Deciphering PD1 activation mechanism from molecular docking and molecular dynamic simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The activation of T cells is normally accompanied by inhibitory mechanisms within which the PD1 receptor stands out. Upon binding the ligands PDL1 and PDL2, PD1 drives T cells to an unresponsive state called exhaustion characterized by a markedly decreased capacity to exert effector functions. For this reason, PD1 has become one of the most important targets in cancer immunotherapy. Despite the numerous studies about PD1 signaling modulation, how the PD1 signaling is activated upon the ligands’ binding remains an open question. Several experimental facts suggest that the activation of the PD1-PLD1 pathway depends on the interaction with an unknown partner at the cellular membrane. In this work, we investigate the possibility that the target of PD1-PDL1 is the same PD1-PDL1 complex. We combined molecular docking to explore different binding modes with molecular dynamics and umbrella sampling simulations to assess the complexes’ stability. We found a high molecular weight complex that explains the activation of PD1 upon PDL1 binding. This complex has an affinity comparable to the PD1-PDL1 interaction and resembles the form of a linear lattice.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".