4.3 Article

Luminal Ca2+ regulation of single cardiac ryanodine receptors:: Insights provided by calsequestrin and its mutants

期刊

JOURNAL OF GENERAL PHYSIOLOGY
卷 131, 期 4, 页码 325-334

出版社

ROCKEFELLER UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1085/jgp.200709907

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01HL5783] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Telethon [GGP04066] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The luminal Ca2+ regulation of cardiac ryanodine receptor (RyR2) was explored at the single channel level. The luminal Ca2+ and Mg2+ sensitivity of single CSQ2-stripped and CSQ2-associated RyR2 channels was defined. Action of wild-type CSQ2 and of two mutant CSQ2s (R33Q and L167H) was also compared. Two luminal Ca2+ regulatory mechanism (s) were identified. One is a RyR2-resident mechanism that is CSQ2 independent and does not distinguish between luminal Ca2+ and Mg2+. This mechanism modulates the maximal efficacy of cytosolic Ca2+ activation. The second luminal Ca2+ regulatory mechanism is CSQ2 dependent and distinguishes between luminal Ca2+ and Mg2+. It does not depend on CSQ2 oligomerization or CSQ2 monomer Ca2+ binding affinity. The key Ca2+-sensitive step in this mechanism may be the Ca2+-dependent CSQ2 interaction with triadin. The CSQ2-dependent mechanism alters the cytosolic Ca2+ sensitivity of the channel. The R33Q CSQ2 mutant can participate in luminal RyR2 Ca2+ regulation but less effectively than wild-type (WT) CSQ2. CSQ2-L167H does not participate in luminal RyR2 Ca2+ regulation. The disparate actions of these two catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT)-linked mutants implies that either alteration or elimination of CSQ2-dependent luminal RyR2 regulation can generate the CPVT phenotype. We propose that the RyR2-resident, CSQ2-independent luminal Ca2+ mechanism may assure that all channels respond robustly to large (>5 PM) local cytosolic Ca2+ stimuli, whereas the CSQ2-dependent mechanism may help close RyR2 channels after luminal Ca2+ falls below similar to 0.5 mM.

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

4.3
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