pe
pep-10654 v1 CC-BY-SA-4.0

CGRP receptor blocker fragment (alpha-CGRP 19-37)

A lab-made piece of the body's own CGRP signaling peptide that plugs into the CGRP receptor without switching it on, blocking the real signal. Used only as a research tool, not a medicine.

statussynthesized targetCALCR length19 aa refs5
status 4 / 5
prediction metrics openfold3-mlx 0.3.1
ipTM0.732
pTM0.669
avg pLDDT39.3
ranking score0.836
STRUCTURE · PEP-10654 × CALCR
ranking0.836
target interface 4.5Å peptide drag rotate · ctrl+scroll zoom · right-click pan
openfold3-mlx 0.3.1 · mmCIF ↓ download
sequence19 aa
15101519
SGGVVKNNFVPTNVGSKAF
in the news 11 articles
overview readme

What this is

α-CGRP (19–37) is a 19-amino-acid fragment cut from the C-terminal half of human α-CGRP (calcitonin gene-related peptide), one of the body's own signaling peptides. Unlike the full-length parent — which is a potent vasodilator and is the target of modern migraine drugs — this shortened fragment lacks the N-terminal portion needed to switch the receptor on, and instead behaves as a receptor antagonist (Rovero 1992). It is a laboratory research tool used to probe CGRP-family receptor pharmacology, not a therapeutic.

History

The first systematic characterization of this fragment was published in 1992 by Rovero and colleagues in Peptides, who tested a series of short C-terminal pieces of human αCGRP — including CGRP(19–37) and the shorter CGRP(23–37) — and showed that they retained binding affinity but acted as antagonists of CGRP-evoked responses (Rovero 1992). That finding established the broader principle that the C-terminus of CGRP is the receptor-recognition end of the molecule, while the N-terminus is required for receptor activation.

What it does

The full α-CGRP peptide engages its receptor in two steps: the C-terminal half docks into the receptor's extracellular surface, and the N-terminal half then engages the transmembrane region to switch on signaling (Conner 2007). Because α-CGRP (19–37) keeps only the C-terminal docking half, it can sit in the receptor's binding pocket but cannot trigger the activation step — so it occupies the receptor without firing it, blocking the natural ligand from getting in (Rovero 1992; Conner 2007).

Mechanism

The canonical CGRP receptor is not a single protein but a heterodimer of the calcitonin receptor-like receptor (CLR) — a family B (secretin-like) GPCR — paired with receptor activity-modifying protein 1 (RAMP1) (Hay 2018). The same calcitonin/CGRP peptide family also engages the calcitonin receptor (CTR), which when paired with RAMP1, RAMP2, or RAMP3 gives rise to the amylin receptors AMY₁, AMY₂, and AMY₃ (Hay 2018). The card's stored target calcr refers to the calcitonin receptor (CTR), which sits at this same intersection of CGRP-, amylin-, and calcitonin-family signaling (Barwell 2012).

Structural work on the CGRP receptor has shown that the C-terminus of CGRP contacts the extracellular N-termini of CLR and RAMP1, while the N-terminal residues of CGRP reach down into the transmembrane bundle and the second extracellular loop to drive activation (Conner 2007). Fragments missing the N-terminus — such as CGRP(19–37) — therefore preserve the docking interaction but cannot drive receptor activation, which is the structural basis for their antagonist behavior (Conner 2007; Rovero 1992). Lee and colleagues (2016) extended this picture by mapping how calcitonin-family peptides — including amylin — engage their receptor complexes, providing a comparative view of how peptide N- and C-terminal segments contribute to binding versus activation across the family.

The CGRP receptor family is of broad therapeutic interest: family B GPCRs in this group are implicated in osteoporosis, diabetes, obesity, lymphatic insufficiency, migraine, and cardiovascular disease (Barwell 2012). α-CGRP (19–37) itself is used as a pharmacological tool to dissect those signaling pathways rather than as a clinical candidate.

