Endocrinology & Metabolic Syndrome
Open Access

Receptor Biology in Endocrinology: From Ligand Binding to Cellular Responses

Khaled Khalil^{* *}Correspondence: Khaled Khalil, Department of Endocrinology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, USA, Email:

Author info »

Description

In the intricate landscape of endocrinology, the ligand binding to cellular responses is governed by the intricate machinery of receptors. Receptors, specialized proteins embedded in cell membranes or located within cells; serve as gatekeepers that mediate the effects of endocrine signals. This discourse delves into the molecular intricacies of receptor biology in endocrinology, elucidating the sequential events from ligand recognition to the initiation of cellular responses [1].

Ligand binding and conformational changes

The receptor biology lies in the specific recognition of ligandshormones or signaling molecules- by their cognate receptors. These interactions are highly selective, with receptors displaying exquisite specificity for their respective ligands. The binding event itself initiates a cascade of conformational changes in the receptor structure, a critical step in transducing extracellular signals to intracellular responses [2].

Classically, receptors can be categorized into two main types: Cell surface receptors and intracellular receptors. Cell surface receptors, such as G protein-coupled receptors and receptor tyrosine kinases, are positioned on the cell membrane, whereas intracellular receptors, including nuclear receptors, reside within the cell [3].

Signal transduction pathways

Upon ligand binding, cell surface receptors initiate signal transduction pathways that relay the message from the extracellular environment to the intracellular milieu. GPCRs, for instance, undergo a conformational change upon ligand binding, facilitating the activation of intracellular signaling proteins. These proteins, in turn, modulate second messengers such as cyclic adenosine monophosphate or inositol trisphosphate, leading to a diverse array of cellular responses [4].

Receptor tyrosine kinases, another class of cell surface receptors, activate intracellular signaling cascades by phosphorylating tyrosine residues. This phosphorylation event triggers downstream signaling pathways involved in cell growth, differentiation, and survival. The specificity and complexity of these pathways underscore the sophistication of receptormediated signal transduction.

Intracellular receptors and gene expression

Intracellular receptors, notably nuclear receptors, play a pivotal role in modulating gene expression in response to hormonal signals. These receptors are typically located within the cell, often in the cytoplasm or nucleus, and are activated by ligand binding.

Upon ligand binding, nuclear receptors undergo conformational changes that enable their translocation to the nucleus. Once in the nucleus, these receptors interact with specific DNA sequences, known as hormone response elements, modulating the transcription of target genes. This process intricately regulates gene expression, influencing a myriad of cellular functions from metabolism to immune response [5].

Receptor desensitization and internalization

To ensure precise control over cellular responses, receptor systems have evolved mechanisms for desensitization and internalization. Continuous exposure to ligands can lead to receptor desensitization, wherein the responsiveness of the receptor to further stimulation is diminished. This phenomenon is particularly evident in GPCRs, where regulatory proteins such as beta-arrestins play a role in desensitizing the receptor [6].

Internalization, the process by which receptors are engulfed into the cell, serves as another regulatory mechanism. Internalization can lead to receptor recycling, where receptors are returned to the cell membrane after ligand dissociation, or degradation within lysosomes. These processes contribute to the temporal and spatial control of receptor-mediated signaling [7].

Cross-talk between receptor systems

The complexity of cellular responses is further amplified by the cross-talk between different receptor systems. Integration of signals from various receptors allows for the fine-tuning of cellular responses and the orchestration of physiological processes [8].

For example, the interplay between GPCRs and RTKs has been extensively studied. Crosstalk between these receptor systems can lead to the activation of shared downstream signaling pathways, amplifying or modulating the cellular response to hormonal signals. The dynamic interaction between different receptor types adds another layer of complexity to the regulatory network in endocrinology [9].

Pathophysiological implications

Dysregulation of receptor biology is implicated in a myriad of endocrine disorders and diseases. Mutations in receptor genes, alterations in receptor expression levels, or aberrant signaling cascades can lead to pathological conditions. Understanding the molecular basis of receptor dysfunction provides insights into the etiology of endocrine disorders and informs the development of targeted therapeutic strategies [10].

Conclusion

In conclusion, the journey from ligand binding to cellular responses in endocrinology is intricately governed by the molecular intricacies of receptor biology. Whether on the cell surface or within the cell, receptors act as molecular switches that transduce extracellular signals into precise and orchestrated intracellular responses. The diversity of receptor types, coupled with the complexity of signal transduction pathways and crosstalk between receptor systems, highlights the sophisticated regulatory network that underlies endocrine processes.

A comprehensive understanding of receptor biology not only enriches our knowledge of fundamental cellular mechanisms but also holds immense potential for therapeutic interventions. As we continue to unravel the complexities of receptor-mediated signaling, the prospect of manipulating these pathways for targeted and precise medical interventions in endocrinology becomes increasingly tangible.

References

1. Wang T, Ma S, Guan Y, Du J, Liu G, Zhao X. Double function of noninvasive intracranial pressure monitoring based on flash visual evoked potentials in unconscious patients with traumatic brain injury. J Clin Neurosci. 2016;27 (S): 63-67.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

2. Bereczki D, Liu M, Prado GF, FeketeI. Cochrane report: A systematic review of mannitol therapy for acute ischemic stroke and cerebral parenchymal hemorrhage. Stroke. 2000;31(11): 2719-2722.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

3. Hemphill III JC, Greenberg SM, Anderson CS, Becker K, Bendok BR, Cushman M, et al. Guidelines for the management of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: A guideline for healtheare professionals from the American heart association/American stroke association. Stroke. 2015;46(S): 2032-2060.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

4. Kothari RU, Brott T, Broderick JP, Barsan WG, Sauerbeck LR, Zuccarello M, et al. The abcs of measuring intracerebral hemorrhage volumes. Stroke. 1996;27(8): 1304-1305.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

5. Gross T, Morell S, Amsler F. Gender-specific improvements in outcome 1 and 2 years after major trauma. J Surg Res. 2019;235(S): 459-469.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

6. Tao Z, Gao L. Management of patients with severe traumatic brain injury guided by intraventricular intracranial pressure monitoring: A report of 136 cases. Chin J Traumatol. 2010;13(3): 146-151.

   [Google Scholar]

7. Zhao YL, Zhou JY, Zhu GH. Clinical experience with the noninvasive Icp monitoring system. Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2005; 95(S):351-355.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

8. Simona S, Marini C, Toni D, Olivieri L. Incidence and 10-year survival of intracerebral hemorrhage in a population-based registry. Stroke. 2009;40(2): 394-399. 

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

9. Davis SM, Broderick J, Hennerici M, Brun NC. Hematoma growth is a determinant of mortality and poor outcome after intracerebral hemorrhage. Neurology. 2006;66(8): 1175-1181.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

10. Qerama E, Korshoej AR, Petersen MV, Brandmeier R, von Oettingen G. Latency-shift of intra-operative visual evoked potential predicts reversible homonymous hemianopia after intra-ventricular meningioma surgery. Clin Neurophysiol Pract. 2019; 4(S): 224-229.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]