4.6 Article

Native Store-operated Ca2+ Influx Requires the Channel Function of Orai1 and TRPC1

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 284, 期 15, 页码 9733-9741

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M808097200

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [DE12309, DK38938]
  2. National Institute on Drug Abuse [DA00266, DA10309]
  3. National Institute of Mental Health [MH068830]
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea [전06A1203] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the discovery of STIM1 and Orai1 and gating of both TRPC and Orai1 channels by STIM1, a central question is the role of each of the channels in the native store-operated Ca2+ influx (SOCs). Here, we used a strategy of knockdown of Orai1 and of TRPC1 alone and in combination and rescue by small interfering RNA-protected mutants (sm) of smOrai1 and smTRPC1 to demonstrate that in human embryonic kidney (HEK) cells, rescue of SOCs required co-transfection of low levels of both smOrai1 and smTRPC1. The pore mutant Orai1(E106Q) failed to rescue the SOCs in the presence or absence of TRPC1 and, surprisingly, the pore mutant TRPC1(F562A) failed to rescue the SOCs in the presence or absence of Orai1. TRPC1 is gated by electrostatic interaction between TRPC1(D639D, D640D) with STIM1(K684K, K685K). Strikingly, the channel-dead TRPC1(D639K, D640K) that can be rescued only by the STIM1(K684E, K685E) mutant could restore SOCs only when expressed with Orai1 and STIM1( K684E, K685E). Accordingly, we found a mutual requirement of Orai1 and TRPC1 for their interaction with the native STIM1 in HEK cells. By contrast, SOC and the CRAC current in Jurkat cells were inhibited by knockdown of Orai1 but were not influenced by knockdown on TRPC1 or TRPC3. These findings define the molecular makeup of the native SOCs in HEK cells and the role of a STIM1-Orai1-TRPC1 complex in SOC activity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据