ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2026
Molecular Determinants of Receptor-Specific Membrane Interactions in EphA1 and EphA2 from Coarse-Grained Simulations.
Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Ephrin receptors (Ephs) are receptor tyrosine kinases that regulate cellular growth, differentiation, and motility. EphA2, often overexpressed in cancer, is notable for its ligand-independent activation, which drives pro-oncogenic signaling distinct from the canonical, ligand-dependent pathway that restricts cell movement. While ligand binding induces extracellular clustering, kinase activation depends on dimerization within the transmembrane (TM) region. EphA1 and EphA2 differ substantially in their function, likely due to differences in their TM, but more so in their juxtamembrane (JM), and membrane-proximal fibronectin type III (FN1/FN2) domains. How these latter two regions modulate dimerization has not yet been investigated. To address this, we performed extensive coarse-grained (CG) simulations using Martini3 in an anionic POPC/PS/PIP2 model of the plasma membrane. Both receptors formed stable TM dimers, though EphA1 favored a symmetric AXXXGXXXG-centered interface, whereas EphA2 favored an alternate leucine zipper interface. All protein constructs sampled multiple configurations, reflecting substantial intrinsic variability. AlphaFold3 does not yield reliable predictions and cannot account for the effects of the lipid bilayer. In the CG simulations, basic residues in the JM region remained membrane-bound, and the EphA2 FN domain displayed sustained PIP2 interactions, consistent with previous observations. Notably, constructs with the FN2 domain alone (a fragment relevant to Alzheimer's Disease) restricted TM association in both receptors, whereas inclusion of the second FN1 domain restored dimerization but produced receptor-specific extracellular interfaces. These differences arise from distinct FN1-FN2 linker flexibilities, a different level of sequence conservation of EphA1 compared to several other Ephs and FN-domain membrane contacts, which together shape TM geometry and lipid engagement. Our results predict how TM and TM-proximal elements cooperatively tune dimerization in Eph receptors. This work offers a molecular rationale for the divergent activation behaviors of EphA1 and EphA2 and provides testable models relevant to cancer and neurodegeneration biology as well as Eph-driven signaling.
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.