4.6 Article

ATP Binding Site Mutagenesis Reveals Different Subunit Stoichiometry of Functional P2X2/3 and P2X2/6 Receptors

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 287, Issue 17, Pages 13930-13943

Publisher

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M112.345207

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [FOR 748]
  2. Volkswagen Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the present experiments was to clarify the subunit stoichiometry of P2X2/3 and P2X2/6 receptors, where the same subunit (P2X2) forms a receptor with two different partners (P2X3 or P2X6). For this purpose, four non-functional Ala mutants of the P2X2, P2X3, and P2X6 subunits were generated by replacing single, homologous amino acids particularly important for agonist binding. Co-expression of these mutants in HEK293 cells to yield the P2X2 WT/P2X3 mutant or P2X2 mutant/P2X3 WT receptors resulted in a selective blockade of agonist responses in the former combination only. In contrast, of the P2X2 WT/P2X6 mutant and P2X2 mutant/P2X6 WT receptors, only the latter combination failed to respond to agonists. The effects of alpha,beta-methylene-ATP and 2-methylthio-ATP were determined by measuring transmembrane currents by the patch clamp technique and intracellular Ca2+ transients by the Ca2+-imaging method. Protein labeling, purification, and PAGE confirmed the assembly and surface trafficking of the investigated WT and WT/mutant combinations in Xenopus laevis oocytes. In conclusion, both electrophysiological and biochemical investigations uniformly indicate that one subunit of P2X2 and two subunits of P2X3 form P2X2/3 heteromeric receptors, whereas two subunits of P2X2 and one subunit of P2X6 constitute P2X2/6 receptors. Further, it was shown that already two binding sites of the three possible ones are sufficient to allow these receptors to react with their agonists.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available