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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Halai, Reena, Croker, Daniel E., Suen, Jacky Y., Fairlie, David P., Cooper, Matthew A.
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