P-Loop Residues Critical for Selectivity in K+ Channels Fail to Confer Selectivity to Rabbit HCN4 Channels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HCN channels are thought to be structurally similar to Kv channels, but show much lower selectivity for K+. The approximately 3.3 A selectivity filter of K+ channels is formed by the pore-lining sequence XT(V/I)GYG, with X usually T, and is held stable by key residues in the P-loop. Differences in the P-loop sequence of HCN channels (eg. the pore-lining sequence L478C479IGYG) suggest these residues could account for differences in selectivity between these channel families. Despite being expressed, L478T/C479T HCN4 channels did not produce current. Since threonine in the second position is highly conserved in K+ channels, we also studied C479T channels. Based on permeability ratios (PX/PK), C479T HCN4 channels (K+(1)>Rb+(0.85)>Cs+(0.59)>Li+(0.50)>or=Na+(0.49)) were less selective than WT rabbit HCN4 (K+(1)>Rb+(0.48)>Cs+(0.31)>or=Na+(0.29)>Li+(0.03)), indicating that the TIGYG sequence is insufficient to confer K+ selectivity to HCN channels. C479T HCN4 channels had an increased permeability to large organic cations than WT HCN4 channels, as well as increased unitary K+ conductance, and altered channel gating. Collectively, these results suggest that HCN4 channels have larger pores than K+ channels and replacement of the cysteine at position 479 with threonine further increases pore size. Furthermore, selected mutations in other regions linked previously to pore stability in K+ channels (ie. S475D, S475E and F471W/K472W) were also unable to confer K+ selectivity to C479T HCN4 channels. Our findings establish the presence of the TIGYG pore-lining sequence does not confer K+ selectivity to rabbit HCN4 channels, and suggests that differences in selectivity of HCN4 versus K+ channels originate from differences outside the P-loop region.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".