©1996 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.
The Unique Nature of the Serine Interactions for -Adrenergic Receptor Agonist Binding and Activation (*)

(Received for publication, December 4, 1995; and in revised form, December 28, 1995)

John Hwa (2) (1) Dianne M. Perez (1)(§)

From the  (1)Department of Molecular Cardiology, Cleveland Clinic Research Institute, Cleveland, Ohio 44195 and the (2)Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106

ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
FOOTNOTES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES

ABSTRACT

Activation of the beta(2)- and alpha(2)-adrenergic receptors (AR) involves hydrogen bonding of serine residues in the fifth transmembrane segment (TMV) to the catechol hydroxyls of the endogenous agonists, epinephrine and norepinephrine. With the beta(2)-AR both Ser and Ser but not a third TMV serine (Ser) are required for binding and full agonist activity. However, with the alpha-AR only one of two TMV serines (Ser, equivalent to Ser in the beta-AR) appears to contribute partially to agonist-binding and activation. Because the alpha-AR uniquely contains only two TMV serines, this subtype was used to systematically evaluate the role of hydrogen bonding in alpha(1)-AR activation. Binding of epinephrine or its monohydroxyl congeners, phenylephrine and synephrine, was not decreased when tested with alanine-substitution mutants that lacked either Ser (Ser Ala) or Ser (Ser Ala). With the substitution of both serines in the double mutant, Ser Ala, binding of all three ligands was significantly reduced (10-100-fold) consistent with a single hydrogen bond interaction. However, receptor-mediated inositol phosphate production was markedly attenuated only with the Ser Ala mutation and not with Ser Ala. In support of the importance of Ser, binding of phenylephrine (meta-hydroxyl only) by Ser Ala increased 7-fold over that observed with either the wild type receptor or the Ser Ala mutation. Binding of synephrine (para-hydroxyl only) was unchanged with the Ser Ala mutation. In addition, when combined with a recently described constitutively active alpha-AR mutation (Met Leu), only the Ser Ala mutation and not Ser Ala relieved the high affinity binding and increased agonist potency observed with the Met Leu mutation. A simple interpretation of these findings is that the meta-hydroxyl of the endogenous agonists preferentially binds to Ser, and it is this hydrogen bond interaction, and not that between the para-hydroxyl and Ser, that allows receptor activation. Furthermore, since Ser and Ser are separated by three residues on the TMV alpha-helix, whereas Ser and Ser of the beta(2)-AR are separated by only two residues, the orientation of the catechol ring in the alpha(1)-AR binding pocket appears to be unique and rotated approximately 120° to that in the beta(2)-AR.


INTRODUCTION

Adrenergic receptors (ARs) (^1)are members of the superfamily of receptors that exert their physiological effects through coupling to guanine nucleotide-binding proteins (G-proteins). Strictly conserved among this superfamily is the presence of seven transmembrane-spanning domains connected by hydrophilic loops alternately exposed to the extracellular and intracellular environment. The intracellular loops bind and activate G-proteins(1, 2) . The AR family (alpha, alpha, alpha, alpha, alpha, alpha, beta(1), beta(2), beta(3)) mediate the effects of the sympathetic nervous system through the actions of epinephrine and norepinephrine and control the homeostasis of the cardiovascular system. However, the ligand binding pockets are distinct between the receptor subtypes, as they can discriminate a wide variety of synthetic agonists and antagonists(3) .

