{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0244173140954495, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008324084350721421, 'mean_word_length': 5.485611510791367, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Structural insights into ligand‐induced activation of the insulin receptor

The current model for insulin binding to the insulin receptor proposes that there are two binding sites, referred to as sites 1 and 2, on each monomer in the receptor homodimer and two binding surfaces on insulin, one involving residues predominantly from the dimerization face of insulin (the classical binding surface) and the other residues from the hexamerization face. High‐affinity binding involves one insulin molecule using its two surfaces to make bridging contacts with site 1 from one receptor monomer and site 2 from the other. Whilst the receptor dimer has two identical site 1‐site 2 pairs, insulin molecules cannot bridge both pairs simultaneously. Our structures of the insulin receptor (IR) ectodomain dimer and the L1‐CR‐L2 fragments of IR and insulin‐like growth factor receptor (IGF‐1R) explain many of the features of ligand‐receptor binding and allow the two binding sites on the receptor to be described. The IR dimer has an unexpected folded‐over conformation which places the C‐terminal surface of the first fibronectin‐III domain in close juxtaposition to the known L1 domain ligand‐binding surface suggesting that the C‐terminal surface of FnIII‐1 is the second binding site involved in high‐affinity binding. This is very different from previous models based on three‐dimensional reconstruction from scanning transmission electron micrographs. Our single‐molecule images indicate that IGF‐1R has a morphology similar to that of IR. In addition, the structures of the first three domains (L1‐CR‐L2) of the IR and IGF‐1R show that there are major differences in the two regions governing ligand specificity. The implications of these findings for ligand‐induced receptor activation will be discussed.