MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Differential Contribution of G‐protein Coupled Receptor Kinase 2 and 3 in Regulating Structurally Related Human Dopamine D1 and D5 Receptors

2008· article· en· W3177353644 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Habib Abul Muntasir, Mario Tiberi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsG protein-coupled receptor kinaseBiologyReceptorBeta adrenergic receptor kinaseDopamine receptorG protein-coupled receptorCell biologyDopamineSignal transductionEndocrinologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dopamine (DA) D1‐like receptors (D1R and D5R) are seven‐transmembrane proteins regulating important brain and peripheral functions. Impairment in D1‐like responsiveness may play a crucial role in the phenotypic expression of several brain disorders such as schizophrenia and Parkinson's disease. Agonist‐induced receptor phosphorylation mediated by G‐protein coupled receptor kinase isoforms (GRK1–GRK6) curtails G‐protein signaling and target receptors for internalization. Here we investigated the role of GRK2 and GRK3 in regulating D1R and D5R desensitization in a subtype‐specific manner. Human embryonic kidney 293 cells expressing the D1R or D5R alone or with either GRK2 or GRK3 were analyzed for DA‐mediated receptor activation using whole cell cAMP assays. We demonstrate that GRK2 shows little effect in promoting desensitization of D1R and D5R, whereas GRK3 promotes a significantly more robust desensitization of D1R than D5R as assessed by the extent of DA‐induced maximal stimulation of adenylyl cyclase. However, expression of GRK2 and GRK3 leads to a more reduced DA potency for D5R than for D1R. These findings point to the existence of marked differences in the ability of GRKs to promote D1R and D5R desensitization. Our studies thus provide insight into potential distinct GRK2 and GRK3 molecular mechanisms through which D1‐like receptor signaling is regulated. Supported by a CIHR grant (MOP‐81341) to MT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling→French-language works237,207→