Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31653051›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2019

Understanding G Protein Selectivity of Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptors Using Computational Methods.

Luis Jaimes Santiago, Ravinder Abrol

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Dissociation kinetics of G proteins from G protein-coupled receptors and effects of allosteric modulation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Activation of MBritish journal of pharmacology · 2024
    Article
  11. Identification of GαScientific reports · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Luis Jaimes SantiagoDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University, Northridge, CA 91330, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6419-0358
Ravinder AbrolDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University, Northridge, CA 91330, USA. abrol@csun.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7333-6793

Funding

CSUPERB New Investigator Grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The neurotransmitter molecule acetylcholine is capable of activating five muscarinic acetylcholine receptors, M1 through M5, which belong to the superfamily of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). These five receptors share high sequence and structure homology; however, the M1, M3, and M5 receptor subtypes signal preferentially through the Gαq/11 subset of G proteins, whereas the M2 and M4 receptor subtypes signal through the Gαi/o subset of G proteins, resulting in very different intracellular signaling cascades and physiological effects. The structural basis for this innate ability of the M1/M3/M5 set of receptors and the highly homologous M2/M4 set of receptors to couple to different G proteins is poorly understood. In this study, we used molecular dynamics (MD) simulations coupled with thermodynamic analyses of M1 and M2 receptors coupled to both Gαi and Gαq to understand the structural basis of the M1 receptor's preference for the Gαq protein and the M2 receptor's preference for the Gαi protein. The MD studies showed that the M1 and M2 receptors can couple to both Gα proteins such that the M1 receptor engages with the two Gα proteins in slightly different orientations and the M2 receptor engages with the two Gα proteins in the same orientation. Thermodynamic studies of the free energy of binding of the receptors to the Gα proteins showed that the M1 and M2 receptors bind more strongly to their cognate Gα proteins compared to their non-cognate ones, which is in line with previous experimental studies on the M3 receptor. A detailed analysis of receptor-G protein interactions showed some cognate-complex-specific interactions for the M2:Gαi complex; however, G protein selectivity determinants are spread over a large overlapping subset of residues. Conserved interaction between transmembrane helices 5 and 6 far away from the G-protein-binding receptor interface was found only in the two cognate complexes and not in the non-cognate complexes. An analysis of residues implicated previously in G protein selectivity, in light of the cognate and non-cognate structures, shaded a more nuanced role of those residues in affecting G protein selectivity. The simulation of both cognate and non-cognate receptor-G protein complexes fills a structural gap due to difficulties in determining non-cognate complex structures and provides an enhanced framework to probe the mechanisms of G protein selectivity exhibited by most GPCRs.

Indexed as

Molecular Dynamics SimulationBinding SitesCryoelectron MicroscopyGTP-Binding Protein alpha Subunits, Gi-GoGTP-Binding Protein alpha Subunits, Gq-G11HumansProtein BindingProtein Structure, QuaternaryProtein Structure, TertiaryReceptors, MuscarinicThermodynamicsGTP-Binding Protein alpha Subunits, Gi-GoGTP-Binding Protein alpha Subunits, Gq-G11Receptors, MuscarinicallosteryGPCR activationmembrane protein simulationsmolecular dynamicsmolecular mechanics/Poisson–Boltzmann surface area (MMPBSA)receptor–G protein interactions

Identifiers

PMID31653051
PMCPMC6862617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.