Vol. 50, Issue 2, 279-290, June 1998

International Union of Pharmacology. XVII. Classification of Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptors^a

Department of Pharmacology (M.P.C.), University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland and Division of Physical Biochemistry (N.J.M.B.), National Institute for Medical Research, London, England

I. Introduction
II. Nomenclature
III. Molecular Definition of Subtypes
IV. Pharmacological Definition of Subtypes
    A. Antagonists
    B. Allosteric Agents
    C. Definition of Individual Receptor Subtypes
        1. M₁ receptors.
        2. M₂ receptors.
        3. M₃ receptors.
        4. M₄ receptors.
        5. M₅ receptors.
        6. Functional systems whose classification is open to debate.
    D. Agonists
V. Transduction Mechanisms and Functional Responses
VI. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References

	I. Introduction

Top Next References

Actions of acetylcholine in the periphery are the result of activation of either the ionotropic nicotinic receptor or the metabotropic muscarinic receptor. In the mammalian central nervous system (CNS)^c, both nicotinic and muscarinic receptor subtypes are present on neurons, although there is as yet very limited evidence for a physiological role for nicotinic receptors in synaptic function in the mammalian brain (Role and Berg, 1996). In the periphery, among other effects, muscarinic receptors mediate smooth muscle contraction, glandular secretion, and modulation of cardiac rate and force. In the CNS, there is evidence that muscarinic receptors are involved in motor control, temperature regulation, cardiovascular regulation, and memory. Interest in the classification of muscarinic receptors involved in functions at different locations has been heightened by the potential therapeutic application of selective agents in areas such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, asthma, analgesia, and disorders of intestinal motility and cardiac and urinary bladder function.

Historically, the first indications of the existence of muscarinic receptor subtypes were the cardioselective actions of gallamine (Riker and Wescoe, 1951) and the sympathetic ganglionic stimulant behavior of (4-hydroxy-2-butynyl)-1-trimethylammonium-m-chlorocarbanilate chloride (McN-A-343) (Roszkowski, 1961). Subsequently, Barlow et al. (1976) demonstrated significant differences in the pharmacological properties of ileal and atrial muscarinic receptors. The introduction of pirenzepine, a drug used in the treatment of peptic ulcer disease, had a major role in the appreciation of the existence of muscarinic receptor subtypes. Its selectivity in binding (Hammer et al., 1980) and functional studies (Brown et al., 1980; Hammer and Giachetti, 1982) provided an explanation of its in vivo selectivity. It seemed as if there were at least three subclasses of muscarinic receptors (Birdsall and Hulme, 1983).

Knowledge of the potential functions and roles of muscarinic receptors and their subtypes was advanced significantly by the cloning of five mammalian genes encoding muscarinic receptors. Their expression in cell lines has resulted in the generation of much information on potential coupling mechanisms, the production of selective antibodies, and the ability to localize sites of expression of messenger ribonucleic acids (mRNAs) encoding the receptors. Notwithstanding this progress, the definition of the receptor subtype(s) involved in a particular functional response still is accomplished best by the use of selective pharmacological tools. Although it is true that the presence of receptor gene-specific mRNA, or receptor-specific immunoreactivity can provide evidence supporting the pharmacological demonstration of a functional receptor subtype, it is equally true that firm pharmacological evidence for the involvement of a particular subtype stands alone: lack of supporting molecular data is not sufficient justification for rejecting the pharmacological evidence.

This review describes the naming and classification of muscarinic receptors in line with the guidelines of NC-IUPHAR. The main features of muscarinic receptor structure, pharmacology, and function that provide the basis for the classification are summarized. Because this review does not set out to be a comprehensive review of the literature, readers seeking more detail should refer to the many relevant reviews in the field (table 1).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   TABLE 1 Recent reviews on muscarinic receptors

	II. Nomenclature

Top Previous Next References

The previous nomenclature was recommended by the Fourth Symposium on Subtypes of Muscarinic Receptors and the NC-IUPHAR Subcommittee on Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptors (Levine and Birdsall, 1989). This nomenclature used a lower case `m' followed by its number to describe a subtype when the muscarinic receptor gene or gene product was known unambiguously (for example, by transfection into a nonexpressing cell line). On the other hand, when the properties of the receptor were defined by its pharmacology and the molecular species contributing to these properties was not known unambiguously the receptor was denoted by `M' and a subscript number (this being the nomenclature used before the cloning of the receptor genes). The aim was that, with the discovery of antagonists of greater selectivity, the dual molecular and pharmacological descriptors of muscarinic receptor subtypes would merge into a single definition.

Based on existing knowledge, summarized in this review, it is now recommended that M₁, M₂, M₃, M₄, and M₅ be used to describe both the pharmacological subtypes (as defined previously) and the molecular subtypes (defined previously as m1-m5, respectively).

A pharmacological characterization of endogenous M₅ receptors in whole-tissue functional studies is still lacking. However, under the revised guidelines of the NC-IUPHAR Committee on Receptor Nomenclature and Drug Classification (Vanhoutte et al., 1998), it is viewed by the above-mentioned committee and the muscarinic receptor subcommittee that the evidence presented in this review is sufficient to define the M₅ receptor.

	III. Molecular Definition of Subtypes

Top Previous Next References

Cloning of complementary deoxyribonucleic acids for muscarinic receptor genes was spearheaded by the work of Numa and colleagues, who cloned the M₁ and M₂ genes (Kubo et al., 1986a,b), and was extended by the discovery of the M_3, M₄, and M₅ genes (Bonner et al., 1987, 1988; Peralta et al., 1987). These five genes encode muscarinic receptor proteins (actually glycoproteins) which have the structural features of the seven transmembrane helix G-protein-coupled receptor family. Muscarinic receptor sequences have significant homologies with other members of this receptor superfamily (Hulme et al., 1990). The vertebrate receptor genes cloned so far are intronless within the coding regions and are notably similar across mammalian species (Hall et al., 1993; Eglen et al., 1996; table 2). The chromosomal localization of the human M₁M₅ genes are reported to be 11q12-13, 7q35-36, 1q43-44, 11p12-11.2, and 15q26, respectively (Bonner et al., 1991).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   TABLE 2 Muscarinic receptor genes

In addition to being transfected into a variety of cells of mammalian/amphibian origin, either transiently (e.g., COS cells, xenopus oocytes) or stably (e.g., Chinese hamster ovary, A9L, Y₁ cells), the receptors have also been expressed in insect (Sf9) cells (Vasudevan et al., 1995; Hepler et al., 1996), Dictyostelium (Voith and Dingermann, 1995), yeast (Payette et al., 1990; Huang et al., 1992), and Escherichia coli (Curtis and Hulme, 1997).

The apparent similarities between muscarinic receptor subtypes across species, at least at the amino acid level, are potentially misleading. Precedents from other types of receptors clearly show that a minor sequence difference between receptors in different species can have a major impact on their pharmacological profiles. For example, a single amino acid difference between the human and rat 5-hydroxytryptamine_1B receptor is manifest as a major difference in ligand affinities (reviewed by Kenakin, 1996).

In muscarinic receptors the existing evidence is that the pharmacology is not significantly different between mammalian receptor homologs (insofar as it has been studied; see Hall et al., 1993, for example). However, the possibility cannot be excluded that novel ligands may make different interactions with regions of the receptor where there are sequence differences between species. Thus, there is a very good argument for using cloned human receptor genes expressed in cell lines to derive information about potential human therapeutic agents, rather than attempting to use a receptor system from a nonhuman species that provides the `best' pharmacological match to the human profile.

In common with most members of the subgroup of G-protein-coupled receptor family whose ligand-recognition site binds small molecules, the major features of muscarinic receptor structure are:

• The ligand recognition site is within the outer half of the membrane-embedded part of the protein.
• The transmembrane segments are probably -helices, three oriented approximately perpendicular to the membrane, four at a more acute angle (Baldwin et al., 1997).
• There are two conserved cysteine residues that form a disulfide bond between the first and third extracellular loops (Kurtenbach et al., 1990; Savarese et al., 1992).
• There is a conserved triplet of amino acids (Asp Arg Tyr) at the cytoplasmic interface of TMIII with the second intracellular loop, which is important for both the expression and function of the receptor (Zhu et al., 1994; Jones et al., 1995; Lu et al., 1997).
• The carboxy-terminus is on the intracellular side of the membrane because antibodies to the C-terminus sequences recognize cell-surface receptors only when cells are permeabilized (e.g., Lu et al., 1997). Palmitoylation of a cysteine residue at the carboxy-terminus of M₂ receptors (C457) occurs in cells, but it is not an absolute requirement for the interaction with G-proteins even though function is enhanced (Hayashi and Haga, 1997).
• There are one or more glycosylation sites on the N-terminus, but glycosylation apparently is not crucial for receptor expression and function, at least for the M₂ receptor (Van Koppen and Nathanson, 1990). This study provides evidence for the extracellular location of the N-terminus.

In whole-cell studies, serine and threonine residues in the large postulated third intracellular loop of muscarinic receptors are phosphorylated by endogenous protein kinases (Pals-Rylaarsdam and Hosey, 1997), which indicates that the large i3 loop of the M₂ receptor is indeed intracellular.

The projected three-dimensional structure of the receptors is expected to have more in common with that of rhodopsin, a G-protein-coupled receptor (Baldwin, 1993), than that of bacteriorhodopsin, a proton pump and another seven-transmembrane helix protein whose medium-resolution, three-dimensional structure is known (Henderson et al., 1990). The latter structure has been assumed to be an appropriate model for G-protein-coupled receptors in some studies.

As with the cationic amine receptors, all muscarinic receptors have an Asp residue in the distal N-terminal part of the third transmembrane domain which is thought to interact with the polar headgroup of amine ligands, including acetylcholine. This residue is alkylated specifically by the agonist, acetylcholine mustard, and the antagonist, propylbenzilylcholine mustard (Curtis et al., 1989; Spalding et al., 1994). Uncharged muscarinic antagonists also will bind to muscarinic receptors but with lower affinity (e.g., Hou et al., 1996). Residues important for the binding of these ligands have not been defined. Sites involved in binding different receptor-selective antagonists are probably quite diverse, depending on the antagonist (Wess et al., 1990, 1992; Matsui et al., 1995). It presently is difficult to identify amino acids that interact directly with the antagonists and to distinguish such residues from those which, when mutated, affect antagonist binding by indirectly changing the conformation of the binding site (or sites). Blüml et al. (1994) suggested that a conserved Asn residue in the sixth transmembrane segment is very important for the binding of certain subclasses of antagonists, notably atropine-like analogs.

An important molecular distinction between the different muscarinic receptor subtypes is the sequence divergence in the postulated third internal (i3) loops between the M₁/M₃/M₅ sequences compared with the M₂/M₄ sequences (Hulme et al., 1990; Wess, 1996; Wess et al., 1997) that probably determines the quite specific coupling preferences of these two groups (Wess, 1993). More recently, further mutational studies have shown that coupling specificity of the M₃ receptor is determined by a small set of amino acids in the TMIII/i2 loop interface and in the membrane-proximal portions of the i3 loop (Blin et al., 1995). Similar studies with the M₂ receptor have identified a four amino acid sequence (Val Thr Ile Leu) located at the interface of the i3 loop and TM VI which couples this receptor to its target G-proteins (G_o/i) (Wess et al., 1997); this sequence is also present in other receptors with high coupling preference for these G-protein  subunits (Liu et al., 1995).

Muscarinic receptor-G-protein interactions and activation can occur in the absence of agonists. This can be demonstrated in binding studies carried out at low ionic strengths in the presence of Mg²⁺ (Hulme et al., 1981), as the existence of constitutive activity observed in functional studies by overexpression of the receptor (Vogel et al., 1995) or G-protein (Burstein et al., 1995), and also in a patch-clamp study in atrial cells (Soejima and Noma, 1984). Muscarinic antagonists regulate `basal' activity [elevate cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) levels, inhibit inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate production, or close atrial K<sup>+</sup> channels, depending on subtype], but presently there is no evidence of differential effects of antagonists on their maximal effects. The existence of significant constitutive activity in vivo is not known, nor is there any therapeutic use of muscarinic antagonists acting as `inverse agonists.'

Another feature of muscarinic receptors is the presence of a specific binding site which, when occupied by ligands, can modify the binding and behavior of ligands binding to the acetylcholine recognition site. This allosteric site has been characterized by equilibrium and kinetic binding studies (Stockton et al., 1983; Ellis et al., 1991; Proska and Tucek, 1995; Lazareno and Birdsall, 1995) as well as in functional studies (Ehlert, 1988; Lazareno and Birdsall, 1995). Studies of chimeric and mutant receptors (Ellis et al., 1993; Leppik et al., 1994; Matsui et al., 1995) have begun to identify amino acids and receptor domains that may constitute the binding site.

