Pharmacological discrimination of calcitonin receptor:receptor activity-modifying protein complexes

Calcitonin (CT) receptors dimerize with receptor activity-modifying proteins (RAMPs) to create high-affinity amylin (AMY) receptors, but there is no reliable means of pharmacologically distinguishing these receptors. We used agonists and antagonists to define their pharmacology, expressing the CT (a) receptor alone or with RAMPs in COS-7 cells and measuring cAMP accumulation. Intermedin short, otherwise known as adrenomedullin 2, mirrored the action of αCGRP, being a weak agonist at CT(a), AMY 2(a), and AMY3(a) receptors but considerably more potent at AMY1(a) receptors. Likewise, the linear calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) analogs (Cys(ACM)2,7)hαCGRP and (Cys(Et) 2,7)haCGRP were only effective at AMY1(a) receptors, but they were partial agonists. As previously observed in COS-7 cells, there was little induction of the AMY2(a) receptor phenotype; thus, AMY 2(a) was not examined further in this study. The antagonist peptide salmon calcitonin8-32 (sCT8-32) did not discriminate strongly between CT and AMY receptors; however, AC187 was a more effective antagonist of AMY responses at AMY receptors, and AC413 additionally showed modest selectivity for AMY1(a) over AMY3(a) receptors. CGRP8-37 also demonstrated receptor-dependent effects. CGRP 8-37 more effectively antagonized AMY at AMY1(a) than AMY3(a) receptors, although it was only a weak antagonist of both, but it did not inhibit responses at the CT(a) receptor. Low CGRP 8-37 affinity and agonism by linear CGRP analogs at AMY 1(a) are the classic signature of a CGRP2 receptor. Our data indicate that careful use of combinations of agonists and antagonists may allow pharmacological discrimination of CT(a), AMY1(a), and AMY3(a) receptors, providing a means to delineate the physiological significance of these receptors. Copyright © 2005 The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.

Binocular interaction:Contrast matching and contrast discrimination are predicted by the same model

How do signals from the 2 eyes combine and interact? Our recent work has challenged earlier schemes in which monocular contrast signals are subject to square-law transduction followed by summation across eyes and binocular gain control. Much more successful was a new 'two-stage' model in which the initial transducer was almost linear and contrast gain control occurred both pre- and post-binocular summation. Here we extend that work by: (i) exploring the two-dimensional stimulus space (defined by left- and right-eye contrasts) more thoroughly, and (ii) performing contrast discrimination and contrast matching tasks for the same stimuli. Twenty-five base-stimuli made from 1 c/deg patches of horizontal grating, were defined by the factorial combination of 5 contrasts for the left eye (0.3-32%) with five contrasts for the right eye (0.3-32%). Other than in contrast, the gratings in the two eyes were identical. In a 2IFC discrimination task, the base-stimuli were masks (pedestals), where the contrast increment was presented to one eye only. In a matching task, the base-stimuli were standards to which observers matched the contrast of either a monocular or binocular test grating. In the model, discrimination depends on the local gradient of the observer's internal contrast-response function, while matching equates the magnitude (rather than gradient) of response to the test and standard. With all model parameters fixed by previous work, the two-stage model successfully predicted both the discrimination and the matching data and was much more successful than linear or quadratic binocular summation models. These results show that performance measures and perception (contrast discrimination and contrast matching) can be understood in the same theoretical framework for binocular contrast vision. © 2007 VSP.