ArticleBiophysical journal2021
Differences in local anaesthetic and antiepileptic binding in the inactivated state of human sodium channel Nav1.4.
Article in Biophysical journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lamotrigine Therapy: Relation Between Treatment of Bipolar Affective Disorder and Incidence of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome-A Narrative Review of the Existing Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Drugs exhibit diverse binding modes and access routes in the Nav1.5 cardiac sodium channel pore.The Journal of general physiology · 2025Article
- Functional effects of drugs and toxins interacting with NaFrontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
- Suspected local anesthetic resistance after intrathecal, perineural, intraarticular and subcutaneous injections: a case report.AME case reports · 2024Article
- Characterizing fenestration size in sodium channel subtypes and their accessibility to inhibitors.Biophysical journal · 2022Article
- Sodium Channels and Local Anesthetics-Old Friends With New Perspectives.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Voltage-gated sodium channels play a vital role in nerve and muscle cells, enabling them to encode and transmit electrical signals. Currently, there exist several classes of drugs that aim to inhibit these channels for therapeutic purposes, including local anesthetics, antiepileptics and antiarrhythmics. However, sodium-channel-inhibiting drugs lack subtype specificity; instead, they inhibit all sodium channels in the human body. Improving understanding of the mechanisms of binding of existing nonselective drugs is important in providing insight into how subtype-selective drugs could be developed. This study used molecular dynamics simulations to investigate the binding of the antiepileptics carbamazepine and lamotrigine and the local anesthetic lidocaine in neutral and charged states to the recently resolved human Nav1.4 channel. Replica exchange solute tempering was used to enable greater sampling of each compound within the pore. It was found that all four compounds show similarities in their binding sites within the pore. However, the positions of the carbamazepine and lamotrigine did not occlude the center of the pore but preferentially bound to homologous domain DII and DIII. The charged and neutral forms of lidocaine positioned themselves more centrally in the pore, with more common interactions with DIV. The best localized binding site was for charged lidocaine, whose aromatic moiety interacted with Y1593, whereas the amine projected toward the selectivity filter. Comparisons with our previous simulations and published structures highlight potential differences between tonic and use-dependent block related to conformational changes occurring in the pore.
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.