Back

An Exact-Residue Atlas of Opioid Receptor Wiring and Rewiring across Ligand and Transducer Contexts

Nael, M.; Alakonda, L.; Elokely, K.

2026-08-19 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.08.14.744957 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Opioid-receptor structures span four human receptor subtypes, diverse ligands, signaling partners, and experimental constructs. We curated 86 human opioid-receptor structures representing 84 independent experimental maps, with one unique experimental data set counted once for structure-level inference, and analyzed them using our in-house StrucMind platform. StrucMind constructs exact Ballesteros-Weinstein (BW) contact graphs, meaning residue-contact networks restricted to unambiguous generic BW positions. Relative to active transducer-bound structures, structures classified as inactive showed 2.49% lower mean contact similarity and 34.84% more rewired contacts, where rewiring is the static set of contacts gained or lost between two structures. Among 77 maps with a resolved selected-ligand site, changed contacts were 15.28% direct to the site, 40.13% adjacent at one graph edge, and 44.59% connected-distal at a finite graph distance greater than one. The deposited-water analysis identified 137 receptor-proximal waters. Sixty-one contacted at least two protein residues, including 38 that bridged at least two exact-BW residues; a separate ligand-contact branch contained 10 waters contacting both selected ligand and receptor, only 3 of which belonged to the 38-water set. None of 32 component-association tests survived global correction. For peptide versus small molecule, the smallest nominal p value among four outcomes corresponded to 6.18% lower shared-contact distance root-mean-square deviation (p=0.00989; q=0.3165, where q is the adjusted p value). The atlas supports bounded, testable hypotheses, not causal component, hydration, or efficacy mechanisms.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.