J Physiol Society Membership
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Physiology in Press

First published online on March 15, 2002.
Copyright © 2002 by The Physiological Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
540/3/731    most recent
2001.013366v1
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cui, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Fan, Z.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Cui, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Fan, Z.

Received October 5, 2001
Accepted after revision February 13, 2002

Mechanism of Kir6.2 channel inhibition by sulfhydryl modification: pore block or allosteric gating?

Yijun Cui1 and Zheng Fan2*

1 Department of Physiology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, College of Medicine, Memphis, TN 38163, USA
2 Department of Physiology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, College of Medicine, 894 Union Avenue, Memphis, TN 38163, USA

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: zfan{at}physio1.utmem.edu.

Chemical modification can inhibit ion channels either by reacting with pore-lining residues and directly occluding the channel or by closing the channel allosterically. A general method to distinguish between these two mechanisms does not exist. Previously, sulfhydryl (SH) modification has been shown to inhibit ATP-sensitive K+ (KATP) channels. The crucial modification has been localized to C42 near the N-terminus of Kir6.2, a pore-forming subunit of KATP channels, but little is known about how SH modification of C42 causes channel inhibition. To investigate this mechanism, we used the membrane-impermeable methanethiosulfonates, MTSET and MTS-TEAH, to modify Kir6.2 channels. While intracellular application of MTSET irreversibly inhibited channels, MTS-TEAH failed to do so. Instead, MTS-TEAH treatment prolonged channel openings and prevented the effect of subsequent MTSET treatment. Similar observations were made in mutants in which cysteines other than C42 had been mutated. Neither MTSET nor MTS-TEAH, however, affected mutant channels in which valines were substituted for C42 residues in all subunits. The reagents were effective when two of four C42 residues in the tetramer were replaced by valines. These results can be interpreted as indicating that both reagents modify C42. We then employed spermine, a known inner pore blocker, as a probe to examine whether MTS-TEAH modification alters pore accessibility. We found that spermine block was not changed by MTS-TEAH modification. Based on these data, we postulate that C42 faces either the cytoplasm or a vestibule section wide enough to allow spermine to pass freely after modification by MTS-TEAH. Our study suggests that channel inhibition caused by SH modification of Kir6.2 is an allosteric effect, and is not caused by direct pore blockage.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2002 The Physiological Society.