Sodium channel selectivity and conduction: Prokaryotes have devised their own molecular strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Striking structural differences between voltage-gated sodium (Nav) channels from prokaryotes (homotetramers) and eukaryotes (asymmetric, four-domain proteins) suggest the likelihood of different molecular mechanisms for common functions. For these two channel families, our data show similar selectivity sequences among alkali cations (relative permeability, Pion/PNa) and asymmetric, bi-ionic reversal potentials when the Na/K gradient is reversed. We performed coordinated experimental and computational studies, respectively, on the prokaryotic Nav channels NaChBac and NavAb. NaChBac shows an "anomalous," nonmonotonic mole-fraction dependence in the presence of certain sodium-potassium mixtures; to our knowledge, no comparable observation has been reported for eukaryotic Nav channels. NaChBac's preferential selectivity for sodium is reduced either by partial titration of its highly charged selectivity filter, when extracellular pH is lowered from 7.4 to 5.8, or by perturbation-likely steric-associated with a nominally electro-neutral substitution in the selectivity filter (E191D). Although no single molecular feature or energetic parameter appears to dominate, our atomistic simulations, based on the published NavAb crystal structure, revealed factors that may contribute to the normally observed selectivity for Na over K. These include: (a) a thermodynamic penalty to exchange one K(+) for one Na(+) in the wild-type (WT) channel, increasing the relative likelihood of Na(+) occupying the binding site; (b) a small tendency toward weaker ion binding to the selectivity filter in Na-K mixtures, consistent with the higher conductance observed with both sodium and potassium present; and (c) integrated 1-D potentials of mean force for sodium or potassium movement that show less separation for the less selective E/D mutant than for WT. Overall, tight binding of a single favored ion to the selectivity filter, together with crucial inter-ion interactions within the pore, suggests that prokaryotic Nav channels use a selective strategy more akin to those of eukaryotic calcium and potassium channels than that of eukaryotic Nav channels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".