4.6 Article

The D-diastereomer of ShK toxin selectively blocks voltage-gated K+ channels and inhibits T lymphocyte proliferation

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 283, 期 2, 页码 988-997

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M706008200

关键词

-

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [NS-48252] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The polypeptide toxin ShK is a potent blocker of Kv1.3 potassium channels, which are crucial in the activation of human effector memory T cells (T-EM); selective blockers constitute valuable therapeutic leads for the treatment of autoimmune diseases mediated by TEM cells, such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and type-1 diabetes. The critical motif on the toxin for potassium channel blockade consists of neighboring lysine and tyrosine residues. Because this motif is sufficient for activity, an ShK analogue was designed based on D-amino acids. D-Allo-ShK has a structure essentially identical with that of ShK and is resistant to proteolysis. It blocked Kv1.3 with K-d 36 nM (2,800-fold lower affinity than ShK), was 2-fold selective for Kv1.3 over Kv1.1, and was inactive against other K+ channels tested. D-Allo-ShK inhibited human TEM cell proliferation at 100-fold higher concentration than ShK. Its circulating half-life was only slightly longer than that of ShK, implying that renal clearance is the major determinant of its plasma levels. D-Allo-ShK did not bind to the closed state of the channel, unlike ShK. Models of D-allo-ShK bound to Kv1.3 show that it can block the pore as effectively as ShK but makes different interactions with the vestibule, some of which are less favorable than for native ShK. The finding that an all-D analogue of a polypeptide toxin retains biological activity and selectivity is highly unusual. Being resistant to proteolysis and nonantigenic, this analogue should be useful in K+ channel studies; all-D analogues with improved Kv1.3 potency and specificity may have therapeutic advantages.

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