ArticlePloS one2020
Comparison of biophysical properties of α1β2 and α3β2 GABAA receptors in whole-cell patch-clamp electrophysiological recordings.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Rhododendri Mollis Flos and its representative component as a potential analgesic.Journal of natural medicines · 2024Article
- GDNF Increases Inhibitory Synaptic Drive on Principal Neurons in the Hippocampus via Activation of the Ret Pathway.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Electrophysiology of ionotropic GABA receptors.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the present study we have characterized the biophysical properties of wild-type (WT) α1β2 and α3β2 GABAA receptors and probed the molecular basis for the observed differences. The activation and desensitization behavior and the residual currents of the receptors expressed in HEK293 cells were determined in whole-cell patch clamp recordings. Kinetic parameters of α1β2 and α3β2 activation differed significantly, with α1β2 and α3β2 exhibiting rise times (10-90%) of 24 ± 2 ms and 51 ± 7 ms, respectively. In contrast, the two receptors exhibited largely comparable desensitization behavior with decay currents that could be fitted to exponential functions with two or three components. Most notably, the two receptor compositions displayed different degrees of desentization, with the residual currents of α1β2 and α3β2 constituting 34 ± 2% and 21 ± 2% of the peak current, respectively. The respective contributions of the extracellular domains and the transmembrane/intracellular domains of the α-subunit to these physiological profiles were next assessed in recordings from cells expressing αβ2 receptors comprising chimeric α-subunits. The rise times displayed by α1ECD/α3TMDβ2 and α3ECD/α1TMDβ2 receptors were intermediate to those of WT α1β2 and WT α3β2, and the distribution of the different components of the current decays exhibited by the two chimeric receptors followed the same pattern as the two WT receptors. The residual current exhibited by α1ECD/α3TMDβ2 (23 ± 3%) was similar to that of α3β2 but significantly different from that of α1β2, whereas the residual current displayed by α3ECD/α1TMDβ2 (27 ± 2%) was intermediate to and did not differ significantly from either of the WT receptors. This points to molecular differences in the transmembrane/intracellular domains of the α-subunit as the main determinants of the observed differences in receptor physiology between α1β2 and α3β2 receptors.
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.