4.8 Article

Mechanism of chloride interaction with neurotransmitter: sodium symporters

期刊

NATURE
卷 449, 期 7163, 页码 726-U9

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature06133

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [K05 DA022413] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neurotransmitter: sodium symporters (NSS) have a critical role in regulating neurotransmission and are targets for psycho-stimulants, anti-depressants and other drugs(1,2). Whereas the non-homologous glutamate transporters mediate chloride conductance(3), in the eukaryotic NSS chloride is transported together with the neurotransmitter(4-7). In contrast, transport by the bacterial NSS family members LeuT, Tyt1 and TnaT is chloride independent(8-10). The crystal structure of LeuT reveals an occluded binding pocket containing leucine and two sodium ions(9), and is highly relevant for the neurotransmitter transporters(11-13). However, the precise role of chloride in neurotransmitter transport and the location of its binding site remain elusive. Here we show that introduction of a negatively charged amino acid at or near one of the two putative sodium-binding sites of the GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid) transporter GAT-1 from rat brain (also called SLC6A1)(14,15) renders both net flux and exchange of GABA largely chloride independent. In contrast to wild-type GAT-1, a marked stimulation of the rate of net flux, but not of exchange, was observed when the internal pH was lowered. Equivalent mutations introduced in the mouse GABA transporter GAT4 (SLC6A11) and the human dopamine transporter DAT (SLC6A3) also result in chloride-independent transport, whereas the reciprocal mutations in LeuT and Tyt1 render substrate binding and/or uptake by these bacterial NSS chloride dependent. Our data indicate that the negative charge, provided either by chloride or by the transporter itself, is required during binding and translocation of the neurotransmitter, probably to counterbalance the charge of the co-transported sodium ions.

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