Rapidly reversible binding of rabbit prolactin to the rabbit prolactin receptor accounts for the differences between homologous and heterologous binding

Abstract

Abstract The binding of radioiodinated rabbit (rb) prolactin (PRL) to rabbit mammary membranes is low and its affinity constant, 0·02 nm−1, calculated from heterologous inhibition assays, is about 300 times lower than that of ovine (o) PRL. Although the differences between homologous and heterologous binding are well documented in different species, the reasons for such differences are still unknown. Here we show that the low affinity of rbPRL for the native receptor does not affect its in vitro bioactivity compared with that of oPRL. We also show that rbPRL displays high specific binding to the baculovirus-expressed recombinant receptor and further establish that its lower affinity for binding to the homologous receptor is due to its faster and more complete dissociation compared with that of oPRL. Hormone binding affinity for full-length and carboxy-terminal truncated rbPRL receptor mutants expressed in mammalian or in baculovirus-infected cells was not affected by partial truncation of the cytoplasmic domain of the receptor, whereas the affinity for oPRL increased and that for rbPRL decreased upon truncation of both the cytoplasmic and membrane domains. The affinity of rbPRL for the native receptor is two orders of magnitude lower than that for the recombinant receptor. Affinity cross-linking and binding experiments showed that this difference in affinities is not related to selective cleavage of the native microsomal receptor during the binding reaction; however, this difference may be related to cell context-dependent differences in the oligomerization state of the receptor. Thus, obviously, the cloned receptor is alone sufficient for binding to rbPRL without requiring any receptor-associated protein. The lower affinity for rbPRL binding to its homologous receptor in comparison with higher affinity binding of oPRL to the same receptor is attributable to differences in their dissociation kinetics and in the conformational requirements of the receptor–hormone interaction site for binding to the two hormones. Journal of Endocrinology (1997) 153, 207–219