4.8 Article

Multiscale Kinetic Modeling Reveals an Ensemble of Cl-/H+ Exchange Pathways in ClC-ec1 Antiporter

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 140, 期 5, 页码 1793-1804

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jacs.7b11463

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01-GM053148]
  2. National Science Foundation [ACI-1053575]
  3. U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) High Performance Computing Modernization Program at the Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)
  4. Navy DOD Super computing Resource Centers
  5. University of Chicago Research Computing Center (RCC)
  6. NIH
  7. Argonne National Laboratory [1S10OD018495-01]
  8. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM053148] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite several years of research, the ion exchange mechanisms in chloride/proton antiporters and many other coupled transporters are not yet understood at the molecular level. Here, we present a novel approach to kinetic modeling and apply it to ion exchange in ClC-ec1. Our multiscale kinetic model is developed by (1) calculating the state-to-state rate coefficients with reactive and polarizable molecular dynamics simulations, (2) optimizing these rates in a global kinetic network, and (3) predicting new electrophysiological results. The model shows that the robust Cl:H exchange ratio (2.2:1) can indeed arise from kinetic coupling without large protein conformational changes, indicating a possible facile evolutionary connection to chloride channels. The E148 amino acid residue is shown to couple chloride and proton transport through protonation-dependent blockage of the central anion binding site and an anion-dependent pK(a) value, which influences proton transport. The results demonstrate how an ensemble of different exchange pathways, as opposed to a single series of transitions, culminates in the macroscopic observables of the antiporter, such as transport rates, chloride/proton stoichiometry, and pH dependence.

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

4.8
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