In rat skeletal muscle Ca-activated K+ channels, intracellular protons decrease open probability by weakening calcium binding rather than directly affecting the open-closed reaction.
Should not guide clinical acid-base management; hypothesis-generating for proton-Ca2+ interactions in human BK channels.
The effect of pH on the activation of a Ca-activated K+ [K(Ca)] channel from rat skeletal muscle incorporated into planar lipid bilayers was studied. Experiments were done at different intracellular Ca2+ and proton concentrations. Changes in pH modified channel kinetics only from the Ca-sensitive face of the channel. At constant Ca2+ concentration, intracellular acidification induced a decrease in the open probability (Po) and a shift of the channel activation curves toward the right along the voltage axis. The displacement was 23.5 mV per pH unit. This displacement was due to a change in the half saturation voltage (Vo) and not to a change in channel voltage dependence. The shifts in Vo induced by protons appeared to be independent of Ca2+ concentration. The slope of the Hill plot of the open-closed equilibrium vs. pH was close to one, suggesting that a minimum of one proton is involved in the proton-driven channel closing reaction. The change in Po with variations in pH was due to both a decrease in the mean open time (To) and an increase in the mean closed time (Tc). At constant voltage, the mean open time of the channel was a linear function of [Ca2+] and the mean closed time was a linear function of 1/[Ca2+]2. Changes in the internal pH modified the slope, but not the intercept of the linear relations To vs. [Ca2+] and Tc vs. 1/[Ca2+]2. On the basis of these results an economical kinetic model of the effect of pH on this channel is proposed. It is concluded that protons do not affect the open-closed reaction, but rather weaken Ca2+ binding to all the conformational states of the channel. Moreover, competitive models in which Ca2+ and H+ cannot bind to the same open or closed state are inconsistent with the data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Laurido et al. (1991) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: