Solution Structure of the Ligand Binding Domain of the Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor: Role of Heparin in the Activation of the Receptor<sup>,</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The three-dimensional solution structure of the ligand binding D2 domain of the fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) is determined using multidimensional NMR techniques. The atomic root-mean-square distribution for the backbone atoms in the structured region is 0.64 A. Secondary structural elements in the D2 domain include 11 beta-strands arranged antiparallely into two layers of beta-sheets. The structure of the D2 domain is characterized by the presence of a short flexible helix that protrudes out of the layers of beta-sheets. Results of size exclusion chromatography and sedimentation velocity experiments show that the D2 domain exists in a monomeric state both in the presence and in the absence of bound sucrose octasulfate (SOS), a structural analogue of heparin. Comparison of the solution structure of the D2 domain with the crystal structure of the protein (D2 domain) in the FGF signaling complex reveals significant differences, suggesting that ligand (FGF) binding may induce significant conformational changes in the receptor. SOS binding sites in the D2 domain have been mapped on the basis of the 1H-15N chemical shift perturbation data. SOS binds to the positively charged residues located in beta-strand III and the flexible helix. Isothermal titration calorimetry data indicate that the ligand (hFGF-1) binds strongly (Kd approximately 10(-9) M) to the D2 domain even in the absence of SOS. Binding of SOS to either the D2 domain or hFGF-1 does not seem to be the driving force for the formation of the D2-hFGF-1 binary complex. The function of SOS binding appears to stabilize the preformed D2-FGF binary complex.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".