Ghrelin and motilin receptor agonists: time to introduce bias into drug design

Abstract

Ghrelin and motilin receptor agonists increase gastric motility and are attractive drug targets. However, 14 years after the receptors were described (18-24 years since ligands became available) the inactivity of the ghrelin agonist TZP-102 in patients with gastroparesis joins the list of unsuccessful motilin agonists. Fundamental questions must be asked. Pustovit et al., have now shown that the ghrelin agonist ulimorelin evokes prolonged increases in rat colorectal propulsion yet responses to other ghrelin agonists fade. Similarly, different motilin agonists induce short- or long-lasting effects in a cell-dependent manner. Together, these and other data create the hypothesis that the receptors can be induced to preferentially signal ('biased agonism') via particular pathways to evoke different responses with therapeutic advantages/disadvantages. Biased agonism has been demonstrated for ghrelin. Are motilin agonists which cause long-lasting facilitation of human stomach cholinergic function (compared with motilin) biased agonists (e.g., camicinal, under development for patients with gastric hypo-motility)? For ghrelin, additional complications exist because the therapeutic aims/mechanisms of action are uncertain, making it difficult to select the best (biased) agonist. Will ghrelin agonists be useful treatments of nausea and/or as suggested by Pustovit et al., chronic constipation? How does ghrelin increase gastric motility? As gastroparesis symptoms poorly correlate with delayed gastric emptying (yet gastro-prokinetic drugs can provide relief: e.g., low-dose erythromycin), would low doses of ghrelin and motilin agonists relieve symptoms simply by restoring neuromuscular rhythm? These questions on design and functions need addressing if ghrelin and motilin agonists are to reach patients as drugs.