Conformation- and activation-based BRET sensors differentially report on GPCR–G protein coupling
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
G protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs) regulate cellular signaling processes by coupling to diverse combinations of heterotrimeric G proteins composed of Gα, Gβ, and Gγ subunits. Biosensors based on bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) have advanced our understanding of GPCR functional selectivity. Some BRET biosensors monitor ligand-induced conformational changes in the receptor or G proteins, whereas others monitor the recruitment of downstream effectors to sites of G protein activation. Here, we compared the ability of conformation-and activation-based BRET biosensors to assess the coupling of various class A and B GPCRs to specific Gα proteins in cultured cells. These GPCRs included serotonin 5-HT 2A and 5-HT 7 receptors, the GLP-1 receptor (GLP-1R), and the M 3 muscarinic receptor. We observed different signaling profiles between the two types of sensors, highlighting how data interpretation could be affected by the nature of the biosensor. We also found that the identity of the Gβγ subunits used in the assay could differentially influence the selectivity of a receptor toward Gα subtypes, emphasizing the importance of the receptor-Gβγ pairing in determining Gα coupling specificity. Last, the addition of epitope tags to the receptor could affect stoichiometry and coupling selectivity and yield artifactual findings. These results highlight the need for careful sensor selection and experimental design when probing GPCR–G protein coupling.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it