A role for COX2-derived PGE2 and PGE2-receptor subtypes in head and neck squamous carcinoma cell proliferation

The overexpression of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 is a frequent event in squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck (HNSCC), and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, which are potent inhibitors of COX-1 and COX-2, exert chemopreventive effects on HNSCC cancer development. COX-2 promotes the release of the pro-inflammatory mediator prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), which acts on its cell surface G protein-coupled receptors EP1, EP2, EP3, and EP4. Here, we investigated the role of PGE2 and its receptors in cellular proliferation in HNSCC. The expression of COX-2 and EP1-4 was examined in immortalized oral epithelial cells and in a representative panel of HNSCC cell lines, and based on these data EP1-EP3 and COX-2 expression were evaluated by immunohistochemistry in a large clinical sample collection using HNSCC tissue microarrays. The ability of selective COX-2 inhibition to block PGE2 secretion was measured by ELISA specific assays. The effects of PGE2 on cell proliferation were evaluated using PGE2, its stable analog, and EP2 and EP3-specific synthetic agonists. The results presented here show that HNSCC tumoral lesions and their derived cell lines constitutively express COX-2 and the EP1, EP2 and EP3 receptors for PGE2. HNSCC cells secrete PGE2, which can be suppressed by low concentrations of COX-2 selective inhibitors, without inhibiting cell proliferation. Exogenously added stable PGE2 and EP3-specific agonists induce DNA synthesis in all HNSCC cell lines tested. Overall, our study supports the emerging notion that PGE2 produced in the tumor microenvironment by the overexpression of COX-2 in tumoral and inflammatory cells may promote the growth of HNSCC cells in an autocrine and paracrine fashion by acting on PGE2 receptors that are widely expressed in most HNSCC cancer cells. In particular, our findings suggest that EP3 receptor may play a more prominent role in HNSCC cell growth promotion, thus providing a rationale for the future evaluation of this PGE2 receptor as a target for HNSCC prevention strategies. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Renal response to the angiotensin II receptor subtype 1 antagonist irbesartan versus enalapril in hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the acute and sustained renal hemodynamic effects on hypertensive patients of 100 mg irbesartan and 20 mg enalapril each once daily. PATIENTS: Twenty patients (aged 35-70 years) with uncomplicated, mild-to-moderate essential hypertension and normal serum creatinine levels completed this study. STUDY DESIGN: After random allocation to treatment (n=10 per group), administration schedule (morning or evening) was determined by further random allocation, with crossover of schedules after 6 weeks' therapy. Treatment and administration assignments were double-blind. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure was monitored before and after 6 and 12 weeks of therapy. Renal hemodynamics were determined on the first day of drug administration and 12 and 24 h after the last dose during chronic treatment. RESULTS: Administration of each antihypertensive agent induced a renal vasodilatation with no significant change in glomerular filtration rate. However, the time course appeared to differ: irbesartan had no significant acute effect 4 h after the first dose, but during chronic administration a renal vasodilatory response was found 12 and 24 h after the dose; enalapril was effective acutely and 12 h after administration, but no residual effect was found 24 h after the dose. Both antihypertensive agents lowered mean ambulatory blood pressure effectively, with no significant difference between treatments or between administration schedules (morning versus evening). CONCLUSIONS: Irbesartan and enalapril have comparable effects on blood pressure and renal hemodynamics in hypertensive patients with normal renal functioning. However, the time profiles of the renal effects appear to differ, which might be important for long-term renoprotective effects.

Angiotensin II receptor blockade: is there truly a benefit of adding an ACE inhibitor?

We assessed the blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) achieved with 2 angiotensin (Ang) antagonists given either alone at different doses or with an ACE inhibitor. First, 20 normotensive subjects were randomly assigned to 100 mg OD losartan (LOS) or 80 mg OD telmisartan (TEL) for 1 week; during another week, the same doses of LOS and TEL were combined with 20 mg OD lisinopril. Then, 10 subjects were randomly assigned to 200 mg OD LOS and 160 mg OD TEL for 1 week and 100 mg BID LOS and 80 mg BID TEL during the second week. Blockade of the RAS was evaluated with the inhibition of the pressor effect of exogenous Ang I, an ex vivo receptor assay, and the changes in plasma Ang II. Trough blood pressure response to Ang I was blocked by 35+/-16% (mean+/-SD) with 100 mg OD LOS and by 36+/-13% with 80 mg OD TEL. When combined with lisinopril, blockade was 76+/-7% with LOS and 79+/-9% with TEL. With 200 mg OD LOS, trough blockade was 54+/-14%, but with 100 mg BID it increased to 77+/-8% (P<0.01). Telmisartan (160 mg OD and 80 mg BID) produced a comparable effect. Thus, at their maximal recommended doses, neither LOS nor TEL blocks the RAS for 24 hours; hence, the addition of an ACE inhibitor provides an additional blockade. A 24-hour blockade can be achieved with an angiotensin antagonist alone, provided higher doses or a BID regimen is used.

