Binding Mode of an α-Amino Acid-Linked Quinoxaline-2,3-dione Analogue at Glutamate Receptor Subtype GluK1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two α-amino acid-functionalized quinoxalines, 1a (CNG-10301) and 1b (CNG-10300), of a quinoxaline moiety coupled to an amino acid moiety were designed, synthesized, and characterized pharmacologically. While 1a displayed low affinity at native AMPA, KA, and NMDA receptors, and at homomeric GluK1,3 receptors, the affinity for GluK2 was in the midmicromolar range (Ki = 136 μM), 1b displayed low to midmicromolar range binding affinity at all the iGluRs (Ki = 9-126 μM). In functional experiments (outside-out patches excised from transfected HEK293T cells), 100 μM 1a partially blocked GluK1 (33% peak response), while GluK2 was unaffected (96% peak response). Furthermore, 1a was shown not to be an agonist at GluK1 and GluK2 at 100 μM. On the other hand, 100 μM 1b fully antagonized GluK1 (8% peak response) but only partially blocked GluK2 (33% peak response). An X-ray structure at 2.3 Å resolution of 1b in the GluK1-LBD (ligand-binding domain) disclosed an unexpected binding mode compared to the predictions made during the design phase; the quinoxaline moiety remains to act as an amino acid bioisostere, but the amino acid moiety is oriented into a new area within the GluK1 receptor. The structure of the GluK1-LBD with 1b showed a large variation in domain openings of the three molecules from 25° to 49°, demonstrating that the GluK1-LBD is capable of undergoing major domain movements.
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".