DOCSLIB.ORG

Memory CD4 T-Cell–Mediated Protection Depends on Secondary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Memory CD4 T-Cell–Mediated Protection Depends on Secondary Memory CD4+ T-cell–mediated protection depends on PNAS PLUS secondary effectors that are distinct from and superior to primary effectors Tara M. Strutta,1,2, K. Kai McKinstrya,1,2, Yi Kuanga, Linda M. Bradleyb, and Susan L. Swaina,2 aDepartment of Pathology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA 01655; and bInfectious and Inflammatory Diseases Center, Sanford- Burnham Institute for Medical Research, La Jolla, CA 92037 Edited* by Robert L. Coffman, Dynavax Technologies, Berkeley, CA, and approved August 3, 2012 (received for review April 9, 2012) Whether differences between naive cell-derived primary (1°) and against lethal challenge (8–10), and studies demonstrating memory memory cell-derived secondary (2°) CD4+ T-cell effectors contrib- CD4+ T-cell protection in mice deficient for CD8+ TandBcells ute to protective recall responses is unclear. Here, we compare suggest that an important helper-independent protective contribu- these effectors directly after influenza A virus infection. Both de- tion of memory CD4+ T cells may be mediated directly by the 2° velop with similar kinetics, but 2° effectors accumulate in greater effectors (11–13). In addition, IAV-specific 1° effector (7, 10) and number in the infected lung and are the critical component of memory (14, 15) CD4+ T cells isolated from the lung and from memory CD4+ T-cell–mediated protection against influenza A vi- secondary lymphoid organs (SLO) display distinct functional and rus, independent of earlier-acting memory-cell helper functions. phenotypic characteristics. Whether 2° effectors comprise a simi- Phenotypic, functional, and transcriptome analyses indicate that larly heterogeneous population is unknown. This issue is important, 2° effectors share organ-specific expression patterns with 1° effec- because recent studies show that lung-resident memory CD4+ tors but are more multifunctional, with more multicytokine (IFN- T cells provide greater protection against IAV than SLO-resident γ+/IL-2+/TNF+)-producing cells and contain follicular helper T-cell memory cells (16). Thus, a more comprehensive understanding of populations not only in the spleen and draining lymph nodes organ-specific heterogeneity within responding CD4+ T-cell pools but also in the lung. In addition, they express more CD127 and may provide clues about the critical attributes of the most protective IMMUNOLOGY NKG2A but less ICOS and Lag-3 than 1° effectors and express CD4+ T cells that could be generated by vaccination. higher levels of several genes associated with survival and migra- We find that although both populations develop and peak with tion. Targeting two differentially expressed molecules, NKG2A similar kinetics, the 2° effectors accumulate in greater numbers in and Lag-3, reveals differential regulation of 1° and 2° effector the lung, the primary site of infection. We show that the generation functions during pathogen challenge. of the 2° effectors is the critical component of protective immunity mediated by memory CD4+ T cells against IAV and that 2° cytokines | viral infection | immune regulation effectors are superior to 1° effectors in mediating viral clearance. We demonstrate that 2° effectors contain more cells producing nalyses of the mechanisms underlying memory CD4+ T-cell– TNF and/or IL-2 together with IFN-γ and fewer cells producing IL- Amediated protection have focused largely on their earlier 10 than do 1° effectors. In addition, we identify several phenotypic provision of help as compared with naive cells (1), although it markers that distinguish the two effector populations from + also is appreciated that highly activated secondary CD4 T-cell each another. (hereafter, 2°) effectors develop after the re-expansion of memory To define the differences between 1° and 2° effectors further, we populations (2). Studies also suggest that optimal protection pro- analyzed gene expression by microarray. The 1° and 2° effectors + vided by T helper type 1 (TH1)-like memory CD4 Tcellscor- recovered from both lung and SLO display a high degree of relates with the capacity to produce multiple cytokines, including shared, organ-specific specialization. However, 2° effectors are γ γ IFN- ,TNF,andIL-2,ratherthanIFN- alone (3). Whether 2° less compartmentalized, as evidenced by a wider distribution of effectors derived from protective memory CD4+ T cells retain this follicular helper T (TFH) cells. Furthermore, we