C-Terminal Analogues of Parathyroid Hormone: Effect of C-Terminus Function on Helical Structure, Stability, and Bioactivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have studied the effects of C-terminal group modifications (amide, methylamide, dimethylamide, aldehyde, and alcohol) on the conformation, adenylyl cyclase stimulation (AC), or binding of parathyroid hormone (hPTH) analogues, hPTH(1-28)NH(2) and hPTH(1-31)NH(2). hPTH(1-31)NH(2) has a C-terminal alpha-helix bounded by residues 17-29 [Chen, Z., et al. (2000) Biochemistry 39, 12766]. In both cases, relative to the natural analogue with a carboxyl C-terminus, the amide and methylamide had increased helix content whereas the dimethylamide forms had CD spectra more similar to the carboxyl one. Conformational effects were more pronounced with hPTH(1-28) than with hPTH(1-31), with increases in helix content of approximately 30% in contrast to 10%. Stabilization of the C-terminal helix of residues 1-28 seemed to correlate with an ability of the C-terminal function to H-bond appropriately. None of the analogues affected the AC stimulating activity significantly, but there was an up to 15-fold decrease in the level of apparent binding of the carboxyl hPTH(1-28) analogue compared to that of the methylamide and a 4-fold decrease in the level of binding of the aldehyde or dimethylamide. There was no significant change in binding activities for the 1-31 analogues. These observations are consistent with previous studies that imply the importance of a region of the hormone's C-terminal alpha-helix for tight binding to the receptor. They also show that modulation of helix stability does have an effect on the binding of the hormone, but only when the C-terminus is at the putative end of the helix. The similarity of AC stimulation even when binding changed 10-fold can be explained by assuming greater efficacy of the weaker binding PTH-receptor complexes in stimulating AC.
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".