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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |