μ-Conotoxin Giiia Interactions with the Voltage-Gated Na+ Channel Predict a Clockwise Arrangement of the Domains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Voltage-gated Na(+) channels underlie the electrical activity of most excitable cells, and these channels are the targets of many antiarrhythmic, anticonvulsant, and local anesthetic drugs. The channel pore is formed by a single polypeptide chain, containing four different, but homologous domains that are thought to arrange themselves circumferentially to form the ion permeation pathway. Although several structural models have been proposed, there has been no agreement concerning whether the four domains are arranged in a clockwise or a counterclockwise pattern around the pore, which is a fundamental question about the tertiary structure of the channel. We have probed the local architecture of the rat adult skeletal muscle Na(+) channel (mu1) outer vestibule and selectivity filter using mu-conotoxin GIIIA (mu-CTX), a neurotoxin of known structure that binds in this region. Interactions between the pore-forming loops from three different domains and four toxin residues were distinguished by mutant cycle analysis. Three of these residues, Gln-14, Hydroxyproline-17 (Hyp-17), and Lys-16 are arranged approximately at right angles to each other in a plane above the critical Arg-13 that binds directly in the ion permeation pathway. Interaction points were identified between Hyp-17 and channel residue Met-1240 of domain III and between Lys-16 and Glu-403 of domain I and Asp-1532 of domain IV. These interactions were estimated to contribute -1.0+/-0.1, -0.9+/-0.3, and -1.4+/-0.1 kcal/mol of coupling energy to the native toxin-channel complex, respectively. mu-CTX residues Gln-14 and Arg-1, both on the same side of the toxin molecule, interacted with Thr-759 of domain II. Three analytical approaches to the pattern of interactions predict that the channel domains most probably are arranged in a clockwise configuration around the pore as viewed from the extracellular surface.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".