4.6 Article

Agonist and blocking actions of choline and tetramethylammonium on human muscle acetylcholine receptors

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 587, 期 21, 页码 5045-5072

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2009.176305

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [074491]
  2. Medical Research Council [G0400869]
  3. Medical Research Council [G0400869] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [G0400869] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Choline has been used widely as an agonist for the investigation of gain-of-function mutants of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. It is useful because it behaves like a partial agonist. The efficacy of choline is difficult to measure because choline blocks the channel at concentrations about four times lower than those that activate it. We have fitted activation mechanisms to single-channel activity elicited from HEK-expressed human recombinant muscle nicotinic receptors by choline and by tetramethylammonium (TMA). Channel block by the agonist was incorporated into the mechanisms that were fitted, and block was found not to be selective for the open state. The results also suggest that channel block is very fast and that the channel can shut almost as fast as normal when the blocker was bound. Single-channel data are compatible with a mechanism in which choline is actually a full agonist, its maximum response being limited only by channel block. However, they are also compatible with a mechanism incorporating a pre-opening conformation change ('flip') in which choline is a genuine partial agonist. The latter explanation is favoured by concentration jump experiments, and by the fact that only this mechanism fits the TMA data. We propose that choline, like TMA, is a partial agonist because it is very ineffective (approximately 600-fold less than acetylcholine) at eliciting the initial, pre-opening conformation change. Once flipping has occurred, all agonists, even choline, open the channel with similar efficiency.

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