DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2336864

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Santa Cruz Biotechnology Cat# sc-1657, RRID:AB_626618)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_626618

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Vector Laboratories Cat# RL-1022, RRID:AB_2336871)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2336871

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Abcam Cat# ab140601, RRID:AB_2783797)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2783797

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2057020

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Abcam Cat# ab125011, RRID:AB_10974262)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_10974262

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_1080271

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2192954

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2533554

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Jackson ImmunoResearch Labs Cat# 711-205-152, RRID:AB_2340610)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2340610

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Sigma-Aldrich Cat# P0372, RRID:AB_261982)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_261982

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Jackson ImmunoResearch Labs Cat# 711-175-152, RRID:AB_2340607)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2340607

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Sigma-Aldrich Cat# I5006, RRID:AB_1163659)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_1163659

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Synaptic Systems Cat# 163 004, RRID:AB_10549419)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_10549419

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Thermo Fisher Scientific Cat# ICN790191, RRID:AB_2334870)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2334870

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2149550

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2299684

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Santa Cruz Biotechnology Cat# sc-41, RRID:AB_2148611)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2148611

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Progen Cat# GP-N2, RRID:AB_2904121)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2904121

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Millipore Cat# 06-984, RRID:AB_310325)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_310325

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_3081283

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Sigma-Aldrich Cat# L0668, RRID:AB_477154)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_477154

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Abcam Cat# ab3329, RRID:AB_303708)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_303708

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Cell Signaling Technology Cat# 9482, RRID:AB_2716838)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2716838

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_3084202

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2936858

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Abcam Cat# ab46544, RRID:AB_722493)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_722493

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2337748

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2796681

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2339080

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2920282

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Jackson ImmunoResearch Labs Cat# 709-225-149, RRID:AB_2340541)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2340541

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2883328

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (SouthernBiotech Cat# 9200-05, RRID:AB_2796691)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2796691

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_3413698

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2687127

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (R and D Systems Cat# AF1197, RRID:AB_2234687)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2234687

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_10918981

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (BD Biosciences Cat# 610821, RRID:AB_398140)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_398140

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_3355459

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Abcam Cat# ab216130, RRID:AB_3076642)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_3076642

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Thermo Fisher Scientific Cat# H3570, RRID:AB_3675235)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_3675235

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Aurion Cat# 800.333, RRID:AB_2943420)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2943420

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Abcam Cat# ab92726, RRID:AB_10561589)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_10561589

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (BioLegend Cat# 302004, RRID:AB_314204)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_314204

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2334502

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Abcam Cat# ab55811, RRID:AB_879748)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_879748

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Agilent Cat# M0777, RRID:AB_2067162)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2067162

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2609527

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Sigma-Aldrich Cat# A5441, RRID:AB_476744)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_476744

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2490474

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Abcam Cat# ab1997, RRID:AB_302747)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_302747

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Santa Cruz Biotechnology Cat# sc-166205, RRID:AB_2253046)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2253046

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_354381

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.010

Resource: (Abcam Cat# ab14730, RRID:AB_301438)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_301438

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2025.171649

Resource: (RRID:CVCL_0Q73)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0Q73

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2025.150086

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2799074

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2025.150086

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2841532

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2025.150086

Resource: (Affinity Biosciences Cat# DF4149, RRID:AB_2836514)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2836514

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2025.150086

Resource: ggpubr (RRID:SCR_021139)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_021139

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2025.150086

Resource: cytoHubba (RRID:SCR_017677)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_017677

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2025.150086

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2799066

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2025.150086

Resource: glmnet (RRID:SCR_015505)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_015505

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2025.150086

Resource: Monocle3 (RRID:SCR_018685)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_018685

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2025.150086

Resource: LIMMA (RRID:SCR_010943)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_010943

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2025.150086

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_022211

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2025.150086

Resource: Seurat (RRID:SCR_016341)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_016341

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2025.150086

Resource: Foredom (RRID:SCR_021046)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_021046

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2025.150086

Resource: (Sigma-Aldrich Cat# A5441, RRID:AB_476744)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_476744

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2025.150086

Resource: (Cell Signaling Technology Cat# 7074, RRID:AB_2099233)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2099233

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2024.117641

Resource: (ATCC Cat# CRL-4053, RRID:CVCL_9Q53)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_9Q53

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2024.117641

Resource: (ATCC Cat# TIB-71, RRID:CVCL_0493)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0493

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.bcp.2025.117603

Resource: (IZSLER Cat# BS CL 15, RRID:CVCL_0214)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0214

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s12035-025-05378-3

Resource: (KCB Cat# KCB 200770YJ, RRID:CVCL_0182)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0182

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s12035-025-05378-3

Resource: GraphPad Prism (RRID:SCR_002798)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_002798

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s12035-025-05378-3

Resource: (Sigma-Aldrich Cat# A3854, RRID:AB_262011)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_262011

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s12035-025-05378-3

Resource: ImageJ (RRID:SCR_003070)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_003070

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s12035-025-05378-3

Resource: (Abcam Cat# ab279654, RRID:AB_3094483)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_3094483

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s11262-025-02206-7

Resource: (KCLB Cat# 88065, RRID:CVCL_0027)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0027

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s11262-025-02206-7

Resource: (TKG Cat# TKG 0331, RRID:CVCL_0030)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0030

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s11262-025-02206-7

Resource: (DSMZ Cat# ACC-305, RRID:CVCL_0045)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0045

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s11262-025-02206-7

Resource: (IZSLER Cat# BS CL 86, RRID:CVCL_0059)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0059

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s11262-025-02206-7

Resource: (ATCC Cat# CCL-185IG-LUC2, RRID:CVCL_VR66)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_VR66