Previous studies with the beta(2)-AR have identified key residues involved in binding epinephrine and norepinephrine. These interactions likely are conserved in the other ARs since they all bind the natural hormones with similar affinity. In particular, a highly conserved aspartic acid residue (Asp in the beta(2)-AR) in TMIII is involved in forming a salt bridge with the protonated amine of the catecholamine(4) . There are also two serine residues in TMV (Ser and Ser in beta(2)-AR) that are highly conserved among receptors that bind catecholamines, but not in other G-protein-coupled receptors (Fig. 1). In the beta(2)-AR, one of these two serine residues, Ser as well as a non-conserved serine (Ser), have been shown to be involved in hydrogen bond interactions with the hydroxyl groups on the catechol ring(5) . Both residues are required for high affinity binding of agonists and for full agonist activity. These interactions were confirmed with the use of various agonists that lack meta- and/or para-hydroxyl groups of the catechol ring. A model was therefore proposed in which Ser hydrogen bonds with the meta-hydroxyl group of the catechol ring while Ser interacts with the para-hydroxyl group. Extrapolation of this model to the alpha(2)-AR is unclear. Mutation of either of the equivalent serines in the alpha(2)-AR (Ser and Ser) resulted in a 10-fold decrease in affinity for epinephrine but no change in affinity for synephrine that lacks a meta-hydroxyl group (suggesting the para-hydroxyl is unimportant)(6) . The Ser mutant attenuated the functional activity (65% active) but only with synephrine, implicating a para-hydroxyl interaction. From these studies it was concluded that the para-hydroxyl group of the catechol ring is involved in a hydrogen bonding interaction with Ser, as has been described previously for the corresponding serine in the beta(2)-AR. Furthermore, in contrast to the situation with the beta(2)-AR, it was suggested that the alpha(2)-AR Ser residue does not participate directly in receptor-agonist interaction.


Figure 1: Sequence alignment of TMV residues of AR subtypes. Sequences were aligned to maximize homologies within this region(16) . The numbers at the top signify the positions of the amino acids in the primary sequence for each receptor subtype. The conserved serines are boxed. Serine residues shown in previous studies (5, 8) to be involved in binding and activation are bold. The single-letter amino acid code is used.



With the recent cloning of the alpha-AR, which uniquely contains only two TMV serines, we explored the serine requirements for alpha(1)-AR agonist binding and activation. We also evaluated if the interaction proposed for the beta(2)-AR was conserved.


EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Site-directed Mutagenesis

The construct used was the rat alpha-AR(7) . Site-directed mutagenesis was performed as described previously utilizing the oligonucleotide-mediated double primer method(8) . Positive plaques were purified and sequenced to verify the mutation. The mutagenic construct was subcloned into the expression vector, pMT2`. The full-length plasmid DNA was again sequenced to verify the mutation.

Cell Culture and Transfection

COS-1 cells (ATCC) were grown in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum. Transient expression in COS-1 cells was accomplished by the DEAE-dextran method(8) .

Radioligand Binding

COS-1 membranes were prepared as described previously(9) . Competition reactions contained 20 mM HEPES, pH 7.5, 1.4 mM EGTA, 12.5 mM MgCl(2), 200 pM [I]HEAT, COS-1 membranes, and increasing amounts of unlabeled ligands. Nonspecific binding was determined in the presence of 10M phentolamine. Reactions were stopped after 1 h by the addition of cold HEPES buffer and were filtered with a Brandel cell harvester. Binding data were analyzed by the iterative curve-fitting program LIGAND. Statistical testing was performed using an ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparison test to determine significant differences (p < 0.05) for both ligand binding and functional assays. Free energy calculations were based upon the equation DeltaDeltaG = -RT lnK(1)/K(2), where K(1) and K(2) are the equilibrium association constants determined with two different receptor constructs. The protein concentration was measured using the method of Bradford(10) .

IP Hydrolysis

IP determination was performed as described (11) . Cells were labeled for 16-24 h with [^3H]inositol at 1 µCi/ml in media. The cells were washed followed by a 20-min incubation with 10 mM LiCl. Agonists were then added for 30 min, the medium was removed, and the cells lysed, neutralized, and centrifuged. The supernatant was applied to AG1-X8 columns, and total IPs were eluted with 1 M ammonium formate, 0.1 M formic acid. For basal measurements performed in separate studies, IP(3) production was determined using a [^3H]IP(3)-radioreceptor assay kit (DuPont) according to the manufacturer's specifications.

Molecular Modeling

The coordinates of the alpha-carbon positions were determined by an overlay of the putative alpha(1)-AR TM residues with the TM coordinates of bacteriorhodopsin (12) using data files generated using the Insight II molecular modeling software from Biosym Technologies. The boundaries of the putative TM domains were determined by an algorithm based upon the weighted pairwise comparisons of adjacent residues(13) . The alpha(1)-AR model was then minimized and conflicts adjusted as described previously(14) .

Materials

Drugs were obtained from the following manufacturers: epinephrine, norepinephrine, phenylephrine, synephrine, phentolamine were from Sigma; [I]HEAT, [^3H]inositol, and the [^3H]IP(3) radioreceptor kit were from DuPont NEN; AG1-X8 was from Bio-Rad.


