Because of the activity of 3,7-dithiPGE
1 at two receptor subtypes and the potential differences in G-protein coupling, we used selective PG-EP
4 and -EP
2 antagonists to determine receptor activation. To initially characterize the specificity and selectivity of both the PG-EP
4 receptor antagonist (GW627368) and the PG-EP
2 receptor antagonist (AH6809), we measured the cAMP accumulation in the EP
4- and EP
2-HEK cells treated with 3,7-dithiPGE
1 in the presence of each antagonist separately (
Fig. 5). Our results in the EP
4-HEK cells treated with 3,7-dithiaPGE
1 in the presence of 1 μM GW627368 (PG-EP
4R antagonist) showed inhibition of cAMP accumulation and a rightward shift in EC
50 (EC
50 = 4.2 × 10
−10 M;
n = 4 vs. EC
50 = 2.6 × 10
−7 M;
n = 4), with no significant effect on the EP
2-HEK cells (EC
50 = 8.7 × 10
−8 M;
n = 3;
Figs. 5A,
5C). Similarly, the PG-EP
2 antagonist AH6809 had no significant effect on cAMP accumulation in the EP
4-HEK cells (EC
50 = 2.3 × 10
−10 M;
n = 3); however, it exhibited a rightward shift in EC
50 in the EP
2-HEK cells (EC
50 = 1.4 × 10
−7 M;
n = 4 vs. EC
50 = 1.2 × 10
−6 M;
n = 3). In primary cultures of SC cell monolayers, we found that 3,7-dithiPGE
1-stimulated cAMP accumulation shifted the dose–response curve rightward in the presence of 1 μM GW627368 (EC
50 = 6.3 × 10
−9 M;
n = 4 vs. EC
50 = 1.09 × 10
−2 M;
n = 4). Co-incubation of the agonist with 5 μM AH6809 (PG-EP
2 receptor antagonist) exhibited a reduced efficacy suggestive of noncompetitive antagonist activity, although, there was no significant shift in the EC
50 (EC
50 = 4.1 × 10
−9 M;
n = 5;
Figs. 6A,
6B).