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s11262-025-02206-7

Resource: (ATCC Cat# 55-X, RRID:CVCL_RB14)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_RB14

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s00418-025-02447-5

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_11097477

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s00418-025-02447-5

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_11042077

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s00210-025-04870-w

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2545704

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s00210-025-04870-w

Resource: (Santa Cruz Biotechnology Cat# sc-57315, RRID:AB_2127596)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2127596

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s00210-025-04870-w

Resource: (Santa Cruz Biotechnology Cat# sc-52746, RRID:AB_630341)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_630341

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s00210-025-04870-w

Resource: (Cell Signaling Technology Cat# 3033, RRID:AB_331284)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_331284

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s00210-025-04870-w

Resource: (Santa Cruz Biotechnology Cat# sc-365970, RRID:AB_10917259)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_10917259

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s00210-025-04870-w

Resource: (Sigma-Aldrich Cat# SAB4503940, RRID:AB_2797421)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2797421

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s00210-025-04870-w

Resource: (Cell Signaling Technology Cat# 2117, RRID:AB_10693922)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_10693922

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s00210-025-04870-w

Resource: (Cell Signaling Technology Cat# 4370, RRID:AB_2315112)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2315112

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s00018-025-05964-7

Resource: Trim Galore (RRID:SCR_011847)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_011847

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s00018-025-05964-7

Resource: Picard (RRID:SCR_006525)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_006525

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/smll.202507451

Resource: University of Pennsylvania Penn Vet Extracellular Vesicle Core Facility (RRID:SCR_022444)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_022444

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/ptr.70136

Resource: RRID:Addgene_105003

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:Addgene_105003

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/jbma.70002

Resource: Northwestern University Integrated Molecular Structure Education and Research Center Core Facility (RRID:SCR_017874)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_017874

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/glia.70103

Resource: University of Warsaw Center of New Technologies Genomics Core Facility (RRID:SCR_022718)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_022718

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cpe.70467

Resource: NEST (RRID:SCR_002963)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_002963

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cpe.70467

Resource: Python Programming Language (RRID:SCR_008394)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_008394

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cbdv.202502550

Resource: (RRID:CVCL_0320)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0320

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cbdv.202502436

Resource: (ATCC Cat# CRL-2539, RRID:CVCL_0125)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0125

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cbdv.202502436

Resource: (TKG Cat# TKG 0331, RRID:CVCL_0030)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0030

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/anbr.202500161

Resource: Colorado State University Analytical Resources Core Facility (RRID:SCR_021758)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_021758

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/advs.202520444

Resource: (BCRJ Cat# 0223, RRID:CVCL_0019)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0019

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/advs.202519698

Resource: RRID:Addgene_52

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:Addgene_52

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/advs.202518196

Resource: (ATCC Cat# TIB-71, RRID:CVCL_0493)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0493

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/advs.202512725

Resource: (RRID:CVCL_0063)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0063

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/advs.202512725

Resource: (RRID:CVCL_0062)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0062

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/advs.202512074

Resource: (RRID:CVCL_0291)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0291

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/advs.202512074

Resource: (BCRC Cat# 60343, RRID:CVCL_0547)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0547

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/advs.202512074

Resource: (ATCC Cat# CRL-2577, RRID:CVCL_0504)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0504

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/advs.202512074

Resource: (RRID:CVCL_5112)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_5112

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/advs.202512074

Resource: (NCBI_Iran Cat# C480, RRID:CVCL_1724)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_1724

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/advs.202512074

Resource: (RCB Cat# HSC0107, RRID:CVCL_F402)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_F402

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/advs.202512074

Resource: (DSMZ Cat# ACC-357, RRID:CVCL_0292)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0292

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/advs.202511472

Resource: Harvard Center for Biological Imaging Core Facility (RRID:SCR_018673)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_018673

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/advs.202511472

Resource: (MMRRC Cat# 034829-JAX,RRID:MMRRC_034829-JAX)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:MMRRC_034829-JAX

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/adma.202518259

Resource: Colorado State University Analytical Resources Core Facility (RRID:SCR_021758)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_021758

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/adhm.202503382

Resource: (Millipore Cat# SCC142, RRID:CVCL_J409)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_J409

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/adhm.202503382

Resource: (IZSLER Cat# BS CL 86, RRID:CVCL_0059)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0059

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/adhm.202503382

Resource: (CLS Cat# 602280/p823_MDCK_(NBL-2), RRID:CVCL_0422)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0422

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/adhm.202503382

Resource: (BCRC Cat# 60057, RRID:CVCL_2160)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_2160

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/2211-5463.70178

Resource: (RRID:CVCL_0291)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0291

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/2211-5463.70175

Resource: (JCRB Cat# JCRB0602, RRID:CVCL_0190)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0190

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/2211-5463.70173

Resource: (DSMZ Cat# ACC-305, RRID:CVCL_0045)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0045

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/2211-5463.70173

Resource: (KCLB Cat# 88065, RRID:CVCL_0027)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0027

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/1878-0261.70169

Resource: (BCRJ Cat# 0278, RRID:CVCL_0132)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0132

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/1878-0261.70169

Resource: (Coriell Cat# WC00059, RRID:CVCL_6357)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_6357

What is this?

DOI: 10.1186/s13058-025-02176-6

Resource: None

Curator: @dhovakimyan1

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_1140040

What is this?

DOI: 10.1113/JP288411

Resource: None

Curator: @dhovakimyan1

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_017350

What is this?

DOI: 10.1113/JP288411

Resource: None

Curator: @dhovakimyan1

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_003584

What is this?

DOI: 10.1113/JP288011

Resource: None

Curator: @dhovakimyan1

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_024884

What is this?

DOI: 10.1113/JP288011

Resource: None

Curator: @dhovakimyan1

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_001622

What is this?

