capacity of alpha(2A)-, alpha(2B)-, and alpha(2C)-AR by 81, 96, and 77%. When the TM3 cysteine, Cys(117), of alpha(2A)-AR was mutated to valine (alpha(2A)-C117V), the receptor became resistant to PB (inactivation, 10%). The beta(2)-AR contains a valine in this position (V(3.36); position number 117) and a cysteine in the preceding position (Cys(116)) and was not inactivated by PB (10 microm, 30 min) (inactivation 26%). The helical orientation of TM3 was tested by exchanging the amino acids at positions 116 and 117 of the alpha(2A)-AR and beta(2)-AR. The alpha(2A)-F116C/C117V mutant was resistant to PB (inactivation, 7%), whereas beta(2)-V117C was irreversibly inactivated (inactivation, 93%), confirming that position 3.36 is exposed to receptor ligands, and position 3.35 is not exposed in the binding pocket.

Ligand recognition of serine-cysteine amino acid exchanges in transmembrane domain 5 of alpha2-adrenergic receptors by UK 14,304.

Ligand binding of UK 14,304 reveals notable species (i.e., human-rodent) and receptor-subtype differences of alpha2-adrenergic receptors (alpha2-ARs). To study the molecular basis of the selectivity of UK 14,304, we compared a series of conservative serine-cysteine exchange mutants at ligand-accessible positions in transmembrane domain 5 of the human and mouse alpha2A-ARs. UK 14,304 bound with approximately 200-fold higher affinity to the human alpha2A-AR wild-type receptor compared with the human alpha2A-ARSer201 mutant, but only an approximately fivefold difference was seen with the corresponding mouse alpha2A-AR variant. These effects of cysteine-serine exchanges only involved the agonist low-affinity forms of the receptors, as the affinity of [3H]UK 14,304 for the agonist high-affinity receptor populations was not influenced. The apparent affinities of a set of eight structurally diverse alpha2-AR ligands (six agonists and two antagonists) were not influenced significantly by the cysteine-serine exchanges (except for oxymetazoline and yohimbine, with up to nine- and eightfold differences in affinity, respectively). We conclude that position 201 (a) plays a primary role in determining observed subtype/species selectivity of UK 14,304 in competitive antagonist radioligand binding assays and (b) does not determine the subtype selectivity of chlorpromazine.

Three-dimensional models of alpha(2A)-adrenergic receptor complexes provide a structural explanation for ligand binding.

We have compared bacteriorhodopsin-based (alpha(2A)-AR(BR)) and rhodopsin-based (alpha(2A)-AR(R)) models of the human alpha(2A)-adrenengic receptor (alpha(2A)-AR) using both docking simulations and experimental receptor alkylation studies with chloroethylclonidine and 2-aminoethyl methanethiosulfonate hydrobromide. The results indicate that the alpha(2A)-AR(R) model provides a better explanation for ligand binding than does our alpha(2A)-AR(BR) model. Thus, we have made an extensive analysis of ligand binding to alpha(2A)-AR(R) and engineered mutant receptors using clonidine, para-aminoclonidine, oxymetazoline, 5-bromo-N-(4, 5-dihydro-1H-imidazol-2-yl)-6-quinoxalinamine (UK14,304), and norepinephrine as ligands. The representative docked ligand conformation was chosen using extensive docking simulations coupled with the identification of favorable interaction sites for chemical groups in the receptor. These ligand-protein complex studies provide a rational explanation at the atomic level for the experimentally observed binding affinities of each of these ligands to the alpha(2A)-adrenergic receptor.

Chloroethylclonidine and 2-aminoethyl methanethiosulfonate recognize two different conformations of the human alpha(2A)-adrenergic receptor.

The substituted cysteine-accessibility method and two sulfhydryl-specific reagents, the methane-thiosulfonate derivative 2-aminoethyl methanethiosulfonate (MTSEA) and the alpha(2)-adrenergic receptor (alpha(2)-AR) agonist chloroethylclonidine (CEC), were used to determine the relative accessibility of engineered cysteines in the fifth transmembrane domain of the human alpha(2A)-AR (Halpha2A). The second-order rate constants for the reaction of the receptor with MTSEA and CEC were determined with the wild type Halpha2A (cysteine at position 201) and receptor mutants containing accessible cysteines at other positions within the binding-site crevice (positions 197, 200, and 204). The rate of reaction of CEC was similar to that of MTSEA at residues Cys-197, Cys-201, and Cys-204. The rate of reaction of CEC with Cys-200, however, was more than 5 times that of MTSEA, suggesting that these compounds may interact with two different receptor conformations. MTSEA, having no recognition specificity for the receptor, likely reacts with the predominant inactive receptor conformation (R), whereas the agonist CEC may stabilize and react preferentially with the active receptor conformation (R*). This hypothesis was consistent with three-dimensional receptor-ligand models, which further suggest that alpha(2A)-AR activation may involve the clockwise rotation of transmembrane domain 5.