Crosslinking the ligand‐binding domain dimer interface locks kainate receptors out of the main open state
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Key points This study identifies the gating structure responsible for controlling ion‐channel subconductance behaviour at a major neurotransmitter receptor, namely kainate‐type ionotropic glutamate receptor. Evidence is provided that the activation process may be made up of two clearly distinct conductance phases. The study speculates that functional diversity amongst ionotropic glutamate receptors emerged during evolution by re‐deploying the same structures to carry out different tasks. Abstract Kainate‐selective ionotropic glutamate receptors (iGluRs) fulfil key roles in the CNS, making them the subject of detailed structural and functional analyses. Although they are known to gate a channel pore with high and low ion‐permeation rates, it is still not clear how switches between these gating modes are achieved at the structural level. Here, we uncover an unexpected role for the ligand‐binding domain (LBD) dimer assembly in this process. Covalent crosslinking of the dimer interface keeps kainate receptors out of the main open state but permits access to lower conductance states suggesting that significant rearrangements of the dimer interface are required for the receptor to achieve full activation. These observations differ from NMDA‐selective iGluRs where constraining dimer movement reduces open‐channel probability. In contrast, our data show that restricting movement of the dimer interface interferes with conformational changes that underlie both activation and desensitization. Working within the limits of a common architectural design, we propose functionally diverse iGluR families were able to emerge during evolution by re‐deploying existing gating structures to fulfil different tasks.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".