Cargando…
A Comparative Study of Impedance versus Optical Label-Free Systems Relative to Labelled Assays in a Predominantly Gi Coupled GPCR (C5aR) Signalling
Profiling ligand function on G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) typically involves using transfected cells over-expressing a target of interest, a labelled ligand, and intracellular secondary messenger reporters. In contrast, label-free assays are sensitive enough to allow detection in native cells...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4263554/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25585930 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bios2030273 |
_version_ | 1782348595661373440 |
---|---|
author | Halai, Reena Croker, Daniel E. Suen, Jacky Y. Fairlie, David P. Cooper, Matthew A. |
author_facet | Halai, Reena Croker, Daniel E. Suen, Jacky Y. Fairlie, David P. Cooper, Matthew A. |
author_sort | Halai, Reena |
collection | PubMed |
description | Profiling ligand function on G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) typically involves using transfected cells over-expressing a target of interest, a labelled ligand, and intracellular secondary messenger reporters. In contrast, label-free assays are sensitive enough to allow detection in native cells, which may provide a more physiologically relevant readout. Here, we compare four agonists (native agonists, a peptide full agonist and a peptide partial agonist) that stimulate the human inflammatory GPCR C5aR. The receptor was challenged when present in human monocyte-derived macrophages (HMDM) versus stably transfected human C5aR-CHO cells. Receptor activation was compared on label-free optical and impedance biosensors and contrasted with results from two traditional reporter assays. The rank order of potencies observed across label-free and pathway specific assays was similar. However, label-free read outs gave consistently lower potency values in both native and transfected cells. Relative to pathway-specific assays, these technologies measure whole-cell responses that may encompass multiple signalling events, including down-regulatory events, which may explain the potency discrepancies observed. These observations have important implications for screening compound libraries against GPCR targets and for selecting drug candidates for in vivo assays. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4263554 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-42635542015-01-13 A Comparative Study of Impedance versus Optical Label-Free Systems Relative to Labelled Assays in a Predominantly Gi Coupled GPCR (C5aR) Signalling Halai, Reena Croker, Daniel E. Suen, Jacky Y. Fairlie, David P. Cooper, Matthew A. Biosensors (Basel) Article Profiling ligand function on G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) typically involves using transfected cells over-expressing a target of interest, a labelled ligand, and intracellular secondary messenger reporters. In contrast, label-free assays are sensitive enough to allow detection in native cells, which may provide a more physiologically relevant readout. Here, we compare four agonists (native agonists, a peptide full agonist and a peptide partial agonist) that stimulate the human inflammatory GPCR C5aR. The receptor was challenged when present in human monocyte-derived macrophages (HMDM) versus stably transfected human C5aR-CHO cells. Receptor activation was compared on label-free optical and impedance biosensors and contrasted with results from two traditional reporter assays. The rank order of potencies observed across label-free and pathway specific assays was similar. However, label-free read outs gave consistently lower potency values in both native and transfected cells. Relative to pathway-specific assays, these technologies measure whole-cell responses that may encompass multiple signalling events, including down-regulatory events, which may explain the potency discrepancies observed. These observations have important implications for screening compound libraries against GPCR targets and for selecting drug candidates for in vivo assays. MDPI 2012-07-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4263554/ /pubmed/25585930 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bios2030273 Text en © 2012 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Halai, Reena Croker, Daniel E. Suen, Jacky Y. Fairlie, David P. Cooper, Matthew A. A Comparative Study of Impedance versus Optical Label-Free Systems Relative to Labelled Assays in a Predominantly Gi Coupled GPCR (C5aR) Signalling |
title | A Comparative Study of Impedance versus Optical Label-Free Systems Relative to Labelled Assays in a Predominantly Gi Coupled GPCR (C5aR) Signalling |
title_full | A Comparative Study of Impedance versus Optical Label-Free Systems Relative to Labelled Assays in a Predominantly Gi Coupled GPCR (C5aR) Signalling |
title_fullStr | A Comparative Study of Impedance versus Optical Label-Free Systems Relative to Labelled Assays in a Predominantly Gi Coupled GPCR (C5aR) Signalling |
title_full_unstemmed | A Comparative Study of Impedance versus Optical Label-Free Systems Relative to Labelled Assays in a Predominantly Gi Coupled GPCR (C5aR) Signalling |
title_short | A Comparative Study of Impedance versus Optical Label-Free Systems Relative to Labelled Assays in a Predominantly Gi Coupled GPCR (C5aR) Signalling |
title_sort | comparative study of impedance versus optical label-free systems relative to labelled assays in a predominantly gi coupled gpcr (c5ar) signalling |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4263554/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25585930 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bios2030273 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT halaireena acomparativestudyofimpedanceversusopticallabelfreesystemsrelativetolabelledassaysinapredominantlygicoupledgpcrc5arsignalling AT crokerdaniele acomparativestudyofimpedanceversusopticallabelfreesystemsrelativetolabelledassaysinapredominantlygicoupledgpcrc5arsignalling AT suenjackyy acomparativestudyofimpedanceversusopticallabelfreesystemsrelativetolabelledassaysinapredominantlygicoupledgpcrc5arsignalling AT fairliedavidp acomparativestudyofimpedanceversusopticallabelfreesystemsrelativetolabelledassaysinapredominantlygicoupledgpcrc5arsignalling AT coopermatthewa acomparativestudyofimpedanceversusopticallabelfreesystemsrelativetolabelledassaysinapredominantlygicoupledgpcrc5arsignalling AT halaireena comparativestudyofimpedanceversusopticallabelfreesystemsrelativetolabelledassaysinapredominantlygicoupledgpcrc5arsignalling AT crokerdaniele comparativestudyofimpedanceversusopticallabelfreesystemsrelativetolabelledassaysinapredominantlygicoupledgpcrc5arsignalling AT suenjackyy comparativestudyofimpedanceversusopticallabelfreesystemsrelativetolabelledassaysinapredominantlygicoupledgpcrc5arsignalling AT fairliedavidp comparativestudyofimpedanceversusopticallabelfreesystemsrelativetolabelledassaysinapredominantlygicoupledgpcrc5arsignalling AT coopermatthewa comparativestudyofimpedanceversusopticallabelfreesystemsrelativetolabelledassaysinapredominantlygicoupledgpcrc5arsignalling |