Sahlholm Kristoffer, Svensson Peder, Malo Marcus, Andersson Daniel R, Betari Nibal
Department of Medical and Translational Biology, Wallenberg Centre for Molecular Medicine, Umeå University, 901 87 Umeå, Sweden.
Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
ACS Chem Neurosci. 2025 Jul 2;16(13):2502-2512. doi: 10.1021/acschemneuro.5c00270. Epub 2025 Jun 19.
The dopamine D receptor (DR) is prominently expressed in the striatum and cerebral cortex and is an attractive target for treating Parkinson's disease and cognitive impairment in schizophrenia. While newer, noncatechol DR agonists such as tavapadon have shown promise in recent clinical trials, the therapeutic utility of earlier catechol agonists such as A77636 was hampered by tolerance development. The mechanism underlying tolerance induction was suggested to involve very slow A77636 dissociation from the DR, promoting prominent arrestin recruitment and receptor internalization associated with delayed recycling to the cell surface. Here, we compared the signaling and binding kinetics of five DR agonists─dopamine, dihydrexidine, apomorphine, A77636, and tavapadon─using two time-resolved assays of agonist-induced β-arrestin2 recruitment and G protein-coupled inward rectifier potassium (GIRK, also known as Kir3) channel activation, respectively. Additionally, DR internalization was studied using cell-surface ELISA. Tavapadon and apomorphine did not induce significant DR internalization, whereas pronounced internalization was observed with A77636, dopamine, and dihydrexidine. GIRK response deactivation time courses upon agonist washout were longer for A77636 and tavapadon compared to dopamine, dihydrexidine, and apomorphine. Similarly, in the β-arrestin2 assay, signal decay upon antagonist addition was slower for A77636 and tavapadon compared to the other three agonists. Tavapadon and apomorphine were partial agonists in both assays, whereas A77636 and dihydrexidine showed efficacies similar to dopamine. While our results do not provide evidence for a direct correlation between agonist dissociation and liability to tolerance induction, the possibility remains that certain combinations of agonist characteristics, such as high efficacy paired with slow dissociation, are associated with tolerance induction by DR agonists.
多巴胺 D 受体(DR)在纹状体和大脑皮层中显著表达,是治疗帕金森病和精神分裂症认知障碍的一个有吸引力的靶点。虽然较新的非儿茶酚 DR 激动剂如他伐帕朵在最近的临床试验中显示出前景,但早期儿茶酚激动剂如 A77636 的治疗效用却因耐受性的产生而受到阻碍。据推测,耐受性诱导的机制涉及 A77636 从 DR 上非常缓慢的解离,促进显著的阻遏蛋白募集以及与延迟再循环到细胞表面相关的受体内化。在此,我们分别使用两种时间分辨测定法,即激动剂诱导的β-阻遏蛋白 2 募集和 G 蛋白偶联内向整流钾(GIRK,也称为 Kir3)通道激活,比较了五种 DR 激动剂——多巴胺、二氢麦角隐亭、阿扑吗啡、A77636 和他伐帕朵——的信号传导和结合动力学。此外,使用细胞表面酶联免疫吸附测定法研究了 DR 的内化。他伐帕朵和阿扑吗啡未诱导显著的 DR 内化,而 A77636、多巴胺和二氢麦角隐亭则观察到明显的内化。与多巴胺、二氢麦角隐亭和阿扑吗啡相比,A77636 和他伐帕朵在激动剂洗脱后 GIRK 反应失活的时间进程更长。同样,在β-阻遏蛋白 2 测定中,与其他三种激动剂相比,A77636 和他伐帕朵在加入拮抗剂后信号衰减更慢。他伐帕朵和阿扑吗啡在两种测定中均为部分激动剂,而 A77636 和二氢麦角隐亭显示出与多巴胺相似的效力。虽然我们的结果没有为激动剂解离与耐受性诱导倾向之间的直接相关性提供证据,但激动剂特性的某些组合(如高效力与缓慢解离)与 DR 激动剂诱导耐受性相关的可能性仍然存在。