	IV. Pharmacological Definition of Subtypes

Top Previous Next References

Pharmacological characterization of muscarinic receptor subtypes has long been dogged by a complete lack of agonists with any selectivity, and a lack of antagonists with very high selectivity for any single receptor subtype. Additionally, cells frequently coexpress more than one subtype, further adding to the difficulty of assigning a functional response to a single receptor subtype.

A. Antagonists

The definition of antagonist affinities for the five muscarinic receptors has been aided greatly by the use of radioligand binding techniques, with ligands such as [³H]pirenzepine and [³H]N-methylscopolamine, in combination with membrane preparations from cells transfected with the gene for a particular receptor, and thereby expressing a single receptor subtype. Affinity constants obtained from these experiments have been remarkably comparable with apparent affinity constants determined in functional experiments using Arunlakshana-Schild analysis (reviewed by Caulfield, 1993; table 3) or any of the acceptable variants (Lazareno and Birdsall, 1993a,b). Nevertheless, serious errors can be made in estimates of antagonist affinity constants by inappropriate design of radioligand binding experiments (Hulme and Birdsall, 1992). It also is possible to perturb grossly the antagonist structure-binding relationships by carrying out binding assays under conditions (particularly ionic strength, temperature, and solubilization in detergents) that differ substantially from those of the functional assays (Pedder et al., 1991). Similarly, the estimation of apparent affinity constants for antagonists in functional experiments can be flawed unless care is taken in experimental design (Caulfield, 1997).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   TABLE 3 Antagonist affinity constants (log affinity constants or pKB values) for mammalian muscarinic receptorsa

Table 3 summarizes the (log) affinity constants (and apparent affinity constants in functional studies) of atropine, some selective antagonists, and the two most selective muscarinic toxins for the different muscarinic receptor subtypes. The chemical structures of the selective nonpeptide antagonists are given in figure 1. The data in table 3 include information from binding studies and functional studies (e.g., Lazareno and Birdsall, 1993a,b) on cloned receptors, and on natively expressed receptors (where the subtype involved has been defined satisfactorily; see Section IV.C.1-4).

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1.   Muscarinic antagonists.

The ranges of values represent the differences in values determined by different laboratories, and the inference is that when a value for a given antagonist lies outside the range for a given receptor, then that receptor is not detected (in a binding study) or does not mediate the response measured (in a functional study). Less well-characterized, but nevertheless potentially useful molecules are also included in table 3 (e.g., guanylpirenzepine, darifenacin, and PD102807). Ranges of values for these antagonists are not given and caution should be taken in interpreting data obtained with these compounds until more information is available from further studies on cloned receptors and from a wider range of functional studies. These antagonists are of special interest because they have been reported to have a considerably higher affinity for one subtype over all other subtypes.

Also included in table 3 are two muscarinic snake toxins, MT3 and MT7. These toxins are two of several components of the venom of the green (Dendroaspis angusticeps) and black mamba (Dendroaspis polylepis) which have a high affinity for muscarinic receptors. These two toxins show great promise in that their apparently high subtype selectivity should be extremely useful in muscarinic receptor classification. However, whether they and the other muscarinic toxins have additional actions on nonmuscarinic systems has yet to be determined.

It is evident from table 3 that convincing evidence for the involvement of a particular receptor necessitates the use of more than one antagonist. It must be emphasized that, because of the lack of very high subtype selectivity of any single antagonist (except perhaps for the M₁ receptor selectivity of MT7 toxin), it should not be acceptable to state that a particular receptor is involved when the experimental design involves procedures such as "block" of an agonist response by a fixed high concentration of antagonist, determination of IC₅₀ values, "potency rank orders" of antagonists, or any other design that does not involve determination of affinity constants (or apparent affinity constants). Similarly, descriptions of compounds such as pirenzepine as "M₁ receptor-selective" should be resisted. Most importantly, it is not advisable to use a "majority verdict" approach to receptor classification. Thus, if even one antagonist has a pK_B that is significantly different from its pK_B at one defined (preferably cloned) receptor, say M₁, it is not acceptable to ignore that discrepancy and to classify the receptor as M₁ without an experimental explanation for the discrepancy.

B. Allosteric Agents

Experiments with the allosteric compound gallamine (which acts as a selective allosteric antagonist at M₂ receptors) gave important early indications of muscarinic receptor heterogeneity (Riker and Wescoe, 1951; Clark and Mitchelson, 1976; Stockton et al., 1983). The effects of allosteric ligands can be detected in studies on cloned and expressed human muscarinic receptors, both in radioligand binding studies (e.g., Ellis et al., 1991; Lazareno and Birdsall, 1995), and in functional studies (Lazareno and Birdsall, 1995). It is expected that the use of selective ligands acting at this site will be useful in muscarinic receptor classification, although the interpretation of their effects is complex (Lazareno and Birdsall, 1995).

Several allosteric ligands have been described (see e.g., Birdsall et al., 1987; Lee and El-Fakahany, 1991). Most ligands exhibit negative cooperativity with agonists and antagonists. Alcuronium and strychnine, however, are allosteric agents that are positively cooperative with the antagonist, N-methylscopolamine, at one or more muscarinic receptor subtypes (Tucek et al., 1990; Lazareno and Birdsall, 1995; Proska and Tucek, 1995), and brucine and certain analogs exhibit positive cooperativity with acetylcholine at specific receptor subtypes in both binding and functional studies (Birdsall et al., 1997; Jakubik et al., 1997; Lazareno et al., 1998)

C. Definition of Individual Receptor Subtypes

The affinity constants for the partially selective antagonists given in table 3 represent the basis for assigning a response or a binding site to a particular muscarinic receptor subtype. Definition of the selectivity of a novel muscarinic antagonist, or of the actions of a putative selective agonist, can be accomplished best using recombinant muscarinic receptors expressed in cell lines (Buckley et al., 1989; Lazareno and Birdsall, 1993a; Dörje et al., 1991b; Maggio et al., 1994). If the agent is intended to have therapeutic utility, it would seem logical to do these tests on cloned and expressed human receptors. Nevertheless, there have been many studies of new muscarinic agonists and antagonists on native receptors, often mediating functional responses, possibly because there is a view that a profile obtained with native functionally coupled receptors is "better" than similar data obtained either in binding or functional studies with cloned receptors. This might be true if there were reason to believe that native receptors behaved significantly differently from cloned receptors (e.g., because of posttranslational modifications). However, there is currently no evidence for such a difference (Caulfield, 1993). What is clear is that the behavior of agonists in particular (including their binding properties) will be determined by levels of expression of signal transduction proteins, including receptors, receptor kinases, G-proteins, RGS proteins, enzymes generating second-messengers, and other effectors, such as ion channels. For example, increasing the expression of Gq increased the potency of agonists and induced constitutive activity (Burstein et al., 1995, 1997), which is what would be expected on theoretical grounds (Kenakin, 1996). A further complication that is likely to arise with high expression levels of receptors or other components of the signal transduction pathway is coupling to multiple effectors, especially with highly efficacious agonists (Kenakin, 1996). This has been observed in functional studies in membranes (Lazareno et al., 1993) and in whole-cell studies (see e.g., Ashkenazi et al., 1987; Gurwitz et al., 1994).

A true resolution of these problems will only be made when there is a full definition of the levels of each constituent of the signal transduction pathway involved in a given response, together with an understanding of how agonists work at the molecular level. Although there has been considerable progress in this regard, we are nevertheless a long way from this ideal state.

Notwithstanding this, many reports still use nonhuman functional systems to define the actions of agonists and antagonists at muscarinic receptor subtypes, often with a therapeutic end in mind. For this reason, we will outline briefly some model functional responses, which can be recorded by fairly simple techniques and which have been defined satisfactorily as involving a particular muscarinic receptor subtype.

1. M₁ receptors.

a. RAT SUPERIOR CERVICAL GANGLION. Muscarinic agonist depolarization of rat isolated superior cervical ganglion, recorded extracellularly, is mediated by M₁ receptors (Brown et al., 1980). This is probably the result of inhibition of opening of the voltage-gated M-type K⁺ channels in these neurons (Marrion et al., 1989; Bernheim et al., 1992), although M₁ receptors can modulate other conductances which could contribute to the depolarizing response (e.g., the protein kinase C-dependent Cl current described by Marsh et al., 1995). The pharmacology of this system has not been investigated using the more recently discovered antagonists. However, the ablation of M-current inhibition in sympathetic ganglion neurons of the M₁-knockout mouse argues convincingly for the linkage (Hamilton et. al., 1997.)

b. CANINE SAPHENOUS VEIN. Contraction of this preparation probably is mediated by M₁ receptors, because the apparent pK_B values of a range of partially selective antagonists is entirely consistent with an M₁ receptor profile (O'Rourke and Vanhoutte, 1987; Sagrada et al., 1994; Watson et al., 1995). It should be noted that there is a low receptor reserve associated with the contraction. Most agonists, notably those of low intrinsic efficacy (including McN-A-343!), act as antagonists.

2. M₂ receptors.

a. GUINEA-PIG HEART. Activation of muscarinic receptors in these preparations produces a reduction in force of contraction and (in nonpaced tissues) a decrease in the rate of beating. These effects are probably the consequence of inhibition of voltage-gated Ca²⁺ channels and activation of inwardly rectifying K⁺ channels, respectively. Extensive studies with many antagonists have defined this response as being mediated by the M₂ receptor (reviewed by Caulfield, 1993).

M₂ receptors can mediate both negative and positive inotropic responses in the left atrium of the reserpinized rat, that latter effect being insensitive to pertussis toxin (Kenakin and Boselli, 1990).

It also has been suggested that an M₁ muscarinic receptor stimulates phospholipase C, and increases Ca²⁺ currents in pertussis toxin-treated guinea-pig and rat ventricular myocytes (see Sharma et al., 1997 for references). Supporting evidence for this contention was that subtype-specific antibodies detected M₁ receptor protein in myocytes, and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction detected significant m1 mRNA (Gallo et al., 1993; Sharma et al., 1997). However, one caveat to the report of Gallo et al. (1993) is that the effect of pirenzepine in antagonizing the muscarinic stimulation of phospholipase C extrapolated to an apparent pK_B value of approximately 9.5, which is not consistent with any known muscarinic receptor.

3. M₃ receptors.

a. GUINEA-PIG ILEUM. The muscarinic receptors mediating contraction of guinea-pig ileum (and indeed of many other smooth muscle preparations) are defined pharmacologically as M₃ (reviewed by Eglen et al., 1996). There is a large population of M₂ receptors in many smooth muscles, and it seems likely that they are involved in antagonizing the relaxant effects of agents that elevate cAMP (Thomas et al., 1993; Eglen et al., 1994). M₂ receptors in guinea-pig ileum also stimulate the opening of cation-selective channels that depolarize the muscle cells (Bolton and Zholos, 1997).

Several studies have indicated that the receptor mediating relaxation of vascular smooth muscle (via release of relaxing factors from endothelial cells) is M₃ (reviewed by Eglen and Whiting, 1990; Caulfield, 1993; Van Zwieten and Doods, 1995) but there is also evidence, summarized in the reviews above, for differences in pK_B values for selective antagonists in blocking the relaxant responses in some blood vessels.

There also have been suggestions that smooth muscle M₃ receptors from different tissues may be heterogeneous. Thus, compounds such as zamifenacin, darifenacin, and p-F-HHSiD have been reported to distinguish between muscarinic agonist responses in tissues such as trachea, ileum, and urinary bladder (reviewed by Eglen et al., 1996). However, as pointed out by Eglen et al. (1996), it seems premature to speculate about subtypes of M₃ receptor (or a new receptor subtype) in the absence of supporting molecular evidence, either in the form of new genes or posttranslational modifications which change antagonist affinities.

4. M₄ receptors.

a. RABBIT ANOCOCCYGEUS MUSCLE. In preparations in which the tone has been raised by histamine, muscarinic agonists relax the precontraction. This apparently is an exclusively presynaptic effect, involving the release of an inhibitory nonadrenergic noncholinergic neurotransmitter, probably nitric oxide (Gross et al., 1997). Muscarinic antagonists inhibit the relaxation, the pK_B values indicating that M₄ receptors mediate this response (Gross et al., 1997). There is a low receptor reserve for this response because agonist potencies are low and several agonists of low intrinsic efficacy act as antagonists.

b. NG108-15 CELLS. The neuroblastoma-glioma hybrid cell line NG108-15 expresses M₄ mRNA (Peralta et al., 1987) and M₄ receptors can be detected readily in radioligand binding assays (Lazareno et al., 1990).

