Evaluating sequential and allosteric activation models in <i>I</i>Ks channels with mutated voltage sensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ion-conducting IKs channel complex, important in cardiac repolarization and arrhythmias, comprises tetramers of KCNQ1 α-subunits along with 1-4 KCNE1 accessory subunits and calmodulin regulatory molecules. The E160R mutation in individual KCNQ1 subunits was used to prevent activation of voltage sensors and allow direct determination of transition rate data from complexes opening with a fixed number of 1, 2, or 4 activatable voltage sensors. Markov models were used to test the suitability of sequential versus allosteric models of IKs activation by comparing simulations with experimental steady-state and transient activation kinetics, voltage-sensor fluorescence from channels with two or four activatable domains, and limiting slope currents at negative potentials. Sequential Hodgkin-Huxley-type models approximately describe IKs currents but cannot explain an activation delay in channels with only one activatable subunit or the hyperpolarizing shift in the conductance-voltage relationship with more activatable voltage sensors. Incorporating two voltage sensor activation steps in sequential models and a concerted step in opening via rates derived from fluorescence measurements improves models but does not resolve fundamental differences with experimental data. Limiting slope current data that show the opening of channels at negative potentials and very low open probability are better simulated using allosteric models of activation with one transition per voltage sensor, which implies that movement of all four sensors is not required for IKs conductance. Tiered allosteric models with two activating transitions per voltage sensor can fully account for IKs current and fluorescence activation kinetics in constructs with different numbers of activatable voltage sensors.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".