ArticleThe Journal of biological chemistry2016
NMR Investigation of Structures of G-protein Coupled Receptor Folding Intermediates.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Paradigm for Peptide Hormone-GPCR Analyses.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Understanding GPCR Recognition and Folding from NMR Studies of Fragments.RSC advances · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Folding of G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) according to the two-stage model (Popot, J. L., and Engelman, D. M. (1990) Biochemistry 29, 4031-4037) is postulated to proceed in 2 steps: partitioning of the polypeptide into the membrane followed by diffusion until native contacts are formed. Herein we investigate conformational preferences of fragments of the yeast Ste2p receptor using NMR. Constructs comprising the first, the first two, and the first three transmembrane (TM) segments, as well as a construct comprising TM1-TM2 covalently linked to TM7 were examined. We observed that the isolated TM1 does not form a stable helix nor does it integrate well into the micelle. TM1 is significantly stabilized upon interaction with TM2, forming a helical hairpin reported previously (Neumoin, A., Cohen, L. S., Arshava, B., Tantry, S., Becker, J. M., Zerbe, O., and Naider, F. (2009) Biophys. J. 96, 3187-3196), and in this case the protein integrates into the hydrophobic interior of the micelle. TM123 displays a strong tendency to oligomerize, but hydrogen exchange data reveal that the center of TM3 is solvent exposed. In all GPCRs so-far structurally characterized TM7 forms many contacts with TM1 and TM2. In our study TM127 integrates well into the hydrophobic environment, but TM7 does not stably pack against the remaining helices. Topology mapping in microsomal membranes also indicates that TM1 does not integrate in a membrane-spanning fashion, but that TM12, TM123, and TM127 adopt predominantly native-like topologies. The data from our study would be consistent with the retention of individual helices of incompletely synthesized GPCRs in the vicinity of the translocon until the complete receptor is released into the membrane interior.
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.