Contribution of the KCa3.1 channel–calmodulin interactions to the regulation of the KCa3.1 gating process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ca(2+)-activated potassium channel of intermediate conductance, KCa3.1, is now emerging as a therapeutic target for a large variety of health disorders. The Ca(2+) sensitivity of KCa3.1 is conferred by the Ca(2+)-binding protein calmodulin (CaM), with the CaM C-lobe constitutively bound to an intracellular domain of the channel C terminus. It was proposed on the basis of the crystal structure obtained for the C-terminal region of the rat KCa2.2 channel (rSK2) with CaM that the binding of Ca(2+) to the CaM N-lobe results in CaM interlocking the C-terminal regions of two adjacent KCa3.1 subunits, leading to the formation of a dimeric structure. A study was thus undertaken to identify residues of the CaM N-lobe-KCa3.1 complex that either contribute to the channel activation process or control the channel open probability at saturating Ca(2+) (Pomax). A structural homology model of the KCa3.1-CaM complex was first generated using as template the crystal structure of the C-terminal region of the rat KCa2.2 channel with CaM. This model was confirmed by cross-bridging residues R362 of KCa3.1 and K75 of CaM. Patch-clamp experiments were next performed, demonstrating that the solvation energy of the residue at position 367 in KCa3.1 is a key determinant to the channel Pomax and deactivation time toff. Mutations of residues M368 and Q364 predicted to form anchoring points for CaM binding to KCa3.1 had little impact on either toff or Pomax. Finally, our results show that channel activation depends on electrostatic interactions involving the charged residues R362 and E363, added to a nonpolar energy contribution coming from M368. We conclude that electrostatic interactions involving residues R362 and E363 and hydrophobic effects at M368 play a prominent role in KCa3.1 activation, whereas hydrophobic interactions at S367 are determinant to the stability of the CaM-KCa3.1 complex throughout gating.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".