4.8 Article

Physical interaction of junctophilin and the CaV1.1 C terminus is crucial for skeletal muscle contraction

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1716649115

关键词

skeletal muscle; dihydropyridine receptor; junctophilin; triad; ryanodine receptor

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science and Technology of Japan [24590271, 16K08491]
  2. Novartis Foundation (Japan) for the Promotion of Science
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24590271, 16K08491] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Close physical association of Ca(V)1.1 L-type calcium channels (LTCCs) at the sarcolemmal junctional membrane (JM) with ryanodine receptors (RyRs) of the sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR) is crucial for excitation-contraction coupling (ECC) in skeletal muscle. However, the molecular mechanism underlying the JM targeting of LTCCs is un-explored. Junctophilin 1 (JP1) and JP2 stabilize the JM by bridging the sarcolemmal and SR membranes. Here, we examined the roles of JPs in localization and function of LTCCs. Knockdown of JP1 or JP2 in cultured myotubes inhibited LTCC clustering at the JM and suppressed evoked Ca2+ transients without disrupting JM structure. Coimmunoprecipitation and GST pull-down assays demonstrated that JPs physically interacted with 12-aa residues in the proximal C terminus of the CaV1.1. A JP1 mutant lacking the C terminus including the transmembrane domain (JP1 Delta CT) interacted with the sarcolemmal/T-tubule membrane but not the SR membrane. Expression of this mutant in adult mouse muscles in vivo exerted a dominant-negative effect on endogenous JPs, impairing LTCC-RyR coupling at triads without disrupting JM morphology, and substantially reducing Ca2+ transients without affecting SR Ca2+ content. Moreover, the contractile force of the JP1 Delta CT-expressedmuscle was dramatically reduced compared with the control. Taken together, JPs recruit LTCCs to the JM through physical interaction and ensure robust ECC at triads in skeletal muscle.

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