MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Determining the Requirements for Gαi:β‐arrestin Complex Formation at G Protein‐Coupled Receptors

2022· article· en· W4225405746 on OpenAlexaff
Taylor Kohlmann, Claudia Lee, Sudarshan Rajagopal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsG protein-coupled receptorReceptorG proteinG protein-coupled receptor kinaseArrestinRhodopsin-like receptorsCell biology5-HT5A receptorChemokine receptorChemistryBiologyBiochemistryMetabotropic receptorAgonistChemokine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

G protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) comprise the largest class of transmembrane receptors and are targeted by nearly a third of prescription drugs. Canonical GPCR signaling involves pathways mediated by G proteins and β‐arrestins (βarrs). While these have historically been thought of as separate, our lab has demonstrated that the inhibitory G protein Gα subunit (Gαi) and βarr form complexes following receptor activation. We have also shown that Gαi:βarr complex formation occurs even if the receptor signals through other classes of G proteins or lacks G protein activity altogether, as in the case of endogenously βarr‐biased Atypical Chemokine Receptor 3 (ACKR3). To expand on this work, we used a split nano‐luciferase assay to examine Gαi:βarr complex formation at βarr‐biased mutants of two ‘balanced’ receptors, which exhibit both G protein and βarr signaling— the type 1 Angiotensin II Receptor (AT1R) and D2 dopamine Receptor (D2R). Consistent with our results with ACKR3, we found that mutation of these other receptors to abrogate G protein‐mediated signaling did not eliminate Gαi:βarr association. Observing this at multiple additional receptors further supported the idea that G protein activity is not required for Gαi:βarr complex formation. To add to our characterization of the determinants of Gαi:βarr association, we then sought to explore how different mechanisms of βarr activation may contribute to complex formation at ACKR3. To accomplish this, we utilized previously described polar core, proximal finger loop, and lipid mutant βarr constructs. The polar core and proximal finger loop mutants achieve constitutive activation by different mechanisms, while the lipid mutant’s ability to be recruited to and bind at the plasma membrane is deficient; these result in decreased Gαi:βarr association at Vasopressin Receptor 2 (V2R). We compared these mutants’ ability to associate with Gαi at ACKR3. Our constitutively active βarr constructs showed differential abilities to form Gαi:βarr complexes compared to wild‐type βarr, suggesting that certain methods of βarr activation may be more relevant in Gαi:βarr complex formation than others. Additional insights into the determinants of Gαi:βarr association in the context of receptor, G protein, and βarr activity will enhance our understanding of the Gαi:βarr complex and its importance in GPCR signaling, potentially informing future development of therapeutic agents targeting GPCRs.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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