PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
July 1, 2020Scientific Reports13 citationsOpen Access

Conservation and divergence in NaChBac and NaV1.7 pharmacology reveals novel drug interaction mechanisms

WZWandi ZhuTLTianbo LiJSJonathan R. Silva

Key Result

Pharmacological screening of 39 NaV modulators revealed that while many compounds interact with both bacterial NaChBac and mammalian NaV1.7 channels, they exhibit distinct functional effects on channel gating.

Structured PICO

P
Population
HEK 293 cells expressing bacterial NaChBac channels (wild-type and mutants) and CHO cells stably expressing human NaV1.7 channels
I
Intervention
39 NaV modulators including local anesthetics (lidocaine, ambroxol), VSD-binding toxins (GsAF-I, BDS-I), and pore-binding toxins (aconitine, veratridine)
C
Comparator
Control solution (recordings before compound application)
O
Outcome
Channel gating properties including peak current amplitude, current-voltage (I-V) relationship, conductance-voltage (G-V) relationship, and steady-state inactivation (SSI)surrogate

Pharmacological profiling of bacterial and mammalian sodium channels reveals distinct gating modulations despite conserved pore block, informing organism-specific drug design.

Limitations

  • In vitro study using cell lines
  • Bacterial channels may not fully recapitulate mammalian channel pharmacology

Abstract

Abstract Voltage-gated Na + (Na V ) channels regulate homeostasis in bacteria and control membrane electrical excitability in mammals. Compared to their mammalian counterparts, bacterial Na V channels possess a simpler, fourfold symmetric structure and have facilitated studies of the structural basis of channel gating. However, the pharmacology of bacterial Na V remains largely unexplored. Here we systematically screened 39 Na V modulators on a bacterial channel (NaChBac) and characterized a selection of compounds on NaChBac and a mammalian channel (human Na V 1.7). We found that while many compounds interact with both channels, they exhibit distinct functional effects. For example, the local anesthetics ambroxol and lidocaine block both Na V 1.7 and NaChBac but affect activation and inactivation of the two channels to different extents. The voltage-sensing domain targeting toxin BDS-I increases Na V 1.7 but decreases NaChBac peak currents. The pore binding toxins aconitine and veratridine block peak currents of Na V 1.7 and shift activation (aconitine) and inactivation (veratridine) respectively. In NaChBac, they block the peak current by binding to the pore residue F224. Nonetheless, aconitine has no effect on activation or inactivation, while veratridine only modulates activation of NaChBac. The conservation and divergence in the pharmacology of bacterial and mammalian Na V channels provide insights into the molecular basis of channel gating and will facilitate organism-specific drug discovery.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Zhu et al. (2020) studied this question. NaV modulators (e.g., lidocaine, ambroxol, toxins) vs. Control (vehicle/baseline) was evaluated on Channel gating and peak current modulation. Pharmacological screening of 39 NaV modulators revealed that while many compounds interact with both bacterial NaChBac and mammalian NaV1.7 channels, they exhibit distinct functional effects on channel gating.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a24de6dd225cdb21ef512bfhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67761-5
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper