Cargando…

Systematic errors in detecting biased agonism: Analysis of current methods and development of a new model-free approach

Discovering biased agonists requires a method that can reliably distinguish the bias in signalling due to unbalanced activation of diverse transduction proteins from that of differential amplification inherent to the system being studied, which invariably results from the non-linear nature of biolog...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Onaran, H. Ongun, Ambrosio, Caterina, Uğur, Özlem, Madaras Koncz, Erzsebet, Grò, Maria Cristina, Vezzi, Vanessa, Rajagopal, Sudarshan, Costa, Tommaso
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5349545/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28290478
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep44247
_version_ 1782514489579536384
author Onaran, H. Ongun
Ambrosio, Caterina
Uğur, Özlem
Madaras Koncz, Erzsebet
Grò, Maria Cristina
Vezzi, Vanessa
Rajagopal, Sudarshan
Costa, Tommaso
author_facet Onaran, H. Ongun
Ambrosio, Caterina
Uğur, Özlem
Madaras Koncz, Erzsebet
Grò, Maria Cristina
Vezzi, Vanessa
Rajagopal, Sudarshan
Costa, Tommaso
author_sort Onaran, H. Ongun
collection PubMed
description Discovering biased agonists requires a method that can reliably distinguish the bias in signalling due to unbalanced activation of diverse transduction proteins from that of differential amplification inherent to the system being studied, which invariably results from the non-linear nature of biological signalling networks and their measurement. We have systematically compared the performance of seven methods of bias diagnostics, all of which are based on the analysis of concentration-response curves of ligands according to classical receptor theory. We computed bias factors for a number of β-adrenergic agonists by comparing BRET assays of receptor-transducer interactions with Gs, Gi and arrestin. Using the same ligands, we also compared responses at signalling steps originated from the same receptor-transducer interaction, among which no biased efficacy is theoretically possible. In either case, we found a high level of false positive results and a general lack of correlation among methods. Altogether this analysis shows that all tested methods, including some of the most widely used in the literature, fail to distinguish true ligand bias from “system bias” with confidence. We also propose two novel semi quantitative methods of bias diagnostics that appear to be more robust and reliable than currently available strategies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5349545
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53495452017-03-17 Systematic errors in detecting biased agonism: Analysis of current methods and development of a new model-free approach Onaran, H. Ongun Ambrosio, Caterina Uğur, Özlem Madaras Koncz, Erzsebet Grò, Maria Cristina Vezzi, Vanessa Rajagopal, Sudarshan Costa, Tommaso Sci Rep Article Discovering biased agonists requires a method that can reliably distinguish the bias in signalling due to unbalanced activation of diverse transduction proteins from that of differential amplification inherent to the system being studied, which invariably results from the non-linear nature of biological signalling networks and their measurement. We have systematically compared the performance of seven methods of bias diagnostics, all of which are based on the analysis of concentration-response curves of ligands according to classical receptor theory. We computed bias factors for a number of β-adrenergic agonists by comparing BRET assays of receptor-transducer interactions with Gs, Gi and arrestin. Using the same ligands, we also compared responses at signalling steps originated from the same receptor-transducer interaction, among which no biased efficacy is theoretically possible. In either case, we found a high level of false positive results and a general lack of correlation among methods. Altogether this analysis shows that all tested methods, including some of the most widely used in the literature, fail to distinguish true ligand bias from “system bias” with confidence. We also propose two novel semi quantitative methods of bias diagnostics that appear to be more robust and reliable than currently available strategies. Nature Publishing Group 2017-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5349545/ /pubmed/28290478 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep44247 Text en Copyright © 2017, The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Article
Onaran, H. Ongun
Ambrosio, Caterina
Uğur, Özlem
Madaras Koncz, Erzsebet
Grò, Maria Cristina
Vezzi, Vanessa
Rajagopal, Sudarshan
Costa, Tommaso
Systematic errors in detecting biased agonism: Analysis of current methods and development of a new model-free approach
title Systematic errors in detecting biased agonism: Analysis of current methods and development of a new model-free approach
title_full Systematic errors in detecting biased agonism: Analysis of current methods and development of a new model-free approach
title_fullStr Systematic errors in detecting biased agonism: Analysis of current methods and development of a new model-free approach
title_full_unstemmed Systematic errors in detecting biased agonism: Analysis of current methods and development of a new model-free approach
title_short Systematic errors in detecting biased agonism: Analysis of current methods and development of a new model-free approach
title_sort systematic errors in detecting biased agonism: analysis of current methods and development of a new model-free approach
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5349545/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28290478
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep44247
work_keys_str_mv AT onaranhongun systematicerrorsindetectingbiasedagonismanalysisofcurrentmethodsanddevelopmentofanewmodelfreeapproach
AT ambrosiocaterina systematicerrorsindetectingbiasedagonismanalysisofcurrentmethodsanddevelopmentofanewmodelfreeapproach
AT ugurozlem systematicerrorsindetectingbiasedagonismanalysisofcurrentmethodsanddevelopmentofanewmodelfreeapproach
AT madaraskonczerzsebet systematicerrorsindetectingbiasedagonismanalysisofcurrentmethodsanddevelopmentofanewmodelfreeapproach
AT gromariacristina systematicerrorsindetectingbiasedagonismanalysisofcurrentmethodsanddevelopmentofanewmodelfreeapproach
AT vezzivanessa systematicerrorsindetectingbiasedagonismanalysisofcurrentmethodsanddevelopmentofanewmodelfreeapproach
AT rajagopalsudarshan systematicerrorsindetectingbiasedagonismanalysisofcurrentmethodsanddevelopmentofanewmodelfreeapproach
AT costatommaso systematicerrorsindetectingbiasedagonismanalysisofcurrentmethodsanddevelopmentofanewmodelfreeapproach