4.3 Article

Molecular determination of claudin-15 organization and channel selectivity

期刊

JOURNAL OF GENERAL PHYSIOLOGY
卷 150, 期 7, 页码 949-968

出版社

ROCKEFELLER UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1085/jgp.201711868

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Illinois at Chicago's startup funds
  2. National Institutes of Health [K08DK088953, K01DK092381]
  3. American Physiological Society (S&R Foundation Ryuiji Ueno Award)
  4. National Science Foundation [OCI-0725070, ACI-1238993]
  5. state of Illinois

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tight junctions are macromolecular structures that traverse the space between adjacent cells in epithelia and endothelia. Members of the claudin family are known to determine tight junction permeability in a charge- and size-selective manner. Here, we use molecular dynamics simulations to build and refine an atomic model of claudin-15 channels and study its transport properties. Our simulations indicate that claudin-15 forms well-defined channels for ions and molecules and otherwise seals the paracellular space through hydrophobic interactions. Ionic currents, calculated from simulation trajectories of wild-type as well as mutant channels, reflect in vitro measurements. The simulations suggest that the selectivity filter is formed by a cage of four aspartic acid residues (D55), contributed by four claudin-15 molecules, which creates a negative electrostatic potential to favor cation flux over anion flux. Charge reversal or charge ablation mutations of D55 significantly reduce cation permeability in silico and in vitro, whereas mutations of other negatively charged pore amino acid residues have a significantly smaller impact on channel permeability and selectivity. The simulations also indicate that water and small ions can pass through the channel, but larger cations, such as tetramethylammonium, do not traverse the pore. Thus, our model provides an atomic view of claudin channels, their transport function, and a potential three-dimensional organization of its selectivity filter.

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