identify a short phenotype, the extent to which 2° effectors contribute to the list of genes that distinguish 1° and 2° effectors and that could be protection mediated by memory CD4+ T cells, and whether and + involved in controlling the greater expansion and more pluripo- how 2° effectors differ from primary CD4 T-cell (hereafter, 1°) tent functions of 2° effectors. Finally, we demonstrate the specific effectors are unclear. + regulation of 1° or 2° effector cytokine production by blocking the Comparison of 1° and 2° CD4 T-cell effectors within mixed populations is difficult. The higher proportion of antigen-specific differentially expressed surface proteins NKG2A and Lag-3. These findings define pathways that explain, in part, the functional memory cells as compared with naive cells complicates quantitative + analysis, and the maintenance of very few antigen-specificcellsin superiority of the memory CD4 T-cell response. general (4) precludes rigorous analysis ex vivo of the effectors to which they give rise. Polyclonal naive and memory T-cell pop- ulations also may differ in repertoire and T-cell receptor (TcR) affinity (5, 6), further complicating comparisons. Finally, phenotypic Author contributions: T.M.S., K.K.M., and S.L.S. designed research; T.M.S., K.K.M., and discrimination alone between highly activated effectors and cells Y.K. performed research; L.M.B. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; T.M.S. and that have divided only once or twice is not reliable, because effectors K.K.M. analyzed data; and T.M.S., K.K.M., and S.L.S. wrote the paper. responding in different organs can express different surface phe- The authors declare no conflict of interest. notypes (7). To overcome these obstacles, we transferred equal *This Direct Submission article had a prearranged editor. + numbers of naive and memory HNT TcR transgenic CD4 Tcells Data deposition: The data reported in this paper have been deposited in the Gene Ex- recognizing the A/PR8/34 (PR8) strain of influenza A virus (IAV) to pression Omnibus (GEO) database, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo (accession no. GSE40230). unprimed hosts and then challenged with PR8 to compare directly 1T.M.S. and K.K.M. contributed equally to this work. the generation, function, and protective capacity of 1° and 2To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: [email protected], kai. 2° effectors. [email protected], or [email protected]. IAV infection presents a compelling model for addressing these This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10. questions. The transfer of 1° effectors to unprimed mice can protect 1073/pnas.1205894109/-/DCSupplemental. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1205894109 PNAS Early Edition | 1of10 Downloaded by guest on October 1, 2021 Results activation of memory cells, but 4 d postinfection (dpi) the expan- Generation of 1° and 2° Effectors in Vivo. To generate comparable sion of naive and memory donors was similar (Fig. 1B). All donors effectors from naive and memory precursors, we transferred equal reached similar peak numbers in SLO by 7 dpi, but those arising numbers of naive or memory HNT CD4+ T cells to Thy-disparate from memory precursors accumulated in greater number in the hosts and infected the hosts with PR8. We used both in vivo-primed lung (Fig. 1B). A similar pattern was observed when precursors and reisolated (in vivo PR8 memory) and in vitro-generated T 1 were reduced up to 100-fold, with in vivo- and in vitro-derived H memory cells giving rise to about five times and 10 times more cells memory cells, allowing the investigation of effectors arising from in the lung, respectively, than naive donors (Fig. 1C); this result heterogeneous memory cells resulting from in vivo priming and fi fi con rms that the kinetics and magnitude of expansion are in- from populations with de ned polarization (17). Upon transfer dependent of precursor frequency. to uninfected mice, similar numbers of naive and memory HNT + By 7 dpi, virtually all donor cells recovered from the lung were CD4 T cells were initially present in all organs analyzed and both effectors as defined by their having undergone five or more decayed with identical kinetics (Fig. S1), arguing against differences divisions based on loss of carboxyfluorescein succinimidyl ester in initial trafficking or in survival of donor cells after adoptive (CFSE), as were >80% of cells arising from naive and >90% of transfer contributing to the results reported here. cells arising from memory donors in SLO. We titrated the + Unlike naive cells, memory CD4 T