Skip to Content
  • Tracked for
    Impact Factor
  • 4.1
    CiteScore
  • 44 days
    Submission to First Decision
  • 8 days
    Acceptance to Publication

Receptors

Receptors is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal on all aspects of receptors published quarterly online by MDPI.

Get Alerted

Add your email address to receive forthcoming issues of this journal.

All Articles (109)

  • Article
  • Open Access

Background/Objectives: AI-based protein–ligand co-folding methods such as Boltz-2 are able to reproduce experimentally determined ligand binding poses at G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) with increasing accuracy and precision. As these models advance, they raise several natural questions: assuming the correct placement of a ligand, do current methods generate structural ensembles that are sufficient as a starting point for predictive analysis of receptor dynamics? Does the noise introduced between predictions render these unreliable, or can they be trusted to a degree comparable with experimental structures (which themselves carry inherent noise)? We investigate this at the serotonin 5-HT2A receptor (5-HT2AR), leveraging a rich panel of experimentally determined structures and prior benchmarking of Boltz-2 at this receptor. Methods: First, a reference dynamic landscape is established by performing anisotropic network model (ANM) analysis across 11 published cryo-EM and crystal structures trimmed to a uniform 236-residue analysis mask spanning the structured receptor (TM1-H8). We then ask whether Boltz-2 co-folding ensembles recapitulate these experimentally derived dynamics. Results: All nine Gq-coupled agonist structures converge to near-identical dynamic subspaces (mean RMSIP = 0.970 ± 0.019), discriminating activation state but not agonist identity, chemotype, or hallucinogenic status. Principal component analysis of the Boltz-2 ensemble yields moderate, highly uniform overlap with the experimental ANM modes (mean RMSIP = 0.599 ± 0.007), with the first two principal components capturing 56.9% of structural variance. Conclusions: Replicate predictions of the same ligand are highly self-consistent yet show no usable ligand-specific discrimination (within- versus between-ligand effect size is negligible). These findings suggest a quantitative benchmark for the precision required to derive elastic network dynamics from predicted structures and support the distinction between learned pose recapitulation and genuine biophysical prediction.

Receptors

9 October 2026

Experimental structure reference dynamics. (A) ANM RMSIP heatmap across all 11 experimentally determined structures; (B) per-residue ANM fluctuation profiles grouped by pharmacological category. Y-axis represents mean-square fluctuation at each Cα position; residues with higher values are predicted to be more flexible. Red lines orient pharmacological landmarks D155, L229, S242, W336, F340, N343, and Y370.
  • Review
  • Open Access

Evolving Perspectives on Glutamate Receptors: From Molecular Plasticity to Neuro-Physiological Diversity

  • Tatiana Nenetzen Olivares-Bañuelos,
  • Natalia Morales-Ramírez and
  • Arturo Ortega
  • + 2 authors

Glutamate receptors constitute one of the most structurally diverse and functionally versatile families of signaling proteins in the animal kingdom, mediating the primary excitatory neurotransmission in the vertebrate central nervous system while also fulfilling ancestral roles in metabolic coordination, osmotic regulation, and intercellular communication in organisms lacking centralized nervous systems. This review integrates perspectives from structural biology, evolutionary neuroscience, and systems physiology to provide an updated synthesis of glutamate receptor biology across the tree of life. We examine the molecular architecture and functional properties of ionotropic glutamate receptors AMPA (GluA), NMDA (GluN), and kainate (GluK) and metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGlu1–8), highlighting how subunit composition, RNA editing, alternative splicing, post-translational modifications, and auxiliary protein interactions expand receptor functional diversity beyond what primary gene expression alone can account for. Comparative analyses across vertebrate and non-vertebrate model systems, including Drosophila melanogaster, Caenorhabditis elegans, echinoderms, and cnidarians, reveal deeply conserved ligand-binding and gating mechanisms alongside lineage-specific adaptations that reflect distinct ecological and circuit-level demands. At the systems level, glutamate receptors govern information encoding, oscillatory synchronization, memory consolidation, and homeostatic network stability through coordinated ionotropic and metabotropic signaling. Their dysregulation underlies a broad spectrum of neurological and psychiatric disorders, including excitotoxicity, Alzheimer’s disease, schizophrenia, epilepsy, and major depressive disorder. Recent advances in cryo-electron microscopy, allosteric pharmacology, and gene-editing technologies offer new avenues for subtype-selective therapeutic intervention. Together, these findings underscore glutamate receptors as dynamic molecular platforms that couple synaptic biophysics to emergent neural computation and represent critical targets for next-generation neurotherapeutics.

