Topogenesis and cell surface trafficking of GPR34 are facilitated by positive-inside rule that effects through a tri-basic motif in the first intracellular loop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein folding, topogenesis and intracellular targeting of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) must be precisely coordinated to ensure correct receptor localization. To elucidate how different steps of GPCR biosynthesis work together, we investigated the process of membrane topology determination and how it relates to the acquisition of cell surface trafficking competence in human GPR34. By monitoring a fused FLAG-tag and a conformation-sensitive native epitope during the expression of GPR34 mutant panel, a tri-basic motif in the first intracellular loop was identified as the key topogenic signal that dictates the orientation of transmembrane domain-1 (TM1). Charge disruption of the motif perturbed topogenic processes and resulted in the conformational epitope loss, post-translational processing alteration, and trafficking arrest in the Golgi. The placement of a cleavable N-terminal signal sequence as a surrogate topogenic determinant overcame the effects of tri-basic motif mutations and rectified the TM1 orientation; thereby restored the conformational epitope, post-translational modifications, and cell surface trafficking altogether. Progressive N-tail truncation and site-directed mutagenesis revealed that a proline-rich segment of the N-tail and all four cysteines individually located in the four separate extracellular regions must simultaneously reside in the ER lumen to muster the conformational epitope. Oxidation of all four cysteines was necessary for the epitope formation, but the cysteine residues themselves were not required for the trafficking event. The underlying biochemical properties of the conformational epitope was therefore the key to understand mechanistic processes propelled by positive-inside rule that simultaneously regulate the topogenesis and intracellular trafficking of GPR34.
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".