cells are poised for rapid number of donor cells and found that at lower numbers trans- secretion of cytokines (18). In agreement with studies using in ferred (≤2 × 106) nearly all naive and memory donors developed vitro-generated memory cells (19), in vivo PR8 memory cells up- into effectors in SLO and lung (Fig. 1D). Together Fig. 1 C and regulated CD69 1–2 d earlier in the lung and draining lymph nodes D indicate that both naive and memory cells give rise to highly (dLN) than did naive cells (Fig. 1A), indicating a more rapid divided effectors (Fig. 1D) whose number is proportional to AC B D EF Fig. 1. Generation of 1° and 2° effectors in vivo. Naive or memory HNT cells (5 × 106) were transferred to Thy-disparate hosts that then were infected with 500 EID50 PR8. Spleen, dLN, and lungs were harvested on stated days (n = 5 mice per group on each day) and stained to visualize donor cells.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Genome-Wide Prediction of Small Molecule Binding to Remote
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.04.236729; this version posted August 5, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 1 Genome-wide Prediction of Small Molecule Binding 2 to Remote Orphan Proteins Using Distilled Sequence 3 Alignment Embedding 1 2 3 4 4 Tian Cai , Hansaim Lim , Kyra Alyssa Abbu , Yue Qiu , 5,6 1,2,3,4,7,* 5 Ruth Nussinov , and Lei Xie 1 6 Ph.D. Program in Computer Science, The Graduate Center, The City University of New York, New York, 10016, USA 2 7 Ph.D. Program in Biochemistry, The Graduate Center, The City University of New York, New York, 10016, USA 3 8 Department of Computer Science, Hunter College, The City University of New York, New York, 10065, USA 4 9 Ph.D. Program in Biology, The Graduate Center, The City University of New York, New York, 10016, USA 5 10 Computational Structural Biology Section, Basic Science Program, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, 11 Frederick, MD 21702, USA 6 12 Department of Human Molecular Genetics and Biochemistry, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel 13 Aviv, Israel 7 14 Helen and Robert Appel Alzheimer’s Disease Research Institute, Feil Family Brain & Mind Research Institute, Weill 15 Cornell Medicine, Cornell University, New York, 10021, USA * 16 [email protected] 17 July 27, 2020 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.04.236729; this version posted August 5, 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer
    Edinburgh Research Explorer International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. LXXXVIII. G protein-coupled receptor list Citation for published version: Davenport, AP, Alexander, SPH, Sharman, JL, Pawson, AJ, Benson, HE, Monaghan, AE, Liew, WC, Mpamhanga, CP, Bonner, TI, Neubig, RR, Pin, JP, Spedding, M & Harmar, AJ 2013, 'International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. LXXXVIII. G protein-coupled receptor list: recommendations for new pairings with cognate ligands', Pharmacological reviews, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 967-86. https://doi.org/10.1124/pr.112.007179 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1124/pr.112.007179 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Published In: Pharmacological reviews Publisher Rights Statement: U.S. Government work not protected by U.S. copyright General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 02. Oct. 2021 1521-0081/65/3/967–986$25.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1124/pr.112.007179 PHARMACOLOGICAL REVIEWS Pharmacol Rev 65:967–986, July 2013 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • A Computational Approach for Defining a Signature of Β-Cell Golgi Stress in Diabetes Mellitus
    Page 1 of 781 Diabetes A Computational Approach for Defining a Signature of β-Cell Golgi Stress in Diabetes Mellitus Robert N. Bone1,6,7, Olufunmilola Oyebamiji2, Sayali Talware2, Sharmila Selvaraj2, Preethi Krishnan3,6, Farooq Syed1,6,7, Huanmei Wu2, Carmella Evans-Molina 1,3,4,5,6,7,8* Departments of 1Pediatrics, 3Medicine, 4Anatomy, Cell Biology & Physiology, 5Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, the 6Center for Diabetes & Metabolic Diseases, and the 7Herman B. Wells Center for Pediatric Research, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202; 2Department of BioHealth Informatics, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, 46202; 8Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN 46202. *Corresponding Author(s): Carmella Evans-Molina, MD, PhD ([email protected]) Indiana University School of Medicine, 635 Barnhill