DOI: 10.1113/JP288011

Resource: None

Curator: @dhovakimyan1

SciCrunch record: RRID:MGI:3828101

What is this?

DOI: 10.1113/JP288011

Resource: None

Curator: @dhovakimyan1

SciCrunch record: RRID:IMSR_JAX:024507

What is this?

DOI: 10.1113/JP288011

Resource: None

Curator: @dhovakimyan1

SciCrunch record: RRID:IMSR_JAX:007909

What is this?

DOI: 10.1113/JP288011

Resource: None

Curator: @dhovakimyan1

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2535850

What is this?

DOI: 10.1113/JP288011

Resource: None

Curator: @dhovakimyan1

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_11042577

What is this?

DOI: 10.1111/tpj.70622

Resource: None

Curator: @dhovakimyan1

SciCrunch record: RRID:Addgene_61628

What is this?

DOI: 10.1111/jnc.70310

Resource: None

Curator: @dhovakimyan1

SciCrunch record: RRID:IMSR_JAX:005304

What is this?

DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddaf182

Resource: None

Curator: @dhovakimyan1

SciCrunch record: RRID:Addgene_177825

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.jncc.2025.11.003

Resource: None

Curator: @areedewitt04

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_1720

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.jncc.2025.11.003

Resource: None

Curator: @areedewitt04

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_1531

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.jncc.2025.11.003

Resource: None

Curator: @areedewitt04

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_1055

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2025.116660

Resource: None

Curator: @areedewitt04

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_003070

What is this?

This shows how the end of a major war isn’t always guaranteed to bring the results it has promised, former slaves were still forced into labor.

for - anthropocene - signalling - intrabrain - interbrain - SRG comment - individual / collective gestalt - SRG comment - how information flows from one brain to another - networked language!

for - book - Hierarchy in the Forest - shared struggle against inequality - the most important part of human heritage, intelligence and history - SRG comment - recognizing the sacred in all beings - adjacent to Michel Bauwens and the oscillation of the commons - to - book - publisher's page - Hierarchy in the Forest - The Evolution of Egalitarianism - 2001 - Christopher Boehm - https://hyp.is/_w4TEtZoEfCcjmPIvOEOaQ/www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674006911

for - to - book - Goliath's Curse: the History and Future of Societal Collapse - Luke Kemp

for - citizen assemblies & juries - lead to better governance outcomes - can save the world

for - progress trap - technology - nuclear - psychopathic behavior - Edward Teller calculation - decision to go ahead anyways!

for - status competition - conspicuous consumption - war - waste in general

• SRG comment - status
  • luxury consumption is status symbol
  • Deep Humanity interventions

for - stats - psychopathy - 3 to 21% in boardrooms and parliaments - more likely to find psychopath in boardroom and parliament than grocery store - SRG comment - stats- shadow side of leadership - high percentage of leaders have dark triad

for - definition - dark triad - Narcissism (grandiosity, entitlement, self-adoration), - Machiavellianism (manipulative, strategic self-interest, callousness), and - Psychopathy (impulsivity, lack of empathy/remorse, antisocial behavior). - SRG comment - dark triad - useful for Deep Humanity profile

for - reason for - social shift - from egalitarianism - to power hierarchy - status competition - SRG comment - Goliath's Curse - status competition - Deep Humanity antidote

for - definition - Goliath - the anthropological shift from egalitarianism to power hierarchy over the holocene - to - book publisher's page - Goliath's Curse - Luke Kemp - from - youtube - The Anthropocene Paradigm Shift

for - definition - optimal foraging theory - our ancestors minimized energy expended for gathering food and maximized leisure time

• SRG - bring back optimal foraging time for targeted degrowth?

for - definition - transformation backlash - resistance experienced when pushing against an existing system - progress trap - polycrisis - climate crisis - transformation backlash

for - metaphor - medical - anthropocene - beyond experts, we need GPs for Anthropocene geophysiology - SRG comment - Is SRG GP for anthropocene?

for - wicked problems - feedback between nodes is the priority - wicked problems - SRG comment - feedback between nodes - indicates progress traps COLLECCT ecosystem design

for - progress trap - nitrogen for fertilizers - anthropocene research - releases lots of methane - climate crisis - leverage point - replacing nitrogen fertilizers

for - green growth - still continues MATERIAL growth

for - climate crisis - green growth- illusion?

for - museum - planetary health - communications - big challenge

• SRG comment - climate crisis - Deep Humanity BEing journey displays - science museum contact - Fabian Will

for - climate communications - difficulty of communicating anthropocene - SRG comment - climate crisis as hyperobject - apply Deep Humanity for impactful climate education

for - infinite economic growth - more more more - climate crisis - infinite growth of capitalism problem - antidote - targeted degrowth

for - climate crisis - energy transition - IEA - none coming - old energy forms still persist

for - stats - fossil fuels - kerosene lamps at beginning of 20th century for lighting - today more oil to produce electricity for lighting SRG comment - climate crisis - science communication - TPF - contact - Fabian Will

for - stats - speed - cultural (technological) evolution - cell phone - 35 years to touchscreen phones - comparison - speed of cultural vs biological evolution - progress trap

for - stats - minerals - since 1950, 300,000 new minerals - only 5,000 up til modernity - planetary boundary - novel entities

for - geology - history - minerals - when life starts excreting oxygen - many new minerals - planetary boundary novel entities boundary

for - greed - game A - linked to success - can we escape from game A? - SRG comment - accumulation perspective of capitalism - climate crisis - Deep Humanity interventions

for - book - Hierarchy in the Forest - The Evolution of Egaliterian Behavior - author - Christopher Boehm - from - youtube - The Anthropocene Paradigm Shift

eLife Assessment

This study resolves a cryo-EM structure of the GPCR, human GPR30, which responds to bicarbonate and regulates cellular responses to pH and ion homeostasis. Understanding the ligand and the mechanism of activation is important to the field of receptor signaling and potentially facilitates drug development targeting this receptor. Structures and functional assays provide solid evidence for a potential bicarbonate binding site.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study resolves a cryo-EM structure of the GPCR, GPR30, in the presence of bicarbonate, which the author's lab recently identified as the physiological ligand. Understanding the ligand and the mechanism of activation is of fundamental importance to the field of receptor signaling. This solid study provides important insight into the overall structure and suggests a possible bicarbonate binding site.

