MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174106732 · doi:10.1096/fasebj.20.5.a918-c

Specific residues of the 5‐HT1A receptor second and third intracellular domain C‐terminal determine Gβγ or Gαi coupling specificity, respectively

2006· article· en· W3174106732 on OpenAlexafffund
Neena Kushwaha, Shannon C. Harwood, Ariel M. Wilson, Paul R. Albert

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Kinase Regulation and GTPase Signaling
Canadian institutionsCanadian Society for the History of MedicineUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIntracellularMutantReceptorSignal transductionCoupling (piping)ChemistryBiophysicsCell biologyResidue (chemistry)BiologyStereochemistryBiochemistryGeneMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To address their role in 5‐HT1A receptor–G protein coupling, over sixty random point mutant 5‐HT1A receptors in the second intracellular loop C‐terminal domain (Ci2) ( 143 DYVNKRTPRR 152 ) were generated and most retained agonist binding. Mutants were tested for Gβγ signaling to ACII or PLC, and Gαi coupling. Most Ci2 mutations blocked 5‐HT1A signaling to Gβγ, but several also affected Gαi signaling. Ci2 residues K147, R148/151/152 and P150 were essential for coupling, consistent with an obligatory structural role. Polar residues (T149, N146) were required for Gβγ but not Gαi coupling, suggesting a selective interface with Gβγ. The Y144 residue directed specificity for both Gβγ and Gαi pathways and is predicted to form hydrogen bonds with D133/R134 (Ni2 DRY motif) and E340 (Ci3) to stabilize the G‐protein coupling domain. Consistent with a primary role of Ci3 in Gαi coupling, E340 mutants preferentially abrogated Gαi signaling, but one mutant partly blocked Gβγ signaling as well. Thus, the 5‐HT1A receptor Ci2 domain determines Gβγ specificity and stabilizes Gαi‐mediated signaling, while the Ci3 domain primarily directs Gαi coupling and stabilizes Gβγ coupling. Supported by CIHR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicProtein Kinase Regulation and GTPase SignalingFrench-language works237,207