Long-lasting angiotensin type 1 receptor binding and protection by candesartan: comparison with other biphenyl-tetrazole sartans

Background The ability of biphenyl-tetrazole angiotensin type 1 (AT1) receptor antagonists (BTsartans) to block angiotensin II (Ang II)-mediated responses has been extensively investigated in vascular tissues and, more recently, in cell lines expressing the human AT1-receptor. When pre-incubated, BTsartans acted surmountably (shifting the Ang II concentration–response curve to the right) or insurmountably (also decreasing the maximal response). It was shown that their insurmountable behaviour is due to the formation of tight, long-lasting complexes with the receptor. Partial insurmountable antagonism is due to the co-existence of tight and loose complexes. The proportion of insurmountable antagonism, the potency and the dissociation rate of the BTsartans decreases in the order: candesartan > EXP3174 (losartan's active metabolite) > valsartan > irbesartan ≫ losartan. Objective It is of interest to explore how tight AT1-receptor binding of BTsartans such as candesartan might contribute to their long-lasting clinical effect. Methods Computer-assisted simulations (COPASI program) were performed to follow the receptor-occupation and protection by different antagonists as a function of time. Free antagonist concentrations were allowed to decrease exponentially with time. Results The simulations suggest that slow dissociation does not tangibly prolong receptor occupancy if the free antagonist is eliminated at a slower pace (as is the case for BTsartans). Yet when surmountable and insurmountable antagonists occupy the same amount of receptors, insurmountable antagonists offer appreciably better protection against fluctuations in natural messenger concentration. Conclusion Slow receptor dissociation and slow antagonist elimination are likely to act in synergy to produce long-lasting receptor protection.

[1]  L. Meinel,et al.  Intracellular trafficking of angiotensin II and its AT1 and AT2 receptors: evidence for selective sorting of receptor and ligand. , 1997, Molecular endocrinology.

[2]  T. Kenakin,et al.  G Protein-Coupled Receptor Allosterism and Complexing , 2002, Pharmacological Reviews.

[3]  Dieter M. Tourlousse,et al.  Effect of saponin and filipin on antagonist binding to AT 1 receptors in intact cells. , 2004, Biochemical pharmacology.

[4]  P. Morsing,et al.  Mechanistic differences of various AT1-receptor blockers in isolated vessels of different origin. , 1999, Hypertension.

[5]  G. Vauquelin,et al.  A two-state receptor model for the interaction between angiotensin II type 1 receptors and non-peptide antagonists. , 2001, Biochemical pharmacology.

[6]  M. Poss,et al.  BMS‐180560, an insurmountable inhibitor of angiotensin II‐stimulated responses: comparison with losartan and EXP3174 , 1994, British journal of pharmacology.

[7]  Y. Ohkura,et al.  Pharmacological Properties of KT3–671, a Novel Nonpeptide Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonist , 1995, Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology.

[8]  S. Whitebread,et al.  Pharmacological profile of valsartan: a potent, orally active, nonpeptide antagonist of the angiotensin II AT1‐receptor subtype , 1993, British journal of pharmacology.

[9]  S. Oparil,et al.  Newly emerging pharmacologic differences in angiotensin II receptor blockers. , 2000, American journal of hypertension.

[10]  J. Ménard,et al.  Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic interactions of candesartan cilexetil and losartan. , 1999, Journal of hypertension.

[11]  C. Almansa,et al.  In vitro pharmacological characterization of a new selective angiotensin AT1 receptor antagonist, UR-7280. , 1996, European journal of pharmacology.

[12]  G. Vauquelin,et al.  Interaction between the partially insurmountable antagonist valsartan and human recombinant angiotensin II type 1 receptors , 2000, Fundamental & clinical pharmacology.

[13]  R. Carey Angiotensin type-2 receptors and cardiovascular function: are angiotensin type-2 receptors protective? , 2005, Current opinion in cardiology.

[14]  T. Inagami,et al.  A review of mutagenesis studies of angiotensin II type 1 receptor, the three‐dimensional receptor model in search of the agonist and antagonist binding site and the hypothesis of a receptor activation mechanism , 1997, Journal of hypertension.

[15]  U. Ries,et al.  Pharmacological characterization of the novel nonpeptide angiotensin II receptor antagonist, BIBR 277 , 1993, British journal of pharmacology.

[16]  Noda Masakuni,et al.  Inhibition of rabbit aortic angiotensin II (AII) receptor by CV-11974, a new nonpeptide AII antagonist , 1993 .

[17]  G. Vauquelin,et al.  Insurmountable angiotensin AT1 receptor antagonists: the role of tight antagonist binding. , 1999, European journal of pharmacology.

[18]  K. Kubo,et al.  Inhibition of rabbit aortic angiotensin II (AII) receptor by CV-11974, a new nonpeptide AII antagonist. , 1993, Biochemical pharmacology.

[19]  G. Vauquelin,et al.  Distinct binding properties of the AT(1) receptor antagonist [(3)H]candesartan to intact cells and membrane preparations. , 2002, Biochemical pharmacology.