Oligomerization of the alpha 1a- and alpha 1b-adrenergic receptor subtypes. Potential implications in receptor internalization.

We combined biophysical, biochemical, and pharmacological approaches to investigate the ability of the alpha 1a- and alpha 1b-adrenergic receptor (AR) subtypes to form homo- and hetero-oligomers. Receptors tagged with different epitopes (hemagglutinin and Myc) or fluorescent proteins (cyan and green fluorescent proteins) were transiently expressed in HEK-293 cells either individually or in different combinations. Fluorescence resonance energy transfer measurements provided evidence that both the alpha 1a- and alpha 1b-AR can form homo-oligomers with similar transfer efficiency of approximately 0.10. Hetero-oligomers could also be observed between the alpha 1b- and the alpha 1a-AR subtypes but not between the alpha 1b-AR and the beta2-AR, the NK1 tachykinin, or the CCR5 chemokine receptors. Oligomerization of the alpha 1b-AR did not require the integrity of its C-tail, of two glycophorin motifs, or of the N-linked glycosylation sites at its N terminus. In contrast, helix I and, to a lesser extent, helix VII were found to play a role in the alpha 1b-AR homo-oligomerization. Receptor oligomerization was not influenced by the agonist epinephrine or by the inverse agonist prazosin. A constitutively active (A293E) as well as a signaling-deficient (R143E) mutant displayed oligomerization features similar to those of the wild type alpha 1b-AR. Confocal imaging revealed that oligomerization of the alpha1-AR subtypes correlated with their ability to co-internalize upon exposure to the agonist. The alpha 1a-selective agonist oxymetazoline induced the co-internalization of the alpha 1a- and alpha 1b-AR, whereas the alpha 1b-AR could not co-internalize with the NK1 tachykinin or CCR5 chemokine receptors. Oligomerization might therefore represent an additional mechanism regulating the physiological responses mediated by the alpha 1a- and alpha 1b-AR subtypes.

Angiotensin II receptor blockade prevents acute renal sodium retention induced by low levels of orthostatic stress.

BACKGROUND: Depending on its magnitude, lower body negative pressure (LBNP) has been shown to induce a progressive activation of neurohormonal, renal tubular, and renal hemodynamic responses, thereby mimicking the renal responses observed in clinical conditions characterized by a low effective arterial volume such as congestive heart failure. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of angiotensin II receptor blockade with candesartan on the renal hemodynamic and urinary excretory responses to a progressive orthostatic stress in normal subjects. METHODS: Twenty healthy men were submitted to three levels of LBNP (0, -10, and -20 mbar or 0, -7.5, and -15 mm Hg) for 1 hour according to a crossover design with a minimum of 2 days between each level of LBNP. Ten subjects were randomly allocated to receive a placebo and ten others were treated with candesartan 16 mg orally for 10 days before and during the three levels of LBNP. Systemic and renal hemodynamics, renal sodium excretions, and the hormonal response were measured hourly before, during, and for 2 hours after LBNP. RESULTS: During placebo, LBNP induced no change in systemic and renal hemodynamics, but sodium excretion decreased dose dependently with higher levels of LBNP. At -20 mbar, cumulative 3-hour sodium balance was negative at -2.3 +/- 2.3 mmol (mean +/- SEM). With candesartan, mean blood pressure decreased (76 +/- 1 mm Hg vs. 83 +/- 3 mm Hg, candesartan vs. placebo, P < 0.05) and renal plasma flow increased (858 +/- 52 mL/min vs. 639 +/- 36 mL/min, candesartan vs. placebo, P < 0.05). Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was not significantly higher with candesartan (127 +/- 7 mL/min in placebo vs. 144 +/- 12 mL/min in candesartan). No significant decrease in sodium and water excretion was found during LBNP in candesartan-treated subjects. At -20 mbar, the 3-hour cumulative sodium excretion was + 4.6 +/- 1.4 mmol in the candesartan group (P= 0.02 vs. placebo). CONCLUSION: Selective blockade of angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptors with candesartan increases renal blood flow and prevents the antinatriuresis during sustained lower body negative pressure despite a modest decrease in blood pressure. These results thus provide interesting insights into potential benefits of AT1 receptor blockade in sodium-retaining states such as congestive heart failure.

