BODIPY®‐conjugated neuropeptide Y ligands: new fluorescent tools to tag Y1, Y2, Y4 and Y5 receptor subtypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
N-terminal labelled fluorescent BODIPY-NPY peptide analogues were tested in Y1, Y2, Y4 and Y5 receptor-binding assays performed in rat brain membrane preparations and HEK293 cells expressing the rat Y1, Y2, Y4 and Y5 receptors. BODIPY TMR/FL-[Leu31, Pro34]NPY/PYY were able to compete for specific [125][Leu31, Pro34]PYY-binding sites with an affinity similar to that observed for the native peptide at the Y1 (Ki=1-6 nM), Y2 (Ki>1000 nM), Y4 (Ki=10 nM) and Y5 (Ki=1-4 nM) receptor subtypes. BODIPY FL-PYY(3-36) was able to compete for specific Y2 (Ki=10 nM) and Y5 (Ki=30 nM) binding sites, but had almost no affinity in Y1 and Y4 assays. BODIPY FL-hPP was able to compete with high affinity (Ki; 1 and 15 nM) only in Y4 and Y5 receptor-binding assays. BODIPY TMR-[cPP(1-7), NPY(19-23), Ala31, Aib32, Gln34]hPP and BODIPY TMR-[hPP(1-17), Ala31, Aib32]NPY were potent competitors only on specific Y5-binding sites (Ki=0.1-0.6 nM). As expected, these fluorescent peptides inhibited forskolin-induced cAMP accumulation, demonstrating that they retained their agonist properties. When tested in confocal microscopy imaging, fluorescent Y1 and Y5 agonists internalized in a time-dependent manner in Y1 and Y5 transfected cells, respectively. These results demonstrate that BODIPY-conjugated NPY analogues retain their selectivity, affinity and agonist properties for the Y1, Y2, Y4 and Y5 receptor subtypes, respectively. Thus, they represent novel tools to study and visualize NPY receptors in living cells.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".