4.1 Article

Direct comparison of NPPB and DPC as probes of CFTR expressed in Xenopus oocytes

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE BIOLOGY
Volume 175, Issue 1, Pages 35-52

Publisher

SPRINGER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s002320001053

Keywords

cystic fibrosis; cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator; chloride channel blocker; anion channel; arylaminobenzoate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Blockers of CFTR with well-characterized kinetics and mechanism of action will be useful as probes of pore structure. We have studied the mechanism of block of CFTR by the arylaminobenzoates NPPB and DPC. Block of macroscopic currents by NPPB and DPC exhibited similar voltage-dependence, suggestive of an overlapping binding region. Kinetic analysis of single-channel currents in the presence of NPPB indicate drug-induced closed time constants averaging 2.2 msec at -100 mV. The affinity for NPPB calculated from single-channel block, K-D = 35 mu M, exceeds that for other arylaminobenzoates studied thus far. These drugs do not affect the rate of activation of wild-type (WT) channels expressed in oocytes, consistent with a simple mechanism of block by pore occlusion, and appear to have a single binding site in the pore. Block by NPPB and DPC were affected by pore-domain mutations in different ways. In contrast to its effects on block by DPC, mutation T1134F-CFTR decreased the affinity and reduced the voltage-dependence for block by NPPB. We also show that the alteration of macroscopic block by NPPB and DPC upon changes in bath pH is due to both direct effects (i.e., alteration of voltage-dependence) and indirect effects (alteration of cytoplasmic drug loading). These results indicate that both NPPB and DPC block CFTR by entering the pore from the cytoplasmic side and that the structural requirements for binding are not the same, although the binding regions within the pore are similar. The two drugs may be useful as probes for overlapping regions in the pore.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available