ArticleThe Journal of physiology2002
Mechanism of Kir6.2 channel inhibition by sulfhydryl modification: pore block or allosteric gating?
Article in The Journal of physiology, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Postranslational Modification of Ion Channels in Colonic Inflammation.Current neuropharmacology · 2015Review
- Hydrogen sulfide as an allosteric modulator of ATP-sensitive potassium channels in colonic inflammation.Molecular pharmacology · 2013Article
- Nitric oxide activates ATP-sensitive potassium channels in mammalian sensory neurons: action by direct S-nitrosylation.Molecular pain · 2009Article
- Identification of residues contributing to the ATP binding site of Kir6.2.The EMBO journal · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
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(+) (K(ATP)) channels. The crucial modification has been localized to C42 near the N-terminus of Kir6.2, a pore-forming subunit of K(ATP) 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.