Drive, MS 2031A, Indianapolis, IN 46202, Telephone: (317) 274-4145, Fax (317) 274-4107 Running Title: Golgi Stress Response in Diabetes Word Count: 4358 Number of Figures: 6 Keywords: Golgi apparatus stress, Islets, β cell, Type 1 diabetes, Type 2 diabetes 1 Diabetes Publish Ahead of Print, published online August 20, 2020 Diabetes Page 2 of 781 ABSTRACT The Golgi apparatus (GA) is an important site of insulin processing and granule maturation, but whether GA organelle dysfunction and GA stress are present in the diabetic β-cell has not been tested. We utilized an informatics-based approach to develop a transcriptional signature of β-cell GA stress using existing RNA sequencing and microarray datasets generated using human islets from donors with diabetes and islets where type 1(T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) had been modeled ex vivo. To narrow our results to GA-specific genes, we applied a filter set of 1,030 genes accepted as GA associated.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Product Insert (PDF)
    PRODUCT INFORMATION GPR12 (C-Term) Polyclonal Antibody Item No. 14266 Overview and Properties Contents: This vial contains peptide affinity-purified polyclonal antibody Synonyms: G Protein-Coupled Receptor 12 Immunogen: Synthetic peptide from the C-terminal region of human GPR12 Species Reactivity: (+) Human, other species not tested Uniprot No.: P47775 Form: Lyophilized Storage: -20°C (as supplied) Stability: ≥ 2 Years Storage Buffer: TBS, pH 7.4 when reconstituted in 500 µl deionized water Host: Rabbit Applications: Flow cytometry (FC) and immunocytochemistry (ICC); the recommended starting dilution for FC is 1:200 and 1:100 for ICC. Other applications were not attempted and therefore optimal working dilutions should be determined empirically. Image Black: Blank Red: Normal Rabbit IgG-FITC (0.01 µg/ml) Blue: GPR12 C-Term (1 µg/ml) Yellow: GPR12 C-Term (5 µg/ml) A549 cells were fixed with cytospin soluǗon (methanol and carbowax), blocked with 5% normal goat serum, and washed between steps. Samples were gated to exclude debris. FITC was detected in the FL1 channel of an Accuri C6 flow cytometer. Immune complexes were detected with Goat anǗ-rabbit FITC at 1:200. Description WARNING CAYMAN CHEMICAL THIS PRODUCT IS FOR RESEARCH ONLY - NOT FOR HUMAN OR VETERINARY DIAGNOSTIC OR THERAPEUTIC USE. 1180 EAST ELLSWORTH RD SAFETY DATA ANN ARBOR, MI 48108 · USA This material should be considered hazardous until further information becomes available. Do not ingest, inhale, get in eyes, on skin, or on clothing. Wash thoroughly after handling. Before use, the user must review the complete Safety Data Sheet, which has been sent via email to your institution.
    [Show full text]
  • In the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to Pharmacology Database
    IUPHAR/BPS Guide to Pharmacology CITE https://doi.org/10.2218/gtopdb/F16/2019.4 Class A Orphans (version 2019.4) in the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to Pharmacology Database Stephen P.H. Alexander1, Jim Battey2, Helen E. Benson3, Richard V. Benya4, Tom I. Bonner5, Anthony P. Davenport6, Satoru Eguchi7, Anthony Harmar3, Nick Holliday1, Robert T. Jensen2, Sadashiva Karnik8, Evi Kostenis9, Wen Chiy Liew3, Amy E. Monaghan3, Chido Mpamhanga10, Richard Neubig11, Adam J. Pawson3, Jean-Philippe Pin12, Joanna L. Sharman3, Michael Spedding13, Eliot Spindel14, Leigh Stoddart15, Laura Storjohann16, Walter G. Thomas17, Kalyan Tirupula8 and Patrick Vanderheyden18 1. University of Nottingham, UK 2. National Institutes of Health, USA 3. University of Edinburgh, UK 4. University of Illinois at Chicago, USA 5. National Institute of Mental Health, USA 6. University of Cambridge, UK 7. Temple University, USA 8. Cleveland Clinic Lerner Research Institute, USA 9. University of Bonn, Germany 10. LifeArc, UK 11. Michigan State University, USA 12. Université de Montpellier, France 13. Spedding Research Solutions SARL, France 14. Oregon Health & Science University, USA 15. University of Glasgow, UK 16. University of Utah, USA 17. University of Queensland, Australia 18. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium Abstract Table 1 lists a number of putative GPCRs identified by NC-IUPHAR [191], for which preliminary evidence for an endogenous ligand has been published, or for which there exists a potential link to a disease, or disorder. These GPCRs have recently been reviewed in detail [148]. The GPCRs in Table 1 are all Class A, rhodopsin-like GPCRs. Class A orphan GPCRs not listed in Table 1 are putative GPCRs with as-yet unidentified endogenous ligands.
