Signalosome Profiling Reveals Allosteric Interactions Between G Protein-Coupled Receptors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) comprise the largest group of cell surface receptors, translating environmental signals into cellular responses via cognate G protein partners. Contrary to our initial understanding, most GPCRs do not function in living cells as monomers, but most likely dimers, or even larger arrays of receptors. Standard drug design approaches rely on the notion that drugs binding the two receptors in a given dimer likely function independently of one another. However, this view has been challenged by recent work showing that ligand binding at both receptors can modulate dimeric receptors via allosteric communication. While one receptor may actually be needed to drive signaling, the other acts to control or modulate these signals, without a direct signaling outcome itself. Based on the notion of allosteric modulation within homo- and heterodimers, we must now consider a broader examination of the effects of single- and dual-ligand stimulation in the context of tissues expressing multiple GPCRs. Here, we describe the use of a combination of calcium, cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP), and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling assays, and protein–protein interaction assays to characterize functional and physical interactions in a putative D2 dopamine receptor/oxytocin receptor heterodimer (D2R/OTR), in HEK 293 cells.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".