Ligand recognition has been extensively explored in G protein-coupled A 1 , A 2A , and A 2B adenosine receptors but not in the A 3 receptor, which is cerebroprotective and cardioprotective. We mutated several residues of the human A 3 adenosine receptor within transmembrane domains 3 and 6 and the second extracellular loop, which have been predicted by previous molecular modeling to be involved in the ligand recognition, including His 95 , Trp 243 , Leu 244 , Ser 247 , Asn 250 , and Lys 152 . The N250A mutant receptor lost the ability to bind both radiolabeled agonist and antagonist. The H95A mutation significantly reduced affinity of both agonists and antagonists. In contrast, the K152A (EL2), W243A (6.48), and W243F (6.48) mutations did not significantly affect the agonist binding but decreased antagonist affinity by ϳ3-38-fold, suggesting that these residues were critical for the high affinity of A 3 adenosine receptor antagonists. Activation of phospholipase C by wild type (WT) and mutant receptors was measured. The A 3 agonist 2-chloro-N 6 -(3-iodobenzyl)-5-N-methylcarbamoyladenosine stimulated phosphoinositide turnover in the WT but failed to evoke a response in cells expressing W243A and W243F mutant receptors, in which agonist binding was less sensitive to guanosine 5-␥-thiotriphosphate than in WT. Thus, although not important for agonist binding, Trp 243 was critical for receptor activation. The results were interpreted using a rhodopsin-based model of ligand-A 3 receptor interactions.

A three-dimensional model of the human A(2A) adenosine receptor (AR) and its docked ligands was built by homology to rhodopsin and validated with site-directed mutagenesis and the synthesis of chemically complementary agonists. Different binding modes of A(2A)AR antagonists and agonists were compared by using the FlexiDock automated docking procedure, with manual adjustment. Putative binding regions for the 9H-purine ring in agonist NECA 3 and the 1H-[1,2,4]triazolo[1,5-c]quinazoline ring in antagonist CGS15943 1 overlapped, and the exocyclic amino groups of each were H-bonded to the side chain of N(6.55). For bound agonist, H-bonds formed between the ribose 3'- and 5'-substituents and the hydrophilic amino acids T(3.36), S(7.42), and H(7.43), and the terminal methyl group of the 5'-uronamide interacted with the hydrophobic side chain of F(6.44). Formation of the agonist complex destabilized the ground-state structure of the A(2A)AR, which was stabilized through a network of H-bonding and hydrophobic interactions in the transmembrane helical domain (TM) regions, facilitating a conformational change upon activation. Both flexibility of the ribose moiety, required for the movement of TM6, and its H-bonding to the receptor were important for agonism. Two sets of interhelical H-bonds involved residues conserved among ARs but not in rhodopsin: (1) E13(1.39) and H278(7.43) and (2) D52(2.50), with the highly conserved amino acids N280(7.45) and S281(7.46), and N284(7.49) with S91(3.39). Most of the amino acid residues lining the putative binding site(s) were conserved among the four AR subtypes. The A(2A)AR/3 complex showed a preference for an intermediate conformation about the glycosidic bond, unlike in the A(3)AR/3 complex, which featured an anti-conformation. Hydrophilic amino acids of TMs 3 and 7 (ribose-binding region) were replaced with anionic residues for enhanced binding to amine-derivatized agonists. We identified new neoceptor (T88D)-neoligand pairs that were consistent with the model.

Endothelium-leukocyte interaction is critical for inflammatory responses. Whereas the tissue microenvironments are often acidic at inflammatory sites, the mechanisms by which cells respond to acidosis are not well understood. Using molecular, cellular and biochemical approaches, we demonstrate that activation of GPR4, a proton-sensing G protein-coupled receptor, by isocapnic acidosis increases the adhesiveness of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) that express GPR4 endogenously. Acidosis in combination with GPR4 overexpression further augments HUVEC adhesion with U937 monocytes. In contrast, overexpression of a G protein signaling-defective DRY motif mutant (R115A) of GPR4 does not elicit any increase of HUVEC adhesion, indicating the requirement of G protein signaling. Downregulation of GPR4 expression by RNA interference reduces the acidosis-induced HUVEC adhesion. To delineate downstream pathways, we show that inhibition of adenylate cyclase by inhibitors, 2′,5′-dideoxyadenosine (DDA) or SQ 22536, attenuates acidosis/GPR4-induced HUVEC adhesion. Consistently, treatment with a cAMP analog or a Gi signaling inhibitor increases HUVEC adhesiveness, suggesting a role of the Gs/cAMP signaling in this process. We further show that the cAMP downstream effector Epac is important for acidosis/GPR4-induced cell adhesion. Moreover, activation of GPR4 by acidosis increases the expression of vascular adhesion molecules E-selectin, VCAM-1 and ICAM-1, which are functionally involved in acidosis/GPR4-mediated HUVEC adhesion. Similarly, hypercapnic acidosis can also activate GPR4 to stimulate HUVEC adhesion molecule expression and adhesiveness. These results suggest that acidosis/GPR4 signaling regulates endothelial cell adhesion mainly through the Gs/cAMP/Epac pathway and may play a role in the inflammatory response of vascular endothelial cells.

Adenosine A(3) receptors are of interest in the treatment of cardiac ischemia, inflammation, and neurodegenerative diseases. In an effort to create a unique receptor mutant that would be activated by tailor-made synthetic ligands, we mutated the human A(3) receptor at the site of a critical His residue in TM7, previously proposed to be involved in ligand recognition through interaction with the ribose moiety. The H272E mutant receptor displayed reduced affinity for most of the uncharged A(3) receptor agonists and antagonists examined. For example, the nonselective agonist 1a was 19-fold less potent at the mutant receptor than at the wild-type receptor. The introduction of an amino group on the ribose moiety of adenosine resulted in either equipotency or enhanced binding affinity at the H272E mutant relative to wild-type A(3) receptors, depending on the position of the amino group. 3'-Amino-3'-deoxyadenosine proved to be 7-fold more potent at the H272E mutant receptor than at the wild-type receptor, while the corresponding 2'- and 5'-amino analogues did not display significantly enhanced affinities. An 3'-amino-N(6)-iodobenzyl analogue showed only a small enhancement at the mutant (K(i) = 320 nM) vs wild-type receptors. The 3'-amino group was intended for a direct electrostatic interaction with the negatively charged ribose-binding region of the mutant receptor, yet molecular modeling did not support this notion. This design approach is an example of engineering the structure of mutant receptors to recognize synthetic ligands for which they are selectively matched on the basis of molecular complementarity between the mutant receptor and the ligand. We have termed such engineered receptors "neoceptors", since the ligand recognition profile of such mutant receptors need not correspond to the profile of the parent, native receptor.