Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 1317–1339 | Cite as

The manipulability of what? The history of G-protein coupled receptors

  • Ann-Sophie Barwich
  • Karim Bschir
Article

Abstract

This paper tells the story of G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs), one of the most important scientific objects in contemporary biochemistry and molecular biology. By looking at how cell membrane receptors turned from a speculative concept into a central element in modern biochemistry over the past 40 years, we revisit the role of manipulability as a criterion for entity realism in wet-lab research. The central argument is that manipulability as a condition for reality becomes meaningful only once scientists have decided how to conceptually coordinate measurable effects distinctly to a specific object. We show that a scientific entity, such as GPCRs, is assigned varying degrees of reality throughout different stages of its discovery. The criteria of its reality, we further claim, cannot be made independently of the question about how this object becomes a standard by which the reality of neighbouring elements of enquiry is evaluated.

Keywords

Scientific realism Instrumental intervention Cell signaling mechanism Biochemistry Pharmacology Wet-lab research 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We want to thank Robert Lefkowitz and Brian Kobilka for their interest in our manuscript and their comments. We are also grateful to Raphael Scholl for his critical remarks. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2015 meeting of the European Philosophy of Science Association in Dusseldorf, The History of Science and Scientific Realism conference in Indianapolis 2016, and a workshop on realism in the philosophy of biology at the University of Sassari. We want to thank the audiences, and Anjan Chakravartty in particular, for their questions and comments. ASB’s research for this article was possible through generous funding from the Presidential Scholars in Society and Neuroscience Program at Columbia University. KB is grateful for financial support by Society in Science—The Branco Weiss Fellowship.