Comparative angiotensin II receptor blockade in healthy volunteers: the importance of dosing.

OBJECTIVES: We have reported previously that 80 mg valsartan and 50 mg losartan provide less receptor blockade than 150 mg irbesartan in normotensive subjects. In this study we investigated the importance of drug dosing in mediating these differences by comparing the AT(1)-receptor blockade induced by 3 doses of valsartan with that obtained with 3 other antagonists at given doses. METHODS: Valsartan (80, 160, and 320 mg), 50 mg losartan, 150 mg irbesartan, and 8 mg candesartan were administered to 24 healthy subjects in a randomized, open-label, 3-period crossover study. All doses were given once daily for 8 days. The angiotensin II receptor blockade was assessed with two techniques, the reactive rise in plasma renin activity and an in vitro radioreceptor binding assay that quantified the displacement of angiotensin II by the blocking agents. Measurements were obtained before and 4 and 24 hours after drug intake on days 1 and 8. RESULTS: At 4 and 24 hours, valsartan induced a dose-dependent "blockade" of AT(1) receptors. Compared with other antagonists, 80 mg valsartan and 50 mg losartan had a comparable profile. The 160-mg and 320-mg doses of valsartan blocked AT(1) receptors at 4 hours by 80%, which was similar to the effect of 150 mg irbesartan. At trough, however, the valsartan-induced blockade was slightly less than that obtained with irbesartan. With use of plasma renin activity as a marker of receptor blockade, on day 8, 160 mg valsartan was equivalent to 150 mg irbesartan and 8 mg candesartan. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that the differences in angiotensin II receptor blockade observed with the various AT(1) antagonists are explained mainly by differences in dosing. When 160-mg or 320-mg doses were investigated, the effects of valsartan hardly differed from those obtained with recommended doses of irbesartan and candesartan.

Constitutive activity and inverse agonism at the α(₁a) and α(₁b) adrenergic receptor subtypes.

The α(1b)-adrenergic receptor (AR) was, after rhodopsin, the first G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) in which point mutations were shown to trigger constitutive (agonist-independent) activity. Constitutively activating mutations have been found in other AR subtypes as well as in several GPCRs. This chapter briefly summarizes the main findings on constitutively active mutants of the α(1a)- and α(1b)-AR subtypes and the methods used to predict activating mutations, to measure constitutive activity of Gq-coupled receptors and to investigate inverse agonism. In addition, it highlights the implications of studies on constitutively active AR mutants on elucidating the molecular mechanisms of receptor activation and drug action.

Amino acids of the alpha1B-adrenergic receptor involved in agonist binding: differences in docking catecholamines to receptor subtypes.

Site-directed mutagenesis and molecular dynamics analysis of the 3-D model of the alpha1B-adrenergic receptor (AR) were combined to identify the molecular determinants of the receptor involved in catecholamine binding. Our results indicate that the three conserved serines in the fifth transmembrane domain (TMD) of the alpha1B-AR play a distinct role in catecholamine binding versus receptor activation. In addition to the amino acids D125 in TMDIII and S207 in TMDV directly involved in ligand binding, our findings identify a large number of polar residues playing an important role in the activation process of the alpha1B-AR thus providing new insights into the structure/function relationship of G protein-coupled receptors.

Comparative vascular and renal tubular effects of angiotensin II receptor blockers combined with a thiazide diuretic in humans.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to investigate whether angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) induce a comparable blockade of AT1 receptors in the vasculature and in the kidney when the renin-angiotensin system is activated by a thiazide diuretic. METHOD: Thirty individuals participated in this randomized, controlled, single-blind study. The blood pressure and renal hemodynamic and tubular responses to a 1-h infusion of exogenous angiotensin II (Ang II 3 ng/kg per min) were investigated before and 24 h after a 7-day administration of either irbesartan 300 mg alone or in association with 12.5 or 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). Irbesartan 300/25 mg was also compared with losartan 100 mg, valsartan 160 mg, and olmesartan 20 mg all in association with 25 mg HCTZ. Each participant received two treatments with a 1-week washout period between treatments. RESULTS: The blood pressure response to Ang II was blocked by more than 90% with irbesartan alone or in association with HCTZ and with olmesartan/HCTZ and by nearly 60% with valsartan/HCTZ and losartan/HCTZ (P < 0.05). In the kidney, Ang II reduced renal plasma flow by 36% at baseline (P < 0.001). Irbesartan +/- HCTZ and olmesartan/HCTZ blocked the renal hemodynamic response to Ang II nearly completely, whereas valsartan/HCTZ and losartan/HCTZ only blunted this effect by 34 and 45%, respectively. At the tubular level, Ang II significantly reduced urinary volume (-84%) and urinary sodium excretion (-65%) (P < 0.01). These tubular effects of Ang II were only partially blunted by the administration of ARBs. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that ARBs prescribed at their recommended doses do not block renal tubular AT1 receptors as effectively as vascular receptors do. This observation may account for the need of higher doses of ARB for renal protection. Moreover, our results confirm that there are significant differences between ARBs in their capacity to induce a sustained vascular and tubular blockade of Ang II receptors.

Two alpha1-adrenergic receptor subtypes regulating the vasopressor response have differential roles in blood pressure regulation.

To study the functional role of individual alpha1-adrenergic (AR) subtypes in blood pressure (BP) regulation, we used mice lacking the alpha1B-AR and/or alpha1D-AR with the same genetic background and further studied their hemodynamic and vasoconstrictive responses. Both the alpha1D-AR knockout and alpha1B-/alpha1D-AR double knockout mice, but not the alpha1B-AR knockout mice, had significantly (p < 0.05) lower levels of basal systolic and mean arterial BP than wild-type mice in nonanesthetized condition, and they showed no significant change in heart rate or in cardiac function, as assessed by echocardiogram. All mutants showed a significantly (p < 0.05) reduced catecholamine-induced pressor and vasoconstriction responses. It is noteworthy that the infusion of norepinephrine did not elicit any pressor response at all in alpha1B-/alpha1D-AR double knockout mice. In an attempt to further examine alpha1-AR subtype, which is involved in the genesis or maintenance of hypertension, BP after salt loading was monitored by tail-cuff readings and confirmed at the endpoint by direct intra-arterial recording. After salt loading, alpha1B-AR knockout mice developed a comparable level of hypertension to wild-type mice, whereas mice lacking alpha1D-AR had significantly (p < 0.05) attenuated BP and lower levels of circulating catecholamines. Our data indicated that alpha1B- and alpha1D-AR subtypes participate cooperatively in BP regulation; however, the deletion of the functional alpha1D-AR, not alpha1B-AR, leads to an antihypertensive effect. The study shows differential contributions of alpha1B- and alpha1D-ARs in BP regulation.

Effect of endotoxin on the angiotensin II receptor in cultured vascular smooth muscle cells.

1. In some tissues, a decrease in the number of cell surface receptors and alterations of the receptor coupling have been proposed as possible mechanisms mediating the deleterious effects of bacterial endotoxin in septic shock. 2. The effects of bacterial lipopolysaccharide (Escherichia coli 0111-B4; LPS) on vascular angiotensin II and vasopressin receptors have been examined in cultured aortic smooth muscle cells (SMC) of the rat by use of radioligand binding techniques. 3. In vascular SMC exposed to 1 micrograms ml-1 endotoxin for 24 h, a significant increase in angiotensin II binding was found. The change in [125I]-angiotensin II binding corresponded to an increase in the number of receptors whereas the affinity of the receptors was not affected by LPS. In contrast, no change in [3H]-vasopressin binding was observed. 4. The pharmacological characterization of angiotensin II binding sites in control and LPS-exposed cells demonstrated that LPS induced an increase in the AT1 subtype of the angiotensin II receptors. Receptor coupling as evaluated by measuring total inositol phosphates was not impaired by LPS. 5. The effect of LPS on the angiotensin II receptor was dose-, time- and protein-synthesis dependent and was associated with an increased expression of the receptor gene. 6. The ability of LPS to increase angiotensin II binding in cultured vascular SMC was independent of the endotoxin induction of NO-synthase. 7. These results suggest that, besides inducing factors such as cytokines and NO-synthase, endotoxin may enhance the expression of cell surface receptors. The surprising increase in angiotensin II binding in LPS exposed VSM cells may represent an attempt by the cells to compensate for the decreased vascular responsiveness. It may also result from a non-specific LPS-related induction of genes.

