Purified calcium antagonist receptors from skeletal muscle can be functionally reconstituted into vesicles to mediate calcium transport that retains sensitivity to calcium channel blockers.
The purified calcium antagonist receptor of the voltage-sensitive calcium channel from skeletal muscle transverse tubule membrane consists of three subunits: alpha with Mr 135 000, beta with Mr 50 000, and gamma with Mr 33 000. Purified receptor preparations were incorporated into phosphatidylcholine (PC) vesicles by addition of PC in 3-[(3-cholamidopropyl)dimethylammonio]-1-propanesulfonate and removal of detergent by molecular sieve chromatography. Forty-five percent of the alpha, beta, and gamma polypeptides and the [3H]dihydropyridine/receptor complex were recovered in association with PC vesicles. The rate of dissociation of the purified and reconstituted dihydropyridine/receptor complex was identical with that in T-tubule membranes, and allosteric modulation by verapamil and diltiazem was retained. The reconstituted calcium antagonist receptor, when occupied by the calcium channel activator BAY K 8644, mediated specific 45Ca2+ and 133Ba2+ transport into the reconstituted vesicles. 45Ca2+ influx was blocked by the organic calcium antagonists PN200-110 (K0.5 = 0.2 microM), D600 (K0.5 = 1.0 microM), and verapamil (K0.5 = 1.5 microM) and by inorganic calcium channel antagonists (La3+ greater than Cd2+ greater than Ni2+ greater than Mg2+) as in intact T-tubules. A close quantitative correlation was observed between the presence of the alpha, beta, and gamma subunits of the calcium antagonist receptor and the ability to mediate 45Ca2+ or 133Ba2+ flux into reconstituted vesicles. Comparison of the number of reconstituted calcium antagonist receptors and functional channels supports the conclusion that only a few percent of the purified calcium antagonist receptor polypeptides are capable of mediating calcium transport as previously demonstrated for calcium antagonist receptors in intact T-tubules.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Curtis et al. (1986) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: