Orphan G protein-coupled receptor, GPR37L1: pharmacological toolbox empty once again

Abstract

Orphan G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are largely intractable therapeutic targets, owing to the lack of chemical tools for exploring their pharmacology. The discovery of such tools, however, is hampered by a number of unknowns, such as effector coupling and appropriate positive controls. In our 2017 Nature Chemical Biology paper1, we developed a computational chemical tool discovery approach called GPCR Contact-Informed Neighboring Pocket (GPCR-CoINPocket). This method predicted pharmacological similarity of GPCRs in a ligand- and structure-independent manner, to enable the discovery of off-target activities of known compounds at orphan GPCRs and hence the identification of so-called surrogate ligands. Our orphan GPCR target for prospective surrogate ligand discovery efforts was GPR37L1, a brain-specific receptor linked to cerebellar development2 and seizures3. We had previously demonstrated that GPR37L1 constitutively coupled to Gs and generated ligand-independent increases in intracellular cAMP4[§]. Thus, the inverse agonist activities of computationally predicted surrogates were tested in the cAMP response element luciferase (CRE-luc) reporter gene assay in human embryonic kidney (HEK293) cells expressing either vector control or what we thought was untagged GPR37L1 in pcDNA3.1. However, we recently discovered that the GPR37L1 construct used in that study was incorrect: instead of pcDNA3.1, it carried the receptor inserted backwards into a yeast p426GPD vector (hereafter referred to as p426-r37L1). Here, we correct the cloning error and describe our subsequent unsuccessful efforts to re-test the computationally predicted GPR37L1 ligands (triggering an author-initiated retraction of1). NoteWe, the authors, are working with the Nature Chemical Biology Editors to retract our 2017 paper Orphan receptor ligand discovery by pickpocketing pharmacological neighbors1. The present manuscript is under review at Nature Chemical Biology as a Matters Arising accompaniment to the anticipated author-initiated retraction. We initiated the steps towards the retraction upon discovering a regrettable cloning error that put into question the in vitro findings reported in1. This action was unanimously agreed upon by all authors. The computational aspects of the original manuscript1 are unaffected by this error.