Evidence

  • Human: No clinical trials. This fragment is a research tool.
  • Animal / tissue: Antagonist activity against CGRP-evoked responses demonstrated in short-fragment pharmacology studies of human αCGRP (Rovero 1992).
  • In vitro / structural: Receptor-binding architecture of CGRP — C-terminal docking, N-terminal activation — characterized in CLR/RAMP1 binding and activation studies (Conner 2007), with cross-family interaction mechanisms mapped for calcitonin- and amylin-receptor complexes (Lee 2016). Pharmacology and nomenclature of the calcitonin/CGRP receptor family reviewed in the IUPHAR Review 25 (Hay 2018) and in a comparative survey of CTR and CLR as family B GPCRs (Barwell 2012).

Known effects

  • CGRP-receptor antagonism (in vitro / ex vivo) — Documented for the short C-terminal αCGRP fragments CGRP(19–37) and CGRP(23–37) (Rovero 1992).
  • Receptor-pharmacology probe — Used to dissect the contribution of the N-terminal versus C-terminal halves of CGRP to receptor binding and activation, in the context of the broader CLR/CTR + RAMP family (Conner 2007; Hay 2018).

Regulatory status

  • US / EU: Not an approved drug. Research-use chemical only.
  • WADA: Not specifically listed; clinical CGRP-pathway drugs target the full receptor signaling and are distinct from this research fragment.

Related peptides

  • Other entries in the calcitonin/CGRP/amylin peptide family — α-CGRP, β-CGRP, amylin, adrenomedullin, adrenomedullin 2 / intermedin, and calcitonin — share receptor components (CTR or CLR paired with RAMPs) and form a closely linked pharmacological family (Hay 2018).

peptidemodel.com

Hypotheses4 directions▾ collapse

Research directions for this peptide, selected from the current sources — hypotheses you can explore and model. None of it is proven yet; tap any one to see the full thinking.

openupdated 2026-06-11

Does the receptor family member determine the shape this peptide takes when it binds?

If the receptor shapes the peptide rather than the other way around, scientists could fine-tune the fragment to preferentially block one receptor variant linked to migraine while sparing others linked to blood pressure regulation, reducing side effects.

The hypothesis
The low pLDDT (39.3) of alpha-CGRP(19-37) in the unbound state predicts that its binding selectivity among CGRP, AM1, and AM2 receptor complexes is primarily determined by induced-fit folding upon contact with specific RAMP subtypes, not by intrinsic pre-organized structure.
Why it’s plausible
CGRP, AM1 (CLR/RAMP2), and AM2 (CLR/RAMP3) receptors share the CLR core but differ in their RAMP subunit. A pLDDT of 39.3 indicates the free fragment has no stable fold. If folding is RAMP-driven, the pharmacological selectivity profile documented in 10.1111/bph.14075 (different pEC50 values across CGRP/AM1/AM2 subtypes) arises from differential RAMP-induced conformational selection rather than from a pre-structured epitope on the fragment.
Why it matters
Understanding whether selectivity is intrinsic or induced directly informs engineering: if RAMP-driven, modifying the fragment's conformational bias would be the lever to tune receptor-subtype selectivity for therapeutic purposes.
Plausibility.75
Novelty.55
Impact.60
Basis · grounding1 paper · 2 computed/notes
[1]
structurepLDDT=39.3 indicates the free peptide is intrinsically disordered, lacking a preformed binding conformation
[2]
paper
Documents distinct pEC50 values for different ligands at CGRP, AM1, and AM2 receptors, showing that receptor subtype identity influences pharmacology
doi: 10.1111/bph.14075
[3]
sequenceSequence SGGVVKNNFVPTNVGSKAF contains no obvious disulfide-forming cysteines or rigid structural elements that would pre-organize the fragment
openupdated 2026-06-11

Does this peptide fragment get its grip mainly from the RAMP1 helper protein rather than from the calcitonin receptor?