[20]  S. Miura,et al.  Role of Aromaticity of Agonist Switches of Angiotensin II in the Activation of the AT1 Receptor* , 1999, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[21]  N. Aiyar,et al.  Pharmacology of a potent long-acting imidazole-5-acrylic acid angiotensin AT1 receptor antagonist. , 1995, European journal of pharmacology.

[22]  G. Wennemuth,et al.  Angiotensin II‐mediated calcium signals and mitogenesis in human prostate stromal cell line hPCPs , 2005, British journal of pharmacology.

[23]  G. Vauquelin,et al.  Distinctions between non-peptide angiotensin II AT1-receptor antagonists , 2001, Journal of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system : JRAAS.

[24]  M. Lew,et al.  Side-chain substitutions within angiotensin II reveal different requirements for signaling, internalization, and phosphorylation of type 1A angiotensin receptors. , 2002, Molecular pharmacology.

[25]  C. Cazaubon,et al.  Pharmacological characterization of SR 47436, a new nonpeptide AT1 subtype angiotensin II receptor antagonist. , 1993, The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics.

[26]  S. Whitebread,et al.  Preliminary biochemical characterization of two angiotensin II receptor subtypes. , 1989, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[27]  T. Unger,et al.  Angiotensin AT1/AT2 Receptors: Regulation, Signalling and Function , 2003, Blood pressure.

[28]  R. Asmar,et al.  A comparison of the efficacy and duration of action of candesartan cilexetil and losartan as assessed by clinic and ambulatory blood pressure after a missed dose, in truly hypertensive patients: a placebo-controlled, forced titration study. Candesartan/Losartan study investigators. , 1999, American journal of hypertension.

[29]  P. Timmermans,et al.  Angiotensin II receptors and angiotensin II receptor antagonists. , 1993, Pharmacological reviews.

[30]  G. Vauquelin,et al.  Reversible and syntopic interaction between angiotensin receptor antagonists on Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing human angiotensin II type 1 receptors. , 2000, Biochemical pharmacology.

[31]  L. Limbird Cell Surface Receptors: A Short Course on Theory and Methods , 1986, Springer US.

[32]  J. Kukkonen,et al.  Different apparent modes of inhibition of alpha2A-adrenoceptor by alpha2-adrenoceptor antagonists. , 1997, European Journal of Pharmacology.

[33]  G. Vauquelin,et al.  Distinction between surmountable and insurmountable selective AT1 receptor antagonists by use of CHO‐K1 cells expressing human angiotensin II AT1 receptors , 1999, British journal of pharmacology.

[34]  G. Vauquelin,et al.  Binding of the antagonist []candesartan to angiotensin II AT1 receptor-tranfected Chinese hamster ovary cells , 1999 .

[35]  M. Okuhira,et al.  In vitro pharmacological properties of KRH-594, a novel angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist. , 1997, Biological & pharmaceutical bulletin.

[36]  K. Kubo,et al.  Candesartan (CV-11974) dissociates slowly from the angiotensin AT1 receptor. , 1997, European journal of pharmacology.

[37]  L. Hunyady,et al.  Role of basic amino acids of the human angiotensin type 1 receptor in the binding of the non-peptide antagonist candesartan , 2001, Journal of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system : JRAAS.

[38]  T. Fujishita,et al.  Kinetic studies on the interaction of nonlabeled antagonists with the angiotensin II receptor. , 1995, European journal of pharmacology.

[39]  R. Panek,et al.  Functional studies but not receptor binding can distinguish surmountable from insurmountable AT1 antagonism. , 1995, The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics.

[40]  P. Timmermans Pharmacological properties of angiotensin II receptor antagonists. , 1999, The Canadian journal of cardiology.

[41]  P. Clarke,et al.  Blockade of nicotinic receptor‐mediated release of dopamine from striatal synaptosomes by chlorisondamine administered in vivo , 1994, British journal of pharmacology.

[42]  L. Hunyady,et al.  Ligand binding and functional properties of human angiotensin AT1 receptors in transiently and stably expressed CHO-K1 cells. , 2005, European journal of pharmacology.

[43]  J. Barnes,et al.  Pharmacological profile of GR117289 in vitro: a novel, potent and specific non‐peptide angiotensin AT1 receptor antagonist , 1992, British journal of pharmacology.

[44]  T. Unger Significance of angiotensin type 1 receptor blockade: why are angiotensin II receptor blockers different? , 1999, The American journal of cardiology.

[45]  G. Vauquelin,et al.  Binding characteristics of [3H]-irbesartan to human recombinant angiotensin type 1 receptors , 2000, Journal of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system : JRAAS.

[46]  K. Catt,et al.  International union of pharmacology. XXIII. The angiotensin II receptors. , 2000, Pharmacological reviews.

[47]  D. Dzielak Comparative pharmacology of the angiotensin II receptor antagonists. , 1998, Expert opinion on investigational drugs.