ArticleBiophysical journal2010
Accessibility of the CLC-0 pore to charged methanethiosulfonate reagents.
Article in Biophysical journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electrostatic tuning of the pre- and post-hydrolytic open states in CFTR.The Journal of general physiology · 2017Article
- Modulation of the slow/common gating of CLC channels by intracellular cadmium.The Journal of general physiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Using the substituted-cysteine-accessibility method, we previously showed that a cysteine residue introduced to the Y512 position of CLC-0 was more rapidly modified by a negatively charged methanethiosulfonate (MTS) reagent, 2-sulfonatoethyl MTS (MTSES), than by the positively charged 2-(trimethylammonium)ethyl MTS (MTSET). This result suggests that a positive intrinsic pore potential attracts the negatively charged MTS molecule. In this study, we further test this hypothesis of a positive pore potential in CLC-0 and find that the preference for the negatively charged MTS is diminished significantly in modifying the substituted cysteine at a deeper pore position, E166. To examine this conundrum, we study the rates of MTS inhibitions of the E166C current and those of the control mutant current from E166A. The results suggest that the inhibition of E166C by intracellularly applied MTS reagents is tainted by the modification of an endogenous cysteine, C229, located at the channel's dimer interface. After this endogenous cysteine is mutated, CLC-0 resumes its preference for selecting MTSES in modifying E166C, reconfirming the idea that the pore of CLC-0 is indeed built with a positive intrinsic potential. These experiments also reveal that MTS modification of C229 can inhibit the current of CLC-0 depending on the amino acid placed at position 166.
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.