Ankara University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Pharmacology, Molecular biology and Technology development unit, Sıhhiye, Ankara, Turkey.
Istituto Superiore di Sanitá, Dip. Farmaco, Rome, Italy.
Sci Rep. 2017 Mar 14;7:44247. doi: 10.1038/srep44247.
Discovering biased agonists requires a method that can reliably distinguish the bias in signalling due to unbalanced activation of diverse transduction proteins from that of differential amplification inherent to the system being studied, which invariably results from the non-linear nature of biological signalling networks and their measurement. We have systematically compared the performance of seven methods of bias diagnostics, all of which are based on the analysis of concentration-response curves of ligands according to classical receptor theory. We computed bias factors for a number of β-adrenergic agonists by comparing BRET assays of receptor-transducer interactions with Gs, Gi and arrestin. Using the same ligands, we also compared responses at signalling steps originated from the same receptor-transducer interaction, among which no biased efficacy is theoretically possible. In either case, we found a high level of false positive results and a general lack of correlation among methods. Altogether this analysis shows that all tested methods, including some of the most widely used in the literature, fail to distinguish true ligand bias from "system bias" with confidence. We also propose two novel semi quantitative methods of bias diagnostics that appear to be more robust and reliable than currently available strategies.
发现偏向激动剂需要一种方法,该方法能够可靠地区分由于不同转导蛋白的不平衡激活引起的信号转导偏向与研究中系统固有的差异放大偏向,这不可避免地源于生物信号网络及其测量的非线性性质。我们已经系统地比较了七种偏倚诊断方法的性能,所有这些方法都是基于根据经典受体理论分析配体的浓度-反应曲线。我们通过比较 BRET 测定法来比较 Gs、Gi 和阻滞蛋白的受体-转导相互作用与β-肾上腺素能激动剂的受体-转导相互作用,计算了一些β-肾上腺素能激动剂的偏倚因子。使用相同的配体,我们还比较了起源于同一受体-转导相互作用的信号转导步骤的反应,理论上在这些步骤中不存在偏向功效。在这两种情况下,我们都发现假阳性结果水平很高,并且方法之间普遍缺乏相关性。总的来说,这项分析表明,所有测试的方法,包括文献中最广泛使用的一些方法,都不能自信地将真正的配体偏向与“系统偏向”区分开来。我们还提出了两种新的偏倚诊断半定量方法,它们似乎比现有的策略更稳健可靠。