References

  1. Ahlquist RP (1948) A study of the adrenotropic receptors. Am J Physiol 153(3):586–600Google Scholar
  2. Ahlquist RP (1973) Adrenergic receptors: a personal and practical view. Perspect Biol Med 17(1):119–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arabatzis T (2006) Representing electrons: a biographical approach to theoretical entities. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. Barger G, Dale HD (1910) Chemical structure and sympathomimetic action of amines. J Physiol 41(1–2):19–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barwich AS (2015) What is so special about smell? Olfaction as a model system in neurobiology. Postgrad Med J 92:27–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Black JW (1989) Drugs from emasculated hormones: the principle of syntopic antagonism. Science 245(4917):486–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buck LB, Axel R (1991) A novel multigene family may encode odorant receptors: a molecular basis for odor recognition. Cell 65(1):175–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cerione RA, Sibley DR, Codina J, Benovic JL, Winslow J, Neer EJ, Birnbaumer L, Caron MG, Lefkowitz RJ (1984) Reconstitution of a hormone-sensitive adenylate cyclase system. The pure beta-adrenergic receptor and guanine nucleotide regulatory protein confer hormone responsiveness on the resolved catalytic unit. J Biol Chem 259(16):9979–9982Google Scholar
  9. Chakravartty A (2007) A metaphysics for scientific realism: knowing the unobservable. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang H (2004) Inventing temperature: measurement and scientific progress. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Colquhoun D (2006) The quantitative analysis of drug–receptor interactions: a short history. Trends Pharmacol Sci 27(3):149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crasto CJ (2009) Computational biology of olfactory receptors. Curr Bioinform 4(1):8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daston L (2000) Biographies of scientific objects. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  14. De Lean A, Stadel JM, Lefkowitz RJ (1980) A ternary complex model explains the agonist-specific binding properties of the adenylate cyclase-coupled beta-adrenergic receptor. J Biol Chem 255(15):7108–7117Google Scholar
  15. Dixon RA, Kobilka BK, Strader DJ, Benovic JL, Dohlman HG, Frielle T, Bolanowski MA, Bennett CD, Rands E, Diehl RE, Mumford RA, Slater EE, Sigal IS, Caron MG, Lefkowitz RJ, Strader CD (1986) Cloning of the gene and cDNA for mammalian beta-adrenergic receptor and homology with rhodopsin. Nature 321(6065):75–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dohlman HG, Thorner J, Caron MG, Lefkowitz RJ (1991) Model systems for the study of seven-transmembrane-segment receptors. Annu Rev Biochem 60:653–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Egg M (2014) Scientific realism in particle physics: a causal approach. De Gruyter, Boston/BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elliott KC (2012) Epistemic and methodological iteration in scientific research. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part A 43(2):376–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Firestein S, Greer C, Mombaerts P 92014) The molecular basis for odor recognition. Cell annotated classic. http://www.cell.com/pb/assets/raw/journals/research/cell/cell-timeline-40/Buck.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2017
  20. Gelfert A (2003) Manipulative success and the unreal. Int Stud Philos Sci 17(3):245–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gross AG (1990) Reinventing certainty: the significance of Ian Hacking’s realism. In: PSA: proceedings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association 1990, pp 421–431Google Scholar
  22. Hacking I (1983) Representing and intervening: introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hacking I (1995) Comments on Zeidler and Sobczynska’s paper. Found Sci 1(4):537–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kay LE (2000) Who wrote the book of life? A history of the genetic code. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim MG (2008) The ‘instrumental’reality of phlogiston. Hyle 14(1):27–51Google Scholar
  26. Kobilka BK (2013) The structural basis of G-protein-coupled receptor signaling (Nobel Lecture). Angew Chem Int Ed 52(25):6380–6388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kobilka BK, Kobilka TS, Daniel K, Regan JW, Caron MG, Lefkowitz RJ (1988) Chimeric alpha 2-, beta 2-adrenergic receptors: delineation of domains involved in effector coupling and ligand binding specificity. Science 240(4857):1310–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Langley JN (1905) On the reaction of cells and of nerve-endings to certain poisons, chiefly as regards the reaction of striated muscle to nicotine and to curari. J Physiol 33(4–5):374–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Langley JN (1921) The autonomic nervous system. W. Heffer & Sons Ltd, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Lefkowitz RJ (2007a) Seven transmembrane receptors—a brief personal retrospective. Biochem Biophys Acta 1768(4):748–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lefkowitz RJ (2007b) Seven transmembrane receptors: something old, something new. Acta Physiol 190(1):9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lefkowitz RJ (2013) A brief history of G-protein coupled receptors (Nobel Lecture). Angew Chem Int Ed 52(25):6366–6378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Limbird LE (2012) Cell surface receptors: a short course on theory and methods: a short course on theory and methods. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  34. Limbird LE, Gill DM, Lefkowitz RJ (1980) Agonist-promoted coupling of the beta-adrenergic receptor with the guanine nucleotide regulatory protein of the adenylate cyclase system. Proc Natl Acad Sci 77(2):775–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lomasney JW, Leeb-Lundberg LM, Cotecchia S, Regan JW, DeBernardis JF, Caron MG, Lefkowitz RJ (1986) Mammalian alpha 1-adrenergic receptor. purification and characterization of the native receptor ligand binding subunit. J Biol Chem 261(17):7710–7716Google Scholar
  36. Maehle AH (2004) “Receptive substances”: John Newport Langley (1852–1925) and his path to a receptor theory of drug action. Med Hist 48(2):153–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maehle AH (2009) A binding question: the evolution of the receptor concept. Endeavour 33(4):135–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maehle AH, Prüll CR, Halliwell RF (2002) The emergence of the drug receptor theory. Nat Rev Drug Discov 1(8):637–6341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matsuda I, Aiba A (2004) Receptor knock-out and knock-in strategies. Methods Mol Biol 259:379–390Google Scholar
  40. Morrison M (1990) Theory, intervention and realism. Synthese 82(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Musgrave A (2007) The miracle argument for scientific realism. Rutherford J N Z J Hist Philos Sci Technol 2. http://www.rutherfordjournal.org/article020108.html. Accessed 9 July 2017
  42. Neher E, Sakmann B (1976) Single-channel currents recorded from membrane of denervated frog muscle fibres. Nature 260(5554):799–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nickles T (1997) A multi-pass conception of scientific inquiry. Dan Yearb Philos 32:11–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Northup JK, Sternweis PC, Smigel MD, Schleifer LS, Ross EM, Gilman AG (1980) Purification of the regulatory component of adenylate cyclase. Proc Natl Acad Sci 77(11):6516–6520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Novick A, Scholl R (forthcoming) Presume It Not: true Causes in the Search for the Basis of Heredity. Br J Philos SciGoogle Scholar
  46. Palczewski K (2006) G protein-coupled receptor rhodopsin. Annu Rev Biochem 75:743–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Parascandola J, Jasensky R (1974) Origins of the receptor theory of drug action. Bull Hist Med 48(2):199–220Google Scholar
  48. Rasmussen SG, Choi HJ, Rosenbaum DM, Kobilka TS, Thian FS, Edwards PC, Burghammer M, Ratnala VR, Sanishvili R, Fischetti RF, Schertler GF, Weis WI, Kobilka BK (2007) Crystal structure of the human beta2 adrenergic G-protein-coupled receptor. Nature 450(7168):383–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rheinberger HJ (1997) Toward a history of epistemic things: synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  50. Robison GA, Butcher RW, Sutherland EW (1967) Adenyl cyclase as an adrenergic receptor. Ann N Y Acad Sci 139(3):703–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rosenbaum DM, Rasmussen GFS, Kobilka BK (2009) The structure and function of G-protein-coupled receptors. Nature 459(7245):356–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schertler GF, Villa C, Henderson R (1993) Projection structure of rhodopsin. Nature 362(6422):770–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shapere D (1993) Astronomy and antirealism. Philos Sci 60(1):134–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Silverstein AM (2002) Paul Ehrlich’s receptor immunology: the magnificent obsession. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  55. Snogerup-Linse S (2012) Scientific background on the nobel prize in chemistry 2012. Studies of G-protein-coupled receptors. Award ceremony speech. R Swed Acad Sci. https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2012/presentation-speech.html. Accessed 9 July 2017
  56. Stegenga J (2009) Robustness, discordance, and relevance. Philos Sci 76(5):650–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Valenstein ES (2006) The war of the soups and the sparks: The discovery of neurotransmitters and the dispute over how nerves communicate. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Wimsatt WC (1987) False models as means to truer theories. In: Nitecki N, Hoffman A (eds) Neutral models in biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 23–55Google Scholar
  59. Wimsatt WC (2007) Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: piecewise approximations to reality. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  60. Winsberg E (2009) A function for fictions. Expanding the scope of science. In: Suárez Mauricio (ed) Fiction in science. Philosophical essays on modelling and idealisation. Routledge, London, pp 179–190Google Scholar
  61. Worrall J (1989) Structural realism: the best of both worlds? Dialectica 43(1–2):99–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhang R, Xie X (2012) Tools for GPCR drug discovery. Acta Pharmacol Sin 33(3):372–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhang X, De la Cruz O, Pinto JM, Nicolae D, Firestein S, Gilad Y (2007) Characterizing the expression of the human olfactory receptor gene family using a novel DNA microarray. Genome Biol 8(5):R86CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Presidential Scholar in Society and Neuroscience, The Center for Science and SocietyColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Humanities, Social, and Political SciencesETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations