4.6 Article

NMR Structure and Action on Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors of Water-soluble Domain of Human LYNX1

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 286, 期 12, 页码 10618-10627

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M110.189100

关键词

-

资金

  1. Russian Academy of Sciences
  2. Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) [08-04-01603, 09-04-01567]
  3. RFBR-NWO (Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research) [06-04-89400]
  4. FP7 Grant
  5. Institute of Physiology [AV0Z50110509]
  6. Agency of the Czech Republic [305/09/0681]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Discovery of proteins expressed in the central nervous system sharing the three-finger structure with snake alpha-neurotoxins provoked much interest to their role in brain functions. Prototoxin LYNX1, having homology both to Ly6 proteins and three-finger neurotoxins, is the first identified member of this family membrane-tethered by a GPI anchor, which considerably complicates in vitro studies. We report for the first time the NMR spatial structure for the water-soluble domain of human LYNX1 lacking a GPI anchor (ws-LYNX1) and its concentration-dependent activity on nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs). At 5-30 mu M, ws-LYNX1 competed with I-125-alpha-bungarotoxin for binding to the acetylcholine-binding proteins (AChBPs) and to Torpedo nAChR. Exposure of Xenopus oocytes expressing alpha 7 nAChRs to 1 mu M ws-LYNX1 enhanced the response to acetylcholine, but no effect was detected on alpha 4 beta 2 and alpha 3 beta 2 nAChRs. Increasing ws-LYNX1 concentration to 10 mu M caused a modest inhibition of these three nAChR subtypes. A common feature for ws-LYNX1 and LYNX1 is a decrease of nAChR sensitivity to high concentrations of acetylcholine. NMR and functional analysis both demonstrate that ws-LYNX1 is an appropriate model to shed light on the mechanism of LYNX1 action. Computer modeling, based on ws-LYNX1 NMR structure and AChBP x-ray structure, revealed a possible mode of ws-LYNX1 binding.

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