Molecular Basis of the Isoform-specific Ligand-binding Affinity of Inositol 1,4,5-Trisphosphate Receptors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three isoforms of the inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate (IP(3)) receptor (IP(3)R), IP(3)R1, IP(3)R2, and IP(3)R3, have different IP(3)-binding affinities and cooperativities. Here we report that the amino-terminal 604 residues of three mouse IP(3)R types exhibited K(d) values of 49.5 +/- 10.5, 14.0 +/- 3.5, and 163.0 +/- 44.4 nm, which are close to the intrinsic IP(3)-binding affinity previously estimated from the analysis of full-length IP(3)Rs. In contrast, residues 224-604 of IP(3)R1 and IP(3)R2 and residues 225-604 of IP(3)R3, which contain the IP(3)-binding core domain but not the suppressor domain, displayed an almost identical IP(3)-binding affinity with a K(d) value of approximately 2 nm. Addition of 100-fold excess of the suppressor domain did not alter the IP(3)-binding affinity of the IP(3)-binding core domain. Artificial chimeric proteins in which the suppressor domain was fused to the IP(3)-binding core domain from different isoforms exhibited IP(3)-binding affinity significantly different from those of the proteins composed of the native combination of the suppressor domain and the IP(3)-binding core domain. Systematic mutagenesis analyses showed that amino acid residues critical for type-3 receptor-specific IP(3)-binding affinity are involved in Glu-39, Ala-41, Asp-46, Met-127, Ala-154, Thr-155, Leu-162, Trp-168, Asn-173, Asn-176, and Val-179. These results indicate that the IP(3)-binding affinity of IP(3)Rs is specifically tuned through the intramolecular attenuation of IP(3)-binding affinity of the IP(3)-binding core domain by the amino-terminal suppressor domain. Moreover, the functional diversity in ligand sensitivity among IP(3)R isoforms originates from at least the structural difference identified on the suppressor domain.
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".