Crucial Positively Charged Residues for Ligand Activation of the GPR35 Receptor

GPR35 is a G protein-coupled receptor expressed in the immune, gastrointestinal, and nervous systems in gastric carcinomas and is implicated in heart failure and pain perception. We investigated residues in GPR35 responsible for ligand activation and the receptor structure in the active state. GPR35 contains numerous positively charged amino acids that face into the binding pocket that cluster in two distinct receptor regions, TMH3-4-5-6 and TMH1-2-7. Computer modeling implicated TMH3-4-5-6 for activation by the GPR35 agonists zaprinast and pamoic acid. Mutation results for the TMH1-2-7 region of GPR35 showed no change in ligand efficacies at the K1.32A, R2.65A, R7.33A, and K7.40A mutants. However, mutation of arginine residues in the TMH3-4-5-6 region (R4.60, R6.58, R3.36, R(164), and R(167) in the EC2 loop) had effects on signaling for one or both agonists tested. R4.60A resulted in a total ablation of agonist-induced activation in both the β-arrestin trafficking and ERK1/2 activation assays. R6.58A increased the potency of zaprinast 30-fold in the pERK assay. The R(167)A mutant decreased the potency of pamoic acid in the β-arrestin trafficking assay. The R(164)A and R(164)L mutants decreased potencies of both agonists. Similar trends for R6.58A and R(167)A were observed in calcium responses. Computer modeling showed that the R6.58A mutant has additional interactions with zaprinast. R3.36A did not express on the cell surface but was trapped in the cytoplasm. The lack of surface expression of R3.36A was rescued by a GPR35 antagonist, CID2745687. These results clearly show that R4.60, R(164), R(167), and R6.58 play crucial roles in the agonist initiated activation of GPR35

The Scientific Method as a Scaffold to Enhance Communication Skills in Chemistry

Scientific success in the field of chemistry depends upon the mastery of a wide range of soft skills, most notably scientific writing and speaking. However, training for scientific communication is typically limited at the undergraduate level, where students struggle to express themselves in a clear and logical manner. The underlying issue is deeper than basic technical skills; rather, it is a problem of students’ unawareness of a fundamental and strategic framework for writing and speaking with a purpose. The methodology has been implemented for individual mentorship and in our regional summer research program to deliver a blueprint of thought and reasoning that endows students with the confidence and skills to become more effective communicators. Our didactic process intertwines undergraduate research with the scientific method and is partitioned into six steps, referred to as “phases”, to allow for focused and deep thinking on the essential components of the scientific method. The phases are designed to challenge the student in their zone of proximal development so they learn to extract and ultimately comprehend the elements of the scientific method through focused written and oral assignments. Students then compile their newly acquired knowledge to create a compelling and logical story, using their persuasive written and oral presentations to complete a research proposal, final report, and formal 20 min presentation. We find that such an approach delivers the necessary guidance to promote the logical framework that improves writing and speaking skills. Over the past decade, we have witnessed both qualitative and quantitative gains in the students’ confidence in their abilities and skills (developed by this process), preparing them for future careers as young scientists

The Scientific Method as a Scaffold to Enhance Communication Skills in Chemistry

Scientific success in the field of chemistry depends upon the mastery of a wide range of soft skills, most notably scientific writing and speaking. However, training for scientific communication is typically limited at the undergraduate level, where students struggle to express themselves in a clear and logical manner. The underlying issue is deeper than basic technical skills; rather, it is a problem of students\u27 unawareness of a fundamental and strategic framework for writing and speaking with a purpose. The methodology has been implemented for individual mentorship and in our regional summer research program to deliver a blueprint of thought and reasoning that endows students with the confidence and skills to become more effective communicators. Our didactic process intertwines undergraduate research with the scientific method and is partitioned into six steps, referred to as phases , to allow for focused and deep thinking on the essential components of the scientific method. The phases are designed to challenge the student in their zone of proximal development so they learn to extract and ultimately comprehend the elements of the scientific method through focused written and oral assignments. Students then compile their newly acquired knowledge to create a compelling and logical story, using their persuasive written and oral presentations to complete a research proposal, final report, and formal 20 min presentation. We find that such an approach delivers the necessary guidance to promote the logical framework that improves writing and speaking skills. Over the past decade, we have witnessed both qualitative and quantitative gains in the students\u27 confidence in their abilities and skills (developed by this process), preparing them for future careers as young scientists

Identification of the GPR55 Antagonist Binding Site Using a Novel Set of High-Potency GPR55 Selective Ligands

GPR55 is a class A G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) that has been implicated in inflammatory pain, neuropathic pain, metabolic disorder, bone development, and cancer. Initially deorphanized as a cannabinoid receptor, GPR55 has been shown to be activated by non-cannabinoid ligands such as l-α-lysophosphatidylinositol (LPI). While there is a growing body of evidence of physiological and pathophysiological roles for GPR55, the paucity of specific antagonists has limited its study. In collaboration with the Molecular Libraries Probe Production Centers Network initiative, we identified a series of GPR55 antagonists using a β-arrestin, high-throughput, high-content screen of ∼300000 compounds. This screen yielded novel, GPR55 antagonist chemotypes with IC₅₀ values in the range of 0.16–2.72 μM [Heynen-Genel, S., et al. (2010) Screening for Selective Ligands for GPR55: Antagonists (ML191, ML192, ML193) (Bookshelf ID NBK66153; PMID entry 22091481)]. Importantly, many of the GPR55 antagonists were completely selective, with no agonism or antagonism against GPR35, CB1, or CB2 up to 20 μM. Using a model of the GPR55 inactive state, we studied the binding of an antagonist series that emerged from this screen. These studies suggest that GPR55 antagonists possess a head region that occupies a horizontal binding pocket extending into the extracellular loop region, a central ligand portion that fits vertically in the receptor binding pocket and terminates with a pendant aromatic or heterocyclic ring that juts out. Both the region that extends extracellularly and the pendant ring are features associated with antagonism. Taken together, our results provide a set of design rules for the development of second-generation GPR55 selective antagonists