Inhibition of adenylyl cyclase activity by muscarinic agonists in rat corpus striatum probably is mediated by M₄ receptors (Caulfield, 1993; Olianas et al., 1996). However, a 3- to 10-fold discrepant value for the pK_B of methoctramine has been reported (Onali and Olianas, 1995).

5. M₅ receptors. Despite evidence for the presence of the M₅ protein and its mRNA in the brain and periphery (Weiner et al., 1990; Flynn et al., 1997), it has not yet been possible to delineate a whole-tissue response whose location and pharmacology matches that predicted for the expressed gene product. There have been several studies of the function of the cloned M₅ receptor, so this gene product does represent a functional receptor. However, it has been shown only recently that the pK_B values for several selective antagonists in blocking function in cells transfected with the M₅ gene agree with the binding affinities measured in membranes from the same cell line (Watson et al., 1998). Reever et al. (1997) have summarized the current knowledge about this somewhat ephemeral receptor subtype.

There is evidence that the A2058 human melanoma cell line expresses only M₅ receptors (Kohn et al., 1996). This may provide a useful model for an endogenous M₅ receptor in a human cell line, but it also should be noted that the coupling mechanisms in this cell line are somewhat unusual. Another potentially useful system is the eosinophilic leukemia cell line (EoL-1) where M₅ (and M₃) receptors can be induced on differentiation with interferon- (Mita et al., 1996).

The conclusion is that the characterization of the M₅ receptor is still incomplete but, based on the revised NC-IUPHAR guidelines, there is now sufficient evidence to warrant a M₅ (rather than m5) nomenclature.

6. Functional systems whose classification is open to debate. a. RABBIT VAS DEFERENS. In rabbit vas deferens, it has been argued that the inhibition of field stimulation-evoked twitch responses by muscarinic agonists such as McN-A-343 is mediated by M₁ receptors, because the effect is antagonized by pirenzepine with an apparent pK_B of 7.8 (Eltze, 1988, Grimm et al., 1994a). However, the pK_B values obtained with some other antagonists are not consistent with this conclusion. Also, it previously has been suggested that the receptor mediating this functional response may be the M₄ subtype, given the pK_B value for himbacine (Caulfield, 1993). However, for a wider range of antagonists, comparison between pK_B values obtained on this preparation with pK_B values at cloned human receptors (or other well-defined systems where cloned receptor data are not available) clearly indicates that neither of these hypotheses can be true (fig. 2). Thus, the rabbit vas deferens presynaptic muscarinic receptor subtype apparently is still not defined adequately. The possibility also remains that more than one muscarinic receptor subtype can couple to inhibit transmitter release in this preparation. A potentially further confounding factor is that most muscarinic agonists potentiate the field-stimulated twitch response by activating a receptor that has a M₂-like pharmacology (Eltze, 1988).

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2.   pKB(app) values for rabbit vas deferens functional assays versus pKB values on cloned muscarinic receptors. The functional (apparent) pKB values for six selective muscarinic antagonists obtained in Aruklashana-Schild-type experiments on rabbit vas deferens (Eltze, 1988; Sagrada et al., 1994; Grimm et al., 1994a; Waelbroeck et al., 1994) are compared with the log affinity values (pKB) from binding studies on cloned human receptors (Dörje et al., 1991b; Lambrecht et al., 1997). Where data are not available from work on cloned receptors, results are included from work on defined subtypes in nonhuman species (dicyclomine, Lazareno et al., 1990; O-methoxy silahexocyclium, Waelbroeck et al., 1994). Data have been included for those antagonists whose apparent pKB values on the rabbit vas deferens preparation deviate by more than 0.5 log units from the pKB values at either M1 or M4 receptors.

b. RAT DUODENUM. McN-A-343 produces relaxation of this preparation, thought to be caused by stimulation of nonadrenergic, noncholinergic neurons (Micheletti et al., 1988), and it has been suggested, again on the basis of a pirenzepine pK_B in the region of 8.0, that the receptor involved is an M₁ receptor. This is not so, because the pK_B values for 4-DAMP (Micheletti et al., 1990a), guanylpirenzepine (Micheletti et al., 1990b), and (S)-dimethindene (Pfaff et al., 1995) in this assay differ from the M₁ binding affinities by approximately 1, 0.5, and 0.7 log units, respectively.

Both the above-mentioned systems involve presynaptic muscarinic receptors. The rabbit ear artery preparation is another presynaptic system in which the subtype that inhibits noradrenaline release has an atypical pharmacology (Darroch et al., 1992).

D. Agonists

There are no muscarinic agonists with a high selectivity for one particular subtype. Early studies of muscarinic receptors led to the suggestion that compounds such as McN-A-343 were selective for the M₁ receptor, but this is not the case. In fact McN-A-343, if anything, may show a modest degree of M₄ selectivity (Lazareno et al., 1993; Richards and Van Giersbergen, 1995). Extensive studies with functional systems involving both native and cloned receptors have demonstrated that the potency of an agonist is not a function of the receptor subtype, but rather is a function of the tissue or cell under study (reviewed by Caulfield, 1993, 1997; Eglen et al., 1996).

The concept of functional selectivity has been applied to the design of muscarinic agonists, which might, for example, be used in the treatment of the cognitive deficit in Alzheimer's disease (e.g., Freedman et al., 1993; Lambrecht et al., 1993; Ensinger et al., 1993; Jaen et al., 1995, Fisher et al., 1996). A selective action in such a disease is difficult to predict, however. The approach depends on the agonists having their greatest potency at the receptors in the target tissue. The effective receptor reserves in tissues cannot be manipulated, and there is no guarantee that an advantageous receptor reserve in the target tissue, relative to other tissues, can be maintained during prolonged agonist treatment or during the pathological progression of the disease. The new agonist (+)-3-(S)-3-[4-butylthio-1,2,5-thiadiazol-3-yl]-1-azabi- cyclo[2,2,2]octane (LY297802) is an antinociceptive agent at doses that do not produce parasympath mimetic effects. Its functional selectivity may be mediated via M₄ receptors in the spinal cord (Shannon et al., 1997).

Although muscarinic agonists with receptor selectivity are certainly worthwhile targets, it will not be possible to define that selectivity until there is better control and understanding of the transduction processes mediating responses [including the nature of agonist-induced conformational change(s) at the receptor], and definition of the stoichiometry and nature of the G-proteins and other components of the transduction pathway.

	V. Transduction Mechanisms and Functional Responses

Top Previous Next References

It is well established that the "odd-numbered" muscarinic receptors (M₁, M₃, M₅) typically couple via the  subunits of the G_q/11 family, whereas the "even-numbered" members (M₂, M₄) couple via G_i and G_o  subunits. This preferential coupling resides at the molecular level mainly in the postulated membrane-proximal regions of the i2 and i3 loops of the different receptors, which are notably different between the "odd" and "even" receptor groups, and similar within the two groups. The coupling selectivity at the G-protein level is reflected in the generally, but not exclusively, observed downstream second-messenger pathways activated by the two groups of muscarinic receptors; phospholipase C is activated by the "odd" receptors, whereas adenylyl cyclase is inhibited by the "even" receptors (reviewed by Caulfield, 1993; Felder, 1995). Thus, responses to activation of the latter group of receptors usually can be blocked by pertussis toxin-catalyzed adenosine diphosphate ribosylation of G_i and/or G_o.

Functional responses mediated by these major coupling pathways include the contraction of many smooth muscles and the stimulation of glandular secretion (by M₃ receptors), and there is evidence that the M₂ receptor-mediated inhibition of voltage-gated calcium channels in the heart is the result of adenylyl cyclase inhibition (see Méry et al., 1997 for references). The ablation of M-current inhibition in sympathetic ganglion neurons in the M₁-knockout mouse provides direct evidence for this M₁ receptor-mediated transduction mechanism in this tissue (Hamilton et al., 1997). Clearly, there are also many muscarinic responses that involve neither phospholipase C nor adenylyl cyclase inhibition. Thus, the muscarinic activation of cardiac inward rectifier K⁺ channels (by M₂ receptors) results from a direct action of G subunits (released from the G_i heterotrimer) on the channels (see Wickman and Clapham, 1995). There are also several reports of muscarinic stimulation of adenylyl cyclase activity. This response is blocked by pertussis toxin pretreatment in membranes from the rat olfactory bulb and is thought to involve an indirect but synergistic interaction with G_s and a differential modulation of different isoforms of adenylyl cyclase (Onali and Olianas, 1995). In contrast Dittman et al. (1994) have provided evidence that M₄ receptors can couple directly to G_s to activate adenylyl cyclase. Most unusually, it has been reported that M₅ receptors in A2058 cells inhibit forskolin-stimulated cAMP production but do not stimulate inositol trisphosphate production (Kohn et al., 1996). The cAMP response is not sensitive to pertussis toxin pretreatment of the cell but depends on calcium influx.

Table 4 summarizes information on the preferred coupling mechanisms and the functional roles of the different muscarinic receptor subtypes. It also indicates some of the tissues where muscarinic receptors have been detected which are relevant to mediation of the functional response. Autoradiographic localization studies of muscarinic receptors have used selective radiolabeled antagonists, e.g., [³H]pirenzepine and [³H]AF-DX 384, but their relatively low subtype selectivity only results in preferential localization of one or more subtypes. A more discriminative method, originally developed by Waelbroeck et al. (1990), exploits the combination of the different kinetics of binding of [³H]N-methylscopolamine to the subtypes, together with the use of appropriate concentrations of combinations of selective antagonists, to allow a much more selective autoradiographic localization of M₁ to M₅ receptors (Flynn et al., 1995). Subtype localization has been aided further by the development of subtype-selective antibodies, which have been useful in immunoprecipitation experiments and in immunocytochemical studies (e.g., Li et al., 1991; Wall et al., 1991a,b; Dörje et al., 1991a; Levey, 1993; Yasuda et al., 1993; Hersch and Levey, 1995; Rouse et al., 1997). These latter studies have allowed a comparison of the proportions of neurons expressing muscarinic receptor proteins and their mRNAs, as determined by in situ hybridization (Hersch and Levey, 1995; Weiner et al., 1990; Bernard et al., 1992; Vilaro et al., 1994). Immunocytochemical studies have been extended to the electron microscope level and have shown, for example, that the location of the M₂ receptor protein is compatible with its acting as a presynaptic autoreceptor, a presynaptic heteroreceptor, and a postsynaptic receptor in the septohippocampal pathway (Rouse et al., 1997).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   TABLE 4 Muscarinic receptors: G-protein coupling, transduction pathways, localization, and functional responses

Coexpression of different receptor subtypes can be an important issue in classification of muscarinic receptor(s) mediating a functional response, especially where the response concerned (e.g., smooth muscle contraction) is the result of many potentially interacting steps in the transduction pathway. This is well illustrated by recent demonstrations of a function for M₂ receptors in regulation of gut smooth muscle tone under certain circumstances (Thomas et al., 1993; Eglen et al., 1994). Clearly, the involvement of a mixture of subtypes will result in a confusing pharmacological profile, which may account for many of the controversies in the literature.

	VI. Conclusions

Top Previous Next References

Five muscarinic receptor genes have been characterized, and the understanding of their coupling characteristics is increasing, largely because of studies of cloned receptors expressed in cell lines. The use of selective antibodies has allowed the localization of muscarinic receptor subtype proteins. However, the paucity of highly selective antagonists, and the lack of any selective agonists has impeded the unambiguous identification of muscarinic receptor subtypes mediating many important responses. It is hoped that the discovery of compounds (and toxins) with greater receptor subtype selectivity will aid this process.

	Acknowledgments

Top Previous Next References

We are indebted to all the members of the NC-IUPHAR Committee on muscarinic acetylcholine receptors, and Tom Bonner, David Brown, Richard Eglen, Debbie Girdlestone, Ed Hulme, Pat Humphrey, Sebastian Lazareno, Ray Leppik, Michael Spedding, and Steve Watson for their critical reading of the manuscript and their constructive comments.

