ArticleThe Journal of general physiology2011
Ligand-binding domain subregions contributing to bimodal agonism in cyclic nucleotide-gated channels.
Article in The Journal of general physiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Family of prokaryote cyclic nucleotide-modulated ion channels.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cyclic nucleotide-gated (CNG) channels bind cGMP or cAMP in a cytoplasmic ligand-binding domain (BD), and this binding typically increases channel open probability (P(o)) without inducing desensitization. However, the catfish CNGA2 (fCNGA2) subtype exhibits bimodal agonism, whereby steady-state P(o) increases with initial cGMP-binding events ("pro" action) up to a maximum of 0.4, but decreases with subsequent cGMP-binding events ("con" action) occurring at concentrations >3 mM. We sought to clarify if low pro-action efficacy was either necessary or sufficient for con action to operate. To find BD residues responsible for con action or low pro-action efficacy or both, we constructed chimeric CNG channels: subregions of the fCNGA2 BD were substituted with corresponding sequence from the rat CNGA4 BD, which does not support con action. Constructs were expressed in frog oocytes and tested by patch clamp of cell-free membranes. For nearly all BD elements, we found at least one construct where replacing that element preserved robust con action, with a ratio of steady-state conductances, g((10 mM cGMP))/g((3 mM cGMP)) < 0.75. When all of the BD sequence C terminal of strand β6 was replaced, g((10 mM cGMP))/g((3 mM cGMP)) was increased to 0.95 ± 0.05 (n = 7). However, this apparent attenuation of con action could be explained by an increase in the efficacy of pro action for all agonists, controlled by a conserved "phosphate-binding cassette" motif that contacts ligand; this produces high P(o) values that are less sensitive to shifts in gating equilibrium. In contrast, substituting a single valine in the N-terminal helix αA abolished con action (g((30 mM cGMP))/g((3 mM cGMP)) increased to 1.26 ± 0.24; n = 7) without large increases in pro-action efficacy. Our work dissociates the two functional features of low pro-action efficacy and con action, and moreover identifies a separate structural determinant for each.
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.