4.6 Article

Selective block of the human 2-P domain potassium channel, TASK-3, and the native leak potassium current, IKSO, by zinc

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 560, 期 1, 页码 51-62

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2004.070292

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background potassium channels control the resting membrane potential of neurones and regulate their excitability. Two-pore-domain potassium (2-PK) channels have been shown to underlie a number of such neuronal background currents. Currents through human TASK-1, TASK-2 and TASK-3 channels expressed in Xenopus oocytes were inhibited by extracellular acidification. For TASK-3, mutation of histidine 98 to aspartate or alanine considerably reduced this effect of pH. Zinc was found to be a selective blocker of TASK-3 with virtually no effect on TASK-1 or TASK-2. Zinc had an IC50 of 19.8 mum for TASK-3, at +80 mV, with little voltage dependence associated with this inhibition. TASK-3 H98A had a much reduced sensitivity to zinc suggesting this site is important for zinc block. Surprisingly, TASK-1 also has histidine in position 98 but is insensitive to zinc block. TASK-3 and TASK-1 differ at position 70 with glutamate for TASK-3 and lysine for TASK-1. TASK-3 E70K also had a much reduced sensitivity to zinc while the corresponding reverse mutation in TASK-1, K70E, induced zinc sensitivity. A TASK-3-TASK-1 concatamer channel was comparatively zinc insensitive. For TASK-3, it is concluded that positions E70 and H98 are both critical for zinc block. The native cerebellar granule neurone (CGN) leak current, IKSO, is sensitive to block by zinc, with current reduced to 0.58 of control values in the presence of 100 mum zinc. This suggests that TASK-3 channels underlie a major component of IKSO. It has recently been suggested that zinc is released from inhibitory synapses onto CGNs. Therefore it is possible that inhibition of IKSO in cerebellar granule cells by synaptically released zinc may have important physiological consequences.

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