Development of peptidomimetic ligands of Pro-Leu-Gly-NH<sub>2</sub> as allosteric modulators of the dopamine D<sub>2</sub> receptor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A variety of stable, small-molecule peptidomimetic ligands have been developed to elucidate the mechanism by which the neuropeptide Pro-Leu-Gly-NH(2) (PLG) modulates dopaminergic neurotransmission. Photoaffinity labeling ligands based upon PLG peptidomimetics have been used to establish that PLG binds to the D(2) dopamine receptor at a site that is different from the orthosteric site, thus making PLG and its peptidomimetics allosteric modulators of the dopamine receptor. Through the design, synthesis and pharmacological evaluation of conformationally constrained peptidomimetics containing lactam, bicyclic, and spiro-bicyclic scaffolds, support was provided for the hypothesis that the bioactive conformation of PLG is a type II β-turn. In addition, studies with peptidomimetics designed to mimic either a type VI β-turn or polyproline II helix conformation yielded molecules that were able to modulate dopamine receptors because of their ability to place the carboxamide NH(2) pharmacophore in the same topological space as that seen in the type II β-turn. Extensive studies with the spiro-bicyclic PLG peptidomimetics also established that both positive and negative modes of modulation were possible for the same series of peptidomimetics simply as a result of minor differences in the stereochemistry about the bridgehead carbon within the scaffold. This information was used to transform existing positive modulators into negative modulators, which demonstrated that small structural changes in the spiro-bicyclic dopamine receptor modulators are capable of causing major changes in the modulatory activity of PLG peptidomimetics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".