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Using site-directed mutagenesis and pharmacophore mapping of catecholamine agonists, Strader et al.(5) proposed that hydrogen bond interactions involving the hydroxyl groups on the phenyl ring are important for ligand binding to the beta(2)-AR. A model was proposed in which two of three serines in the TMV are involved in these hydrogen bond interactions with the catechol hydroxyl groups of catecholamine agonists. In particular, it was proposed that Ser of the beta(2)-AR forms a hydrogen bond with the meta-hydroxyl group of the catechol ring while Ser forms a hydrogen bond with the para-hydroxyl group. In support of this model, substitution of alanines for either of these two serines resulted in mutants that had a 30-fold decrease in their affinity for several catecholamine agonists, with each serine contributing about 50% to the activation of the receptor(5) . Consistent with the importance of serine residues for catecholamine binding, it is of interest that two of the three serines in TMV of the beta(2)-AR are highly conserved, although only one of these two conserved residues is implicated in catecholamine binding (Fig. 1). The involvement of the serine residues (Ser and Ser) in the alpha-AR is less clear(6) . Although both serine mutations in the alpha-AR did produce a decrease in affinity with epinephrine and phenylephrine, only synephrine produced an attenuation of function with Ser Ala, the equivalent serine to Ser in the beta(2)-AR. Other adjacent potential hydrogen-bonding residues (Cys) were not mutated, so the alpha(2)-AR paradigm is still incomplete.

With the cloning of the alpha-AR and the finding that this subtype contains only two serine residues in TMV, we have been able to study the interaction of the catechol hydroxyls of agonists with alpha-AR serine residues. In order to assess the interactions between each of the conserved serine residues and the catechol hydroxyls, site-directed mutagenesis was used to create three different mutated alpha-ARs analogous to those created by Strader et al.(5) . These receptors are denoted as Ser Ala, Ser Ala, and Ser Ala and correspond to the substitution of serine residues by alanines at the indicated amino acid number of the alpha-AR (Fig. 1). However, in the alpha-AR there is no equivalent serine residue at position 204 as in the beta(2)-AR. The N-terminal TMV alpha-AR serine is located one residue higher in the helix at the analogous position 203 of the beta(2)-AR (Fig. 1).

The binding of epinephrine and norepinephrine to the wild type receptor is consistent with a single population of binding sites and both displayed similar K(i) values (Table 1). There is no apparent high affinity component of agonist binding, as is typically seen with other G-protein-coupled receptors, and addition of GTP analogs does not produce a low affinity shift of epinephrine binding. With the wild type alpha-AR, binding of synephrine, a congener of epinephrine that lacks the meta-hydroxyl, was 15-fold lower than that of epinephrine. However, binding of phenylephrine, a congener of epinephrine that lacks the para-hydroxyl, was similar to that of epinephrine. This suggests that the meta-hydroxyl group contributes predominantly to determination of catecholamine affinity for alpha(1)-ARs (Table 1, Fig. 2).




Figure 2: Competition binding and IP stimulation with substituted catechol hydroxyls to wild type, Ser Ala, and Ser Ala mutant alpha-ARs. Competition binding and IP stimulation was performed on cells prepared from transfected COS-1 cells with the wild type alpha-AR receptor (), Ser Ala (), or Ser Ala () as described under ``Experimental Procedures,'' in the presence of epinephrine (panel A), phenylephrine (panel B), and synephrine (panel C). The experiment shown is the mean curve (± S.E.) generated from at least three separate experiments.



