» Articles » PMID: 8814613

Voltage Dependence of Mouse Acetylcholine Receptor Gating: Different Charge Movements in Di-, Mono- and Unliganded Receptors

Overview
Journal J Physiol
Specialty Physiology
Date 1996 Jul 1
PMID 8814613
Citations 34
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

1. The voltage dependence of binding and gating in wild-type and mutant recombinant mouse nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (AChRs) was examined at the single-channel level. 2. The closing rate constant of diliganded receptors decreased e-fold with approximately 66 mV hyperpolarization in both wild-type (adult and embryonic) and mutant receptors. The opening rate constant of a mutant receptor (alpha Y93F) was not voltage dependent. 3. The voltage dependence of closing in monoliganded receptors was examined in several receptors having a mutation in the binding site (alpha G153S) or pore region (alpha L251C and epsilon T264P). The closing rate constant of these monoliganded receptors decreased e-fold with approximately 124 mV hyperpolarization. 4. The voltage dependence of closing and opening in unliganded receptors was examined in two receptors having a mutation in the pore region (alpha L251C and epsilon T264P). Neither the closing nor the opening rate constants of unliganded receptors were voltage dependent. 5. If z if the amount of charge that moves during channel closure and delta is the distance (as a fraction of the electric field) that the charge moves, we conclude that z delta = 0.4 in diliganded receptors, 0.2 in monoliganded receptors, and 0.0 in unliganded receptors. It is likely that charges on the protein, rather than the agonist molecule, move z delta = 0.2 after each ACh molecule has bound. 6. The results suggest that unliganded openings arise from a local, concerted change in the structure of the pore (channel opening) that does not involve the net movement of charged residues. We speculate that as a consequence of agonist binding, charged moieties in the protein change their disposition so that they move with respect to the electric field when the channel gates. The results are consistent with the idea that there is semi-independent movement of distinct domains during AChR gating.

Citing Articles

Structural correlates of affinity in fetal versus adult endplate nicotinic receptors.

Nayak T, Chakraborty S, Zheng W, Auerbach A Nat Commun. 2016; 7:11352.

PMID: 27101778 PMC: 4845029. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms11352.


Mechanistic and structural determinants of NMDA receptor voltage-dependent gating and slow Mg2+ unblock.

Clarke R, Glasgow N, Johnson J J Neurosci. 2013; 33(9):4140-50.

PMID: 23447622 PMC: 3629906. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3712-12.2013.


Voltage- and calcium-dependent gating of TMEM16A/Ano1 chloride channels are physically coupled by the first intracellular loop.

Xiao Q, Yu K, Perez-Cornejo P, Cui Y, Arreola J, Hartzell H Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108(21):8891-6.

PMID: 21555582 PMC: 3102354. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1102147108.


Glycine hinges with opposing actions at the acetylcholine receptor-channel transmitter binding site.

Purohit P, Auerbach A Mol Pharmacol. 2010; 79(3):351-9.

PMID: 21115636 PMC: 3061369. DOI: 10.1124/mol.110.068767.


Subunit symmetry at the extracellular domain-transmembrane domain interface in acetylcholine receptor channel gating.

Bruhova I, Auerbach A J Biol Chem. 2010; 285(50):38898-904.

PMID: 20864527 PMC: 2998135. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M110.169110.


References
1.
Colquhoun D, Sakmann B . Fast events in single-channel currents activated by acetylcholine and its analogues at the frog muscle end-plate. J Physiol. 1985; 369:501-57. PMC: 1192660. DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.1985.sp015912. View

2.
Jackson M . Kinetics of unliganded acetylcholine receptor channel gating. Biophys J. 1986; 49(3):663-72. PMC: 1329513. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3495(86)83693-1. View

3.
Imoto K, Methfessel C, Sakmann B, Mishina M, Mori Y, Konno T . Location of a delta-subunit region determining ion transport through the acetylcholine receptor channel. Nature. 1986; 324(6098):670-4. DOI: 10.1038/324670a0. View

4.
Koshland Jr D, NEMETHY G, Filmer D . Comparison of experimental binding data and theoretical models in proteins containing subunits. Biochemistry. 1966; 5(1):365-85. DOI: 10.1021/bi00865a047. View

5.
Karlin A . On the application of "a plausible model" of allosteric proteins to the receptor for acetylcholine. J Theor Biol. 1967; 16(2):306-20. DOI: 10.1016/0022-5193(67)90011-2. View