	Footnotes

^a Composition of the muscarinic receptor subcommittee of the International Union of Pharmacology Committee on Receptor Nomenclature and Drug Classification: N.J.M. Birdsall (Chair), Division of Physical Biochemistry, National Institute for Medical Research, Mill Hill, London NW7 1AA, UK; N.J. Buckley, Department of Pharmacology, Wellcome Laboratory of Molecular Pharmacology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK; M.P. Caulfield, Department of Pharmacology, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee DD1 9SY, Scotland; R. Hammer, Drug Discovery, Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Binger Strae 173, D-55216 Ingelheim/Rhein, Germany; H.J. Kilbinger, Pharmakologisches Institut, University of Mainz, Germany; G. Lambrecht, Department of Pharmacology, University of Frankfurt, Biocentre Niederursel, D-60439 Frankfurt, Germany; E. Mutschler, Department of Pharmacology, University of Frankfurt, Biocentre Niederursel, D-60439 Frankfurt, Germany; N.M. Nathanson, Department of Pharmacology, SJ-30, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; R.D. Schwarz, Parke-Davis Pharmacology Research Division, 2800 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA.

^b Address for correspondence: Nigel J.M. Birdsall, Division of Physical Biochemistry, National Institute for Medical Research, Mill Hill, London NW7 1AA, UK. E-mail: n.birdsa{at}nimr.mrc.ac.uk.

	Abbreviations

cAMP, cyclic adenosine monophosphate; CNS, central nervous system; LY297802, (+)3-(S)3-[4-butylthio-12,5-thiadiazol-3-yl]-1-azabicyclo [2,2,2]octane; McN-A-343, (4-Hydroxy-2-butynyl)1-trimethylammonium-m-chlorocarbanilate chloride; mRNA, messenger ribonucleic acid.