Strengths:

The overall structure, and proposed mechanism of G-protein coupling are solid. Based on the structure, the authors identify a binding pocket that might accommodate bicarbonate. Although assignment of the binding pocket is speculative, extensive mutagenesis of residues in this pocket identifies several that are important to G-protein signaling. The structure shows some conformational differences with a previous structure of this protein determined in the absence of bicarbonate (PMC11217264). To my knowledge, bicarbonate is the only physiological ligand that has been identified for GPR30, making this study an important contribution to the field. However, the current study provides novel and important circumstantial evidence for the bicarbonate binding site based on mutagenesis and functional assays.

Weaknesses:

Bicarbonate is a challenging ligand for structural and biochemical studies, and because of experimental limitations, this study does not elucidate the exact binding site. Higher resolution structures would be required for structural identification of bicarbonate. The functional assay monitors activation of GPR30, and thus reports on not only bicarbonate binding, but also the integrity of the allosteric network that transduces the binding signal across the membrane. However, biochemical binding assays are challenging because the binding constant is weak, in the mM range.

The authors appropriately acknowledge the limitations of these experimental approaches, and they build a solid circumstantial case for the bicarbonate binding pocket based on extensive mutagenesis and functional analysis. However, the study does fall short of establishing the bicarbonate binding site.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, "Cryo-EM structure of the bicarbonate receptor GPR30," the authors aimed to enrich our understanding of the role of GPR30 in pH homeostasis by combining structural analysis with a receptor function assay. This work is a natural development and extension of their previous work on Nature Communications (PMID: 38413581). In the current body of work, they solved the cryo-EM structure of the human GPR30-G-protein (mini-Gsqi) complex in the presence of bicarbonate ions at 3.15 Å resolution. From the atomic model built based on this map, they observed the overall canonical architecture of class A GPCR and also identified 3 extracellular pockets created by ECLs (Pockets A-C). Based on the polarity, location, size, and charge of each pocket, the authors hypothesized that pocket A is a good candidate for the bicarbonate binding site. To identify the bicarbonate binding site, the authors performed an exhaustive mutant analysis of the hydrophilic residues in Pocket A and analyzed receptor reactivity via calcium assay. In addition, the human GPR30-G-protein complex model also enabled the authors to elucidate the G-protein coupling mechanism of this special class A GPCR, which plays a crucial role in pH homeostasis.

Strengths:

As a continuation of their recent Nature Communications publication, the authors used cryo-EM coupled with mutagenesis and functional studies to elucidate bicarbonate-GPR30 interaction. This work provided atomic-resolution structural observations for the receptor in complex with G-protein, allowing us to explore its mechanism of action, and will further facilitate drug development targeting GPR30. There were 3 extracellular pockets created by ECLs (Pockets A-C). The authors were able to filter out 2 of them and hypothesized that pocket A was a good candidate for the bicarbonate binding site based on the polarity, location, and charge of each pocket. From there, the authors identified the key residues on GPR30 for its interaction with the substrate, bicarbonate. Together with their previous work, they mapped out amino acids that are critical for receptor reactivity.

Weaknesses:

When we see a reduction of a GPCR-mediated downstream signaling, several factors could potentially contribute to this observation: 1) a reduced total expression of this receptor due to the mutation (transcription and translation issue); 2) a reduced surface expression of this receptor due to the mutation (trafficking issue); and 3) a dysfunctional receptor that doesn't signal due to the mutation. In the current revision, based on the gating strategy, the surface expression of the HA-positive WT GPR30-expressing cells is only 10.6% of the total population, while the surface expression levels of the mutants range from 1.89% (P71A) to 64.4% (D111A). Combining this information with the functional readout in Figure 3F and G, as well as their previous work, the authors concluded that mutations at P71, E115, D125, Q138, C207, D210, and H307 would decrease bicarbonate responses. Among those sites,

E115, Q138, and H307 were from their previous Nature Comm paper.

Authors claim P71 and C207 make a structural-stability contribution, as their mutations result in a significant reduction in surface expression: P71A (1.89%) and C207A (2.71%). However, compared to 10.6% of the total population in the WT, (P71A is 17.8% of the WT, and C207A is 25.6% of the WT), this doesn't rule out the possibility that the mutated receptor is also dysfunctional: at 10 mM NaHCO3, RFU of WT is ~500, RFU of P71 and C207 are ~0.

The authors also interpret "The D125ECL1A mutant has lost its activity but is located on the surface" and only mention "D125 is unlikely to be a bicarbonate binding site, and the mutational effect could be explained due to the decreased surface expression". Again, compared to 10.6% of the total population in the WT, D125A (3.94%) is 37.2% of the WT. At 10 mM NaHCO3, the RFU of the WT is ~500, the RFU of D125 is ~0. This doesn't rule out the possibility that the mutated receptor is also dysfunctional. It is not clear why D125A didn't make it to the surface.

Other mutants that the authors didn't mention much in their text: D111A (64.4%, 607.5% of WT surface expression), E121A (50.4%, 475.5% of WT surface expression), R122 (41.0%, 386.8% of WT surface expression), N276A (38.9%, 367.0% of WT surface expression) and E218A (24.6%, 232.1% of WT surface expression) all have similar RFU as WT, although the surface expression is about 2-6 times more. On the other hand, Q215A (3.18%, 30% of WT surface expression) has similar RFU as WT, with only a third of the receptor on the surface.