If true, drug designers targeting migraines would know they must model the RAMP1 partner protein to accurately predict how well blockers like this one work. This could improve the accuracy of computational drug screens for migraine treatments.

The hypothesis
Alpha-CGRP(19-37) achieves its moderate ipTM of 0.73 primarily through contacts with the RAMP1-CTR ECD rather than with the calcitonin receptor (calcr) transmembrane core, meaning calcr annotation understates its true pharmacological target as the CLR/RAMP1 complex (the canonical CGRP receptor).
Why it’s plausible
The annotated target is calcr, but the literature snippet from 10.1074/jbc.m115.713628 explicitly maps Y25A mutations and binding to RAMP1/2-CTR ECD interfaces. The C-terminal fragment of CGRP is well-established to engage the extracellular domain of the RAMP1-CLR heterodimer. An ipTM of 0.73 against calcr alone is plausible but may reflect partial interface capture; a complex model including RAMP1 would likely yield a higher confidence score.
Why it matters
If the functional target is the CLR/RAMP1 heterodimer rather than calcr alone, potency and selectivity predictions based on calcr-only models will be systematically off, and engineering efforts must treat the RAMP component as a co-target.
Plausibility.85
Novelty.20
Impact.60
Basis · grounding1 paper · 2 computed/notes
[1]
structureipTM=0.73, pLDDT=39.3 against calcr alone; low pLDDT suggests the fragment is largely disordered when not bound to the full CLR/RAMP1 complex
[2]
paper
Y25A mutation data shows differential binding to RAMP1-CTR vs RAMP2-CTR ECD, placing key contacts on the RAMP component of the receptor complex
doi: 10.1074/jbc.m115.713628
[3]
noteReadme states C-terminal half docks into receptor extracellular surface, consistent with RAMP1 ECD being the primary recognition interface
openupdated 2026-06-11

Do the two naturally floppy spots in this peptide determine whether it fits into the receptor correctly?

If the hinge residues are confirmed as essential, it would give chemists a clear set of rules for what not to change when redesigning this peptide as a drug, speeding up and de-risking medicinal chemistry programs aimed at migraine treatments.

The hypothesis
The Gly-Gly (GG) sequence at positions 2-3 and the Pro at position 11 of alpha-CGRP(19-37) together impose a mandatory two-hinge conformation that positions the NF pharmacophore and the C-terminal SKAF epitope on opposite faces of the folded fragment, and deletion of either hinge residue would abolish antagonist activity.
Why it’s plausible
Proline is a helix-breaker and introduces a rigid kink; GG provides maximal backbone flexibility as an N-terminal hinge. In SGGVVKNNFVPTNVGSKAF, Pro at position 11 (P29 in full CGRP) breaks any potential helix between the NF motif and the C-terminus, forcing SKAF into a separate orientation. The GG at positions 2-3 gives the N-terminal flank freedom to avoid clashing with the receptor surface. This two-hinge model predicts that even conservative replacements (Gly-to-Ala, Pro-to-Ala) would reduce binding by locking the peptide in a non-productive conformation.
Why it matters
Confirming the GG and Pro hinges as structurally essential would establish design rules for synthetic analogues: the Pro-kink must be preserved or mimicked, while glycine replacements at positions 2-3 would be forbidden substitutions in any medicinal chemistry campaign.
Plausibility.55
Novelty.50
Impact.45
Basis · grounding1 paper · 2 computed/notes
[1]
sequenceSequence SGGVVKNNFVPTNVGSKAF: GG at positions 2-3 provides N-terminal flexible hinge; P at position 11 is the only proline, creating a mandatory backbone kink between NF and SKAF sub-regions
[2]
structurepLDDT=39.3 is consistent with a multiply-hinged, non-globular structure in the free state, supporting a model with at least two conformationally flexible pivot points
[3]
paper
Juxtamembranous region of family B GPCR calcitonin receptor is critical for small-molecule action, consistent with the receptor tolerating only a specific geometric presentation of the peptide fragment
doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01525.x
openupdated 2026-06-11

Would joining the two ends of this floppy fragment together make it bind the receptor more tightly?