	References

Top Previous

• Adem A and Karlson E (1997) Muscarinic receptor subtype selective toxins. Life Sci  60: 1069-1076[Medline].
• Ashkenazi A, Winslow JW, Peralta EG, Peterson GL, Schimerlik MI, Capon DJ and Ramachandran J (1987) An M2 muscarinic receptor subtype coupled to both adenylyl cyclase and phosphoinositide turnover. Science  238: 672-675[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Baldwin JM (1993) The probable arrangement of the helices in G protein coupled receptors. EMBO J  12: 1693-1703[Medline].
• Baldwin JM, Schertler GF and Unger VM (1997) An alpha-carbon template for the transmembrane helices in the rhodopsin family of G-protein-coupled receptors. J Mol Biol  272: 144-164[Medline].
• Barlow RB, Berry KJ, Glenton PAM, Nikolau NM and Soh KS (1976) A comparison of affinity constants for muscarine-sensitive acetylcholine receptors in guinea-pig atrial pacemaker cells at 29°C and in ileum at 29°C and 37°C. Br J Pharmacol  58: 613-620[Medline].
• Bernard V, Normand E and Bloch B (1992) Phenotypical characterization of the rat striatal neurons expressing muscarinic receptors. J Neurosci  12: 3591-3600[Abstract].
• Bernheim L, Mathie A and Hille B (1992) Characterization of muscarinic receptor subtypes inhibiting Ca²⁺ current and M current in rat sympathetic neurons. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA  89: 9544-9548[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Birdsall NJM, Farries T, Gharagozloo P, Kobayashi S, Kuonen D, Lazareno S, Popham A and Sugimoto M (1997) Selective allosteric enhancement of the binding and actions of acetylcholine at muscarinic receptor subtypes. Life Sci  60: 1047-1052[Medline].
• Birdsall NJM and Hulme EC (1983) Muscarinic receptor subclasses. Trends Pharmacol Sci  4: 459-463.
• Birdsall NJM, Hulme EC, Kromer W and Stockton JM (1987) A second drug-binding site on muscarinic receptors. Fed Proc  46: 2525-2527.
• Blin N, Yun J and Wess J (1995) Mapping of single amino acid residues required for selective activation of G_q/11 by the m3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. J Biol Chem  270: 17741-17748[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Blüml K, Mutschler E and Wess J (1994) Functional role in ligand binding and receptor activation of an asparagine residue present in the sixth transmembrane domain of all muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. J Biol Chem  269: 18870-18876[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Bolton TB and Zholos AV (1997) Activation of M₂ muscarinic receptors in guinea-pig ileum opens cationic channels modulated by M₃ muscarinic receptors. Life Sci  60: 1121-1128[Medline].
• Bonner TI, Buckley NJ, Young AC and Brann MR (1987) Identification of a family of muscarinic acetylcholine receptor genes. Science  237: 527-532[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Bonner TI, Modi WS, Seuanez HN and O'Brien SJ (1991) Chromosomal mapping of the five human genes encoding muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. Cytogenet Cell Genet  58: 1850-1851.
• Bonner TI, Young AC, Brann MR and Buckley NJ (1988) Cloning and expression of the human and rat m5 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor genes. Neuron  1: 403-410[Medline].
• Brown DA, Buckley NJ, Caulfield MP, Duffy SM, Jones S, Lamas JA, Marsh SJ, Robbins J and Selyanko AA (1995) Coupling of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors to neural ion channels: Closure of K⁺ channels, in Molecular Mechanisms of Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptor Function (Wess J ed) pp 165-182, R. G. Landes, Austin.
• Brown DA, Forward A and Marsh S (1980) Antagonist discrimination between ganglionic and ileal muscarinic receptors. Br J Pharmacol  71: 362-364[Medline].
• Buckley NJ, Bonner TI, Buckley CM and Brann MR (1989) Antagonist binding properties of five cloned muscarinic receptors expressed in CHO-K1 cells. Mol Pharmacol  35: 469-476[Abstract].
• Burstein ES, Spalding TA and Brann MR (1997) Pharmacology of muscarinic receptor subtypes constitutively activated by G proteins. Mol Pharmacol  51: 312-319[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Burstein ES, Spalding TA, Brauner-Osborne H and Brann MR (1995) Constitutive activity of muscarinic receptors by the G-protein Gq. FEBS Lett  363: 261-263[Medline].
• Caulfield MP (1997) Muscarinic receptor classification, in Muscarinic Receptor Subtypes in Smooth Muscle (Eglen RM ed) pp 1-37, CRC Press, New York.
• Caulfield MP (1993) Muscarinic receptors: Characterization, coupling and function. Pharmacol Ther  58: 319-379[Medline].
• Clark AL and Mitchelson F (1976) The inhibitory effect of gallamine on muscarinic receptors. Br J Pharmacol  58: 323-331[Medline].
• Curtis CAM and Hulme EC (1997) Over-expression and purification of engineered M1 muscarinic receptors (abstract). Life Sci  60: 1176.
• Curtis CA, Wheatley M, Bansal S, Birdsall NJM, Eveleigh P, Pedder EK, Poyner D and Hulme EC (1989) Propylbenzilylcholine mustard labels an acidic residue in transmembrane helix 3 of the muscarinic receptor (abstract). J Biol Chem  264: 489-495[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Darroch SA, Choo LK and Mitchelson F (1992) Prejunctional muscarine receptors in the rabbit ear artery differ from M1, M2 and M3 muscarine receptors. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol  345: 288-295[Medline].
• Dittman AH, Weber JP, Hinds TR, Choi E-J, Migeon JC, Nathanson NM and Storm DR (1994) A novel mechanism for coupling of m4 muscarinic acetylcholine receptors to calmodulin-sensitive adenylyl cyclases: Crossover from G protein-coupled inhibition to stimulation. Biochemistry  33: 943-951[Medline].
• Dörje F, Levey A and Brann MR (1991a) Immunological detection of muscarinic receptor subtype proteins (m1-m5) in rabbit peripheral tissues. Mol Pharmacol  40: 459-462[Abstract].
• Dörje F, Wess J, Lambrecht G, Tacke R, Mutschler E and Brann MR (1991b) Antagonist binding profiles of five cloned human muscarinic receptor subtypes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther  256: 727-733[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Eglen RM, Hegde SS and Watson N (1996) Muscarinic receptor subtypes and smooth muscle function. Pharmacol Rev  48: 531-565[Medline].
• Eglen RM, Reddy H, Watson N and Challiss RAJ (1994) Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor subtypes in smooth muscle. Trends Pharmacol Sci  15: 114-119[Medline].
• Eglen RM and Whiting RL (1990) Heterogeneity of vascular muscarinic receptors. J Auton Pharmacol  10: 233-245[Medline].
• Eglen RM and Whiting RL (1996) Selective muscarinic receptor agonists and antagonists. Pharmacol Toxicol  78: 59-78[Medline].
• Ehlert FJ (1988) Gallamine allosterically antagonizes muscarinic receptor-mediated inhibition of adenylate cyclase activity in the rat myocardium. J Pharmacol Exp Ther  247: 596-602[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Ellis J, Huyler J and Brann MR (1991) Allosteric regulation of cloned m1-m5 muscarinic receptor subtypes. Biochem Pharmacol  42: 199-205[Medline].
• Ellis J, Seidenberg M and Brann MR (1993) Use of chimeric muscarinic receptors to investigate epitopes involved in allosteric interactions. Mol Pharmacol  44: 583-588[Abstract].
• Eltze M (1988) Muscarinic M1- and M2-receptors mediating opposite effects on neuromuscular transmission in rabbit vas deferens. Eur J Pharmacol  151: 205-221[Medline].
• Ensinger HA, Doods HN, Immel-Sehr AR, Kuhn FJ, Lambrecht G, Mendla KD, Muller RE, Mutschler E, Sagrada A, Walther G and Hammer R (1993) WAL 2014: A muscarinic agonist with preferential neuron-stimulating properties. Life Sci  52: 473-480[Medline].
• Felder CC (1995) Muscarinic acetylcholine receptors: Signal transduction through multiple effectors. FASEB J  9: 619-625[Abstract].
• Fisher A, Heldman E, Gurwitz D, Haring R, Karton Y, Mesulam H, Pittel Z, Marciano D, Brandeis R, Sadot E, Barg Y, Pinkas-Kramarski R, Vogel Z, Ginzburg I, Treves TA, Verchovsky R, Klimowsky S and Korczyn AD (1996) M₁ agonists in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: Novel properties and clinical update. Ann N Y Acad Sci  777: 189-196[Medline].
• Flynn DD, Reever CM and Ferrari-Dileo G (1995) Pharmacological strategies to selectively label and localize muscarinic receptor subtypes. Drug Dev Res  40: 104-116.
• Freedman SB, Dawson GR, Iversen LL, Baker R and Hargreaves RJ (1993) The design of novel partial muscarinic agonists that have functional selectivity in pharmacological preparations in vitro and reduced side-effect profile in vivo. Life Sci  52: 489-495[Medline].
• Fuder H and Muscholl E (1995) Heteroreceptor-mediated modulation of noradrenaline and acetylcholine release from peripheral nerves. Rev Physiol Biochem Pharmacol  126: 265-412[Medline].
• Gallo MP, Alloatti G, Eva C, Oberto A and Levi RC (1993) M₁ muscarinic receptors increase calcium current and phosphoinositide turnover in guinea-pig ventricular cardiocytes. J Physiol  471: 41-60.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Grimm U, Fuder H, Moser U, Bäumert HG, Mutschler E and Lambrecht G (1994a) Characterisation of the prejunctional muscarinic receptors mediating inhibition of evoked release of endogenous noradrenaline in the rabbit vas deferens. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol  349: 1-10[Medline].
• Grimm U, Moser U, Mutschler E and Lambrecht G (1994b) Muscarinic receptors: Focus on presynaptic mechanisms and recently developed novel agonists and antagonists. Pharmazie  49: 711-726[Medline].
• Gross J, Mutschler E and Lambrecht G (1997) Evidence for muscarinic M₄ receptors mediating nonadrenergic noncholinergic relaxations in rabbit anococcygeus muscle. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol  356: 505-516[Medline].
• Gurwitz D, Haring R, Heldman E, Fraser CM, Manor D and Fisher A (1994) Discrete activation of transduction pathways associated with acetylcholine m1 receptor by several muscarinic ligands. Eur J Pharmacol  267: 21-31[Medline].
• Hall JM, Caulfield MP, Watson SP and Guard S (1993) Receptor subtypes or species homologues: Relevance to drug discovery. Trends Pharmacol Sci  14: 376-383[Medline].
• Hamilton SE, Loose MD, Qi M, Levey AI, Hille B, McNight GS, Idzerda RL and Nathanson NM (1997) Disruption of the m1 receptor gene ablates muscarinic receptor-dependent M current regulation and seizure activity in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA  94: 13311-13316[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Hammer R, Berrie CP, Birdsall NJM, Burgen ASV and Hulme EC (1980) Pirenzepine distinguishes between subclasses of muscarinic receptors. Nature  283: 90-92[Medline].
• Hammer R and Giachetti A (1983) Muscarinic receptor subtypes: M₁ and M₂ biochemical and functional characterization. Life Sci  31: 2991-2998.
• Hayashi MK and Haga T (1997) Palmitoylation of muscarinic acetylcholine receptor m2 subtypes: Reduction in their ability to activate G proteins by mutation of a putative palmitoylation site, cysteine 457, in the carboxyl-terminal tail. Arch Biochem Biophys  340: 376-382[Medline].
• Henderson R, Baldwin JM, Ceska TA, Zemlin F, Beckmann E and Downing KH (1990) Model for the structure of bacteriorhodopsin based on high-resolution electron cryomicroscopy. J Mol Biol  213: 899-929[Medline].
• Hepler JR, Biddlecombe GH, Kleuss C, Camp LA, Hofmann SL, Ross EM and Gilman AG (1996) Functional importance of the amino terminus of Gq alpha. J Biol Chem  271: 496-504[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Herrera L, Carvallo P, Antonelli M and Olate J (1994) Cloning of a Xenopus laevis muscarinic receptor encoded by an intronless gene. FEBS Lett  352: 175-179[Medline].
• Hersch SM and Levey AI (1995) Diverse pre- and post-synaptic expression of m1-m4 muscarinic receptor proteins in neurons and afferents in the rat neostriatum. Life Sci  56: 931-938[Medline].
• Hou X, Wehrle J, Menge W, Ciccarelli E, Wess J, Mutschler E, Lambrecht G, Timmerman H and Waelbroeck M (1996) Influence of monovalent cations on the binding of a charged and an uncharged (`carbo') muscarinic antagonist to muscarinic receptors. Br J Pharmacol  117: 955-961[Medline].
• Huang HJ, Liao CF, Yang BC and Kuo TT (1992) Functional expression of rat M5 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor in yeast. Biochem Biophys Res Commun  182: 1180-1186[Medline].
• Hulme EC, Berrie CP, Birdsall NJM and Burgen ASV (1981) Two populations of binding sites for muscarinic antagonists in the rat heart. Eur J Pharmacol  73: 137-142[Medline].
• Hulme EC and Birdsall NJM (1992) Strategy and tactics in receptor binding studies, in Receptor Ligand Interactions: A Practical Approach (Hulme EC ed) pp 63-176, Oxford University Press, New York.
• Hulme EC, Birdsall NJM and Buckley NJ (1990) Muscarinic receptor subtypes. Ann Rev Pharmacol Toxicol  30: 633-673[Medline].
• Jaen J, Barrett S, Brann M, Callahan M, Davis R, Doyle P, Eubanks D, Lauffer L, Lipinski W, Moreland D, Nelson C, Raby C, Schwarz R, Spencer C and Tecle H (1995) In vitro and in vivo evaluation of the subtype-selective agonist PD 151832. Life Sci  56: 845-852[Medline].
• Jakubik J, Bacakova L, El-Fakahany EE and Tucek S (1997) Positive cooperativity of acetylcholine and other agonists with allosteric ligands on muscarinic receptors. Mol Pharmacol  52: 172-179[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Jerusalinsky D and Harvey AL (1994) Toxins from mamba venoms: Small proteins with selectivities for different subtypes of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. Trends Pharmacol Sci  15: 424-430[Medline].
• Jolkkonen M, Van Giersbergen PLM, Hellman U, Wernstedt C and Karlsson E (1994) A toxin from the green mamba Dendroaspis angusticeps: Amino acid sequence and selectivity for muscarinic m4 receptors. FEBS Lett  352: 91-94[Medline].
• Jones PG, Curtis CAM and Hulme EC (1995) The function of a highly-conserved arginine residue in activation of the muscarinic M₁ receptor. Eur J Pharmacol  288: 251-257[Medline].
• Kenakin TP (1996) The classification of seven transmembrane receptors in recombinant expression systems. Pharmacol Rev  48: 413-463[Medline].
• Kenakin TP and Boselli C (1990) Promiscuous or heterogeneous muscarinic receptors in rat atria? I. Schild analysis with simple competitive antagonists. Eur J Pharmacol  191: 39-48[Medline].
• Kohn EC, Alessandro R, Probst J, Jacobs W, Brilley E and Felder CC (1996) Identification and molecular characterisation of a m5 muscarinic receptor in A2058 human melanoma cells: Coupling to inhibition of adenylyl cyclase and stimulation of phospholipase A₂. J Biol Chem  271: 17476-17484[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Kubo T, Fukuda K, Mikami A, Maeda A, Takahashi H, Mishina M, Haga T, Haga K, Ichiyama A, Kangawa K, Kojima M, Matsuo H, Hirose T and Numa S (1986a) Cloning, sequencing and expression of complementary DNA encoding the muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. Nature  323: 411-416[Medline].
• Kubo T, Maeda A, Sugimoto K, Akiba I, Mikami A, Takahashi H, Haga T, Haga K, Ichiyama A, Kangawa K, Matsuo H, Hirose T and Numa S (1986b) Primary structure of porcine cardiac muscarinic acetylcholine receptor deduced from the cDNA sequence. FEBS Lett  209: 367-372[Medline].
• Kurtenbach E, Curtis CA, Pedder EK, Aitken A, Harris AC and Hulme EC (1990) Muscarinic acetylcholine receptors: Peptide sequencing identifies residues involved in antagonist binding and disulfide bond formation. J Biol Chem  265: 13702-13708[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Lambrecht G, Moser U, Grimm U, Hermann U, Hilderbrandt C, Waelbroeck M, Christophe J and Mutschler E (1993) New functionally selective muscarinic agonists. Life Sci  52: 481-486[Medline].
• Lambrecht G, Pfaff O, Aasen AJ, Sjö P, Mutschler E and Waelbroeck M (1997) Stereoselective interaction of p-fluoro-trihexyphenidyl and its methiodide with four muscarinic receptor subtypes (abstract). Life Sci  60: 1166.
