G protein-linked receptors labeled by [3H]histamine in guinea pig cerebral cortex. I. Pharmacological characterization [corrected].

Binding of histamine to washed membranes from guinea pig cerebral cortex can be described empirically as two classes of distinct and independent sites (log IP1 = -8.45 +/- 0.02, R1;t = 98 +/- 6 pmol/g of protein; log KP2 = -6.34 +/- 0.22, R2.t = 990 +/- 60 pmol/g of protein). At 1.4 nm [3H]histamine, the kinetics of association and dissociation are biexponential. The values of k-Pj/k+Pj calculated for parallel one-step processes agree well with the corresponding values of KPj. Both k-p1 and k-P2 are increased by 0.1 mM guanylylimidodiphosphate; apparent capacity at equilibrium is reduced for both classes of sites, with little or no change in KP1 or KP2. Twenty-six H2 and H3 agonists and antagonists block access of [3H]histamine to the same sites, and the binding patterns reveal either one or two hyperbolic terms [i.e., sigma nj = 1 F' jKj/(Kj+[L])]. Two terms are required for six agonists and six antagonists, and F'2 varies widely from ligand to ligand. Also, the quantity log (K2/K1) is correlated with F'1 among agonists but with F'2 among antagonists (K1 < K2). The pharmacological selectivity is suggestive of both H2 and H3 receptors. An H2 specificity emerges from the appropriate values of Kj for 12 H2 agonists (i.e., K1 when n = 1 and K2 when n = 2; p = 0.00045), although a specificity distinct from that of H2 receptors is found with H2 antagonists. An H3 specificity emerges from the inhibitory potencies (IC50) of eight H3 agonists (p = 0.00025) and eight H3 antagonists (p = 0.0019); also, the sites labeled by [3H]histamine resemble H3 receptors reportedly labeled by N alpha-[3H]methylhistamine and (R)-alpha-[3H]methylhistamine. Ligand-dependent differences in F'2 are inconsistent with the notion of distinct and independent sites, and the tendency of antagonists to promote the sites of weaker affinity (F'2) argues against a ligand-regulated equilibrium between two states. The physical significance of the binding parameters is therefore unclear. The failure to identify an unambiguous pharmacological specificity may reflect the failure to assess binding in the correct mechanistic context.