MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399767133 · doi:10.1126/scisignal.adi4747

Conformation- and activation-based BRET sensors differentially report on GPCR–G protein coupling

2024· article· en· W4399767133 on OpenAlexaff
Shane C. Wright, Charlotte Avet, Supriya A. Gaitonde, Itziar Muneta‐Arrate, Christian Le Gouill, Mireille Hogue, Billy Breton, Stefania Koutsilieri, Rebeca Dı́ez-Alarcia, Madeleine Héroux, Volker M. Lauschke, Michel Bouvier

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Signaling · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitute for Research in Immunology and Cancer
Fundersnot available
KeywordsG protein-coupled receptorHeterotrimeric G proteinReceptorG proteinCell biologyFörster resonance energy transferFunctional selectivityChemistryBiophysicsSignal transductionBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations26
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience SignalingSame topicReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingFrench-language works237,207