• Lazareno S and Birdsall NJM (1995) Detection, quantitation and verification of allosteric interactions of agents with labelled and unlabelled ligands at G protein-coupled receptors: Interactions of strychnine and acetylcholine at muscarinic receptors. Mol Pharmacol  48: 362-378[Abstract].
• Lazareno S and Birdsall NJM (1993a) Estimation of competitive antagonist affinity from functional inhibition curves using the Gaddum, Schild and Cheng-Prusoff equations. Br J Pharmacol  109: 1110-1119[Medline].
• Lazareno S and Birdsall NJM (1993b) Pharmacological characterization of acetylcholine-stimulated [³⁵s]-Gtpgammas binding mediated by human muscarinic m1-m4 receptors: Antagonist studies. Br J Pharmacol  109: 1120-1127[Medline].
• Lazareno S, Buckley NJ and Roberts FF (1990) Characterisation of muscarinic M₄ binding sites in rabbit lung, chicken heart and NG108-15 cells. Mol Pharmacol  53: 573-589[Abstract/Free Full Text]38:805-815.
• Lazareno S, Farries T and Birdsall NJM (1993) Pharmacological characterization of guanine nucleotide exchange reactions in membranes from CHO cells stably transfected with human muscarinic receptors M1-M4. Life Sci  52: 449-456[Medline].
• Lazareno S, Gharagozloo P, Kuonen D, Popham A and Birdsall NJM (1998) Subtype selective positive cooperative interactions between brucine analogues and acetylcholine at muscarinic receptors: Radioligand binding studies. Mol Pharmacol  53: 573-589.
• Lee NH and El-Fakahany EE (1991) Allosteric antagonists of the muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. Biochem Pharmacol  42: 199-205.
• Leppik RA, Miller RC, Eck M and Pacquet J-L (1994) Role of acidic amino acids in the allosteric modulation by gallamine of antagonist binding at the m2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. Mol Pharmacol  45: 983-990[Abstract].
• Levey AI (1993) Immunological localization of m1-m5 muscarinic receptor subtypes in peripheral tissues and brain. Life Sci  52: 441-448[Medline].
• Levine RR and Birdsall NJM (eds) (1989) Subtypes of muscarinic receptors: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on subtypes of muscarinic receptors. Trends Pharmacol Sci 10(Suppl 7):S1-S119.
• Birdsall NJM, (ed) (1997) Subtypes of muscarinic receptors. Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on subtypes of muscarinic receptors. Life Sci  60: 963-1207[Medline].
• Li M, Yasuda RP, Wall SJ, Wellstein A and Wolfe BB (1991) Distribution of m2 muscarinic receptors in rat brain using antisera selective for m2 receptors. Mol Pharmacol  40: 28-35[Abstract].
• Liu J, Conklin BR, Blin N, Yun J and Wess J (1995) Identification of a receptor/G protein contact site critical for signaling specificity and G protein activation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA  92: 11642-11646[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Lu Z-L, Curtis CA, Jones PG, Pavia J and Hulme EC (1997) The role of the aspartate-arginine-tyrosine triad in the m1 muscarinic receptor: Mutations of aspartate 122 and tyrosine 124 decrease receptor expression but do not abolish signaling. Mol Pharmacol  51: 234-241[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Maggio R, Barbier P, Bolognesi ML, Minarini A, Tedeschi D and Melchiorre C (1994) Binding profile of the selective muscarinic receptor antagonist tripitramine. Eur J Pharmacol  268: 459-462[Medline].
• Marrion NV, Smart TG, Marsh SJ and Brown DA (1989) Muscarinic suppression of the M-current in the rat sympathetic ganglion is mediated by receptors of the M1-subtype. Br J Pharmacol  98: 557-573[Medline].
• Marsh SJ, Trouslard J, Leaney J and Brown DA (1995) Synergistic regulation of a neuronal chloride current by intracellular calcium and muscarinic receptor activation: A role for protein kinase C. Neuron  15: 729-737[Medline].
• Matsui H, Lazareno S and Birdsall NJM (1995) Probing of the location of the allosteric site on m1 muscarinic receptors by site-directed mutagenesis. Mol Pharmacol  47: 88-98[Abstract].
• Méry P-F, Abi-Gerges N, Nandecasteele G, Jurevicius J, Eschenhagen T and Fischmeister R (1997) Muscarinic regulation of the L-type calcium current in isolated cardiac myocytes. Life Sci  60: 1113-1120[Medline].
• Micheletti R, Giudici L, Turconi M and Donetti A (1990a) 4-DAMP analogues reveal heterogeneity of M1 muscarinic receptors. Br J Pharmacol  100: 395-397[Medline].
• Micheletti R, Schiavone A, Angelici O, Duranti P, Giudici L, Cereda E and Donetti A (1990b) Affinity profile of the novel muscarinic antagonist guanylpirenzepine. Life Sci  47: 55-58.
• Micheletti R, Schiavone A and Giachetti A (1988) Muscarinic M1 receptors stimulate a nonadrenergic noncholinergic inhibitory pathway in the isolated rat duodenum. J Pharmacol Exp Ther  244: 680-684[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Mita Y, Dobashi K, Susuki K, Mori M and Nakazawa T (1996) Induction of muscarinic receptor subtypes in monocytic/macrophagic cells differentiated from EoL-1 cells. Eur J Pharmacol  297: 121-127[Medline].
• Nunn PA, Greengrass PM, Newgreen DT, Naylor AM and Wallis RM (1996) The binding profile of the novel muscarinic receptor antagonist darifenacin against the five cloned human muscarinic receptors expressed in CHO cells (abstract). Br J Pharmacol  117: 130P.
• Olianas MC, Adem A, Karlsson E and Onali P (1996) Rat striatal muscarinic receptors coupled to inhibition of adenylyl cyclase activity: Potent block by the selective m4 ligand muscarinic toxin 3 (MT3). Br J Pharmacol  118: 283-288[Medline].
• Onai T, FitzGerald MG, Arakawa S, Gocayne JD, Urquhart DA, Hall LM, Fraser CM, McCombie WR and Venter JC (1989) Cloning, sequence analysis and chromosome localization of a Drosophila muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. FEBS Lett  255: 219-225[Medline].
• Onali P and Olianas MC (1995) Bimodal regulation of cyclic AMP by muscarinic receptors: Involvement of multiple G proteins and different forms of adenylyl cyclase. Life Sci  56: 973-980[Medline].
• O'Rourke ST and Vanhoutte PM (1987) Subtypes of muscarinic receptors on adrenergic nerves and vascular smooth muscle of the canine saphenous vein. J Pharmacol Exp Ther  241: 64-67[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Pals-Rylaarsdam R and Hosey MM (1997) Two homologous phosphorylation domains differentially contribute to desensitization and internalization of the m2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. J Biol Chem  272: 14152-14158[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Payette P, Gossard F, Whiteway M and Dennis M (1990) Expression and pharmacological characterization of the human M1 muscarinic receptor in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEBS Lett  266: 21-25[Medline].
• Pedder EK, Eveleigh P, Poyner D, Hulme EC and Birdsall NJM (1991) Modulation of the structure-binding relationships of antagonists for muscarinic acetylcholine receptor subtypes. Br J Pharmacol  103: 1561-1567[Medline].
• Peralta EG, Ashkenazi A, Winslow JW, Smith DH, Ramachandran J and Capon DJ (1987) Distinct primary structures, ligand binding properties and tissue-specific expression of four human muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. EMBO J  6: 3923-3929[Medline].
• Pfaff O, Gross J, Waelbroeck M, Mutschler E and Lambrecht G (1995) Functional characterization of muscarinic receptors in rat duodenum (abstract). Life Sci  56: 1038.
• Proska J and Tucek S (1995) Competition between positive and negative allosteric effectors on muscarinic receptors. Mol Pharmacol  48: 696-702[Abstract].
• Reever CM, Ferrari-Dileo G and Flynn DD (1997) The M₅/m5 receptor subtype: Fact or fiction. Life Sci  60: 1105-1112[Medline].
• Richards MH and Van Giersbergen PL (1995) Human muscarinic receptors expressed in A9L and CHO cells: Activation by full and partial agonists. Br J Pharmacol  114: 1242-1249.
• Riker WF and Wescoe WC (1951) The pharmacology of flaxedil with observations on certain analogs. Ann NY Acad Sci  54: 373-394.
• Role LW and Berg DK (1996) Nicotinic receptors in the development and modulation of CNS synapses. Neuron  16: 1077-1085[Medline].
• Roszkowski AP (1961) An unusual type of sympathetic ganglionic stimulant. J Pharmacol Exp Ther  132: 156-170[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Rouse ST, Thomas TM and Levey AI (1997) Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor subtype, m2: Diverse functional implications of differential synaptic localization. Life Sci  60: 1031-1038[Medline].
• Sagrada A, Duranti P, Giudici L and Schiavone A (1994) Himbacine discriminates between putative muscarinic M₁ receptor-mediated responses. Life Sci  54: 305-310.
• Savarese TM, Wang CD and Fraser CM (1992) Site-directed mutagenesis of the rat m1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor: Role of conserved cysteines in receptor function. J Biol Chem  267: 11439-11448[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Shannon HE, Womer DE, Bymaster FP, Calligaro DP, Delapp NC, Mitch NC, Ward JS, Whitesitt CA, Swedberg MDB, Sheardown MJ, Fink-Jensen A, Olesen PB, Rimvall K and Sauerberg P (1997) In vivo pharmacology of butylthio[2,2,2] (LY297802/NNC11-1053), an orally acting antinociceptive muscarinic agonist. Life Sci  60: 969-976[Medline].
• Shapiro RA, Wakimoto BT, Subers EM and Nathanson NM (1989) Characterization and functional expression in mammalian cells of genomic and cDNA clones encoding a Drosophila muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA  86: 9039-9043[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Sharma VK, Colecraft HM, Rubin LE and Sheu S-S (1997) Does mammalian heart contain only the M2 muscarinic receptor subtype? Life Sci  60: 1023-1029[Medline].
• Soejima M and Noma A (1984) Mode of regulation of the ACh-sensitive K-channel by the muscarinic receptor in rabbit atrial cells. Pflugers Arch  400: 424-431[Medline].
• Spalding TA, Birdsall NJM, Curtis CAM and Hulme EC (1994) Acetylcholine mustard labels the binding site aspartate in muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. J Biol Chem  269: 4092-4097[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Stockton JM, Birdsall NJM, Burgen AS and Hulme EC (1983) Modification of the binding properties of muscarinic receptors by gallamine. Mol Pharmacol  23: 551-557[Abstract].
• Thomas EA, Baker SA and Ehlert FJ (1993) Functional role for the M₂ muscarinic receptor in smooth muscle of guinea pig ileum. Mol Pharmacol  44: 102-110[Abstract].
• Tietje KM and Nathanson NM (1991) Embryonic chick heart expresses multiple muscarinic acetylcholine receptor subtypes: Isolation and characterization of a gene encoding a novel m2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor with a high affinity for pirenzepine. J Biol Chem  266: 17382-17387[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Tucek S, Musilkova J, Nedoma J, Proska J, Shelkovnikov S and Vorlicek J (1990) Positive cooperativity in the binding of alcuronium and N-methylscopolamine to muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. Mol Pharmacol  38: 674-680[Abstract].
• Vanhoutte PM, Humphrey PPA and Spedding M (1998) NC-IUPHAR receptor nomenclature criteria. Pharmacol Rev, in press.
• Van Koppen CJ and Nathanson NM (1990) Site-directed mutagenesis of the m2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor: Analysis of the role of N-glycosylation in receptor expression and function. J Biol Chem  265: 20887-20892[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Van Zwieten PA and Doods HN (1995) Muscarinic receptors and drugs in cardiovascular medicine. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther  9: 159-167[Medline].
• Vasudevan S, Hulme EC, Bach M, Haase W, Pavia J and Reilander H (1995) Characterization of the rat m3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor produced in insect cells infected with recombinant baculovirus. Eur J Biochem  227: 466-475[Medline].
• Vilaro MT, Palacios JM and Mengod G (1994) Multiplicity of muscarinic autoreceptor subtypes? Comparison of the distribution of cholinergic cells and cells containing mRNA for five subtypes of muscarinic receptors in the brain. Mol Brain Res  21: 30-46.[Medline]
• Vogel WK, Mosser VA, Bulseco DA and Schimerlik MI (1995) Porcine m2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor-effector coupling in Chinese hamster ovary cells. J Biol Chem  270: 15485-15493[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Voith G and Dingermann T (1995) Expression of CSA-hm2 fusion in Dictyostelium discoideum under the control of the Dictyostelium ras promoter reveals functional muscarinic receptors. Pharmazie  50: 758-762[Medline].
• Waelbroeck M, Camus J, Tastenoy M, Feifel R, Mutschler E, Tacke R, Strohmann C, Rafeiner K, Rodrigues de Miranda JF and Lambrecht G (1994) Binding and functional properties of hexocyclium and sila-hexocyclium derivatives to muscarinic receptor subtypes. Br J Pharmacol  112: 505-514[Medline].
• Waelbroeck M, Tastenoy M, Camus J and Christrophe J (1990) Binding of antagonists to four muscarinic receptors (M1-M4) in rat forebrain. Mol Pharmacol  38: 267-273[Abstract].
• Wall S, Yasuda RP, Hory F, Flagg S, Martin BM, Ginns EL and Wolfe BB (1991a) Production of antisera selective for m1 muscarinic receptors using fusion proteins: Distribution of m1 receptors in the brain. Mol Pharmacol  39: 643-649[Abstract].
• Wall S, Yasuda RP, Li M and Wolfe BB (1991b) Development of an antiserum against m3 muscarinic receptors: Distribution of m3 receptor in rat tissues and clonal cell lines. Mol Pharmacol  40: 783-789[Abstract].
• Watson N, Daniels DV, Ford APDW, Eglen RM and Hegde SS (1998) Comparative pharmacology of human muscarinic m3 and m5 cholinoreceptors expressed in Chinese hamster ovary cells (abstract). Br J Pharmacol  123: 268P.
• Watson N, Reddy H and Eglen RM (1995) Pharmacological characterization of the muscarinic receptors mediating contraction of canine saphenous vein. J Auton Pharmacol  15: 437-441[Medline].
• Weiner DM, Levey AI and Brann MR (1990) Expression of muscarinic acetylcholine and dopamine receptor mRNAs in rat basal ganglia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA  87: 7050-7054[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Wess J (1993) Molecular basis of muscarinic acetylcholine receptor function. Trends Pharmacol Sci  14: 308-313[Medline].
• Wess J (1996) Molecular biology of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. Crit Rev Neurobiol  10: 69-99[Medline].
• Wess J, Bonner TI, Dörje F and Brann MR (1990) Delineation of muscarinic receptor domains conferring selectivity of coupling to guanine nucleotide-binding proteins and second messengers. Mol Pharmacol  38: 517-523[Abstract].
• Wess J, Gdula D and Brann MR (1992) Structural basis of the subtype selectivity of muscarinic antagonists: A study with chimeric m2/m5 muscarinic receptors. Mol Pharmacol  41: 369-374[Abstract].
• Wess J, Liu J, Blin N, Yun J, Lerche C and Kostenis E (1997) Structural basis of receptor/G protein coupling selectivity studied with muscarinic receptors as model systems. Life Sci  60: 1007-1014[Medline].
• Wess J, Liu J, Blüml K, Yun J, Schoneberg T and Blin N (1995) Mutational analysis of muscarinic receptors: Structural basis of ligand binding and G protein recognition, in Molecular Mechanisms of Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptor Function (Wess J ed) pp 1-18, R. G. Landes, Austin.
• Wickman K and Clapham DE (1995) Ion channel regulation by G proteins. Physiol Rev  75: 865-885[Abstract/Free Full Text].
• Yasuda RP, Ciesla W, Flores LR, Wall SJ, Li M, Satkus SA, Weisstein JS, Spagnola BV and Wolfe BB (1993) Development of antisera for m4 and m5 muscarinic cholinergic receptors: Distribution of m4 and m5 receptors in rat brain. Mol Pharmacol  43: 149-157[Abstract].
• Zhu SZ, Wang SZ, Hu J and El-Fakahany EE (1994) An arginine residue conserved in most G protein-coupled receptors is essential for the function of the m1 muscarinic receptor. Mol Pharmacol  45: 517-523[Abstract].

