Abstract
In a recent report in Science Signaling (Gillis, A., et al. Low intrinsic efficacy for G protein activation can explain the improved side effect profiles of new opioid agonists. Sci. Signaling 2020, 13, eaaz3140 10.1126/scisignal.aaz3140), it was suggested that low intrinsic agonism, and not biased agonism, leads to an improvement in the separation of potency in opioid-induced respiratory suppression versus antinociception. Although many of the compounds that were tested have been shown to display G protein signaling bias in prior publications, the authors conclude that because they cannot detect biased agonism in their cellular signaling studies the compounds are therefore not biased agonists. Rather, they conclude that it is low intrinsic efficacy that leads to the therapeutic window improvement. Intrinsic efficacy is the extent to which an agonist can stimulate a G protein-coupled receptor response in a system, while biased agonism takes into consideration not only the intrinsic efficacy but also the potency of an agonist in an assay. Herein, we have reanalyzed the data presented in the published work (10.1126/scisignal.aaz3140) [including the recent Erratum (10.1126/scisignal.abf9803)] to derive intrinsic efficacy and bias factors as ΔΔlog(τ/K(A)) and ΔΔlog(Emax/EC(50)), respectively. On the basis of this reanalysis, the data support the conclusion that biased agonism, favoring G protein signaling, was observed. Moreover, a conservation of rank order intrinsic efficacy was not observed upon comparing responses in each assay, further suggesting that multiple active receptor states were present. These observations agree with prior studies in which oliceridine, PZM21, and SR-17018 were first described as biased agonists with improvement in antinociception over respiratory suppression in mice. Therefore, the data in the Science Signaling paper provide strong corroborating evidence that G protein signaling bias may be a means of improving opioid analgesia while avoiding certain undesirable side effects.