Glutamate Binding and Conformational Flexibility of Ligand-binding Domains Are Critical Early Determinants of Efficient Kainate Receptor Biogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intracellular glutamate binding within the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is thought to be necessary for plasma membrane expression of ionotropic glutamate receptors. Here we determined the importance of glutamate binding to folding and assembly of soluble ligand-binding domains (LBDs), as well as full-length receptors, by comparing the secretion of a soluble GluR6-S1S2 protein versus the plasma membrane localization of GluR6 kainate receptors following mutagenesis of the LBD. The mutations were designed to either eliminate glutamate binding, thereby trapping the bilobate LBD in an "open" conformation, or "lock" the LBD in a closed conformation with an engineered interdomain disulfide bridge. Analysis of plasma membrane localization, medium secretion of soluble LBD proteins, and measures of folding efficiency suggested that loss of glutamate binding affinity significantly impacted subunit protein folding and assembly. In contrast, receptors with conformationally restricted LBDs also exhibited decreased PM expression and altered oligomeric receptor assembly but did not exhibit any deficits in subunit folding. Secretion of the closed LBD protein was enhanced compared with wild-type GluR6-S1S2. Our results suggest that glutamate acts as a chaperone molecule for appropriate folding of nascent receptors and that relaxation of LBDs from fully closed states during oligomerization represents a critical transition that necessarily engages other determinants within receptor dimers. Glutamate receptor LBDs therefore must access multiple conformations for efficient biogenesis.
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".