Structure–Activity Relationship and Signaling of New Chimeric CXCR4 Agonists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The CXCR4 receptor binds with meaningful affinities only CXCL12 and synthetic antagonists/inverse agonists. We recently described high affinity synthetic agonists for this chemokine receptor, obtained by grafting the CXCL12 N-terminus onto the inverse agonist T140. While those chimeric molecules behave as agonists for CXCR4, their binding and activation mode are unknown. The present SAR of those CXCL12-oligopeptide grafts reveals the key determinants involved in CXCR4 activation. Position 3 (Val) controls affinity, whereas position 7 (Tyr) acts as an efficacy switch. Chimeric molecules bearing aromatic residues in position 3 possess high binding affinities for CXCR4 and are Gαi full agonists with robust chemotactic properties. Fine-tuning of electron-poor aromatic rings in position 7 enhances receptor activation. To rationalize these results, a homology model of a receptor-ligand complex was built using the published crystal structures of CXCR4. Molecular dynamics simulations reveal further details accounting for the observed SAR for this series.
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) | 0.002 | 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".