Bibliographic record
Abstract
Voltage-gated sodium channels are the primary target of pyrethroid insecticides. Although it is well known that specific mutations in insect sodium channels confer knockdown resistance (kdr) to pyrethroids, the atomic mechanisms of pyrethroid-sodium channel interactions are not clearly understood. Previously, computer modeling and mutational analysis predicted two pyrethroid receptors, pyrethroid receptor site 1 (PyR1) (initial) and pyrethroid receptor site 2 (PyR2), located in the domain interfaces II/III and I/II, respectively. The models differ in ligand orientation and the number of transmembrane helices involved. In this study, we elaborated a revised PyR1 model of the mosquito sodium channel. Computational docking in the K<sub>v</sub>1.2-based open channel model yielded a complex in which a pyrethroid (deltamethrin) binds between the linker helix IIL45 and transmembrane helices IIS5, IIS6, and IIIS6 with its dibromoethenyl and diphenylether moieties oriented in the intra- and extracellular directions, respectively. The PyR2 and revised PyR1 models explained recently discovered kdr mutations and predicted new deltamethrin-channel contacts. Further model-driven mutagenesis identified seven new pyrethroid-sensing residues, three in the revised PyR1 and four in PyR2. Our data support the following conclusions: 1) each pyrethroid receptor is formed by a linker-helix L45 and three transmembrane helices (S5 and two S6s); 2) IIS6 contains four residues that contribute to PyR1 and another four to PyR2; 3) seven pairs of pyrethroid-sensing residues are located in symmetric positions within PyR1 and PyR2; and 4) pyrethroids bind to PyR1 and PyR2 in similar orientations, penetrating deeply into the respective domain interfaces. Our study elaborates the dual pyrethroid-receptor sites concept and provides a structural background for rational development of new insecticides.
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 | 0.013 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.017 |
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".