4.6 Article

Residues beyond the selectivity filter of the K+ channel Kir2.1 regulate permeation and block by external Rb+ and Cs+

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
Volume 526, Issue 2, Pages 231-240

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2000.00231.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

1. Kir2.1 channels are blocked by Rb+ and Cs+ in a voltage-dependent manner, characteristic: of many inward rectifier K+ channels. Mutation of Ser165 in the transmembrane domain M2 to Leu (S165L) abolished Rb+ blockage and lowered Cs+ blocking affinity. At negative voltages Rb+ carried large inward currents. 2. A model of the Kir2.1 channel, built by homology with the structure of the Streptomyces lividans K+ channel KcsA, suggested the existence of an intersubunit hydrogen bond between Ser165 and Thr141 in the channel pore-forming P-region that helps stabilise the structure of this region. However, mutations of Thr141 and Xer165 did not produce effects consistent with a hydrogen bond between these residues being essential for blockage. 3. An alternative alignment between the M2 regions of Kir2.1 and KcsA suggested that Xer165 is itself a pore-lining residue, more directly affecting blockage. We were able to replace Ser165 with a variety of polar and non-polar residues, consistent with this residue being pore lining. Some of these changes affected channel blockage. 4. We tested the hypothesis that Asp172 - a residue implicated in channel gating by polyamines - formed an additional selectivity filter by using the triple mutant T141A/X165L/D172N. Large Rb+ and Cs+ currents were measured in this mutant. 5. We propose that both Thr141 and Xer165 are likely to provide binding sites for monovalent blocking cations in wild-type channels. These residues lie beyond the carbonyl oxygen tunnel thought to form the channel selectivity filter, which the blocking cations must therefore traverse.

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