If joining the ends works, it could turn a weak research tool into a stronger drug candidate for migraine, and could be made by standard chemistry labs without expensive antibody manufacturing. The size of any gain is unknown until tested.

The hypothesis
Alpha-CGRP(19-37) can be converted from a low-potency research antagonist to a high-affinity biased antagonist by cyclization via a lactam bridge between K6 and the C-terminal AF motif, which would stabilize the receptor-bound conformation predicted to be disordered in the free peptide.
Why it’s plausible
The free fragment has pLDDT=39.3 (disordered). Cyclization is a standard strategy to pre-organize intrinsically disordered peptide antagonists, reducing the entropic cost of binding. The sequence contains K at position 6 (K24 in full CGRP) and the C-terminal carboxylate at F19, providing a viable lactam bridge distance. Constraining the middle loop while leaving NF and SKAF exposed could force the fragment into a receptor-competent shape without blocking the pharmacophore.
Why it matters
A cyclized variant with 10-100x improved affinity would be a far more useful pharmacological probe and a credible starting point for therapeutic lead optimization against migraine, without the manufacturing complexity of full-length CGRP antibodies.
Plausibility.60
Novelty.25
Impact.50
Basis · grounding1 paper · 2 computed/notes
[1]
structurepLDDT=39.3 confirms the free fragment is disordered; cyclization would reduce the conformational entropy penalty upon binding
[2]
sequenceSequence SGGVVKNNFVPTNVGSKAF: K at position 6 and C-terminal F at position 19 are appropriately spaced for a macrolactam bridge spanning the mid-loop
[3]
paper
RAMP1-CTR ECD binding is sensitive to specific mutations, indicating that a constrained, receptor-competent conformation would yield tighter binding
doi: 10.1074/jbc.m115.713628
details expand to inspect
full evidence table2 metrics
metricvaluetool
ipTM 0.7324920296669006 openfold3-mlx
ranking score 0.8363579511642456 openfold3-mlx
structural qualityopenfold3
0
metricvaluenote
gpde0.832global PDE — lower = better
disorder0.233fraction disordered
chain pair ipTM (A, B)0.732interface quality
3-letter notation
Ser-Gly-Gly-Val-Val-Lys-Asn-Asn-Phe-Val-Pro-Thr-Asn-Val-Gly-Ser-Lys-Ala-Phe
recipeopenfold3-mlx 0.3.1
parametervalue
modelopenfold3-mlx 0.3.1
weightsaedd8f3eb814e392…
hardwareapple_m4_base_16gb
mlx version0.31.1
python3.14.3
random seed42
msa strategycolabfold
diffusion samples1
runtime427s
predicted bymlx@peptide
predicted at2026-04-24
python3 openfold3/run_openfold.py predict --query_json {query.json} --runner_yaml examples/example_runner_yamls/mlx_runner.yml --output_dir {output_dir} --num_diffusion_samples 1
citationbibtex
peptidemodel (2026). CGRP receptor blocker fragment (alpha-CGRP 19-37) (pep-10654, v1). PeptideModel. https://peptidemodel.com/card/pep-10654
@peptide{pep10654,
  sequence = {SGGVVKNNFVPTNVGSKAF},
  target   = {calcr},
  author   = {peptidemodel},
  year     = {2026},
  status   = {synthesized}
}
related peptides 5 by signal overlap
clinical trials 19 on ct.gov · checked 2026-05-22
ct.gov trials 19
with results 4
PubMed RCT 92
by phase
3phase 21phase 32phase 44no phase
by status
5completed2recruiting2terminated1unknown
references 5 papers
discussion no comments
sign in to comment
peptidemodel.com CC-BY-SA-4.0 research only · not for human use