Angiotensin II is bound to both receptors AT<sub>1</sub>and AT<sub>2</sub>, parallel to the transmembrane domains and in an extended form
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: We have applied photoaffinity labelling methods combined with site-directed mutagenesis towards the two principal angiotensin II (AnglI) receptors AT1 and AT2 in order to determine contact points between AngII and the two receptors. We have first identified the receptor contact points between an N- and a C-terminal residue of the AngII molecule and the AT1 receptor and constructed with this stereochemical restriction a molecular model of AT1. A similar approach with a modified procedure of photoaffinity labelling has allowed us now to determine contact points also in the AT2 receptor. Molecular modelling of AT2 on the rhodopsin scaffold and energy minimisation of AngII binding into this AT2 model produced a model strikingly similar to the AT11 structure. Superposition of the experimentally obtained contact points of AngII with AT2 upon this model revealed excellent congruence between the experimental and modelling results. CONCLUSIONS: (i) athough AT1 and AT2 have quite low sequence homology, they both bind AngII with similar affinity and in an almost identical fashion, as if the ligand dictates the way it has to be bound, and (ii) in its bound form, AngII adopts an extended conformation in both AT1 and AT2, contrary to all previous predictions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".