    [Show full text]
  • G Protein-Coupled Receptors
    S.P.H. Alexander et al. The Concise Guide to PHARMACOLOGY 2015/16: G protein-coupled receptors. British Journal of Pharmacology (2015) 172, 5744–5869 THE CONCISE GUIDE TO PHARMACOLOGY 2015/16: G protein-coupled receptors Stephen PH Alexander1, Anthony P Davenport2, Eamonn Kelly3, Neil Marrion3, John A Peters4, Helen E Benson5, Elena Faccenda5, Adam J Pawson5, Joanna L Sharman5, Christopher Southan5, Jamie A Davies5 and CGTP Collaborators 1School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Nottingham Medical School, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK, 2Clinical Pharmacology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK, 3School of Physiology and Pharmacology, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TD, UK, 4Neuroscience Division, Medical Education Institute, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK, 5Centre for Integrative Physiology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9XD, UK Abstract The Concise Guide to PHARMACOLOGY 2015/16 provides concise overviews of the key properties of over 1750 human drug targets with their pharmacology, plus links to an open access knowledgebase of drug targets and their ligands (www.guidetopharmacology.org), which provides more detailed views of target and ligand properties. The full contents can be found at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ 10.1111/bph.13348/full. G protein-coupled receptors are one of the eight major pharmacological targets into which the Guide is divided, with the others being: ligand-gated ion channels, voltage-gated ion channels, other ion channels, nuclear hormone receptors, catalytic receptors, enzymes and transporters. These are presented with nomenclature guidance and summary information on the best available pharmacological tools, alongside key references and suggestions for further reading.
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Functionality of Proteins Involved in GPCR and G Protein Signaling: Making Sense of Structure–Function Continuum with In
    Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences (2019) 76:4461–4492 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-019-03276-1 Cellular andMolecular Life Sciences REVIEW Multi‑functionality of proteins involved in GPCR and G protein signaling: making sense of structure–function continuum with intrinsic disorder‑based proteoforms Alexander V. Fonin1 · April L. Darling2 · Irina M. Kuznetsova1 · Konstantin K. Turoverov1,3 · Vladimir N. Uversky2,4 Received: 5 August 2019 / Revised: 5 August 2019 / Accepted: 12 August 2019 / Published online: 19 August 2019 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 Abstract GPCR–G protein signaling system recognizes a multitude of extracellular ligands and triggers a variety of intracellular signal- ing cascades in response. In humans, this system includes more than 800 various GPCRs and a large set of heterotrimeric G proteins. Complexity of this system goes far beyond a multitude of pair-wise ligand–GPCR and GPCR–G protein interactions. In fact, one GPCR can recognize more than one extracellular signal and interact with more than one G protein. Furthermore, one ligand can activate more than one GPCR, and multiple GPCRs can couple to the same G protein. This defnes an intricate multifunctionality of this important signaling system. Here, we show that the multifunctionality of GPCR–G protein system represents an illustrative example of the protein structure–function continuum, where structures of the involved proteins represent a complex mosaic of diferently folded regions (foldons, non-foldons, unfoldons, semi-foldons, and inducible foldons). The functionality of resulting highly dynamic conformational ensembles is fne-tuned by various post-translational modifcations and alternative splicing, and such ensembles can undergo dramatic changes at interaction with their specifc partners.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Supplemental Material Maresin 1 Activates LGR6 Receptor
