ArticlePloS one2013
Role of cross-cleft contacts in NMDA receptor gating.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structure, Function, and Pharmacology of Glutamate Receptor Ion Channels.Pharmacological reviews · 2021Review
- The Route to 'Chemobrain' - Computational probing of neuronal LTP pathway.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- An inter-dimer allosteric switch controls NMDA receptor activity.The EMBO journal · 2019Article
- Structure, function, and allosteric modulation of NMDA receptors.The Journal of general physiology · 2018Review
- NMDA Receptors in the Central Nervous System.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2017Article
- Semiclosed Conformations of the Ligand-Binding Domains of NMDA Receptors during Stationary Gating.Biophysical journal · 2016Article
- Conformational transitions in the glycine-bound GluN1 NMDA receptor LBD via single-molecule FRET.Biophysical journal · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In response to brief glutamate exposure, NMDA receptors produce excitatory currents that have sub-maximal amplitudes and characteristically slow kinetics. The activation sequence starts when glutamate binds to residues located on the upper lobe of extracellularly located ligand-binding domains (LBDs) and then contacts lower lobe residues to bridge the cleft between the two hinged lobes. This event stabilizes a narrow-cleft LBD conformation and may facilitate subsequent inter-lobe contacts that further stabilize the closed cleft. Agonist efficacy has been traced to the degree of agonist-induced cleft-closure and may also depend on the stability of the closed-cleft conformation. To investigate how cross-cleft contacts contribute to the amplitude and kinetics of NMDA receptor response, we examined the activation reaction of GluN1/GluN2A receptors that had single-residue substitutions at the interface between LBD lobes. We found that side-chain truncations at residues of putative contact between lobes increased glutamate efficacy through independent additive mechanisms in GluN1 and GluN2A subunits. In contrast, removing side-chain charge with isosteric substitutions at the same sites decreased glutamate efficacy. These results support the view that in GluN1/GluN2A receptors' natural interactions between residues on opposing sides of the ligand-binding cleft encode the stability of the glutamate-bound closed-cleft conformations and limit the degree of cleft closure, thus contributing to the sub-maximal response and emblematically slow NMDA receptor deactivation after brief stimulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.