MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fluorescence Investigations of the Rate‐Limiting Step in the HCN Ion Channel Deactivation Pathway

2017· article· en· W4389018792 on OpenAlexaff
Kaylee EA Magee, Tom W. Claydon, Edgar C. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepolarizationChemistryHCN channelBiophysicsHyperpolarization (physics)GatingMembrane potentialIon channelCoupling (piping)StereochemistryBiochemistryMaterials scienceBiologyNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hyperpolarization‐ and cyclic nucleotide‐activated (HCN) ion channels support electrical oscillations of neuronal networks and help prevent absence seizures. The S4 helix of the voltage‐sensor (VS) region in HCN channels moves inwards upon hyperpolarization and this movement is coupled to pore opening. An open HCN channel can further be stabilized by cAMP binding to its C‐terminal region. Modifying the speed of the rate‐limiting step for HCN channel gating might help treat neuropathies, but the steps in the gating pathway are unclear. Specifically, it has been proposed that the depolarization‐dependent deactivation pathway of HCN channels includes a voltage‐independent pore closure step that becomes rate‐limiting at strong depolarizations. To clarify which step is rate‐limiting at different depolarizations, we performed voltage clamp fluorometry on mouse HCN2 channel derivatives expressed in Xenopus oocytes using a fluorophore attached to the N‐terminal region of the S4 helix. These results represent the first direct measurement of VS movements of an HCN2 channel. The fluorophore tracked depolarization‐dependent VS movements during deactivation that preceded pore closure significantly at strong depolarizations; the current decay rate was approximately 4‐fold slower than the fluorescence decay rate at +20 mV. We call this ratio of decay rates the “transmembrane coupling quotient”. At weaker depolarizations, VS movements still preceded pore closure, but less dramatically (transmembrane coupling quotient approximately 1.5‐fold at ‐60 mV). This voltage dependence of the transmembrane coupling quotient was cAMP‐independent, i.e., it remained similar even when cAMP binding was prevented by a mutation in the C‐terminal region. The voltage dependence of the transmembrane coupling quotient is consistent with a model of mammalian HCN channel deactivation where the VS undergoes movements that have a greater voltage dependence compared to pore closure movements. VS movements may serve as the rate‐limiting step for deactivation at weak depolarizations, but another step – perhaps pore closure – is the rate‐limiting step at strong depolarizations. The temporal association between VS movements and pore movements would thus be loose at strong depolarizations, and tight at weak depolarizations. Support or Funding Information Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Postgraduate Scholarship to K.E.A.M; Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery Grant to E.C.Y

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207