Receptors

8 October 2026

Structural organization and classification of glutamate receptors. Schematic representation of ionotropic (iGluRs) and metabotropic (mGluRs) glutamate receptors. iGluRs are tetrameric ligand-gated ion channels composed of four subunits forming a central ion-conducting pore, each containing an amino-terminal domain (ATD), a ligand-binding domain (LBD; S1/S2), transmembrane segments (M1–M4) including the M2 pore loop, and an intracellular C-terminal domain (CTD). AMPA, NMDA, and kainate receptors differ in subunit composition, ion permeability, and gating properties, as well as in their interactions with auxiliary proteins. mGluRs are class C G protein-coupled receptors that function as obligate dimers, with each protomer comprising a Venus flytrap domain (VFT), a cysteine-rich domain (CRD), and a seven-transmembrane (7TM) domain. Group I mGluRs primarily couple to Gq/11 proteins, whereas Groups II and III couple to Gi/o proteins. Na+-sodium ions, Ca2+-calcium ions, K+-potassium ions, and Mg2+-magnesium ions.
  • Article
  • Open Access

Robust Intrinsic Dorsoventral Organization of Hippocampal Sharp Wave–Ripples Persists During Cannabinoid Modulation

  • Athina Miliou,
  • Panagiota Giannakopoulou and
  • Costas Papatheodoropoulos
  • + 5 authors

Background/Objectives: The hippocampus exhibits pronounced functional and physiological heterogeneity along its dorsoventral axis. Sharp wave–ripple (SWR) complexes are highly organized hippocampal network events that depend on coordinated excitation and inhibition and contribute to memory processing. This study investigated whether modulation of the cannabinoid system differentially affects SWRs and associated neuronal activity in the dorsal and ventral hippocampus. Methods: Extracellular field potentials and multiunit activity (MUA) were recorded from the CA1 stratum pyramidale of acute dorsal and ventral rat hippocampal slices. Spontaneous SWRs were analyzed under control conditions and following application of the cannabinoid type 1 (CB1) receptor agonists ACEA and WIN55,212-2, cannabidiol (CBD), and the G-protein-gated inwardly rectifying potassium channel blocker tertiapin-Q. CB1 receptor expression was assessed in dorsal and ventral CA3 using Western blot analysis. Results: Baseline recordings revealed pronounced dorsoventral differences in SWR dynamics. Ventral slices exhibited shorter inter-event intervals, larger sharp-wave amplitudes, higher ripple frequency and power, and greater SWR-associated neuronal activity than dorsal slices. Under the present experimental and analytical conditions, ACEA, WIN55,212-2, and CBD did not produce statistically significant changes in any of the examined SWR or MUA parameters. Tertiapin-Q selectively increased ripple power but did not reveal cannabinoid sensitivity when followed by WIN55,212-2 application. CB1 receptor expression was comparable between dorsal and ventral CA3. Conclusions: Despite marked intrinsic dorsoventral differences in SWR dynamics, acute cannabinoid-system modulation produced no statistically detectable changes in most SWR and MUA parameters examined. These findings indicate that the intrinsic dorsoventral organization of hippocampal SWR activity is robust and remains preserved during acute cannabinoid-system modulation under the present experimental conditions.

