4.2 Article

Overlapping Cardiac Phenotype Associated with a Familial Mutation in the Voltage Sensor of the KCNQ1 Channel

期刊

CELLULAR PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 29, 期 5-6, 页码 809-818

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000178470

关键词

Oocyte; Kv7.1; KvLQT1; KCNE; Heart; Arrhythmia

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [DFG SE 1077/3-1, DFG Schu1082/3-1, Schu1082/3-1]
  2. RUB
  3. Fondation Leducq, Paris, France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cardiac action potential repolarisation is determined by K+ currents including I-Ks . I-Ks channels are heteromeric channels composed of KCNQ1 and KCNE beta-subunits. Mutations in KCNQ1 are associated with sinus bradycardia, familial atrial fibrillation (fAF) and/or short QT syndrome as a result of gain-of-function, and long QT syndrome (LQTS) due to loss-of- function in the ventricles. Here, we report that the missense mutation R231C located in S4 voltage sensor domain is associated with a combined clinical phenotype of sinus bradycardia, fAF and LQTS. We aim to understand the molecular basis of the complex clinical phenotype. Methods: We expressed and functionally analyzed the respective channels kinetics in Xenopus laevis oocytes. The molecular nature of the residue R231 was studied by homology modeling and molecular dynamics simulation. Results: As a result, the mutation reduced voltage sensitivity of channels, possibly due to neutralization of the positive charge of the arginine side chain substituted by cysteine. Modeling suggested that the charge carrying side chain of R231 is positioned suitably to transfer transmembrane voltages into conformational energy. Further, the mutation altered the functional interactions with KCNE subunits. Conclusion: The mutation acted in a beta-subunit dependent manner, suggesting I-Ks function altered by the presence of different KCNE subunits in sinus node, atria and ventricles as the molecular basis of sinus bradycardia, fAF and LQTS in mutation carriers. Copyright (c) 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.2
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