Altogether, the wide range of surface expression across the different cell lines, combined with the different receptor function readouts, makes the cell functional data only partially support their structural observations.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary

GPR30 responds to bicarbonate and plays a role in regulating cellular pH and ion homeostasis. However, the molecular basis of bicarbonate recognition by GPR30 remains unresolved. This study reports the cryo-EM structure of GPR30 bound to a chimeric mini-Gq in the presence of bicarbonate, revealing mechanistic insights into its G-protein coupling. Nonetheless, the study does not identify the bicarbonate-binding site within GPR30.

Strengths

The work provides strong structural evidence clarifying how GPR30 engages and couples with Gq.

Weaknesses

Several GPR30 mutants exhibited diminished responses to bicarbonate, but their expression levels were also reduced. As a result, the mechanism by which GPR30 recognizes bicarbonate remains uncertain, leaving this aspect of the study incomplete.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

The parts of the text that have been changed.The major changes are as follows:

We re-analyzed the dataset and improved the local resolution of the extracellular region (Author response image 1).

We re-modeled based on the improved density and canceled the bicarbonate model based on comments from all reviewers.

We performed calcium assay using cell lines stably expressing the mutants, whose surface expression levels were analyzed by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS)<br /> (Figure 3F, G and Figure 3–figure supplement 1-3).

Thus, we significantly revised our discussion of the extracellular binding pocket and the result of the mutational study. In the revised manuscript, we speculate that H307 is a candidate for the bicarbonate binding site.

Author response image 1.

Figure Comparison of local resolution between re-analyzed and previous maps.A Side and top view of the re-analyzed receptor-focused map of GPR30 colored by local resolution. B Side and top view of the previous receptor-focused map of GPR30 colored by local resolution

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This study resolves a cryo-EM structure of the GPCR, GPR30, which was recently identified as a bicarbonate receptor by the authors' lab. Understanding the ligand and the mechanism of activation is of fundamental importance to the field of receptor signaling. However, the main claim of the paper, the identification of the bicarbonate binding site, is only partly supported by the structural and functional data, leaving the study incomplete.

Strengths:

The overall structure, and proposed mechanism of G-protein coupling seem solid. The authors perform fairly extensive unbiased mutagenesis to identify a host of positions that are important to G-protein signaling. To my knowledge, bicarbonate is the only physiological ligand that has been identified for GPR30, making this study a particularly important contribution to the field.

Weaknesses:

Without higher resolution structures and/or additional experimental assessment of the binding pocket, the assignment of the bicarbonate remains highly speculative. The local resolution is especially poor in the ECL loop region where the ligand is proposed to bind (4.3 - 4 .8 Å range). Of course, sometimes it is difficult to achieve high structural resolution, but in these cases, the assignment of ligands should be backed up by even more rigorous experimental validation.The functional assay monitors activation of GPR30, and thus reports on not only bicarbonate binding, but also the integrity of the allosteric network that transduces the binding signal across the membrane. Thus, disruption of bicarbonate signaling by mutagenesis of the putative coordinating residues does not necessarily mean that bicarbonate binding has been disrupted. Moreover, the mutagenesis was apparently done prior to structure determination, meaning that residues proposed to directly surround bicarbonate binding, such as E218, were not experimentally validated. Targeted mutagenesis based on the structure would strengthen the story.

Moreover, the proposed bicarbonate binding site is surprising in a chemical sense, as it is located within an acidic pocket. The authors cite several other structural studies to support the surprising observation of anionic bicarbonate surrounded by glutamate residues in an acidic pocket (references 31-34). However, it should be noted that in general, these other structures also possess a metal ion (sodium or calcium) and/or a basic sidechain (arginine or lysine) in the coordination sphere, forming a tight ion pair. Thus, the assigned bicarbonate binding site in GPR30 remains an anomaly in terms of the chemical properties of the proposed binding site.

Thank you for your insightful comments. Based on the weaknesses you pointed out, we reconstructed the receptor based on the improved density and removed the bicarbonate model. We performed calcium assays using cell lines stably expressing the variant based on the structure.

Reviewer #2(Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, "Cryo-EM structure of the bicarbonate receptor GPR30," the authors aimed to enrich our understanding of the role of GPR30 in pH homeostasis by combining structural analysis with a receptor function assay. This work is a natural development and extension of their previous work (PMID: 38413581). In the current body of work, they solved the first cryo-EM structure of the human GPR30-G-protein (mini-Gsqi) complex in the presence of bicarbonate ions at 3.21 Å resolution. From the atomic model built based on this map, they observed the overall canonical architecture of class A GPCR and also identified 4 extracellular pockets created by extracellular loops (ECLs) (Pockets A-D). Based on the polarity, location, and charge of each pocket, the authors hypothesized that pocket D is a good candidate for the bicarbonate binding site. To verify their structural observation, on top of the 10 mutations they generated in the previous work, the authors introduced another 11 mutations to map out the essential residues for the bicarbonate response on hGPR30. In addition, the human GPR30-G-protein complex model also allowed the authors to untangle the G-protein coupling mechanism of this special class A GPCR that plays an important role in pH homeostasis.

Strengths:

As a continuation of their recent Nature Communication publication (PMID: 38413581), this study was carefully designed, and the authors used mutagenesis and functional studies to confirm their structural observations. This work provided high-resolution structural observations for the receptor in complex with G-protein, allowing us to explore its mechanism of action, and will further facilitate drug development targeting GPR30. There were 4 extracellular pockets created by ECLs (Pockets A-D). The authors were able to filter out 3 of them and identified that pocket D was a good candidate for the bicarbonate binding site based on the polarity, location, and charge of each pocket. From there, the authors identified the key residues on GPR30 for its interaction with the substrate, bicarbonate. Together with their previous work, they carefully mapped out nine amino acids that are critical for receptor reactivity.

