Substance P analogs devoid of key residues fail to activate human mast cells via MRGPRX2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mast cells play an important role in disease pathogenesis by secreting immunomodulatory molecules. Mast cells are primarily activated by the crosslinking of their high affinity IgE receptors (FcεRI) by antigen bound immunoglobulin (Ig)E antibody complexes. However, mast cells can also be activated by the mas related G protein-coupled receptor X2 (MRGPRX2), in response to a range of cationic secretagogues, such as substance P (SP), which is associated with pseudo-allergic reactions. We have previously reported that the in vitro activation of mouse mast cells by basic secretagogues is mediated by the mouse orthologue of the human MRGPRX2, MRGPRB2. To further elucidate the mechanism of MRGPRX2 activation, we studied the time-dependent internalization of MRGPRX2 by human mast cells (LAD2) upon stimulation with the neuropeptide SP. In addition, we performed computational studies to identify the intermolecular forces that facilitate ligand-MRGPRX2 interaction using SP. The computational predictions were tested experimentally by activating LAD2 with SP analogs, which were missing key amino acid residues. Our data suggest that mast cell activation by SP causes internalization of MRGPRX2 within 1 min of stimulation. Hydrogen bonds (h-bonds) and salt bridges govern the biding of SP to MRGPRX2. Arg1 and Lys3 in SP are key residues that are involved in both h-bonding and salt bridge formations with Glu164 and Asp184 of MRGPRX2, respectively. In accordance, SP analogs devoid of key residues (SP1 and SP2) failed to activate MRGPRX2 degranulation. However, both SP1 and SP2 caused a comparable release of chemokine CCL2. Further, SP analogs SP1, SP2 and SP4 did not activate tumor necrosis factor (TNF) production. We further show that SP1 and SP2 limit the activity of SP on mast cells. The results provide important mechanistic insight into the events that result in mast cell activation through MRGPRX2 and highlight the important physiochemical characteristics of a peptide ligand that facilitates ligand-MRGPRX2 interactions. The results are important in understanding activation through MRGPRX2, and the intermolecular forces that govern ligand-MRGPRX2 interaction. The elucidation of important physiochemical properties within a ligand that are needed for receptor interaction will aid in designing novel therapeutics and antagonists for MRGPRX2.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".