Molecular determinants of low affinity complexes formed by the electrical synapse proteins Connexin 36 and ZO-1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although chemical and electrical synapses function fundamentally differently, they evidently share common design principles. Like neurotransmitter receptors, Connexin 36 (Cx36) containing gap junction channels, key constituents of electrical synapses, are anchored to scaffolding proteins that stabilize the connexin at the synapse. One of the most prominent proteins that has been described in this context is the Zonula occludens protein 1 (ZO-1). ZO-1 interacts with Cx36 via one of its three PDZ domains. This interaction is inherently weak and was suggested to facilitate the dynamic regulation of electrical synapses. In the present study, we have combined Gaussian accelerated molecular dynamics simulations and binding assays to identify the exact residues in the PDZ binding motif of Cx36 that are necessary to sustain these low affinity interactions. Among the different Cx36 mutations we have generated, we discovered a single substitution at position 319 within the PDZ binding motif that massively increases binding in different experimental settings. In addition to this site, we found that acidic residues adjacent to the PDZ binding motif (PBM) in Cx36 and its fish orthologues are evolutionarily tuned to weaken PDZ interactions as well. We were able to enhance PDZ1 binding drastically by substituting these residues with hydrophobic or positively charged amino acids. Finally, we demonstrate that the weak PDZ1/Cx36 interaction is sensitive to CaMKII mediated phosphorylation of Cx36, suggesting that ZO-1 unbinding may be a necessary event to potentiate electrical synapses. In summary, our study provides a detailed analysis of different mechanisms that can be exploited to modify the interaction between two key components of an electrical synapse: Cx36 and ZO-1.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".