Relevant role of Leu<sup>265</sup>in helix VI of the angiotensin AT<sub>1</sub>receptor in agonist binding and activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The finding of critical residues for angiotensin II (AII) binding and receptor signalling in helices V and VI led us to assess if, in this region of the receptor, aliphatic side chains might play a role in the agonist-mediated mechanism. Two mutations of the angiotensin AT1 receptor were designed to explore a possible role of a leucine at two positions, Leu265 and Leu268. Thus two mutants, L265D and L268D, were prepared through single substitutions of Leu265, located in the C-terminal region of transmembrane VI (TM-VI), and Leu268, in the adjoining region of the third extracellular loop (EC-3), for an aspartyl residue, and were stably transfected into Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells. Ligand-binding experiments and the functional assays determining inositol phosphate (IP) production were performed in these cells expressing these mutants. No significant changes were found in the binding affinity for the ligands, AII, DuP753, and [Sar1Leu8]AII in the mutant L268D. Moreover, the relative potency and the maximum effect on IP production of this mutant were similar to those of the wild-type receptor. In contrast, L265D mutant AT1 receptor, located within the transmembrane domain, markedly decreased binding affinity and ability to stimulate phosphatidylinositol turnover. Our results suggest that the hydrophobic side chain of Leu265, at the C-terminal portion of the AT1's TM-VI, but not Leu268, which belongs to the EC-3 loop, might interact with the AII molecule. On the other side, the aliphatic side chain of Leu265 may be involved in the formation of the ligand binding sites through allosteric effects, thus helping to stabilize the receptor structure around the agonist binding site for full activity.
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 | 0.001 |
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".