Direct Assessment of CXCR4 Mutant Conformations Reveals Complex Link between Receptor Structure and Gαi Activation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ligand binding to G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) is thought to induce changes in receptor conformation that translate into activation of downstream effectors. The link between receptor conformation and activity is still insufficiently understood, as current models of GPCR activation fail to take an increasing amount of experimental data into account. To elucidate structure-function relationships in GPCR activation, we used bioluminescence resonance energy transfer to directly assess the conformation of mutants of the chemokine receptor CXCR4. We analyzed substitutions in the arginine cage DRY motif and in the conserved asparagine N(3.35)119, which are pivotal molecular switches for receptor conformation and activation. G(alpha)(i) activation of the mutants was either similar to wild-type CXCR4 (D133N, Y135A, and N119D) or resulted in loss of activity (R134A and N119K). Mutant N119S was constitutively active but further activated by agonist. Bioluminescence resonance energy transfer analysis suggested no simple correlation between conformational changes in response to ligand binding and activation of G(alpha)(i) by the mutants. Different conformations of active receptors were detected (for wild-type CXCR4, D133N, and N119S), suggesting that different receptor conformations are able to trigger G(alpha)(i) activity. Several conformations were also found for inactive mutants. These data provide biophysical evidence for different receptor conformations being active with respect to a single readout. They support models of GPCR structure-activity relationships that take this conformational flexibility of active receptors into account.
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".