AbstractIn a recent report by Gillis et al., 2020 (1), it was suggested that low intrinsic agonism, and not biased agonism, leads to an improvement in the separation of potency in opioid-induced respiratory suppression versus antinociception. Although the compounds that were tested have been shown to display G protein signaling bias in prior publications, the authors conclude that since they cannot detect biased agonism in their cellular signaling studies the compounds are therefore not biased agonists. Rather, they conclude that it is low intrinsic efficacy that leads to the therapeutic window improvement. Intrinsic efficacy is the extent to which an agonist can stimulate a G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) response in a system. The designation of full agonist is made to compounds that produce the highest observable activation in a system (maximum intrinsic efficacy); agonists producing some fraction of that response are considered partial agonists. The maximum response window is determined by the cellular environment, receptor and effector expression levels, and the amplification readout of the system. Biased agonism takes into consideration not only intrinsic efficacy, but also potency (concentration required to reach half maximal efficacy) of an agonist in an assay. Herein, the data published in the aforementioned manuscript was used to rederive the intrinsic efficacy and bias factors as ΔΔlog(τ/KA) and ΔΔlog(Emax/EC50). Based on this reanalysis, the data does not support the conclusion that biased agonism, favoring G protein signaling, was not present. Further, these observations agree with prior studies wherein oliceridine, PZM21 and SR-17018 were first described as biased agonists with improvement in antinociception over respiratory suppression in mice. Therefore, introducing G protein signaling bias may be a means to improve opioid analgesia while avoiding certain undesirable side effects.
Low intrinsic efficacy for G protein activation can explain the improved side effect profiles of new opioid agonists