0031-6997/98/502-0279$03.00/0
PHARMACOLOGICAL REVIEWS
Copyright © 1998 by The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. K. Klein, R. V. Haberberger, P. Hartmann, P. Faulhammer, K. S. Lips, B. Krain, J. Wess, W. Kummer, and P. Konig Muscarinic receptor subtypes in cilia-driven transport and airway epithelial development Eur. Respir. J., May 1, 2009; 33(5): 1113 - 1121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Gautam, J. Jeon, M. F. Starost, S.-J. Han, F. F. Hamdan, Y. Cui, A. F. Parlow, O. Gavrilova, I. Szalayova, E. Mezey, et al. Neuronal M3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptors are essential for somatotroph proliferation and normal somatic growth PNAS, April 14, 2009; 106(15): 6398 - 6403. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. S. Braverman, L. S. Miller, A. K. Vegesna, M. I. Tiwana, R. J. Tallarida, and M. R. Ruggieri Sr. Quantitation of the Contractile Response Mediated by Two Receptors: M2 and M3 Muscarinic Receptor-Mediated Contractions of Human Gastroesophageal Smooth Muscle J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., April 1, 2009; 329(1): 218 - 224. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Lucas-Meunier, C. Monier, M. Amar, G. Baux, Y. Fregnac, and P. Fossier Involvement of Nicotinic and Muscarinic Receptors in the Endogenous Cholinergic Modulation of the Balance between Excitation and Inhibition in the Young Rat Visual Cortex Cereb Cortex, January 28, 2009; (2009) bhn258v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Kano, T. Ohno-Shosaku, Y. Hashimotodani, M. Uchigashima, and M. Watanabe Endocannabinoid-Mediated Control of Synaptic Transmission Physiol Rev, January 1, 2009; 89(1): 309 - 380. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Kwatra Limitations of the Anticholinergic Risk Scale Arch Intern Med, November 24, 2008; 168(21): 2386 - 2386. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. L. Thomas, R. Mistry, C. J. Langmead, M. D. Wood, and R. A. J. Challiss G Protein Coupling and Signaling Pathway Activation by M1 Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptor Orthosteric and Allosteric Agonists J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., November 1, 2008; 327(2): 365 - 374. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Valant, K. J. Gregory, N. E. Hall, P. J. Scammells, M. J. Lew, P. M. Sexton, and A. Christopoulos A Novel Mechanism of G Protein-coupled Receptor Functional Selectivity: MUSCARINIC PARTIAL AGONIST McN-A-343 AS A BITOPIC ORTHOSTERIC/ALLOSTERIC LIGAND J. Biol. Chem., October 24, 2008; 283(43): 29312 - 29321. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Haag, S. Matthiesen, U. R. Juergens, and K. Racke Muscarinic receptors mediate stimulation of collagen synthesis in human lung fibroblasts Eur. Respir. J., September 1, 2008; 32(3): 555 - 562. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				X.-B. Zhou, I. Wulfsen, S. Lutz, E. Utku, U. Sausbier, P. Ruth, T. Wieland, and M. Korth M2 Muscarinic Receptors Induce Airway Smooth Muscle Activation via a Dual, G{beta}{gamma}-mediated Inhibition of Large Conductance Ca2+-activated K+ Channel Activity J. Biol. Chem., July 25, 2008; 283(30): 21036 - 21044. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Da Silva, C. E. Herron, K. Stevens, C. A. B. Jollimore, S. Barnes, and M. E. M. Kelly Metabotropic Receptor-Activated Calcium Increases and Store-Operated Calcium Influx in Mouse Muller Cells Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., July 1, 2008; 49(7): 3065 - 3073. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Salah-Uddin, D. R. Thomas, C. H. Davies, J. J. Hagan, M. D. Wood, J. M. Watson, and R. A. J. Challiss Pharmacological Assessment of M1 Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptor-Gq/11 Protein Coupling in Membranes Prepared from Postmortem Human Brain Tissue J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., June 1, 2008; 325(3): 869 - 874. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Hashimoto, K. Morisawa, H. Saito, E. Jojima, N. Yoshida, and T. Haga Muscarinic M4 Receptor Recycling Requires a Motif in the Third Intracellular Loop J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., June 1, 2008; 325(3): 947 - 953. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. S. Braverman, R. J. Tallarida, and M. R. Ruggieri Sr. The Use of Occupation Isoboles for Analysis of a Response Mediated by Two Receptors: M2 and M3 Muscarinic Receptor Subtype-Induced Mouse Stomach Contractions J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., June 1, 2008; 325(3): 954 - 960. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Olave, E Ramos-Martinez, C Gonzalez-Horta, M Levario-Carrillo, and B Sanchez-Ramirez Decrease of muscarinic cholinergic receptors expression in placenta from rats exposed to methyl parathion Human and Experimental Toxicology, March 1, 2008; 27(3): 241 - 246. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H.-M. Zhang, H.-Y. Zhou, S.-R. Chen, D. Gautam, J. Wess, and H.-L. Pan Control of Glycinergic Input to Spinal Dorsal Horn Neurons by Distinct Muscarinic Receptor Subtypes Revealed Using Knockout Mice J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., December 1, 2007; 323(3): 963 - 971. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. R. Sullivan, L. Leventhal, J. Harrison, V. A. Smith, T. A. Cummons, T. B. Spangler, S.-C. Sun, P. Lu, A. J. Uveges, B. W. Strassle, et al. Pharmacological Characterization of the Muscarinic Agonist (3R,4R)-3-(3-Hexylsulfanyl-pyrazin-2-yloxy)-1-aza-bicyclo[2.2.1]heptane (WAY-132983) in in Vitro and in Vivo Models of Chronic Pain J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., September 1, 2007; 322(3): 1294 - 1304. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. W. Smetana, S. Alford, and R. Dubuc Muscarinic Receptor Activation Elicits Sustained, Recurring Depolarizations in Reticulospinal Neurons J Neurophysiol, May 1, 2007; 97(5): 3181 - 3192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. Padley, N. N. Kumar, Q. Li, T. B.V. Nguyen, P. M. Pilowsky, and A. K. Goodchild Central Command Regulation of Circulatory Function Mediated by Descending Pontine Cholinergic Inputs to Sympathoexcitatory Rostral Ventrolateral Medulla Neurons Circ. Res., February 2, 2007; 100(2): 284 - 291. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H.-M. Zhang, S.-R. Chen, and H.-L. Pan Regulation of Glutamate Release From Primary Afferents and Interneurons in the Spinal Cord by Muscarinic Receptor Subtypes J Neurophysiol, January 1, 2007; 97(1): 102 - 109. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Takeuchi, K. Tanaka, H. Nakajima, M. Matsui, and Y.-T. Azuma M2 and M3 muscarinic receptors are involved in enteric nerve-mediated contraction of the mouse ileum: findings obtained with muscarinic-receptor knockout mouse Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol, January 1, 2007; 292(1): G154 - G164. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Matthiesen, A. Bahulayan, S. Kempkens, S. Haag, M. Fuhrmann, C. Stichnote, U. R. Juergens, and K. Racke Muscarinic Receptors Mediate Stimulation of Human Lung Fibroblast Proliferation Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol., December 1, 2006; 35(6): 621 - 627. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. C. Fabiyi and A. F. Brading The Use of the Isolated Mouse Whole Bladder for Investigating Bladder Overactivity J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., December 1, 2006; 319(3): 1386 - 1394. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. E. Lim and P. L. Brubaker Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Secretion by the L-Cell: The View From Within Diabetes, December 1, 2006; 55(Supplement_2): S70 - S77. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Kaneko, H. Okano, and K. Sawamoto Role of the cholinergic system in regulating survival of newborn neurons in the adult mouse dentate gyrus and olfactory bulb. Genes Cells, October 1, 2006; 11(10): 1145 - 1159. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. B. Proctor Muscarinic receptors and salivary secretion J Appl Physiol, April 1, 2006; 100(4): 1103 - 1104. [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Tobin, A. T. Ryberg, S. Gentle, and A. V. Edwards Distribution and function of muscarinic receptor subtypes in the ovine submandibular gland J Appl Physiol, April 1, 2006; 100(4): 1215 - 1223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. C. Allen, J. M. Hartney, T. M. Coffman, R. B. Penn, J. Wess, and B. H. Koller Thromboxane A2 induces airway constriction through an M3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor-dependent mechanism Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol, March 1, 2006; 290(3): L526 - L533. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H.-M. Zhang, S.-R. Chen, M. Matsui, D. Gautam, J. Wess, and H.-L. Pan Opposing Functions of Spinal M2, M3, and M4 Receptor Subtypes in Regulation of GABAergic Inputs to Dorsal Horn Neurons Revealed by Muscarinic Receptor Knockout Mice Mol. Pharmacol., March 1, 2006; 69(3): 1048 - 1055. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				X.-L. Wang, H.-M. Zhang, D.-P. Li, S.-R. Chen, and H.-L. Pan Dynamic regulation of glycinergic input to spinal dorsal horn neurones by muscarinic receptor subtypes in rats J. Physiol., March 1, 2006; 571(2): 403 - 413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. G.J. Allen, F. C. Abogadie, and D. A. Brown Simultaneous Release of Glutamate and Acetylcholine from Single Magnocellular "Cholinergic" Basal Forebrain Neurons J. Neurosci., February 1, 2006; 26(5): 1588 - 1595. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. S. Braverman, L. R. Doumanian, and M. R. Ruggieri Sr M2 and M3 Muscarinic Receptor Activation of Urinary Bladder Contractile Signal Transduction. II. Denervated Rat Bladder J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., February 1, 2006; 316(2): 875 - 880. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. J. Langmead, V. A. H. Fry, I. T. Forbes, C. L. Branch, A. Christopoulos, M. D. Wood, and H. J. Herdon Probing the Molecular Mechanism of Interaction between 4-n-Butyl-1-[4-(2-methylphenyl)-4-oxo-1-butyl]-piperidine (AC-42) and the Muscarinic M1 Receptor: Direct Pharmacological Evidence That AC-42 Is an Allosteric Agonist Mol. Pharmacol., January 1, 2006; 69(1): 236 - 246. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. R. Leifert, A. L. Aloia, O. Bucco, R. V. Glatz, and E. J. McMurchie G-Protein-Coupled Receptors in Drug Discovery: Nanosizing Using Cell-Free Technologies and Molecular Biology Approaches J Biomol Screen, December 1, 2005; 10(8): 765 - 779. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Wess Allosteric Binding Sites on Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptors Mol. Pharmacol., December 1, 2005; 68(6): 1506 - 1509. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Shinoe, M. Matsui, M. M. Taketo, and T. Manabe Modulation of Synaptic Plasticity by Physiological Activation of M1 Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptors in the Mouse Hippocampus J. Neurosci., November 30, 2005; 25(48): 11194 - 11200. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. E. Belmonte Cholinergic Pathways in the Lungs and Anticholinergic Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Proceedings of the ATS, November 1, 2005; 2(4): 297 - 304. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Xie, C. Drachenberg, M. Yamada, J. Wess, and J.-P. Raufman Cholinergic agonist-induced pepsinogen secretion from murine gastric chief cells is mediated by M1 and M3 muscarinic receptors Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol, September 1, 2005; 289(3): G521 - G529. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Kuczewski, E. Aztiria, D. Gautam, J. Wess, and L. Domenici Acetylcholine modulates cortical synaptic transmission via different muscarinic receptors, as studied with receptor knockout mice J. Physiol., August 1, 2005; 566(3): 907 - 919. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Gautam, S.-J. Han, T. S. Heard, Y. Cui, G. Miller, L. Bloodworth, and J. Wess Cholinergic Stimulation of Amylase Secretion from Pancreatic Acinar Cells Studied with Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptor Mutant Mice J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., June 1, 2005; 313(3): 995 - 1002. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Aihara, Y. Nakamura, M. M. Taketo, M. Matsui, and S. Okabe Cholinergically stimulated gastric acid secretion is mediated by M3 and M5 but not M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptors in mice Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol, June 1, 2005; 288(6): G1199 - G1207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Perez-Rosello, A. Figueroa, H. Salgado, C. Vilchis, F. Tecuapetla, J. N. Guzman, E. Galarraga, and J. Bargas Cholinergic Control of Firing Pattern and Neurotransmission in Rat Neostriatal Projection Neurons: Role of CaV2.1 and CaV2.2 Ca2+ Channels J Neurophysiol, May 1, 2005; 93(5): 2507 - 2519. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H.-M. Zhang, D.-P. Li, S.-R. Chen, and H.-L. Pan M2, M3, and M4 Receptor Subtypes Contribute to Muscarinic Potentiation of GABAergic Inputs to Spinal Dorsal Horn Neurons J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., May 1, 2005; 313(2): 697 - 704. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S.-R. Chen, J. Wess, and H.-L. Pan Functional Activity of the M2 and M4 Receptor Subtypes in the Spinal Cord Studied with Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptor Knockout Mice J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., May 1, 2005; 313(2): 765 - 770. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Abdulnour-Nakhoul, N. L. Nakhoul, S. A. Wheeler, P. Wang, E. R. Swenson, and R. C. Orlando HCO3- secretion in the esophageal submucosal glands Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol, April 1, 2005; 288(4): G736 - G744. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Seyedi, C. J. Mackins, T. Machida, A. C. Reid, R. B. Silver, and R. Levi Histamine H3-Receptor-Induced Attenuation of Norepinephrine Exocytosis: A Decreased Protein Kinase A Activity Mediates a Reduction in Intracellular Calcium J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., January 1, 2005; 312(1): 272 - 280. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K.-E. Andersson and A. J. Wein Pharmacology of the Lower Urinary Tract: Basis for Current and Future Treatments of Urinary Incontinence Pharmacol. Rev., December 1, 2004; 56(4): 581 - 631. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. M. Heacock, D. Kerley, G. T. Gurda, A. T. VanTroostenberghe, and S. K. Fisher Potentiation of the Osmosensitive Release of Taurine and D-Aspartate from SH-SY5Y Neuroblastoma Cells after Activation of M3 Muscarinic Cholinergic Receptors J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., December 1, 2004; 311(3): 1097 - 1104. