Detergent- and phospholipid-based reconstitution systems have differential effects on constitutive activity of G-protein–coupled receptors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A hallmark of G-protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs) is the conversion of external stimuli into specific cellular responses. In this tightly-regulated process, extracellular ligand binding by GPCRs promotes specific conformational changes within the seven transmembrane helices, leading to the coupling and activation of intracellular "transducer" proteins, such as heterotrimeric G proteins. Much of our understanding of the molecular mechanisms that govern GPCR activation is derived from experiments with purified receptors reconstituted in detergent micelles. To elucidate the influence of the phospholipid bilayer on GPCR activation, here we interrogated the functional, pharmacological, and biophysical properties of a GPCR, the β 2 -adrenergic receptor (β 2 AR), in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) particles. Compared with detergent-reconstituted β 2 AR, the β 2 AR in HDL particles had greatly enhanced levels of basal (constitutive) activity and displayed increased sensitivity to agonist activation, as assessed by activation of heterotrimeric G protein and allosteric coupling between the ligand-binding and transducer-binding pockets. Using 19 F NMR spectroscopy, we directly linked these functional differences in detergent- and HDL-reconstituted β 2 AR to a change in the equilibrium between inactive and active receptor states. The contrast between the low levels of β 2 AR constitutive activity in cells and the high constitutive activity observed in an isolated phospholipid bilayer indicates that β 2 AR basal activity depends on the reconstitution system and further suggests that various cellular mechanisms suppress β 2 AR basal activity physiologically. Our findings provide critical additional insights into GPCR activation and reveal how dramatically reconstitution systems can impact membrane protein function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".