No abstract

In order to properly interpret receptor inhibition experiments, the precise receptor specificities of the employed antagonists are of crucial importance. Lately, a great number of agonists for various formyl peptide receptors have been identified using a selection of antagonists. However, some confusion exists as to the precise receptor specificities of many of these antagonists. We have investigated the effects of formyl peptide receptor family antagonists on the neutrophil response induced by agonists for the formyl peptide receptor (FPR) and the formyl peptide receptor like 1 (FPRL1). To determine FPR- and FPRL1-specific interactions, these antagonists should not be used at used at concentrations above 10 microM. Signaling through FPR was inhibited by low concentrations of the antagonists cyclosporin H, Boc-MLF (also termed Boc-1), and Boc-FLFLFL (also termed Boc-2), while higher concentrations also partly inhibited the signaling through FPRL1. The antagonist WRWWWW (WRW(4)) specifically inhibited the signaling through FPRL1 at low concentrations but at high concentrations also partly the signaling through FPR. Based on the difference in potency of cyclosporin H and the two Boc-peptides, we suggest using cyclosporin H as a specific inhibitor for FPR. To specifically inhibit the FPRL1 response the antagonist WRW(4) should be used.

Serum amyloid A (SAA) is one of the acute-phase reactants, a group of plasma proteins that increases immensely in concentration during microbial infections and inflammatory conditions, and a close relationship between SAA levels and disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been observed. RA is an inflammatory disease, where neutrophils play important roles, and SAA is thought to participate in the inflammatory reaction by being a neutrophil chemoattractant and inducer of proinflammatory cytokines. The biological effects of SAA are reportedly mediated mainly through formyl peptide receptor like-1 (FPRL1), a G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) belonging to the formyl peptide receptor family. Here, we confirmed the affinity of SAA for FPRL1 by showing that stably transfected HL-60 cells expressing FPRL1 were activated by SAA and that the response was inhibited by the use of the FPRL1-specific antagonist WRWWWW (WRW4). We also show that SAA activates the neutrophil NADPH-oxidase and that a reserve pool of receptors is present in storage organelles mobilized by priming agents such as TNF-alpha and LPS from Gram-negative bacteria. The induced activity was inhibited by pertussis toxin, indicating the involvement of a GPCR. However, based on FPRL1-specific desensitization and use of FPRL1 antagonist WRW4, we found the SAA-mediated effects in neutrophils to be independent of FPRL1. Based on these findings, we conclude that SAA signaling in neutrophils is mediated through a GPCR, distinct from FPRL1. Future identification and characterization of the SAA receptor could lead to development of novel, therapeutic targets for treatment of RA.

The neutrophil formyl peptide receptors, FPR1 and FPR2, play critical roles for inflammatory reactions, and receptor-specific antagonists/inhibitors can possibly be used to facilitate the resolution of pathological inflammatory reactions. A 10-aa-long rhodamine-linked and membrane-permeable peptide inhibitor (PBP10) has such a potential. This FPR2 selective inhibitor adopts a phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate–binding sequence in the cytoskeletal protein gelsolin. A core peptide, RhB-QRLFQV, is identified that displays inhibitory effects as potent as the full-length molecule. The phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate–binding capacity of PBP10 was not in its own sufficient for inhibition. A receptor in which the presumed cytoplasmic signaling C-terminal tail of FPR2 was replaced with that of FPR1 retained the PBP10 sensitivity, suggesting that the tail of FPR2 was not on its own critical for inhibition. This gains support from the fact that the effect of cell-penetrating lipopeptide (a pepducin), suggested to act primarily through the third intracellular loop of FPR2, was significantly inhibited by PBP10. The third intracellular loops of FPR1 and FPR2 differ in only two amino acids, but an FPR2 mutant in which these two amino acids were replaced by those present in FPR1 retained the PBP10 sensitivity. In summary, we conclude that the inhibitory activity on neutrophil function of PBP10 is preserved in the core sequence RhB-QRLFQV and that neither the third intracellular loop of FPR2 nor the cytoplasmic tail of the receptor alone is responsible for the specific inhibition.

No abstract