ArticleThe protein journal2024
In Silico Analyses of Vertebrate G-Protein-Coupled Receptor Fusions United With or Without an Additional Transmembrane Sequence Indicate Classification into Three Groups of Linkers.
Article in The protein journal, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
5 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Natural G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) rarely have an additional transmembrane (TM) helix, such as an artificial TM-linker that can unite two class A GPCRs in tandem as a single-polypeptide chain (sc). Here, we report that three groups of TM-linkers exist in the intervening regions of natural GPCR fusions from vertebrates: (1) the original consensus (i.e., consensus 1) and consensus 2~4 (related to GPCR itself or its receptor-interacting proteins); (2) the consensus but GPCR-unrelated ones, 1~7; and (3) the inability to apply 1/2 that show no similarity to any other proteins. In silico analyses indicated that all natural GPCR fusions from Amphibia lack a TM-linker, and reptiles have no GPCR fusions; moreover, in either the GPCR-GPCR fusion or fusion protein of (GPCR monomer) and non-GPCR proteins from vertebrates, excluding tetrapods, i.e., so-called fishes, TM-linkers differ from previously reported mammalian and are avian sequences and are classified as Groups 2 and 3. Thus, previously reported TM-linkers were arranged: Consensus 1 is [T(I/A/P)(A/S)-(L/N)(I/W/L)(I/A/V)GL(L/G)(A/T)(S/L/G)(I/L)] first identified in invertebrate sea anemone Exaiptasia diaphana (LOC110241027) and (330-SPSFLCI-L-SLL-340) identified in a tropical bird Opisthocomus hoazin protein LOC104327099 (XP_009930279.1); GPCR-related consensus 2~4 are, respectively, (371-prlilyavfc fgtatg-386) in the desert woodrat Neotoma lepida A6R68_19462 (OBS78147.1), (363-lsipfcll yiaallgnfi llfvi-385) in Gavia stellate (red-throated loon) LOC104264164 (XP_009819412.1), and (479-ti vvvymivcvi glvgnflvmy viir-504) in a snailfish GPCR (TNN80062.1); In Mammals Neotoma lepida, Aves Erythrura gouldiae, and fishes protein (respectively, OBS83645.1, RLW13346.1 and KPP79779.1), the TM-linkers are Group 2. Here, we categorized, for the first time, natural TM-linkers as rare evolutionary events among all vertebrates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.