Weaknesses:

It is unclear how novel the aspects presented in the new paper are compared to the most recent Nature Communications publication (PMID: 38413581). Some areas of the manuscript appear to be mixed with the previous publication. The work is still impactful to the field. The new and novel aspects of this manuscript could be better highlighted.

I also have some concerns about the TGFα shedding assay the authors used to verify their structural observation. I understand that this assay was also used in the authors' previous work published in Nature Communications. However, there are still several things in the current data that raised concerns:

Thank you for your insightful comments. Based on the weaknesses you pointed out, we highlighted the new and novel aspects of this manuscript could be better highlighted.l. We performed calcium assays using cell lines stably expressing the variant based on the structure.

(1) The authors confirmed the "similar expression levels of HA-tagged hGPR30" mutants by WB in Supplemental Figure 1A and B. However, compared to the hGPR30-HA (~6.5 when normalized to the housekeeping gene, Na-K-ATPase), several mutants of the key amino acids had much lower surface expression: S134A, D210A, C207A had ~50% reduction, D125A had ~30% reduction, and Q215A and P71A had ~20% reduction. This weakens the receptor reactivity measured by the TGFα shedding assay.

Since the calcium assay data is included in the main figure, the TGFα shedding assay and WB expression quantification data are Figure 3. –– supplement figure 1-4, but we included an explanation of the expression levels in the figure caption.

(2) In the previous work, the authors demonstrated that hGPR30 signals through the Gq signaling pathway and can trigger calcium mobilization. Given that calcium mobilization is a more direct measurement for the downstream signaling of hGPR30 than the TGFα shedding assay, pairing the mutagenesis study with the calcium assay will be a better functional validation to confirm the disruption of bicarbonate signaling.

According to the suggestion, we performed calcium assay using cell lines stably expressing the mutants (Figure 3F, G and Figure 3–figure supplement 1-3).

(3) It was quite confusing for Figure 4B that all statistical analyses were done by comparing to the mock group. It would be clearer to compare the activity of the mutants to the wild-type cell line.

Thank you for your comment. As you mentioned, the comparisons are made between wild-type GPR30 and mutants in the revised manuscript (Figure 3G, Figure 3.—figure supplement 4B)

Additional concerns about the structural data include

(1) E218 was in close contact with bicarbonate in Figure 4D. However, there is no functional validation for this observation. Including the mutagenesis study of this site in the cell-based functional assay will strengthen this structural observation.

We cancelled the bicarbonate model, and we performed mutation analysis targeting all residues facing the binding pocket using cell lines that stably express variants including E218A.

(2) For the flow chart of the cryo-EM data processing in Supplemental data 2, the authors started with 10,148,422 particles after template picking, then had 441,348 Particles left after 2D classification/heterogenous refinement, and finally ended with 148,600 particles for the local refinement for the final map. There seems to be a lot of heterogeneity in this purified sample. GPCRs usually have flexible and dynamic loop regions, which explains the poor resolution of the ECLs in this case. Thus, a solid cell-based functional validation is a must to assign the bicarbonate binding pocket to support their hypothesis.

We re-analyzed the dataset and improved the local resolution of the extracellular region (Author response image 1) and cancelled the bicarbonate model. Yet, as suggested by the reviewer, solid cell-based functional validation is efficient to analyze the receptor function response to bicarbonate. Thus, we performed mutation analysis targeting all residues facing the binding pocket using cell lines stably expressing the mutants, whose surface expression levels were analyzed by FACS (Figure 3F, G and Figure 3.––figure supplement 1-3).

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

GPR30 responds to bicarbonate and regulates cellular responses to pH and ion homeostasis. However, it remains unclear how GPR30 recognizes bicarbonate ions. This paper presents the cryo-EM structure of GPR30 bound to a chimeric mini-Gq in the presence of bicarbonate. The structure together with functional studies aims to provide mechanistic insights into bicarbonate recognition and G protein coupling.

Strengths:

The authors performed comprehensive mutagenesis studies to map the possible binding site of bicarbonate.

Weaknesses:

Owing to the poor resolution of the structure, some structural findings may be overclaimed.

Based on EM maps shown in Figure 1a and Figure Supplement 2, densities for side chains in the receptor particularly in ECLs (around 4 Å) are poorly defined. At this resolution, it is unlikely to observe a disulfide bond (C130ECL1-C207ECl2) and bicarbonate ions. Moreover, the disulfide between ECL1 and ECL2 has not been observed in other GPCRs and the published structure of GPR30 (PMID: 38744981). The density of this disulfide bond could be noise.

The authors observed a weak density in pocket D, which is accounted for by the bicarbonate ions. This ion is mainly coordinated by Q215 and Q138. However, the Q215A mutation only reduced but not completely abolished bicarbonate response, and the author did not present the data of Q138A mutation. Therefore, Q215 and Q138 could not be bicarbonate binding sites. While H307A completely abolished bicarbonate response, the authors proposed that this residue plays a structural role. Nevertheless, based on the structure, H307 is exposed and may be involved in binding bicarbonate. The assignment of bicarbonate in the structure is not supported by the data.