    Supplemental Material Maresin 1 Activates LGR6 Receptor Promoting Phagocyte Immunoresolvent Functions Nan Chiang, Stephania Libreros, Paul C. Norris, Xavier de la Rosa, Charles N. Serhan Center for Experimental Therapeutics and Reperfusion Injury, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA. 1 Supplemental Table 1. Screening of orphan GPCRs with MaR1 Vehicle Vehicle MaR1 MaR1 mean RLU > GPCR ID SD % Activity Mean RLU Mean RLU + 2 SD Mean RLU Vehicle mean RLU+2 SD? ADMR 930920 33283 997486.5381 863760 -7% BAI1 172580 18362 209304.1828 176160 2% BAI2 26390 1354 29097.71737 26240 -1% BAI3 18040 758 19555.07976 18460 2% CCRL2 15090 402 15893.6583 13840 -8% CMKLR2 30080 1744 33568.954 28240 -6% DARC 119110 4817 128743.8016 126260 6% EBI2 101200 6004 113207.8197 105640 4% GHSR1B 3940 203 4345.298244 3700 -6% GPR101 41740 1593 44926.97349 41580 0% GPR103 21413 1484 24381.25067 23920 12% NO GPR107 366800 11007 388814.4922 360020 -2% GPR12 77980 1563 81105.4653 76260 -2% GPR123 1485190 46446 1578081.986 1342640 -10% GPR132 860940 17473 895885.901 826560 -4% GPR135 18720 1656 22032.6827 17540 -6% GPR137 40973 2285 45544.0809 39140 -4% GPR139 438280 16736 471751.0542 413120 -6% GPR141 30180 2080 34339.2307 29020 -4% GPR142 105250 12089 129427.069 101020 -4% GPR143 89390 5260 99910.40557 89380 0% GPR146 16860 551 17961.75617 16240 -4% GPR148 6160 484 7128.848113 7520 22% YES GPR149 50140 934 52008.76073 49720 -1% GPR15 10110 1086 12282.67884
    [Show full text]
  • G Protein‐Coupled Receptors
    S.P.H. Alexander et al. The Concise Guide to PHARMACOLOGY 2019/20: G protein-coupled receptors. British Journal of Pharmacology (2019) 176, S21–S141 THE CONCISE GUIDE TO PHARMACOLOGY 2019/20: G protein-coupled receptors Stephen PH Alexander1 , Arthur Christopoulos2 , Anthony P Davenport3 , Eamonn Kelly4, Alistair Mathie5 , John A Peters6 , Emma L Veale5 ,JaneFArmstrong7 , Elena Faccenda7 ,SimonDHarding7 ,AdamJPawson7 , Joanna L Sharman7 , Christopher Southan7 , Jamie A Davies7 and CGTP Collaborators 1School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham Medical School, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK 2Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Department of Pharmacology, Monash University, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia 3Clinical Pharmacology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK 4School of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TD, UK 5Medway School of Pharmacy, The Universities of Greenwich and Kent at Medway, Anson Building, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, Chatham, Kent, ME4 4TB, UK 6Neuroscience Division, Medical Education Institute, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK 7Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9XD, UK Abstract The Concise Guide to PHARMACOLOGY 2019/20 is the fourth in this series of biennial publications. The Concise Guide provides concise overviews of the key properties of nearly 1800 human drug targets with an emphasis on selective pharmacology (where available), plus links to the open access knowledgebase source of drug targets and their ligands (www.guidetopharmacology.org), which provides more detailed views of target and ligand properties. Although the Concise Guide represents approximately 400 pages, the material presented is substantially reduced compared to information and links presented on the website.
    [Show full text]
  • Cannabidiol and Contributions of Major Hemp Phytocompounds to the “Entourage Effect”; Possible Mecha- Nisms
    Nahler G, et al., J Altern Complement Integr Med 2019, 5: 066 DOI: 10.24966/ACIM-7562/100066 HSOA Journal of Alternative, Complementary & Integrative Medicine Review Article cannabinoid found in “drug-type” cannabis (marijuana, an obso- Cannabidiol and Contributions of lete and pejorative slang term for drug-type Cannabis), Cannabidi- ol (CBD) is the main cannabinoid in hemp (“fibre-type” Cannabis). Major Hemp Phytocompounds to The term “hemp” is therefore used for those Cannabis varieties that are low in THC (<0.2% by European law), “drug-type Cannabis” for the “Entourage Effect”; Possible those that are rich in THC, and “Cannabis” as overall term. Mechanisms Cannabis cultivars are often characterised by their THC/CBD ra- tio but a variety of terpenes have also been described as characteristic, 1 2 3 Gerhard Nahler *, Trevor M Jones and Ethan B Russo additional markers among a number of other phytocompounds that 1Clinical Investigation Support GmbH, Kaiserstrasse, Austria vary considerably between chemical varieties or “chemovars” [3,4]. 2King’s College London, London, UK The term “strain” is commonly misapplied to chemovars of Can- 3International Cannabis and Cannabinoids Institute, Prague, Czech nabis in common parlance, but is properly pertinent to bacteria and Republic viruses, but not plants [5-8]. In fact, neither CBD nor THC is formed enzymatically by the plant. Both substances are the decarboxylated form of Cannabidiolic Acid (CBDA) and delta-9-Tetrahydrocannab- Abstract inolic Acid (THCA) respectively, induced in nature by slowly aging Cannabidiol (CBD) is the primary cannabinoid in “fibre-type” can- (mainly by light), or in post-harvest processing e.g., by heating.
