4.6 Article

Requiation of the gating of BKCa channel by lipid bilayer thickness

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 282, 期 10, 页码 7276-7286

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M607593200

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAAA NIH HHS [AA12054] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Transmembrane segments of ion channels tend to match the hydrophobic thickness of lipid bilayers to minimize mismatch energy and to maintain their proper organization and function. To probe how ion channels respond to mismatch with lipid bilayers of different thicknesses, we examined the single channel activities of BKCa (hSlo alpha-subunit) channels in planar bilayers of binary mixtures of DOPE (1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine) with phosphatidylcholines (PCs) of varying chain lengths, including PC 14:1, PC 18:1, PC 22:1, PC 24:1, and with porcine brain sphingomyelin. Bilayer thickness and structure was measured with small angle x-ray diffraction and atomic force microscopy. The open probability (P-o) of the BKCa channel was finely tuned by bilayer thickness, first decreasing with increases in bilayer thickness from PC 14:1 to PC 22:1 and then increasing from PC 22:1 to PC 24:1 and to porcine brain sphingomyelin. Single channel kinetic analyses revealed that the mean open time of the channel increased monotonically with bilayer thickness and, therefore, could not account for the biphasic changes in P-o. The mean closed time increased with bilayer thickness from PC 14:1 up to PC 22:1 and then decreased with further increases in bilayer thickness to PC 24:1 and sphingomyelin, correlating with changes in P-o. This is consistent with the proposition that bilayer thickness affects channel activity mainly through altering the stability of the closed state. We suggest a simple mechanical model that combines forces of lateral stress within the lipid bilayer with local hydrophobic mismatch between lipids and the protein to account for the biphasic modulation of BKCa gating.

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