Interaction of a Semirigid Agonist with <i>Torpedo</i> Acetylcholine Receptor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The binding of the semirigid agonist [(3)H]arecolone methiodide to the Torpedo nicotinic acetylcholine receptor has been correlated with its functional properties measured both in flux studies with Torpedo membrane vesicles and by single-channel analysis after reconstitution in giant liposomes. Under both equilibrium and preequilibrium conditions, the binding of arecolone methiodide is similar to that of other agonists such as acetylcholine. At equilibrium, it binds to two sites per receptor with high affinity (K(d) = 99 +/- 12 nM), and studies of its dissociation kinetics suggest that each of these sites is made up of two subsites that are mutually exclusive at equilibrium. The kinetics of arecolone methiodide binding were monitored by the changes in the receptor intrinsic fluorescence, and the data are consistent with a model in which the initial binding event is followed by sequential conformational transitions of the receptor-ligand complex. In flux studies, arecolone methiodide was approximately 3-fold more potent (EC(50) = 31 +/- 5 microM) than acetylcholine but its maximum flux rate was 4-10-fold lower. This phenomenon has been studied further by single-channel analysis of Torpedo receptors reconstituted in giant liposomes. Whereas the flexible agonist carbamylcholine (5 microM) was shown to induce channels with conductances of 56 and 34 pS with approximately equal frequency, arecolone methiodide (2 microM) preferentially induced the channel of lower conductance. These results are interpreted in terms of a simple model in which the rigidity of arecolone methiodide restrains the conformation that the receptor-ligand complex can adopt, thus favoring the lower conductance state.
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".