    [Show full text]
  • GPCR Activation: Protonation and Membrane Potential
    Protein Cell 2013, 4(10): 747–760 DOI 10.1007/s13238-013-3073-2 Protein & Cell REVIEW GPCR activation: protonation and membrane potential Xuejun C. Zhang, Kening Sun, Laixing Zhang, Xuemei Li, Can Cao National Laboratory of Macromolecules, National Center for Protein Science-Beijing, Institute of Biophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China Correspondence: [email protected] Received August 19, 2013 Accepted September 11, 2013 Cell ABSTRACT Ligand & binding site P6.50 GPCR proteins represent the largest family of signaling CWxP membrane proteins in eukaryotic cells. Their importance Out to basic cell biology, human diseases, and pharma- ceutical interventions is well established. Many crystal Protein MHN structures of GPCR proteins have been reported in both D2.50 active and inactive conformations. These data indicate P5.50 N1.50 that agonist binding alone is not suffi cient to trigger the P7.50 conformational change of GPCRs necessary for binding W4.50 NPxxY of downstream G-proteins, yet other essential factors re- main elusive. Based on analysis of available GPCR crystal In structures, we identifi ed a potential conformational switch α8 around the conserved Asp2.50, which consistently shows R3.50 distinct conformations between inactive and active states. D(E)RY “DRY” pocket Combining the structural information with the current literature, we propose an energy-coupling mechanism, in which the interaction between a charge change of the Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a Class-A GPCR protein. Cα- trace of the peptide chain is colored in rainbow, with N-terminus in GPCR protein and the membrane potential of the living blue and C-terminus in red.
    [Show full text]
  • G-Protein-Coupled Receptors in CNS: a Potential Therapeutic Target for Intervention in Neurodegenerative Disorders and Associated Cognitive Deficits
    cells Review G-Protein-Coupled Receptors in CNS: A Potential Therapeutic Target for Intervention in Neurodegenerative Disorders and Associated Cognitive Deficits Shofiul Azam 1 , Md. Ezazul Haque 1, Md. Jakaria 1,2 , Song-Hee Jo 1, In-Su Kim 3,* and Dong-Kug Choi 1,3,* 1 Department of Applied Life Science & Integrated Bioscience, Graduate School, Konkuk University, Chungju 27478, Korea; shofi[email protected] (S.A.); [email protected] (M.E.H.); md.jakaria@florey.edu.au (M.J.); [email protected] (S.-H.J.) 2 The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia 3 Department of Integrated Bioscience & Biotechnology, College of Biomedical and Health Science, and Research Institute of Inflammatory Disease (RID), Konkuk University, Chungju 27478, Korea * Correspondence: [email protected] (I.-S.K.); [email protected] (D.-K.C.); Tel.: +82-010-3876-4773 (I.-S.K.); +82-43-840-3610 (D.-K.C.); Fax: +82-43-840-3872 (D.-K.C.) Received: 16 January 2020; Accepted: 18 February 2020; Published: 23 February 2020 Abstract: Neurodegenerative diseases are a large group of neurological disorders with diverse etiological and pathological phenomena. However, current therapeutics rely mostly on symptomatic relief while failing to target the underlying disease pathobiology. G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are one of the most frequently targeted receptors for developing novel therapeutics for central nervous system (CNS) disorders. Many currently available antipsychotic therapeutics also act as either antagonists or agonists of different GPCRs. Therefore, GPCR-based drug development is spreading widely to regulate neurodegeneration and associated cognitive deficits through the modulation of canonical and noncanonical signals.
    [Show full text]