Replacement of either Ser or Ser in TMV of the alpha-AR with an alanine did not significantly reduce the binding affinity for any of the agonists tested compared to the wild type receptor (Table 1, Fig. 2). In fact, the binding affinity for phenylephrine was significantly increased (7-fold) with the Ser Ala mutant (Table 1, Fig. 2). There also was a noticeable higher affinity for the other monohydroxyl agonist, synephrine with the Ser Ala mutant, but this increase in affinity was not significant. These results are quite distinct from the beta(2)-and alpha(2)-ARs paradigms, where either serine mutation was able to reduce agonist-binding affinity. To confirm a hydrogen bond interaction, the double mutant, Ser Ala, was created and found to decrease the binding affinity by 25-120-fold for epinephrine, norepinephrine and phenylephrine, consistent with a decrease in binding energy upon substitution of DeltaDeltaG = 3-5 kcal/mol. The decrease in synephrine binding affinity by this mutant was only 6-fold. The free energy values are consistent with the disruption of a single hydrogen bond (DeltaG= 3-7 kcal/mol). Since either serine residue is sufficient in itself in maintaining the wild type binding affinity but the free energy values derived from the double serine mutation indicates only one hydrogen bond is formed, the data are consistent with both serines contributing a weak hydrogen bond to the agonist when both catechol hydroxyls are present. However, it seems that the meta-hydroxyl interaction with Ser is the strongest since with the wild type receptor phenylephrine has essentially the same binding affinity as epinephrine (Table 1, Fig. 2). The finding that binding is maintained with removal of one or the other serine residue is explained by competition of the catechol hydroxyls for the remaining serine residue. The agonist will then dock to optimize its interaction (thus, higher binding affinity than the wild type receptor) with the remaining serine residue, suggesting promiscuity of ligand docking. The energy difference between the possible ligand binding sites would be very different to account for Hill coefficients of unity. Based on affinity differences between phenylephrine and Serversus Ser (14-fold difference, 0.9 versus 12.6 µM, respectively), and assuming an initially direct relationship between affinity and distance (i.e. higher the affinity, the smaller the distance), the meta-hydroxyl would be closer to Ser than Ser. Likewise, from the affinity differences between synephrine and either serine mutation (4-fold difference, 28.2 versus 104.7 µM, respectively), the para-hydroxyl group is also closer to Ser than Ser. Therefore, it appears that alpha(1)-ARs maintain their catechol hydroxyls not equal distant from the two serine residues but in a parallel position relative to the surface of the receptor (Fig. 4B) with the meta-hydroxyl and Ser forming the strongest interaction. This model is not only valid for the mutated receptors but is also consistent for the wild type receptor since the binding of phenylephrine (6.2 µM) is similar to epinephrine (3.3 µM), while synephrine binding decreased by 10-fold for the wild type receptor. These results demonstrate a strong binding interaction and, therefore, a closer distance of the meta-hydroxyl position to a serine residue and a weaker and more distant interaction of the para-hydroxyl. Also in support of this model for the wild type receptor, synephrine's affinity is minimally changed (6-fold) for the wild type receptor (52.5 µM) as compared to the double serine mutant (324 µM), while all other agonists tested displayed 25-120-fold affinity differences (Table 1). This also suggests that the para-hydroxyl is only weakly bonding with a serine residue.


Figure 4: A model of the agonist epinephrine in the ligand binding pocket of the beta(2)-AR (A) and the alpha-AR (B). Model was constructed as described under ``Experimental Procedures.'' TM helices V and VI are only shown for clarity. Panel A, model of the beta(2)-AR showing the docking of epinephrine (epi). The meta-hydroxyl group of epinephrine interacts with Ser and is closer to TMVI, while the para-hydroxyl group of epinephrine interacts with Ser and is closer to TMIV. The beta(2)-AR catechol hydroxyls equally interact strongly with its respective serine residue, resulting in a tilt of the catechol ring with respect to the extracellular surface. Panel B, model of the alpha-AR showing the docking of epinephrine. The meta-hydroxyl group of epinephrine interacts strongly with Ser of the alpha-AR and is closer to TMIV, while the para-hydroxyl group of epinephrine interacts weakly with Ser closer to TMVI. This results in a rotation of the catechol ring by about 120° compared with the beta(2)-AR model and a parallel orientation of the catechol ring with respect to the extracellular surface.



