ah-23848 and carboprostacyclin

The pharmacological properties of [(3)H]-prostaglandin E(2) ([(3)H]-PGE(2)) binding to washed homogenates of hamster uterus were determined. Scatchard analysis of competition data yielded dissociation constants (K(d)s) of 30.9 +/- 5.6 nM (n = 3) and apparent receptor density (B(max)) of 25.25 +/- 1.89 pmol g(-1) wet weight tissue (74 +/- 8% specific binding). Competition studies yielded the following affinity parameters (K(i)) for various prostanoids: GR63799X = 13 4 nM; PGE(2) = 17 +/- 3 nM; sulprostone = 64 +/- 5 nM; enprostil = 67 +/- 3 nM; misoprostol = 124 +/- 15 nM; cloprostenol = 187 +/- 33 nM; carba-prostacyclin = 260 +/- 167 nM; iloprost = 555 +/- 162 nM; PGF(2 alpha) = 767 +/- 73 nM; PGD(2) > 3560 nM; fluprostenol = 11 790 +/- 2776 nM; RS93520 = 21 558 +/- 14 228 nM. These data closely matched the pharmacological profile of previously described EP(3) receptors such as in bovine corpus luteum (BCLM) and the cloned mammalian EP(3) receptors. The high correlation between the current hamster uterus pharmacology data vs the EP(3) receptor binding in BCLM (r = 0.94; P < 0.0001), vs cloned human EP(3) receptor (r = 0.94, P < 0.0001), vs the cloned mouse EP(3) receptor binding (r = 0.78; P < 0.002), vs cloned rat EP(3) receptor (r = 0.9, P < 0.0004), and vs EP(3) receptor-mediated functional responses (r = 0.72, P < 0.02) substantiated the conclusion that the hamster uterus contains EP(3) receptor binding sites.

Topics: Animals; Binding Sites; Biphenyl Compounds; Bridged Bicyclo Compounds, Heterocyclic; Cattle; Cloprostenol; Cricetinae; Dinoprost; Dinoprostone; Enprostil; Epoprostenol; Fatty Acids, Unsaturated; Female; Hydantoins; Hydrazines; Iloprost; Latanoprost; Misoprostol; Prostaglandins; Prostaglandins E, Synthetic; Prostaglandins F, Synthetic; Receptors, Prostaglandin E; Receptors, Prostaglandin E, EP3 Subtype; Tritium; Uterus

1. Comparison of the rank order of potency of the natural prostanoids prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), PGD2, PGF2 alpha and carbaprostacyclin in stimulating cyclic AMP in Jurkat cells is consistent with the presence of an EP receptor. 2. Lack of responsiveness to the EP1/EP3 selective agonist, sulprostone, and the EP2 agonists, butaprost and AH 13205, indicates that this receptor is not of the EP1, EP2 or EP3 subtypes. 3. Inhibition of PGE2-stimulated cyclic AMP by the EP4 antagonist, AH 23848 is non-competitive, unlike the competitive antagonism reported in the pig saphenous vein EP4 preparation. Furthermore, 16,16-dimethyl PGE2 is 100 fold less potent than PGE2 in Jurkat cells, while these agonists are equipotent in the rabbit jugular vein purported EP4 preparation. In addition, 1-OH PGE1, which also is active in the rabbit jugular vein preparation, is inactive in Jurkat cells at concentrations up to 1 x 10(-4) M. These data are not wholly consistent with any adenylate cyclase coupled EP receptor described to date. 4. It is postulated that an EP receptor, positively coupled to adenylate cyclase, with a unique pharmacological profile is present in Jurkat cells.

Topics: Adenylyl Cyclases; Animals; Biphenyl Compounds; Bridged Bicyclo Compounds, Heterocyclic; Cyclic AMP; Dinoprost; Dinoprostone; Epoprostenol; Fatty Acids, Unsaturated; Humans; Hydrazines; Leukemia, T-Cell; Prostaglandin D2; Rabbits; Receptors, Prostaglandin E; Swine; T-Lymphocytes; Tumor Cells, Cultured