Receptors

17 September 2026

Baseline properties of SWRs and associated neuronal activity in dorsal and ventral hippocampus. (A) Representative extracellular field recordings from the CA1 stratum pyramidale illustrating spontaneous SWRs in dorsal (top) and ventral (bottom) hippocampal slices under control conditions. (B) Example of an individual SWR event. Top trace: raw signal (SWR). Middle traces: low-pass filtered signal (35 Hz) showing the sharp wave component and band-pass filtered signal (90–250 Hz) showing ripple oscillations. Bottom trace: band-pass filtered signal (0.4–1.5 kHz) revealing multiunit activity (MUA). Calibration bars: 50 μV, 10 ms. (C) Representative spectral and temporal characteristics of SWRs. Top: ripple power spectrum. Bottom: peri-event time histogram of MUA aligned to the SWR peak. (D) Quantification of SWR and MUA parameters in dorsal (blue) and ventral (red) hippocampus, including inter-event interval (IEI), probability of clustered events, sharp wave amplitude, ripple frequency, ripple power, baseline firing rate (MUA-Base), SWR-associated firing rate (MUA-SWR), and MUA delay relative to SWR peak (MUA-Delay). Numbers in parentheses in this and the following figures indicate the number of slices/rats. Significant differences between dorsal and ventral hippocampus are indicated (independent t-test, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01).
  • Review
  • Open Access

GABA (γ-aminobutyric acid) is the most abundant inhibitory neurotransmitter in the central nervous system of insects. GABAergic signal transduction is involved in the control and modulation of various vital functions such as salivation, locomotion, vision and olfaction, circadian timekeeping and sleep, arousal as well as learning and memory. GABA exerts its effects by binding to specific receptors, which are divided into GABAA and GABAB receptors. GABAA receptors are ligand-gated Cl− channels and molecular targets for a variety of small-molecule insecticides (polychlorocycloalkanes such as dieldrin, phenylpyrazoles such as fipronil, isoxazolines, and meta-diamides) that are widely used in agriculture. GABAB receptors are seven-transmembrane G-protein-coupled receptors. GABAB receptors function as obligate heteromers consisting of the two subunits, GABAB-R1 and GABAB-R2, whereby GABAB-R1 binds the ligand and GABAB-R2 is coupled to the G protein. Usually, adenylyl cyclase activity is inhibited via the Gαi subunits of heterotrimeric G proteins; this leads to a reduction in the intracellular cAMP level. This review summarizes the current knowledge on the molecular and pharmacological properties of insect GABA receptors. Finally, two established model organisms for studying the effects of GABA in insects are presented as examples. The American cockroach (Periplaneta americana) has a long tradition as an object to study GABAergic circuits in the olfactory pathway and the role of GABA in the control of salivary secretion. The fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) has proven to be an unsurpassed model system to study the effects of GABA and specific GABA receptors on a variety of physiological functions and behavioral processes. In particular, D. melanogaster is used as a disease model for several human diseases in which GABAergic signaling is involved.

Receptors

15 September 2026

GABA synthesis, uptake, degradation, and its receptors in insects. GABAergic neurons produce GABA from glutamate by glutamic acid decarboxylase 1 (GAD1). GABA is transported into synaptic vesicles by vesicular GABA transporter (VGAT). Postsynaptic neurons can express various ionotropic GABAA and metabotropic GABAB receptors. From the synaptic cleft, GABA is taken up by astrocytes via GABA transporter (GAT) to terminate signaling and recycled through the GABA shunt and the tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA). The glutamine thus produced is returned to GABAergic neurons. Other abbreviations: GABAT: GABA transaminase; GS: glutamine synthetase; α-KG: α-ketoglutarate; SSA: succinic semialdehyde; SSADH: succinic semialdehyde dehydrogenase. Adapted from [1] with permission from the publisher.

Highly Accessed Articles

News & Conferences

Latest Issues

Open for Submission

Journal Sections

XFacebookLinkedIn
Receptors - ISSN 2813-2564