4.5 Article

Second transmembrane domain modulates epithelial sodium channel gating in response to shear stress

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-RENAL PHYSIOLOGY
卷 300, 期 5, 页码 F1089-F1095

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajprenal.00610.2010

关键词

epithelial Na channel

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 DK051391, P30 DK079307]
  2. National Kidney Foundation
  3. American Heart Association
  4. American Society of Nephrology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Abi-Antoun T, Shi S, Tolino LA, Kleyman TR, Carattino MD. Second transmembrane domain modulates epithelial sodium channel gating in response to shear stress. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 300: F1089-F1095, 2011. First published February 9, 2011; doi:10.1152/ajprenal.00610.2010.-Na+ absorption and K+ secretion in the distal segments of the nephron are modulated by the tubular flow rate. Epithelial Na+ channels (ENaC), composed of alpha-, beta-, and gamma-subunits respond to laminar shear stress (LSS) with an increase in open probability. Higher vertebrates express a delta-ENaC subunit that is functionally related to the alpha-subunit, while sharing only 35% of sequence identity. We investigated the response of delta beta gamma channels to LSS. Both the time course and magnitude of activation of delta beta gamma channels by LSS were remarkably different from those of alpha beta gamma channels. ENaC subunits have similar topology, with an extracellular region connected by two transmembrane domains with intracellular N and C termini. To identify the specific domains that are responsible for the differences in the response to flow of alpha beta gamma and delta beta gamma channels, we generated a series of alpha-delta chimeras and site-specific alpha-subunit mutants and examined parameters of activation by LSS. We found that specific sites in the region encompassing and just preceding the second transmembrane domain were responsible for the differences in the magnitude and time course of channel activation by LSS.

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

4.5
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