Independent education resourceInformation here does not replace care from a qualified health professional.
Peptide Therapy GuideClear peptide education

Educational guide

Neuronal NMDAR-TRPM4 "Death Complex" Disabled by Interface Inhibitors

A membrane receptor long suspected of triggering excitotoxicity and neurodegeneration has been working with an accomplice all along. This revelation may explain why attempts to keep a lid on the membrane receptor have failed. It also suggests a better means of

Written by Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team
For education only

This guide cannot diagnose a condition or recommend a personal treatment plan. Discuss medical questions with a qualified professional.

A membrane receptor long suspected of triggering excitotoxicity and neurodegeneration has been working with an accomplice all along. This revelation may explain why attempts to keep a lid on the membrane receptor have failed. It also suggests a better means of neuroprotection—keeping the accomplices apart.

According to investigators at Heidelberg University, the membrane receptor, specifically, the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR), may even turn out to be something of a patsy. We won’t know until all the mechanistic details emerge. But the investigators have already been demonstrated that preventing NMDAR from physically interacting with its accomplice, a transient receptor potential channel known as TRPM4, can eliminate excitotoxicity in vitro and in vivo.

If TRPM4 is the new villain in excitotoxicity, the new heroes are compounds 8 and 19. These modestly named breaker upperers are small molecules that were selected on the basis of structure-based computational drug screens, internal strain calculations, and docking scores. Compounds 8 and 19, the Heidelberg University scientists assert, represent a new class of “interface inhibitors.” What’s more, the scientists say that interface inhibitors like compounds 8 and 19 may mitigate currently untreatable human neurodegenerative diseases.

“[Interface inhibitors] spare NMDAR-induced calcium signaling but disrupt the NMDAR/TRPM4 complex,” wrote the article’s authors. “[They] strongly reduce NMDA-triggered toxicity and mitochondrial dysfunction, abolish cyclic adenosine monophosphate–responsive element–binding protein (CREB) shutoff, boost gene induction, and reduce neuronal loss in mouse models of stroke and retinal degeneration.”

These findings came as something of a surprise. The ability of NMDARs to induce excitotoxicity was thought to be intimately linked to high intracellular calcium load. Instead, NMDARs induce excitotoxicity by physically coupling with TRPM4. This turned out to be a good surprise. If interface inhibitors are deployed, NMDAR-mediated toxicity can be eliminated without affecting NMDAR-induced calcium signaling.

NMDAR, an ion channel protein that is activated by the neurotransmitter glutamate, allows calcium to flow into the cell. The calcium signal sets in motion plasticity processes in the synapse but also propagates into the cell nucleus, where it activates a protective genetic program. Glutamate-activated NMDA receptors located in the junctions of the nerve cells have a key function in the brain, contributing to learning and memory processes as well as neuroprotection. But the same receptors are also found outside of synapses. These extrasynaptic NMDA receptors pose a threat because their activation can lead to cell death. Normally, however, efficient cellular uptake systems for glutamate make sure that these receptors are not activated and nerve cells remain undamaged.

This situation can change dramatically in the presence of disease. If, for example, parts of the brain are not supplied with sufficient oxygen after a stroke, disruptions in circulation negate the glutamate uptake systems. The glutamate level outside synapses increases, thereby activating the extrasynaptic NMDA receptors. The result is nerve cell damage and death accompanied by restrictions in brain function. Increased glutamate levels outside the synapses occur not only during circulatory disturbances of the brain.

“The evidence suggests that the toxic properties of extrasynaptic NMDA receptors play a central role in a number of neurodegenerative diseases,” explained Heidelberg University’s Hilmar Bading, PhD, the corresponding author of the current study. According to Bading, these diseases include Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and possibly even brain damage after infections with viruses or parasites.

While glutamate-activated NMDA receptors inside neuronal junctions help build up a protective shield, outside synapses, they change from Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde. “Understanding why extrasynaptic NMDA receptors lead to nerve cell death is the key to developing neuroprotective therapies,” continued Bading. That is precisely where the Heidelberg researchers are focusing their efforts.

