Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The main aim of this study was to identify putative beta-bends and the role of the N- and C-terminus in the CGRP receptor antagonist halpha CGRP8-37, which was measured against halpha CGRP inhibition of twitch responses in the rat prostatic vas deferens. 2. With a bend-biasing residue (proline) at position 16 in halpha CGRP8-37 (10(-5) M) an inactive compound was produced, while alanine at the same position retained antagonist activity (apparent pKB 5.6+/-0.1 at 10(-5) M). Proline at position 19 within halpha CGRP8-37 (10(-5) M) was an antagonist (apparent pKB 5.8+/-0.1). 3. Incorporation of a bend-forcing structure (beta-turn dipeptide or BTD) at either positions 19,20 or 33,34 in halpha CGRP8-37 (10(-5) M) antagonized halpha CGRP responses (apparent pKB 6.0+/-0.1 and 6.1+/-0.1, respectively). Replacement by BTD at both positions 19,20 and 33,34 within halpha CGRP8-37 competitively antagonized responses to halpha CGRP (pA2 6.2; Schild plot slope 1.0+/-0.1). 4. Halpha CGRP8-37 analogues (10(-5) M), substituted at the N-terminus by either glycine8, or des-NH2 valine8 or proline8 were all antagonists against halpha CGRP (apparent pKB 6.1+/-0.1, 6.5+/-0.1 and 6.1+/-0.1, respectively), while halpha CGRP8-37 (10(-5) M) substituted in three places by proline8 and glutamic acid10,14 was inactive. 5. Replacement of the C-terminus by alanine amide37 in halpha CGRP8-37 (10(-5) M) failed to antagonize halpha CGRP responses. 6. Peptidase inhibitors did not alter either the agonist potency of halpha CGRP or the antagonist affinities of halpha CGRP8-37 BTD19,20 and 33,34 and halpha CGRP8-37 Gly8 (against halpha CGRP responses). 7. In conclusion, two beta-bends at positions 18-21 and 32-35 are compatible with high affinity by BTD and is the first approach of modelling the bioactive structure of halpha CGRP8-37. Further, the N-terminus of halpha CGRP8-37 is not essential for antagonism, while the C-terminus interacts directly with CGRP receptor binding sites of the rat vas deferens.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wisskirchen et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: