ArticleThe Journal of biological chemistry2016
Ligand Binding Ensembles Determine Graded Agonist Efficacies at a G Protein-coupled Receptor.
Article in The Journal of biological chemistry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 102 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Molecular Mechanisms and Probe-Dependent Effects of Clinically Relevant GABAArchiv der Pharmazie · 2026Article
- Mechanistic Insights into G Protein-Biased κ-Opioid Receptor Signaling Using Dual-Charged Naltrexamine Amides.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2026Article
- MDPath: Unraveling Allosteric Communication Paths of Drug Targets through Molecular Dynamics Simulations.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025Article
- Water-Based Pharmacophore Modeling in Kinase Inhibitor Design: A Case Study on Fyn and Lyn Protein Kinases.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025Article
- Agonists and Antagonists Show Different Unbinding Paths from the TLR8 Receptor.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025Article
- Integrated Virtual Screening Approach Identifies New CYP19A1 Inhibitors.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025Article
- Discovery of Novel Isoxazole-Based Small-Molecule Toll-Like Receptor 8 Antagonists.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2025Article
- Article
- Derivatization of Microcystins Can Increase Target Inhibition while Reducing Cellular Uptake.Journal of natural products · 2025Article
- Combination of Autodisplay and Dynamic Pharmacophore Modeling Reveals New Insights into Cyclic Nucleotide Binding in Hyperpolarization-Activated and Cyclic Nucleotide-Gated Ion Channel 4 (HCN4).ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2024Article
- Simulation- and AI-directed optimization of 4,6-substituted 1,3,5-triazin-2(1Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Article
- From Virtual Screens to Cellular Target Engagement: New Small Molecule Ligands for the Immune Checkpoint LAG-3.ACS medicinal chemistry letters · 2024Article
- Discovery of Novel, Selective, and Nonbasic Agonists for the Kappa-Opioid Receptor Determined by Salvinorin A-Based Virtual Screening.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2024Article
- Solving an Old Puzzle: Elucidation and Evaluation of the Binding Mode of Salvinorin A at the Kappa Opioid Receptor.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Mind the Gap-Deciphering GPCR Pharmacology Using 3D Pharmacophores and Artificial Intelligence.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Computational Insights into β-Carboline Inhibition of Monoamine Oxidase A.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- In Vitro, In Vivo and In Silico Characterization of a Novel Kappa-Opioid Receptor Antagonist.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Design, Synthesis and Evaluation of Fused Bicyclo[2.2.2]octene as a Potential Core Scaffold for the Non-Covalent Inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 3CLPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Mechanistic Characterization of the Pharmacological Profile of HS-731, a Peripherally Acting Opioid Analgesic, at the µ-, δ-, κ-Opioid and Nociceptin Receptors.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
G protein-coupled receptors constitute the largest family of membrane receptors and modulate almost every physiological process in humans. Binding of agonists to G protein-coupled receptors induces a shift from inactive to active receptor conformations. Biophysical studies of the dynamic equilibrium of receptors suggest that a portion of receptors can remain in inactive states even in the presence of saturating concentrations of agonist and G protein mimetic. However, the molecular details of agonist-bound inactive receptors are poorly understood. Here we use the model of bitopic orthosteric/allosteric (i.e. dualsteric) agonists for muscarinic M2 receptors to demonstrate the existence and function of such inactive agonist·receptor complexes on a molecular level. Using all-atom molecular dynamics simulations, dynophores (i.e. a combination of static three-dimensional pharmacophores and molecular dynamics-based conformational sampling), ligand design, and receptor mutagenesis, we show that inactive agonist·receptor complexes can result from agonist binding to the allosteric vestibule alone, whereas the dualsteric binding mode produces active receptors. Each agonist forms a distinct ligand binding ensemble, and different agonist efficacies depend on the fraction of purely allosteric (i.e. inactive) versus dualsteric (i.e. active) binding modes. We propose that this concept may explain why agonist·receptor complexes can be inactive and that adopting multiple binding modes may be generalized also to small agonists where binding modes will be only subtly different and confined to only one binding site.
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.