Dopamine Receptor Oligomerization Visualized in Living Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
G protein-coupled receptors occur as dimers within arrays of oligomers. We visualized ensembles of dopamine receptor oligomers in living cells and evaluated the contributions of receptor conformation to the dynamics of oligomer association and dissociation, using a strategy of trafficking a receptor to another cellular compartment. We incorporated a nuclear localization sequence into the D1 dopamine receptor, which translocated from the cell surface to the nucleus. Receptor inverse agonists blocked this translocation, retaining the modified receptor, D1-nuclear localization signal (NLS), at the cell surface. D1 co-translocated with D1-NLS to the nucleus, indicating formation of homooligomers. (+)-Butaclamol retained both receptors at the cell surface, and removal of the drug allowed translocation of both receptors to the nucleus. Agonist-nonbinding D1(S198A/S199A)-NLS, containing two substituted serine residues in transmembrane 5 also oligomerized with D1, and both were retained on the cell surface by (+)-butaclamol. Drug removal disrupted these oligomerized receptors so that D1 remained at the cell surface while D1(S198A/S199A)-NLS trafficked to the nucleus. Thus, receptor conformational differences permitted oligomer disruption and showed that ligand-binding pocket occupancy by the inverse agonist induced a conformational change. We demonstrated robust heterooligomerization between the D2 dopamine receptor and the D1 receptor. The heterooligomers could not be disrupted by inverse agonists targeting either one of the receptor constituents. However, D2 did not heterooligomerize with the structurally modified D1(S198A/S199A), indicating an impaired interface for their interaction. Thus, we describe a novel method showing that a homogeneous receptor conformation maintains the structural integrity of oligomers, whereas conformational heterogeneity disrupts it.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".