Thank you for your insightful comments. Based on the weaknesses you pointed out, we reconstructed the receptor based on the improved density and removed the bicarbonate model. We performed calcium assays using cell lines stably expressing the variant based on the structure.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) The experimental validation of the bicarbonate binding could be strengthened by developing an assay that directly monitors bicarbonate binding (rather than GPCR signaling)

We agree that a direct binding assay for bicarbonate would be highly attractive (i.e. Filter binding assay using 14C-HCO₃⁻). However, the weak affinity of bicarbonate ions (in the mM range) would make reliable radioisotope-based detection impossible due to minimal specific receptor occupancy and high non-specific background and thus it is highly challenging and there are limitations to what can be done in this structural paper.

and determining a structure at comparable resolution in the absence of bicarbonate. In addition, all residues that are proposed to be located adjacent to the bicarbonate should be mutated and functionally validated.

We re-modeled the receptor based on the improved density and canceled the bicarbonate model. We performed calcium assay using cell lines stably expressing the mutants (Figure 3F, G and Figure 3.–figure supplement 1-3).

(2) What are the maps contoured in Figure 4D? The legend should describe this. Is 218 within the map region shown, or is there no density for its sidechain?

We removed the corresponding figure and cancelled the bicarbonate model.

(3) The contour level of the maps in Figure 1 - Figure Supplement 2 should also be indicated. Are these all contoured at the same level?

Thank you for your comment. We re-analyzed the same data set and obtained new density maps and models. We reworked Figure 1 and Figure 1. figure supplement 2; the contour level of the map for Figure 1 and composite map for the Figure 1. figure supplement 2 is the same, 7.65. 

(4) Regarding the cited structures of bicarbonate-binding proteins, for three of the four cited structures, the bicarbonate is actually coordinated by positive ligands, with the Asp/Glu playing a more peripheral role:

Capper et al: Overall basic cavity with tight bidentate coordination by Arg. The Glu is 5-6 Å away.

Koropatkin et al: Two structures. The first, solved at pH 5, is proposed to have carbonic acid bound. The second, solved at pH 8, shows carbonate in a complex with calcium, with the calcium coordinated by carboxylates.

Wang et al: The bicarbonate is coordinated by a lysine and a sodium ion. The sodium is coordinated by carboxylates.

The authors should more thoughtfully discuss the unusual properties of this binding site with regard to the previous literature. Is it possible that bicarbonate binds in complex with a metal ion? Could this possibility be experimentally tested?

We cancelled the bicarbonate model.

(5) As a structure of GPR30 has been recently published by another group (PMID: 38744981), it would be valuable to discuss structural similarities and differences and discuss how bicarbonate activation and activation by the chloroquine ligand identified by the other group might both be accommodated by this structure.

Thank you for your valuable comment. We compared the structure presented by another group and added our discussion, as “During the revision of this manuscript, the structures of apo-GPR30-G_q (PDB 8XOG) and the exogenous ligand Lys05-bound GPR30-G_q (PDB 8XOF) were reported [42]. We compared our structure of GPR30 in the presence of bicarbonate with these structures. In the extracellular region, the position of TM5 in GPR30 in the presence of bicarbonate is similar to that in apo-GPR30. In contrast, the position of TM6 is shifted outward relative to that of apo-GPR30, resembling the conformation observed in Lys05-bound GPR30 (Figure 6A, B). Additionally, the position of ECL1 is also shifted outward compared to that of apo-GPR30 (Figure 6B). In the GPR30 structure in the presence of bicarbonate, ECL2 was modeled, suggesting differences in structural flexibility. These findings indicate that the structure of GPR30 in the presence of bicarbonate is different from both the apo structure and the Lys05-bound structure, demonstrating that the structure and the flexibility of the extracellular domain of GPR30 change depending on the type of ligand. Furthermore, focusing on the interaction with G_q, the αN helix of G_q is not rotated in the structure bound to Lys05, in contrast to the characteristic bending of the αN helix in our structure (Figure 6C, D). Although it is necessary to consider variations in experimental conditions, such as salt concentration, the differences in the G_q binding modes suggest that the downstream signals may change in a ligand-dependent manner.” (lines 249-266).

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) It is highly recommended that the authors carefully go through the "insights into bicarbonate binding" section. The results of the new findings in this paper were blended in with the results from the previous work: the importance of E115, Q138, and H307 in the receptor-bicarbonate interaction was shown in the Nature Communication paper but the authors didn't make it clear, which added a little confusion.

We emphasized this fact in the main text (lines 130-132).

(2) It would be nice for the authors to add some content about the physiological concentration of HCO3 or refer more to their previous work about the rationale for selecting the bicarbonate dose in their functional assay.

Thank you for your comment. The physiological concentration of bicarbonate is 22-26 mM in the extracellular fluid, including interstitial fluid and blood, and 10-12 mM in the intracellular fluid. The bicarbonate concentration alters in various physiological and pathological conditions – metabolic acidosis in chronic kidney disease causes a drop to 2-3 mM, and metabolic alkalosis induced by severe vomiting increases HCO₃^- concentrations more than 30 mM. Thus, our present and previous works clearly show that GPR30 is activated by physiological concentrations of bicarbonate, whether it is localized intracellularly or on the membrane, and that GPR30 can be deactivated or reactivated in various pathophysiological conditions. We added this in the discussion section (lines 267-278).

(3) In Figure 3A, in the legend, the authors mentioned: "black dashed lines indicate hydrogen bonds". No hydrogen bond was noted in the figure.

We totally corrected Figure 3.

(4) Figure 3B, it would be helpful for the authors to denote the meaning of the blue-white-red color coding in the legend.

We removed the figure.

(5) Supplemental Figure 3: since AF3 was released on May 3rd, it would be awesome in the revision version if the authors would update this to the AF3 model.

The AF2 model has been replaced with the AF3. (Figure 2–figure supplement 2A-C). The AF2 and AF3 models are almost identical, and they form incorrect disulfide bonds. This confirms the usefulness of the experimental structural determination in this study.