The activation requirements for alpha(1)-ARs appear distinct from its binding interactions (Fig. 2). At equal receptor numbers of 0.3 pmol/mg protein, only Ser plays a major role in receptor activation, contributing 70-90% of the wild type response. On the other hand, the effect of Ser on receptor activation is minimal. Both full agonists, epinephrine and phenylephrine, produced similar effects on activation with either serine mutant, consistent with the meta-hydroxyl of epinephrine being nearest to Ser (Fig. 2, A and B). Synephrine produced effects similar to those of epinephrine and phenylephrine on receptor activation (Fig. 2C) with either serine mutation (but with less efficacy). Only Ser Ala (Ser intact) allowed full receptor activation. Since synephrine can activate the receptor, this indicates that either hydroxyl group on the catechol ring is capable of activating the receptor but only an interaction with Ser will produce a wild type response. This also supports the hypothesis of promiscuity of ligand docking, since the para-hydroxyl would need to move to allow interaction with Ser. Since this would not be an optimal interaction, it accounts for the partial agonist properties of synephrine. Likewise, the full agonism of phenylephrine is due to its close contact with Ser, as has been postulated in earlier studies (15) in which the greatest activity among monophenolic analogs of phenethylamines always resides in the meta-substituted derivative, with the para-hydroxylated phenethylamines being significantly weaker.

We recently described a chimeric point mutation in the alpha-AR, Met Leu, that was created to explore the agonist binding pocket differences between alpha- and alpha-ARs. This mutant is constitutively active as evidenced by increased basal signaling and increased agonist binding and potency(16) . The mechanism by which this mutant imparted constitutive activity appears to be by preventing normal packing of an adjacent valine residue in TMV (Val), which, in turn, perturbs the helix resulting in constitutive activity(16) . Since this alpha mutation, Met Leu, appeared to be operating through a conformational change of TMV, we explored the possibility that the serine residues on TMV might also be involved in manifesting its constitutive activity. Therefore, we combined the constitutively active mutation, Met Leu, with either serine mutation, Ser Ala or Ser Ala, in a single receptor and evaluated the resulting double mutant for changes in potency, basal IP(3) release, and agonist binding affinity. The Met Leu mutation alone was constitutively active, as evidenced by its higher IP(3) basal activity (Fig. 3A), higher binding affinity (Fig. 3B), and increased potency (Fig. 3C) compared to the wild type receptor. However, basal IP(3) signal transduction remained higher when combined with either serine mutation (Met Leu/Ser Ala or Met Leu/Ser Ala), indicating an agonist-independent property of this mutant. However, the high binding affinity for epinephrine as seen in Met Leu alone was abolished by combination with either serine mutation. This is in contrast to the single serine mutations and most likely is due to both serines in the Met Leu mutant being moved closer to the agonist binding pocket. However, the exact nature of the conformational change and whether it truly mimics the native activated state are unknown. Nevertheless, these results are still consistent with both serines participating in binding affinity. Likewise, in dose-response studies with epinephrine, the Met Leu/Ser Ala combination virtually abolished the signal transduction and lowered the EC back to wild type values, essentially reversing the agonist-dependent manifestations of constitutive activity. These results are also consistent with the proposed alpha(1)-AR paradigm that both serines contribute to binding affinity but only Ser is critical in receptor activation.


Figure 3: Basal IP(3) release (A), epinephrine binding affinity (B), and IP dose response by epinephrine (C) for wild type, Met Leu, and mutant alpha-ARs. IP(3) production in the absence of agonists (panel A), competition binding (panel B), and IP stimulation (panel C) was measured in COS-1 cells expressing the constitutively active alpha-AR mutation, Met Leu alone (bullet), or in combination with either Ser Ala () or Ser Ala () relative to the wild type () or to mock transfected cells (vector alone). Expression levels for each receptor were adjusted to similar values (0.3 ± 0.1 pmol/mg membrane protein) by titrating the amount of DNA used in the transfection. The results are the mean ± S.E. of at least three separate experiments.** indicates significant differences from the wild type (**, p < 0.01;***, p < 0.001).



