Computational study reveals cation-π interactions mitigate gating-pore leakage in voltage-gated ion channels, suggesting a protective mechanism.
Pathological gating-pore currents through voltage-sensing domains (VSDs) underlie numerous channelopathies. While our previous work demonstrated that gating-charge mutations promote aberrant gating-pore opening in cardiac and brain sodium channels, the complementary protective mechanisms within the hydrophobic constriction site (HCS) remained unclear. In this computational study, we identified evolutionarily conserved cation-π interactions between HCS aromatic residues (Phe/Tyr) and voltage-sensing gating charges as a universal “gatekeeper” mechanism preventing pathological gating-pore formation in voltage-gated ion channels (VGICs). Our multiple sequence alignments across Na v , Ca v , K v , HCN, and CNG families revealed > 95% conservation of the HCS aromatic residue. Then our comprehensive structural survey of 390 ion channel structures in the PDB database identified cation-π interactions in 96% of these channels, spanning diverse channel subtypes and conformational states. Such a high conservation underscores the fundamental importance of this cation-π interaction. Our microsecond-scale molecular dynamics (MD) simulations further showed that weakening cation-π interactions destabilizes the VSD seal and promotes water/ion permeation. In the K v channel Shaker , substitution of Phe290 with pentafluorophenylalanine reduced cation-π occupancy ∼1.5-fold and increased gating-pore leakage ∼25-fold due to reduced π-electron density from fluorine substituents. Likewise, aromatic-to-leucine substitutions at HCS in Na v 1.5 enhanced gating-pore currents, revealing the molecular mechanism of pathological phenotypes in previous cardiac and brain sodium channels. This work provides the first systematic computational characterization of a putative cation-π interaction at HCS as an evolutionarily conserved safeguard against pathological gating pore currents across VGIC families.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elhanafy et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: