Structural mechanism underlying the differential effects of ivermectin and moxidectin on the C. elegans glutamate-gated chloride channel GLC-2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Nematode glutamate-gated chloride channels (GluCls) are targets of ivermectin (IVM) and moxidectin (MOX), structurally dissimilar macrocyclic lactone (ML) anthelmintics. IVM and MOX possess different pharmacokinetics and efficacy profiles but are thought to have the same binding site, through which they allosterically activate GluCls, apart from the GLC-2 receptor, which is antagonized by IVM. Our goal was to determine GLC-2 sensitivity to MOX, investigate residues involved in antagonism of GLC-2, and to identify differences in receptor-level pharmacology between IVM and MOX. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Two-electrode voltage clamp electrophysiology was used to study the pharmacology of Caenorhabditis elegans GLC-2 receptors heterologously expressed in Xenopus laevis oocytes. In silico homology modeling identified Cel-GLC-2 residues Met291 and Gln292 at the IVM binding site that differ from other GluCls; we mutated these residues to those found in ML-sensitive GluCls, and those of filarial nematode GLC-2. KEY RESULTS: We discovered that MOX inhibits wild-type C. elegans GLC-2 receptors roughly 10-fold more potently than IVM, and with greater maximal inhibition of glutamate activation (MOX = 86.9 ± 2.5%; IVM = 57.8 ± 5.9%). IVM was converted into an agonist in the Met291Gln mutant, but MOX remained an antagonist. Glutamate responses were abrogated in a Met291Leu Gln292Thr double mutant (mimicking filarial nematode GLC-2), but MOX and IVM were converted into positive allosteric modulators of glutamate at this construct. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our data provides new insights into differences in receptor-level pharmacology between IVM and MOX and identify residues responsible for ML antagonism of GLC-2.
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) | 0.001 | 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".