The alpha 1a and alpha 1b-adrenergic receptor subtypes: molecular mechanisms of receptor activation and of drug action.

In this chapter we summarize some aspects of the structure-functional relationship of the alpha 1a and alpha 1b-adrenergic receptor subtypes related to the receptor activation process as well as the effect of different alpha-blockers on the constitutive activity of the receptor. Molecular modeling of the alpha 1a and alpha 1b-adrenergic receptor subtypes and computational simulation of receptor dynamics were useful to interpret the experimental findings derived from site directed mutagenesis studies.

Inverse agonism and neutral antagonism at alpha(1a)- and alpha(1b)-adrenergic receptor subtypes.

We have characterized the pharmacological antagonism, i.e., neutral antagonism or inverse agonism, displayed by a number of alpha-blockers at two alpha1-adrenergic receptor (AR) subtypes, alpha(1a)- and alpha(1b)-AR. Constitutively activating mutations were introduced into the alpha(1a)-AR at the position homologous to A293 of the alpha(1b)-AR where activating mutations were previously described. Twenty-four alpha-blockers differing in their chemical structures were initially tested for their effect on the agonist-independent inositol phosphate response mediated by the constitutively active A271E and A293E mutants expressed in COS-7 cells. A selected number of drugs also were tested for their effect on the small, but measurable spontaneous activity of the wild-type alpha(1a)- and alpha(1b)-AR expressed in COS-7 cells. The results of our study demonstrate that a large number of structurally different alpha-blockers display profound negative efficacy at both the alpha(1a)- and alpha(1b)-AR subtypes. For other drugs, the negative efficacy varied at the different constitutively active mutants. The most striking difference concerns a group of N-arylpiperazines, including 8-[2-[4-(5-chloro-2-methoxyphenyl)-1-piperazinyl]ethyl]-8-azaspiro [4, 5] decane-7,9-dione (REC 15/3039), REC 15/2739, and REC 15/3011, which are inverse agonists with profound negative efficacy at the wild-type alpha(1b)-AR, but not at the alpha(1a)-AR.

Clinical and hormonal effects of the new angiotensin II receptor antagonist LRB081.

The renin-angiotensin system is a major contributor to the pathophysiology of cardiovascular diseases such as congestive heart failure and hypertension. Antagonizing angiotensin (Ang) II at the receptor site may produce fewer side effects than inhibition of the promiscuous converting enzyme. The present study was designed to assess in healthy human subjects the effect of LRB081, a new orally active AT1-receptor antagonist, on the pressor action of exogenous Ang II. At the same time, plasma hormones and drug levels were monitored. At 1-week intervals and in a double-blind randomized fashion, 8 male volunteers received three doses of LRB081 (10, 40, and 80 mg) and placebo. Blood pressure (BP) was measured at a finger by photoplethysmograph. The peak BP response to intravenous injection of a standard dose of Ang II was determined before and for < or = 24 h after administration of an oral dose of LRB081 or placebo. After drug administration, the blood BP response to Ang II was expressed in percent of the response before drug administration. At the same time, plasma renin activity (PRA), Ang II, aldosterone, catecholamine (radioassays), and drug levels (by high-performance liquid chromatography) were monitored. After LRB081 administration, a dose dependent inhibition of the BP response to Ang II was observed. Maximal inhibition of the systolic BP response was 54 +/- 3 (mean +/- SEM), 63 +/- 2, and 93 +/- 1% with 10, 40, and 80 mg LRB081, respectively. The time to peak was 3 h for 6 subjects and 4 and 6 h for 2 others. Preliminary plasma half-life (t1/2) was calculated at 2 h. With the highest dose, the inhibition remained significant for 24 h (31 +/- 5%, p < 0.05). Maximal BP-blocking effect and maximal plasma drug level coincided, suggesting that the unmetabolized LRB081 is responsible for the antagonistic effect. PRA and Ang II increased dose dependently after LRB081 intake. Aldosterone, epinephrine, and norepinephrine concentrations remained unchanged. No clinically significant adverse reaction was observed during the study. LRB081 is a well-tolerated, orally active, potent, and long-acting Ang II receptor antagonist. Unlike in the case of losartan, no active metabolite of LRB081 has been shown to be responsible for the main effects.