Characterization of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor-binding determinants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) is a potent insulinotropic hormone currently under study as a therapeutic agent for type 2 diabetes. Since an understanding of the molecular mechanisms leading to high-affinity receptor (R) binding and activation may facilitate the development of more potent GLP-1R agonists, we have localized specific regions of GLP-1R required for binding. The purified N-terminal fragment (hereafter referred to as NT) of the GLP-1R produced in either insect (Sf9) or mammalian (COS-7) cells was shown to bind GLP-1. The physical interaction of NT with GLP-1 was first demonstrated by cross-linking ((125)I-GLP-1/NT complex band at approximately 28 kDa) and secondly by attachment to Ni(2+)-NTA beads. The GLP-1R NT protein attached to beads bound GLP-1, but with lower affinity (inhibitory concentration (IC(50)): 4.5 x 10(-7) M) than wild-type (WT) GLP-1R (IC(50): 5.2 x 10(-9)M). The low affinity of GLP-1R NT suggested that other receptor domains may contribute to GLP-1 binding. This was supported by studies using chimeric glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 receptors. GIP(1-151)/GLP-1R, but not GIP(1-222)/GLP-1R, exhibited specific GLP-1 binding and GLP-1-induced cAMP production, suggesting that the region encompassing transmembrane (TM) domain 1 through to TM3 was required for binding. Since it was hypothesized that certain charged or polar amino acids in this region might be involved in binding, these residues (TM2-TM3) were analyzed by substitution mutagenesis. Five mutants (K197A, D198A, K202A, D215A, R227A) displayed remarkably reduced binding affinity. These studies indicate that the NT domain of the GLP-1R is able to bind GLP-1, but charged residues concentrated at the distal TM2/extracellular loop-1 (EC1) interface (K197, D198, K202) and in EC1 (D215 and R227) probably contribute to the binding determinants of the GLP-1R.
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) | 0.002 | 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".