The data presented here are consistent with the model of the alpha-AR ligand binding site presented in Fig. 4. Two serine residues in TMV of the alpha-AR, Ser and Ser, are responsible for part of the agonist binding affinity. Each catechol hydroxyl is not located equal distant from its respective serine as in the beta(2)-AR. Both hydroxyls appear closer to Ser with the meta-hydroxyl forming the closest interaction. For receptor activation, however, only Ser is necessary for full agonism. This alpha(1)-AR paradigm is likely conserved to the other two alpha(1)-AR subtypes, the alpha- and alpha-ARs. Although both these alpha(1)-receptor subtypes have an extra serine located at the analogous position of 189 in the alpha-AR (Ser in the alpha-AR, Fig. 1), we previously demonstrated that a Ser Ala mutation in the alpha-AR had no effect on agonist binding affinity and functional responsiveness(3) . Therefore, the two serine residues in the alpha(1)-ARs are located three residues apart in the helix while the beta(2)-AR serines are located two residues apart. Due to the helical nature of the TM domains, this displacement by one residue can be predicted to result in a total rearrangement of the alpha(1)-AR catechol hydroxyls in the ligand binding pocket compared to the beta(2)-AR. As shown in Fig. 4B, the meta-hydroxyl serine residue (Ser) of the alpha-AR would be closer to TMIV and the para-hydroxyl serine residue (Ser) closer to TMVI with the extra serine residue in the alpha- (Ser) and alpha-subtypes (Ser) facing away from the ligand binding pocket. This arrangement of the hydroxyls in the alpha(1)-AR would be opposite to the alignment in the beta(2)-AR where the meta-hydroxyl serine residue (Ser) would be closer to TMVI and the para-hydroxyl serine residue (Ser) would be closer to TMIV. Therefore, the orientation of the catechol ring in the alpha(1)-AR binding pocket appears to be unique and rotated approximately 120° to that in the beta(2)-AR. This resulting difference between the alpha(1)- and beta(2)-ARs has major implications for drug design and possible mechanistic differences in receptor activation.


FOOTNOTES

*
This work was supported in part from National Institutes of Health Grant RO1HL52544 and an educational grant from Glaxo, Inc. This work was performed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Ph.D. (J. H.). The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore by hereby marked ``advertisement'' in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

§
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Molecular Cardiology, Research Inst., Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44195. Tel.: 216-444-2058; Fax: 216-444-9263.

(^1)
The abbreviations used are: AR, adrenergic receptor; [I]HEAT, 2-[beta-(4-hydroxyl-3-[I]iodophenyl)ethylamineomethyl]tetralone; IP, inositol phosphate; IP(3), 1,4,5-inositol trisphosphate; TM, transmembrane.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Dr. Robert M. Graham of the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute (Sydney, Australia) for critically reviewing this manuscript.


REFERENCES

  1. Franke, R. R., Konig, B., Sakmar, T. P., Khorana, H. G., and Hoffmann, K. P. (1990) Science 250, 123-125 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Wong, S. K., and Ross, E. M. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 18968-18976 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Hwa, J., Graham, R. M., and Perez, D. M. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 23189-23195 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Strader, C. D., Sigal, I. S., Register, R. B., Candelore, M. R., Rands, E., and Dixon, R. A. F. (1987) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 84, 4384-4388 [Abstract]
  5. Strader, C. D., Candelore, M. R., Hill, W. S., Sigal, I. S., and Dixon, R. A. F. (1989) J. Biol. Chem. 264, 13572-13578 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Wang, C. D., Buck, M. A., and Fraser, C. M. (1991) Mol. Pharmacol. 40, 168-179 [Abstract]
  7. Perez, D. M., Piascik, M. T., Malik, N., Gaivin, R., and Graham, R. M. (1994) Mol. Pharmacol. 46, 823-831 [Abstract]
  8. Sambrook, J., Fritsch, E. F., and Maniatis, T. (1989) Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual , 2nd Ed., Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
  9. Perez, D. M., Piascik, M. T., and Graham, R. M. (1991) Mol. Pharmacol. 40, 876-883 [Abstract]
  10. Bradford, M. M. (1976) Anal. Biochem. 72, 248-254 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Perez, D. M., DeYoung, M. B., and Graham, R. M. (1993) Mol. Pharmacol. 44, 784-795 [Abstract]
  12. Henderson, R., Baldwin, J. M., Ceska, T. A., Zemlin, F., Beckmann, E., and Downing, K. H. (1990) J. Mol. Biol. 213, 899-929 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Reik, R. P., Handshumacher, N. D., Sung, S.-S., Tan, M., Glynias, M. J., Schluchter, M. D., Novotny, J., and Graham, R. M. (1995) J. Theor. Biol. 172, 245-258 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Sung, S.-S., Handshumacher, N. D., Novotny, J., and Graham, R. M. (1991) FASEB J. 5, A804
  15. Ruffolo, R. R., and Waddell, J. E. (1982) J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 222, 645-651 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Hwa, J., Graham, R. M., and Perez, D. M. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, in press

©1996 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.