Back

AlphaFold-Multimer Modelling of Linked nAChR Subunits Challenges Concatemer Design Assumptions

Sahlstrom, H. M.; Rufener, L.; Horsberg, K. H.; Sarr, A.; Horsberg, T. E.; Bakke, M. J.

2025-10-04 bioinformatics
10.1101/2025.10.02.679753 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) are well described in vertebrates, yet less studied in arthropods, and the subunit stoichiometry of heteromeric arthropod nAChRs remains unresolved. This study combined a computational and experimental approach to predict and validate the stoichiometries of two heteromeric nAChRs from the parasitic arthropod Lepeophtheirus salmonis. AlphaFold2- and AlphaFold-Multimer-based modelling, supported by multiple sequence alignment and functional expression in Xenopus laevis oocytes, identified the most likely stoichiometries for two compositions of subunits previously described, named Lsa-nAChR1 and Lsa-nAChR2. For receptor Lsa-nAChR1, the highest scoring stoichiometry was 1b122b2. Lsa-nAChR2 exhibited three possible stoichiometries, confirmed by both computational modelling and experiments. These are 3{beta}23{beta}1{beta}2, 3{beta}13{beta}1{beta}2, and 333{beta}1{beta}2. All stoichiometries are written from a counterclockwise, extracellular orientation. Strikingly, structural modelling also suggested that linker flexibility in concatemer constructs may allow a novel conformation with a different subunit between the linked subunits, referred to here as "wedging". These results indicate that the use of flexible linker sequences does not reliably enforce subunit position or assembly directionality, as shown here for nAChRs. These findings challenge the assumption that linked concatemers unambiguously dictate receptor stoichiometry. Thus, interpretations of concatemer-based studies, on nAChRs and other receptor systems, may warrant careful reevaluation.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
82 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
29.1%
2
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.9%
3
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.9%
4
Journal of Molecular Biology
217 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.7%
50% of probability mass above
5
Protein Science
221 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.8%
6
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 11%
3.0%
7
Biophysical Journal
545 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.9%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.5%
9
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 34%
2.2%
10
The Journal of Physical Chemistry B
158 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.9%
11
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.9%
12
Structure
175 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
13
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.6%
14
Biomolecules
95 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
15
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
16
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.9%
17
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
18
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.8%
19
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
218 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
20
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
84 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
21
ACS Omega
90 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
22
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
207 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
23
Journal of Biological Chemistry
641 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
24
Journal of General Physiology
56 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
25
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 36%
0.7%
26
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.5%