Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27779761›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of physiology2017

Molecular recognition at cholinergic synapses: acetylcholine versus choline.

Iva Bruhova, Anthony Auerbach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of physiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A Novel and Functionally Diverse Class of Acetylcholine-Gated Ion Channels.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Cyclic activation of endplate acetylcholine receptors.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Iva BruhovaDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, SUNY at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 14214, USA.
Anthony AuerbachDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, SUNY at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 14214, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0921-4358

Funding

University of Buffalo Clinical and Translational Science Institute - Supplement SchulyerUL1TR001412 · NCATS · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI MURPHY, TIMOTHY F · 2015 to 2024
$33.8M
Engineering a Transmitter Binding SiteR01NS064969 · NINDS · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI AUERBACH, ANTHONY L · 2009 to 2018
$4.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001412NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS064969
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

key pointsNeuromuscular acetylcholine (ACh) receptors have a high affinity for the neurotransmitter ACh and a low affinity for its metabolic product choline. At each transmitter binding site three aromatic groups determine affinity, and together provide ∼50% more binding energy for ACh than for choline. Deprotonation of αY190 by a nearby lysine strengthens the interaction between this aromatic ring and both ACh and choline. H-bonds position ACh and choline differently in the aromatic cage to generate the different affinities. ABSTRACT: Acetylcholine (ACh) released at the vertebrate nerve-muscle synapse is hydrolysed rapidly to choline (Cho), so endplate receptors (AChRs) are exposed to high concentrations of both of these structurally related ligands. To understand how these receptors distinguish ACh and Cho, we used single-channel electrophysiology to measure resting affinities (binding free energies) of these and other agonists in adult-type mouse AChRs having a mutation(s) at the transmitter-binding sites. The aromatic rings of αY190, αW149 and αY198 each provide ∼50% less binding energy for Cho compared to ACh. At αY198 a phenylalanine substitution had no effect, but at αY190 this substitution caused a large, agonist-independent loss in binding energy that depended on the presence of αK145. The results suggest that (1) αY190 is deprotonated by αK145 to strengthen the interaction between this benzene ring and the agonist's quaternary ammonium (QA) and (2) AChRs respond strongly to ACh because an H-bond positions the QA to interact optimally with the rings, and weakly to Cho because a different H-bond tethers the ligand to misalign the QA and form weaker interactions with the aromatic groups. The results suggest that the difference in ACh versus Cho binding energies is determined by different ligand positions within a fixed protein structure.

Indexed as

Molecular Docking SimulationAcetylcholineAmino Acid SubstitutionAnimalsBinding SitesHEK293 CellsHumansMiceProtein BindingReceptors, CholinergicAcetylcholineReceptors, Cholinergicagonistcation-piion channelneuromuscularreceptor

Identifiers

PMID27779761
PMCPMC5309369

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.