4.6 Article

Contributions of Conserved Residues at the Gating Interface of Glycine Receptors

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 286, 期 40, 页码 35129-35136

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M111.269027

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [56858]
  2. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
  3. Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glycine receptors (GlyRs) are chloride channels that mediate fast inhibitory neurotransmission and are members of the pentameric ligand-gated ion channel (pLGIC) family. The interface between the ligand binding domain and the transmembrane domain of pLGICs has been proposed to be crucial for channel gating and is lined by a number of charged and aromatic side chains that are highly conserved among different pLGICs. However, little is known about specific interactions between these residues that are likely to be important for gating in alpha 1 GlyRs. Here we use the introduction of cysteine pairs and the in vivo nonsense suppression method to incorporate unnatural amino acids to probe the electrostatic and hydrophobic contributions of five highly conserved side chains near the interface, Glu-53, Phe-145, Asp-148, Phe-187, and Arg-218. Our results suggest a salt bridge between Asp-148 in loop 7 and Arg-218 in the pre-M1 domain that is crucial for channel gating. We further propose that Phe-145 and Phe-187 play important roles in stabilizing this interaction by providing a hydrophobic environment. In contrast to the equivalent residues in loop 2 of other pLGICs, the negative charge at Glu-53 alpha 1 GlyRs is not crucial for normal channel function. These findings help decipher the GlyR gating pathway and show that distinct residue interaction patterns exist in different pLGICs. Furthermore, a salt bridge between Asp-148 and Arg-218 would provide a possible mechanistic explanation for the pathophysiologically relevant hyperekplexia, or startle disease, mutant Arg-2183 -> Gln.

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