Transmembrane domain 1 of human dopamine D1 and D5 receptors is a crucial structural determinant for ligand affinity and selectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human D1‐like dopaminergic G protein‐coupled receptors (D1R and D5R) exhibit marked differences in their ligand binding properties while sharing an overall 80% degree of identity within transmembrane (TM) regions. However, the TM1 regions of D1R and D5R display the most residue differences among all TM regions. Here, we explore the role of TM1 in regulating subtype‐specific ligand binding properties of D1R and D5R. TM1 region of D1R and D5R was swapped using polymerase chain reaction. Binding studies performed in transiently transfected cells show that the D5 chimera has a higher affinity for synthetic drugs as compared with wild type D5R whereas the D1 chimera displays a lower affinity for synthetic drugs in comparison with wild type D1R. Notably, the affinity of the natural ligand dopamine was not changed. Moreover, the selectivity ratio of chimeras for synthetic agonists was increased as compared to that of wild type receptors. Interestingly, the selectivity ratio measured for inverse agonists suggests that in striking contrast to wild type receptors, chimeras bind to inverse agonists with a similar affinity. Overall, our studies highlight a pivotal role of TM1 in shaping the binding pocket for synthetic drugs as well as in regulating differentially the selectivity of D1‐like receptors for synthetic drugs in an efficacy‐dependent manner. Supported by NSERC (#203694‐07; MT) and CIHR Graduate Scholarship (JPD).
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".