SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Fluorescent ligands for dopamine D<sub>2</sub>/D<sub>3</sub> receptors.

Sci Rep · 2020-12-14

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-78827-9PMID: 33318558

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Fluorescent ligands are versatile tools for the study of G protein-coupled receptors. Depending on the fluorophore, they can be used for a range of different applications, including fluorescence microscopy and bioluminescence or fluorescence resonance energy transfer (BRET or FRET) assays. Starting from phenylpiperazines and indanylamines, privileged scaffolds for dopamine D2-like receptors, we developed dansyl-labeled fluorescent ligands that are well accommodated in the binding pockets of D2 and D3 receptors. These receptors are the target proteins for the therapy for several neurologic and psychiatric disorders, including Parkinson's disease and schizophrenia. The dansyl-labeled ligands exhibit binding affinities up to 0.44 nM and 0.29 nM at D2R and D3R, respectively. When the dansyl label was exchanged for sterically more demanding xanthene or cyanine dyes, fluorescent ligands 10a-c retained excellent binding properties and, as expected from their indanylamine pharmacophore, acted as agonists at D2R. While the Cy3B-labeled ligand 10b was used to visualize D2R and D3R on the surface of living cells by total internal reflection microscopy, ligand 10a comprising a rhodamine label showed excellent properties in a NanoBRET binding assay at D3R.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.