The muscarinic acetylcholine receptors belong to the super-family of seven TM domain receptors that interact with G-proteins to initiate intracellular responses. Evidence from molecular cloning indicates that there are separate intronless human genes that encode five muscarinic receptor glycoproteins. Muscarinic receptor sequences have significant homologies with other members of this large super-family and the genes are very similar across mammalian species (Caulfield 1993; Felder 1995). Despite over a decade following their molecular identification, the therapeutic exploitation of this crucial family of receptors remains disappointing. This results from a relative inability to pharmacologically distinguish between the subtypes, markedly hindering their investigation in native mammalian tissues. In particular, this has hampered investigation of the last-identified subtype, the muscarinic M5 receptor. The inability to clearly distinguish it from the M3 receptor has, moreover, led to confusion of its physiological role. Finally, determination of the precise distribution of M5 receptors within tissues is complicated by inadequate selectivity of radioligands as well as the low sensitivity/selectivity of polyclonal antisera in immunocytochemical studies (Caulfield 1993; Reever et al., 1997). Despite these problems, this receptor has recently been assigned an upper case M5 nomenclature (Caulfield & Birdsall, 1998) presumably reflecting recognition of its presence and function in native tissues despite the current incomplete characterization. In this respect the identification of a human A2058 melanoma cell that endogenously expresses the M5 receptor (Kohn et al., 1996) should facilitate its investigation in endogenous tissues, although extensive use of these cells have not been reported to date. Consequently, the majority of the current information on the functional properties and regulation of coupling of this subtype still arises from their expression in model cells following cDNA transfection. The purpose of this short review is to critically evaluate current data on the muscarinic receptor M5 subtype from several standpoints. Hopefully, this critique will stimulate further studies on the M5 receptor that may raise it from a 'relatively ephemeral' or 'fact or fiction' status, described in recent reviews (Reever et al., 1997; Caulfield & Birdsall 1998). Identification and structural features The muscarinic M5 receptor was the last of the muscarinic receptor family to be cloned in the human and is mapped to chromosome 15q26 (Bonner et al., 1988; Liao et al., 1989). The receptor sequence conforms to a predicted seven transmembrane glycoprotein consisting of 531 residues in the human (GeneBank accession number PO8912) and 532 in the mouse (PO8911; 89% homologous to human). Structurally, the M5 receptor is the next largest muscarinic receptor to the M3 subtype with both these subtypes possessing a large third intracellular loop. Differences in this cytoplasmic loop account for the sequence diversity between muscarinic receptor subtypes and also between muscarinic receptors from different species. However, of the five muscarinic receptors, the M5 subtype demonstrates the least homology in this region when comparisons are made between human and rat sequences. Wess and colleagues (Wess et al., 1992; Pittel & Wess, 1994; Wess, 1997) have explored the nature of ligand binding and G-protein coupling by using chimeras of muscarinic M2 and M5 receptors. Most M2/M5 constructs are inactive but the presence of the M2 sequence in TMVII and M5 in TMI agonist activation of G-protein coupling is restored. Pittel & Wess (1994) argued that these data supported the bacteriorhodopsin model in which the seven transmembrane helices are arranged in a ring, such that TMI is adjacent to TMVII. A series of M2/M5 chimeras in which regions of the M5 receptors have been systemically replaced by homologous regions of the M2 receptor, indicated the higher affinity of the antagonist UH-AH 37 for the M2 over the M5 receptor was dependent upon a short stretch of 31 residues in TMVI as well as a short region of the third intracellular loop. This however contrasts to the antagonist AQ-RA 741 which also preferentially binds to the M2 receptor suggesting that different receptor epitopes may be involved in conferring different ligand specificities. In a series of studies, Brann and colleagues also attempted to identify key residues associated with agonist activation of M5 receptors. Initially using random saturation mutagenesis they identified the amino acids 439, A440, A441 towards the C-terminal end of the third intracellular loop of the M5 muscarinic receptor critical for G-protein coupling (Burstein et al., 1995). In a more recent paper, this group (Burstein et al., 1998a) constructed a further series of point mutants at each of these residues and characterized their functional phenotypes in order to find structure function relationship for G-protein coupling to the M5 receptor. Their evidence suggests that residue 439 participates in G-protein activation through an ionic mechanism and that A440 fulfils more of a structural role, perhaps forming part of the G-protein coupling pocket. Further, A441 apparently contributes to receptor affinity for G-proteins. Collectively, these data suggest that the third intracellular loop of the M5 receptor forms a G-protein coupling pocket comprised of a positively charged lip and a hydrophobic core. Brann's group (Spalding et al., 1998) also investigated a potential switch between active and inactive conformations of the M5 muscarinic receptor. There is much evidence from several G-protein coupled receptors to suggest that G-protein receptors exhibit constitutive activity (i.e. activation in the absence of agonist) and that agonists stabilize active whereas antagonists stabilise inactive conformations (Kenakin 1996; 1997). In a search for residues that participate in receptor function, several regions of the M5 receptor were randomly mutated and tested for their functional properties. Mutations spanning the face of TMVI were found to induce high levels of constitutive activity of the receptor. The same face of TMVI contained several residues crucial to receptor activation by agonists and one residue was identified as a contact site for both agonists and antagonists. These results suggest that within TMVI of the M5 receptor is a switch that defines the activation state of the receptor and the ligand interactions with TMVI stabilizing the receptor in either active or inactive conformations. In a further study (Burstein et al., 1998b) this group completed a systematic search of the intracellular loops in an attempt to identify further domains that govern G-protein coupling. A feature of the second intracellular loop was an ordered cluster of residues where substitutions also cause constitutive activation of the M5 receptor. A second group of residues in the second intracellular loop have been identified where mutations compromise receptor/G-protein coupling. The residues of each group appear to alternate and are spaced three to four positions apart, perhaps suggesting an α-helical structure where the groups form opposing faces of the helix. The authors suggest that the constitutively activating face normally constrain the receptor in the off state while the other face couples to G-proteins with the receptor being in the on state.