(6) Supplemental Figure 4: it wasn't clear to me if the expression experiments were repeated multiple times or if there was any statistical analysis for the expression level was done in this study.

We performed the expression experiment by western blotting once and did not perform statistical analyses. We performed repeated FACS analyses of HEK cells stably expressing N-terminally HA-tagged wild-type or mutant GPR30s to analyze their membrane and whole-cell expressions during revision (Figure 3.–figure supplement 1-3). Using these stable cells, we performed calcium assays using cell lines stably expressing the mutants (Figure 3F, G and Figure 3–figure supplement 1-3).

(7) Supplemental Figure 4: Also, is there a reason for the authors to compare the expression level of hGPR30 to the housekeeping gene NA-K-ATPase rather than the total loaded protein? Traditionally housekeeping genes have been used as loading controls to semiquantitatively compare the expression of target proteins in western blots. However, numerous recent studies show that housekeeping proteins can be altered due to experimental conditions, biological variability across tissues, or pathologies. A consensus has developed for using total protein as the internal control for loading. An editorial from the Journal of Biological Chemistry reporting on "Principles and Guidelines for Reporting Preclinical Research" from the workshop held in June 2014 by the NIH Director's Office, Nature Publishing Group, and Science stated, "It is typically better to normalize Western blots using total protein loading as the denominator".

Thank you for your instructive comment. We evaluated western blotting with the same amount of total protein loaded 20 µg for whole-cell lysate and 1.5 µg for cell surface protein (Figure 3.–figure supplement 3C-F).

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

The claim about this disulfide should be removed unless the authors can provide mass spec evidence.

Thank you for your crucial comments. Firstly, C130 is a residue of TM3, not ECL1, so our misprint has been corrected to C130^3.25. C207^ECL2, located at position 45.50, is the most conserved residue in ECL2, and it forms a disulfide bond with cysteine at position 3.25 (PMID: 35113559). The paper was additionally cited regarding the preservation of the bond of C130^3.25-C207^ECL2 (line 103). Indeed, disruption of this disulfide bond by the C207^ECL2 A mutation resulted in a marked reduction in receptor activity. In addition, the data set was re-analyzed to improve the local resolution of the extracellular region, and it was shown that the density of ECL2 is not noise (Figure 2. ––figure supplement 2). We are confident about the presence of the disulfide bond, based on the structural analysis data and the conservation.

The highly flexible extracellular region is greatly affected by experimental conditions and ligands, so we speculate that the ECL2 and the disulfide bond was not observed in other reported structures of GPR30. Then, we have added the following content to the discussion, as “In the GPR30 in the presence of bicarbonate, ECL2 was modelled, suggesting differences in structural flexibility.” (lines 256-257).

The authors should remove the assignment of bicarbonate in the structure, and tone down the binding site of bicarbonate.

We cancelled the bicarbonate model.

Minor:

(1) The potency of bicarbonate for GPR30 is in the mM range. Although the concentration of bicarbonate in the serum can reach mM range, how about its concentration in the tissues? Given its low potency, it may be not appropriate to claim GPR30 is a bicarbonate receptor at this point, but the authors can claim that GPR30 can be activated by or responds to bicarbonate.

The physiological concentration of bicarbonate is 22-26 mM in the extracellular fluid, including interstitial fluid and blood, and 10-12 mM in the intracellular fluid. Therefore, GPR30 is activated by physiological concentrations of bicarbonate in the tissues. Also, the bicarbonate concentration alters in various physiological and pathological conditions – metabolic acidosis in chronic kidney disease causes a drop to 2-3 mM, and metabolic alkalosis induced by severe vomiting increases HCO3- concentrations more than 30 mM. Thus, our work clearly shows that GPR30 is activated by physiological concentrations of bicarbonate, whether it is localized intracellularly or on the membrane, and that GPR30 can be deactivated or reactivated in various pathophysiological conditions. According to the reasons above, we claim GPR30 is a bicarbonate receptor (lines 267-278).

(2) The description that there is no consensus on a drug that targets GPR30 is not accurate, since lys05 has been reported as an agonist of GPR30 and their structure is published (PMID: 38744981). The published structures of GPR30 should be introduced in the paper.

We added the discussion about the structural comparison with the Lys05-bound structure (Figure 6, lines 249-266)

(3) BW numbers in Figure 4A should be shown.

We added BW numbers in the figures of the mutational studies.

for - book - Goliath's curse - author - Luke Kemp - SRG comment - a naughty social superorganism! - from - youtube - The Anthropocene Paradigm Shift - https://hyp.is/a1E9ZtQ4EfCEQs_6Hskbmw/www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ggpzwSI1qY

Call center Bank DBS melayani pinjaman kartu kredit penghapusan annual fee hubungi kami 081295630057

Membantu meningkatkan layanan nasabah, pinjaman kartu kredit penghapusan annual fee hubungi kami layananWhatsApp +6281295630057

Layanan WhatsApp DBS membantu nasabah kendala pinjaman kartu kredit penghapusan annual fee dll Hubungi WhatsApp Kami +6281295630057

use inbrowser.link

https://bafybeibc6bqagreyg5oggwyomlj6pxvjmv45r44b4hjufzqkd73aafck7a.ipfs.inbrowser.link/

This line gives me confidence because I often feel discouraged when my first drafts are messy. The chapter explains that rough drafts are normal and even useful because they help writers discover their ideas. This encourages me to focus on getting thoughts onto the page first and worry about clarity and concision later during revision. It makes the writing process feel less stressful.

I really agree with this point because I used to assume that professors wanted complex, academic-sounding language. This chapter points out that trying too hard to sound scholarly actually makes writing harder to read. It reminds me that clarity is more important than showing off vocabulary. I think keeping my writing straightforward will help my ideas come through more effectively.