z-logo
Premium
Functional comparison of muscarinic partial agonists at muscarinic receptor subtypes hM 1 , hM 2 , hM 3 , hM 4 and hM 5 using microphysiometry
Author(s) -
Wood Martyn D,
Murkitt Karen L,
Ho Michael,
Watson Jeannette M,
Brown Frank,
Hunter A Jacqueline,
Middlemiss Derek N
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
british journal of pharmacology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.432
H-Index - 211
eISSN - 1476-5381
pISSN - 0007-1188
DOI - 10.1038/sj.bjp.0702463
Subject(s) - muscarinic acetylcholine receptor , muscarinic acetylcholine receptor m1 , chemistry , neuroscience , receptor , biology , biochemistry
This study describes the pharmacological comparison of the muscarinic partial agonists sabcomeline, xanomeline and milameline at human cloned muscarinic receptor subtypes (hM 1–5 ). Radioligand binding studies at the hM 1–5 muscarinic receptor subtypes were compared with functional studies using microphysiometry using carbachol as the standard full agonist. In binding assays none of the compounds studied displayed preferential affinity for the M 1,3,4 or M 5 subtypes although carbachol was less potent at hM 1 than hM 3,4,5 . In functional studies, all of the compounds studied displayed similar levels of efficacy across the muscarinic receptors with the exception of M 3 , where there was a large apparent receptor reserve and the compounds behaved essentially as full agonists. Sabcomeline was the most potent agonist in functional studies but also showed the lowest efficacy. In terms of potency, xanomeline showed some selectivity for M 1 over M 2 receptors and milameline showed some selectivity for M 2 over M 1 receptors. These results show the value of microphysiometry in being able to compare receptor pharmacology across subtypes irrespective of the signal transduction pathway. None of the partial agonists showed functional selectivity for M 1 receptors, or indeed any muscarinic receptor, in the present study.British Journal of Pharmacology (1999) 126 , 1620–1624; doi: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0702463

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here