Identifying agonistic and antagonistic mechanisms operative at the GABA receptor

Based on our molecular modeling investigations of the glycinergic receptor, we expanded our studies to similarly investigate the GABAergic receptor. New data suggest there may exist a slightly different agonistic mechanism for the molecules described herein as compared to glycine. The origin of this is undoubtedly the fact that, while glycine has a positive and two negative binding sites, it is significantly shorter than GABA and the other GABA agonists. Clearly, discovery of more glycine agonists is needed to further clarify this point. Moreover, we find a remarkedly different antagonistic mechanism exists for this phylogenetically newer inhibitory system in the central nervous system (CNS) than recently reported for strychnine and eight weaker glycine antagonists. We used GABA and six agonists (muscimol, dihydromuscimol, THIP, isoguvacine, trans-3-aminocyclopentane-1-carboxylic acid, piperidine-4-sulfonic acid) and five antagonists (bicuculline-N15-methobromide, R5135, pitrazepin, iso-THAZ and securinine) to derive our conclusions. We found that each of the agonists have three clearly defined atoms that can serve as attachment points at the GABAA receptor site. One of the three attachment atoms includes a carbonyl or carboxylate oxygen. The role of the carbonyl or carboxylate atom is very important. First, we theorize that a rapid two-point attachment occurs (one from the positive end and one from one of the other two negative atoms on the ligand) at the recognition site in the receptor where GABA or a GABAergic agonist binds. The positive end of the agonist perhaps associates through hydrogen bonding to a beta-carboxyl group in one of the aspartate molecules in the polypeptide. The negative attachment points perhaps bind through hydrogen bonding to arginine molecules in this polypeptide. The second negative site in the agonist immediately triggers a conformational change by pulling together the aforementioned groups by electrostatic attraction, and hence opening the chloride channel. We propose the carbonyl oxygen is partly responsible for triggering the opening by formation of a double hydrogen bond to arginine. We postulate that this attraction is the first step inducing the conformational change. In the case of the GABA antagonists investigated, a fourth attachment site was not found. In fact only two sites have been identified similar to the group II glycine antagonists. Our data support a hypothesis for GABAergic antagonist activity which suggests that the antagonist simply binds to the recognition site and blocks the neurotransmitter, GABA, from entering this site thereby preventing the opening of the chloride channel; it just stays closed. This mechanism is different from the mechanism proposed for the large number of Group I glycine antagonists (Aprison et al.: J Neurosci Res 41: 259-269, 1995).