In their experiments on mouse models, they were able to demonstrate that the NMDA receptors found outside synapses form a type of “death complex” with TRPM4, which has a variety of functions in the body, with roles in the cardiovascular system and immune responses. And now it appears that TRPM4 also confers toxic properties on extrasynaptic NMDA receptors.

Using molecular and protein biochemical methods, the scientists identified the contact surfaces of the two interacting proteins. With this knowledge, they used a structure-based search to identify substances that might disrupt this very bond, thereby dismantling and inactivating the “death complex.” These substances proved to be extremely effective protectors of nerve cells.

“We’re working with a completely new principle for therapeutic agents here,” declared Bading. “The interface inhibitors give us a tool that can selectively remove the toxic properties of extrasynaptic NMDA receptors.”

Bading and his team were already able to demonstrate the efficacy of the new inhibitors in mouse models of stroke or retinal degeneration. According to the Heidelberg researcher, there is good reason to hope that such interface inhibitors—administered orally as broad-spectrum neuroprotectants—offer treatment options for currently untreatable neurodegenerative diseases.

“Their possible approval as pharmaceutical drugs for human use will take several more years,” he cautioned. “The new substances must first successfully pass through a number of preclinical and clinical testing phases.”

Connected reading

Helpful context for this guide

Source-derived material selected through this article’s indexed topics.

Related questions

01How stable is the antibody?

A crucial question often addressed during preclinical development focuses on the in vivo stability of therapeutic antibodies. Increasing the half-life of a therapeutic antibody has several benefits ranging from higher treatment efficacy to increased advantages for the patients who will have a fewer number of therapy sessions and a reduced cost. Given these compelling benefits, following the identification of therapeutic antibodies with the desired specificity, developers usually subject them to a refinement step to increase their stability. This process is often hindered by the lack of reliable experimental tools to predict the half-life of antibodies in patients. The major hurdle of using mouse models to predict antibody stability in the serum lies in the way immunoglobulin proteins are processed by the organism. In mammals, most proteins circulating in the serum undergo constant uptake by endothelial cells and are routed through the endosomes to the lysosomal compartment for degradation. In the endosomes, immunoglobulin G (IgG) proteins are recognized and bound by a transmembrane protein, called the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which mediates their recycling to the plasma membrane and subsequent release back into the serum. As a result, the half-life of IgGs are significantly extended by this mechanism. Since most therapeutic antibodies belong to the IgG class, this recycling system is very relevant for their relative stability in the body. Remarkably, the relative affinity between IgGs and FcRn is extremely disparate between different species, with the mouse receptor showing a much higher affinity than its human counterpart.

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
02Undruggable or unscreenable?

Another obstacle to discovering new PPI inhibitors is the lack of libraries designed to hunt for them, points out Philippe Roche, PhD, senior scientist at the Integrative Structural and Chemical Biology team at the Cancer Research Center of Marseilles, France. “If you screen PPIs using libraries that were designed for kinases or GPCRs, that’s why you don’t get a lot of good results,” he says. To that end, his group began assembling a library focused on orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs. The result was 2P2Idb, a hand-curated, structural database cataloguing orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs for which the interface had been 3D characterized. From analyzing these known PPI inhibitors, and what structures they had in common, Roche and his colleagues developed a model to predict whether compounds would likely inhibit PPIs. Using this method, 2P2Idb creates an enriched screening library that dramatically increases the hit rate compared to standard libraries. Having proven their success with a small library of 1600 compounds, they are in the process of expanding the library to 10,000 compounds. Once that’s published, “the idea is to make this library available to labs around the world,” Roche says. “We will provide the library free of charge for people to be able to screen PPI targets.”

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
P

About the author

Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team

Editorial team for Peptide Therapy Guide.

View all articles →