Coupling of G Proteins to Reconstituted Monomers and Tetramers of the M2 Muscarinic Receptor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
G protein-coupled receptors can be reconstituted as monomers in nanodiscs and as tetramers in liposomes. When reconstituted with G proteins, both forms enable an allosteric interaction between agonists and guanylyl nucleotides. Both forms, therefore, are candidates for the complex that controls signaling at the level of the receptor. To identify the biologically relevant form, reconstituted monomers and tetramers of the purified M2 muscarinic receptor were compared with muscarinic receptors in sarcolemmal membranes for the effect of guanosine 5'-[β,γ-imido]triphosphate (GMP-PNP) on the inhibition of N-[(3)H]methylscopolamine by the agonist oxotremorine-M. With monomers, a stepwise increase in the concentration of GMP-PNP effected a lateral, rightward shift in the semilogarithmic binding profile (i.e. a progressive decrease in the apparent affinity of oxotremorine-M). With tetramers and receptors in sarcolemmal membranes, GMP-PNP effected a vertical, upward shift (i.e. an apparent redistribution of sites from a state of high affinity to one of low affinity with no change in affinity per se). The data were analyzed in terms of a mechanistic scheme based on a ligand-regulated equilibrium between uncoupled and G protein-coupled receptors (the "ternary complex model"). The model predicts a rightward shift in the presence of GMP-PNP and could not account for the effects at tetramers in vesicles or receptors in sarcolemmal membranes. Monomers present a special case of the model in which agonists and guanylyl nucleotides interact within a complex that is both constitutive and stable. The results favor oligomers of the M2 receptor over monomers as the biologically relevant state for coupling to G proteins.
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) | 0.000 | 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".