JPET

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sharif, N. A.
Right arrow Articles by Davis, T. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sharif, N. A.
Right arrow Articles by Davis, T. L.

Vol. 286, Issue 2, 1094-1102, August 1998

Pharmacology of [3H]Prostaglandin E1/[3H]Prostaglandin E2 and [3H]Prostaglandin F2 Binding to EP3 and FP Prostaglandin Receptor Binding Sites in Bovine Corpus Luteum: Characterization and Correlation with Functional Data

N. A. Sharif, S. X. Xu, G. W. Williams, J. Y. Crider, B. W. Griffin and T. L. Davis

Molecular Pharmacology Unit, Alcon Laboratories Inc., Fort Worth, Texas

Specific binding of [3H]prostaglandin (PG) E1, [3H]PGE2 and [3H]PGF2 to washed total particulate homogenates of bovine corpus luteum comprised 60 to 82% of total binding. Scatchard analysis of competition data revealed the presence of an apparent single population of binding sites for [3H]PGE1 and [3H]PGE2 with dissociation constants (Kds) of 2.76 to 3.39 nM and apparent receptor density (Bmax) of 1.5 to 1.56 pmol/g wet weight (n = 3-4). However, [3H]PGF2 appeared to interact with two classes/states of binding sites (Kd1 = 6.51 ± 0.65 nM, Bmax1 = 2.33 ± 0.26 pmol/g wet weight; Kd2 = 986 ± 269 nM; Bmax2 = 44.8 ± 11.3 pmol/g wet weight, n = 11). Specific [3H]PGE1 and [3H]PGE2 binding was most potently (nanomolar affinity) inhibited by PGs with high selectivity for the EP3 receptor subtype (e.g., GR63799, sulprostone, enprostil) but was weakly (Kis > 1 µM) influenced by EP1-selective (SC-19220), FP-selective (fluprostenol, PHXA85), DP-selective (BWA868C; ZK118182), IP-selective (iloprost) and TP-selective (U46619) PGs. Specific [3H]PGF2 binding was potently displaced by FP-selective agents such as fluprostenol, PHXA85 and cloprostenol with nanomolar affinities (n = 3-25), but weakly (Kis > 1 µM) by other PGs showing high selectivity for other PG receptor subtypes mentioned above. The relative specificities and potencies of EP3- and FP-selective PGs tested in the binding assays were confirmed using various functional assays. These studies have provided strong pharmacological evidence for the similarity of [3H]PGE1 and [3H]PGE2 binding to EP3 receptors and for [3H]PGF2 binding to FP receptors in washed bovine corpus luteum homogenates.


0022-3565/98/2862-1094$03.00/0
THE JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
Copyright © 1998 by The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics






Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
All ASPET Journals Molecular Pharmacology Pharmacological Reviews
 Molecular Interventions Drug Metabolism and Disposition

Copyright © 1998 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.