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Seeger, I. Fedorova, F. Zheng, T. Miyakawa, E. Koustova, J. Gomeza, A. S. Basile, C. Alzheimer, and J. Wess M2 Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptor Knock-Out Mice Show Deficits in Behavioral Flexibility, Working Memory, and Hippocampal Plasticity J. Neurosci., November 10, 2004; 24(45): 10117 - 10127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. A. Ostrin, L. J. Frishman, and A. Glasser Effects of Pirenzepine on Pupil Size and Accommodation in Rhesus Monkeys Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., October 1, 2004; 45(10): 3620 - 3628. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Hirota, R. Fukuda, S. Takabuchi, S. Kizaka-Kondoh, T. Adachi, K. Fukuda, and G. L. Semenza Induction of Hypoxia-inducible Factor 1 Activity by Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptor Signaling J. Biol. Chem., October 1, 2004; 279(40): 41521 - 41528. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. P. Nelson, P. Gupta, C. M. Napier, S. R. Nahorski, and R. A. J. Challiss Functional Selectivity of Muscarinic Receptor Antagonists for Inhibition of M3-Mediated Phosphoinositide Responses in Guinea Pig Urinary Bladder and Submandibular Salivary Gland J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., September 1, 2004; 310(3): 1255 - 1265. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Gautam, T. S. Heard, Y. Cui, G. Miller, L. Bloodworth, and J. Wess Cholinergic Stimulation of Salivary Secretion Studied with M1 and M3 Muscarinic Receptor Single- and Double-Knockout Mice Mol. Pharmacol., August 1, 2004; 66(2): 260 - 267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Nakamura, M. Matsui, K. Uchida, A. Futatsugi, S. Kusakawa, N. Matsumoto, K. Nakamura, T. Manabe, M. M. Taketo, and K. Mikoshiba M3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor plays a critical role in parasympathetic control of salivation in mice J. Physiol., July 15, 2004; 558(2): 561 - 575. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K.-E. Andersson and A. Arner Urinary Bladder Contraction and Relaxation: Physiology and Pathophysiology Physiol Rev, July 1, 2004; 84(3): 935 - 986. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Duttaroy, C. L. Zimliki, D. Gautam, Y. Cui, D. Mears, and J. Wess Muscarinic Stimulation of Pancreatic Insulin and Glucagon Release Is Abolished in M3 Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptor-Deficient Mice Diabetes, July 1, 2004; 53(7): 1714 - 1720. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. G. Lamping, J. Wess, Y. Cui, D. W. Nuno, and F. M. Faraci Muscarinic (M) Receptors in Coronary Circulation: Gene-Targeted Mice Define the Role of M2 and M3 Receptors in Response to Acetylcholine Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol., July 1, 2004; 24(7): 1253 - 1258. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S-M Saw, K-S Chia, J M Lindstrom, D T H Tan, and R A Stone Childhood myopia and parental smoking Br. J. Ophthalmol., July 1, 2004; 88(7): 934 - 937. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. A. Steger and L. Avery The GAR-3 Muscarinic Receptor Cooperates With Calcium Signals to Regulate Muscle Contraction in the Caenorhabditis elegans Pharynx Genetics, June 1, 2004; 167(2): 633 - 643. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Schneider, C. Fetscher, S. Krege, and M. C. Michel Signal Transduction Underlying Carbachol-Induced Contraction of Human Urinary Bladder J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., June 1, 2004; 309(3): 1148 - 1153. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. A. Pontari, A. S. Braverman, and M. R. Ruggieri Sr. The M2 muscarinic receptor mediates in vitro bladder contractions from patients with neurogenic bladder dysfunction Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, May 1, 2004; 286(5): R874 - R880. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Takezawa, C. Schmitz, P. Demeuse, A. M. Scharenberg, R. Penner, and A. Fleig Receptor-mediated regulation of the TRPM7 channel through its endogenous protein kinase domain PNAS, April 20, 2004; 101(16): 6009 - 6014. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. L. Kamatchi, R. Franke, C. Lynch III, and J. J. Sando Identification of Sites Responsible for Potentiation of Type 2.3 Calcium Currents by Acetyl-{beta}-methylcholine J. Biol. Chem., February 6, 2004; 279(6): 4102 - 4109. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Schneider, P. Hein, and M. C. Michel Signal Transduction Underlying Carbachol-Induced Contraction of Rat Urinary Bladder. I. Phospholipases and Ca2+ Sources J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., January 1, 2004; 308(1): 47 - 53. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. G Lechner, M. Mayer, and S. Boehm Activation of M1 muscarinic receptors triggers transmitter release from rat sympathetic neurons through an inhibition of M-type K+ channels J. Physiol., December 15, 2003; 553(3): 789 - 802. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Struckmann, S. Schwering, S. Wiegand, A. Gschnell, M. Yamada, W. Kummer, J. Wess, and R. V. Haberberger Role of Muscarinic Receptor Subtypes in the Constriction of Peripheral Airways: Studies on Receptor-Deficient Mice Mol. Pharmacol., December 1, 2003; 64(6): 1444 - 1451. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Beker, M. Weber, R. H. A. Fink, and D. J. Adams Muscarinic and Nicotinic ACh Receptor Activation Differentially Mobilize Ca2+ in Rat Intracardiac Ganglion Neurons J Neurophysiol, September 1, 2003; 90(3): 1956 - 1964. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. S. Braverman and M. R. Ruggieri Sr. Hypertrophy changes the muscarinic receptor subtype mediating bladder contraction from M3 toward M2 Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, September 1, 2003; 285(3): R701 - R708. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Takayasu, M. Iino, N. Furuya, and S. Ozawa Muscarine-Induced Increase in Frequency of Spontaneous EPSCs in Purkinje Cells in the Vestibulo-Cerebellum of the Rat J. Neurosci., July 16, 2003; 23(15): 6200 - 6208. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Hayashi, T. Suzuki, T. Yamamoto, and Y. Suzuki Cholinergic inhibition of electrogenic sodium absorption in the guinea pig distal colon Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol, April 1, 2003; 284(4): G617 - G628. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F.-M. Zhou, C. Wilson, and J. A. Dani Muscarinic and Nicotinic Cholinergic Mechanisms in the Mesostriatal Dopamine Systems Neuroscientist, February 1, 2003; 9(1): 23 - 36. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. W. Kim, S. D. Koh, T. Ordog, S. M Ward, and K. M Sanders Muscarinic regulation of pacemaker frequency in murine gastric interstitial cells of Cajal J. Physiol., January 15, 2003; 546(2): 415 - 425. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Matsui, D. Motomura, T. Fujikawa, J. Jiang, S.-i. Takahashi, T. Manabe, and M. M. Taketo Mice Lacking M2 and M3 Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptors Are Devoid of Cholinergic Smooth Muscle Contractions But Still Viable J. Neurosci., December 15, 2002; 22(24): 10627 - 10632. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. L. Douglas, H. A. Baghdoyan, and R. Lydic Postsynaptic Muscarinic M1 Receptors Activate Prefrontal Cortical EEG of C57BL/6J Mouse J Neurophysiol, December 1, 2002; 88(6): 3003 - 3009. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Zhang and R. A. Warren Muscarinic and Nicotinic Presynaptic Modulation of EPSCs in the Nucleus Accumbens During Postnatal Development J Neurophysiol, December 1, 2002; 88(6): 3315 - 3330. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Kim, M. Isokawa, C. Ledent, and B. E. Alger Activation of Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptors Enhances the Release of Endogenous Cannabinoids in the Hippocampus J. Neurosci., December 1, 2002; 22(23): 10182 - 10191. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Lazareno, A. Popham, and N. J. M. Birdsall Analogs of WIN 62,577 Define a Second Allosteric Site on Muscarinic Receptors Mol. Pharmacol., December 1, 2002; 62(6): 1492 - 1505. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. S. Basile, I. Fedorova, A. Zapata, X. Liu, T. Shippenberg, A. Duttaroy, M. Yamada, and J. Wess Deletion of the M5 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor attenuates morphine reinforcement and withdrawal but not morphine analgesia PNAS, August 20, 2002; 99(17): 11452 - 11457. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Cho, J.-Y. Hwang, D. Kim, H.-S. Shin, Y. Kim, Y. E. Earm, and W.-K. Ho Acetylcholine-induced Phosphatidylinositol 4,5-Bisphosphate Depletion Does Not Cause Short-term Desensitization of G Protein-gated Inwardly Rectifying K+ Current in Mouse Atrial Myocytes J. Biol. Chem., July 26, 2002; 277(31): 27742 - 27747. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Q. Wang, M. Liu, B. Mullah, D. P. Siderovski, and R. R. Neubig Receptor-selective Effects of Endogenous RGS3 and RGS5 to Regulate Mitogen-activated Protein Kinase Activation in Rat Vascular Smooth Muscle Cells J. Biol. Chem., July 5, 2002; 277(28): 24949 - 24958. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. A. Kotsias Scopolamine and the Murder of King Hamlet Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, July 1, 2002; 128(7): 847 - 849. [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Ogura Acetylcholine Increases Intracellular Ca2+ in Taste Cells Via Activation of Muscarinic Receptors J Neurophysiol, June 1, 2002; 87(6): 2643 - 2649. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. L. Douglas, H. A. Baghdoyan, and R. Lydic Prefrontal Cortex Acetylcholine Release, EEG Slow Waves, and Spindles Are Modulated by M2 Autoreceptors in C57BL/6J Mouse J Neurophysiol, June 1, 2002; 87(6): 2817 - 2822. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Jakubik, S. Tucek, and E. E. El-Fakahany Allosteric Modulation by Persistent Binding of Xanomeline of the Interaction of Competitive Ligands with the M1 Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptor J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., June 1, 2002; 301(3): 1033 - 1041. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. J. A. Janssen and J. F. M. Smits Autonomic control of blood pressure in mice: basic physiology and effects of genetic modification Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, June 1, 2002; 282(6): R1545 - R1564. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Bernardini, C. Roza, S. K. Sauer, J. Gomeza, J. Wess, and P. W. Reeh Muscarinic M2 Receptors on Peripheral Nerve Endings: A Molecular Target of Antinociception J. Neurosci., May 31, 2002; (2002) 20026476. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. A. Cukras, I. Jeliazkova, and C. G. Nichols Structural and Functional Determinants of Conserved Lipid Interaction Domains of Inward Rectifying Kir6.2 Channels J. Gen. Physiol., May 28, 2002; 119(6): 581 - 591. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. N. Hardouin, K. N. Richmond, A. Zimmerman, S. E. Hamilton, E. O. Feigl, and N. M. Nathanson Altered Cardiovascular Responses in Mice Lacking the M1 Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptor J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., April 1, 2002; 301(1): 129 - 137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. Ford, A. Essex, T. A. Spalding, E. S. Burstein, and J. Ellis Homologous Mutations Near the Junction of the Sixth Transmembrane Domain and the Third Extracellular Loop Lead to Constitutive Activity and Enhanced Agonist Affinity at all Muscarinic Receptor Subtypes J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., March 1, 2002; 300(3): 810 - 817. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Boehm and H. Kubista Fine Tuning of Sympathetic Transmitter Release via Ionotropic and Metabotropic Presynaptic Receptors Pharmacol. Rev., March 1, 2002; 54(1): 43 - 99. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. L. Douglas, H. A. Baghdoyan, and R. Lydic M2 Muscarinic Autoreceptors Modulate Acetylcholine Release in Prefrontal Cortex of C57BL/6J Mouse J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., December 1, 2001; 299(3): 960 - 966. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Lai, X. M. Shao, R. W. Pan, E. Dy, C. H. Huang, and J. L. Feldman RT-PCR reveals muscarinic acetylcholine receptor mRNA in the pre-Botzinger complex Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol, December 1, 2001; 281(6): L1420 - L1424. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Yamada, K. G. Lamping, A. Duttaroy, W. Zhang, Y. Cui, F. P. Bymaster, D. L. McKinzie, C. C. Felder, C.-X. Deng, F. M. Faraci, et al. Cholinergic dilation of cerebral blood vessels is abolished in M5 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor knockout mice PNAS, November 9, 2001; (2001) 251542998. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. O. R. Borges, M. L. C. Abreu, C. S. Porto, and M. C. W. Avellar Characterization of Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptor in Rat Sertoli Cells Endocrinology, November 1, 2001; 142(11): 4701 - 4710. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. H. M. Nascimento, L. Salle, J. Hoebeke, J. Argibay, and N. Peineau cGMP-mediated inhibition of cardiac L-type Ca2+ current by a monoclonal antibody against the M2 ACh receptor Am J Physiol Cell Physiol, October 1, 2001; 281(4): C1251 - C1258. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Marostica, E. F. Guaze, M. C. W. Avellar, and C. S. Porto Characterization of Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptors in the Rat Epididymis Biol Reprod, October 1, 2001; 65(4): 1120 - 1126. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Seeger and C. Alzheimer Muscarinic activation of inwardly rectifying K+ conductance reduces EPSPs in rat hippocampal CA1 pyramidal cells J. Physiol., September 1, 2001; 535(2): 383 - 396. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L Leaney, L. V Dekker, and A. Tinker Regulation of a G protein-gated inwardly rectifying K+ channel by a Ca2+-independent protein kinase C J. Physiol., July 15, 2001; 534(2): 367 - 379. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S.-H. Xu, E. Honda, K. Ono, and K. Inenaga Muscarinic modulation of GABAergic transmission to neurons in the rat subfornical organ Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, June 1, 2001; 280(6): R1657 - R1664. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Caulfield, M. P. Articles by Birdsall, N. J. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Caulfield, M. P. Articles by Birdsall, N. J. M.