z-logo
Premium
Glibenclamide binding to sulphonylurea receptor subtypes: dependence on adenine nucleotides
Author(s) -
Hambrock Annette,
LöfflerWalz Cornelia,
Quast Ulrich
Publication year - 2002
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.0704801
Subject(s) - glibenclamide , allosteric regulation , sulfonylurea receptor , chemistry , receptor , nucleotide , biochemistry , binding site , atp hydrolysis , enzyme , biophysics , biology , endocrinology , atpase , gene , diabetes mellitus
ATP‐sensitive K + channels are composed of pore‐forming subunits Kir6.2 and of sulphonylurea receptors (SURs); the latter are the target of the hypoglycaemic sulphonylureas like glibenclamide. Here, we report on the negative allosteric modulation by MgATP and MgADP of glibenclamide binding to SUR1 and to SUR2 mutants with high glibenclamide affinity, SUR2A(Y1206S) and SUR2B(Y1206S). ATP, in the presence of an ATP‐regenerating system to oppose hydrolysis during incubation, inhibited glibenclamide binding to SUR1 and SUR2B(Y1206S) by ∼60%, to SUR2A(Y1206S) by 21%). Inhibition curves for the SUR2(Y1206S) isoforms were monophasic with IC 50 values of 5–10 μ M ; the curve for SUR1 was biphasic (IC 50 values 4.7 and 1300 μ M ). Glibenclamide inhibition curves for ADP, performed in the presence of an ATP‐consuming system to oppose ATP formation from ADP, were generally shifted rightwards and showed positive cooperativity, in particular with the SUR2(Y1206S) isoforms. In the absence of the coupled enzyme systems, inhibition curves of MgATP or MgADP were generally shifted leftwards. This indicated synergy of MgATP and MgATP in acting together. Coexpression of SUR1 and SUR2B(Y1206S) with Kir6.2 reduced both potency and efficacy of ATP in inhibiting glibenclamide binding; this was particularly marked for Kir6.2/SUR1. The data show (a) that the inhibitory effects of ATP and ADP on glibenclamide binding differ from one another, (b) that they depend on the SUR subtype, and (c) that they are weakened by coexpression with Kir6.2.British Journal of Pharmacology (2002) 136 , 995–1004. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0704801

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here