Why the study?
Little is known about P2X5 receptor functions and channel-gating activities due to weak ATP responses in mammals, prompting investigation into the mechanism underlying weak ATP-induced currents in rat P2X5.
The weak ATP response of rat P2X5 receptors is caused by distinct allostery of the left flipper domain, which can be enhanced by specific amino acid substitutions.
Species differences in P2X5 allostery identified in rodents; leaves open whether these residues modulate human receptor function or therapeutic potential.
Although the extracellular ATP-gated cation channel purinergic receptor P2X5 is widely expressed in heart, skeletal muscle, and immune and nervous systems in mammals, little is known about its functions and channel-gating activities. This lack of knowledge is due to P2X5's weak ATP responses in several mammalian species, such as humans, rats, and mice. WT human P2X5 (hP2X5 Δ328–349 ) does not respond to ATP, whereas a full-length variant, hP2X5 (hP2X5-FL), containing exon 10 encoding the second hP2X5 transmembrane domain (TM2), does. However, although rat P2X5 (rP2X5) has a full-length TM2, ATP induces only weak currents in rP2X5, which prompted us to investigate the mechanism underlying this small ATP response. Here, we show that single replacements of specific rP2X5 residues with the corresponding residues in hP2X5 (S191F or F195H) significantly enhance the current amplitude of rP2X5. Using a combination of engineered disulfide cross-linking, single-channel recording, and molecular modeling, we interrogated the effects of S191F and F195H substitutions on the allostery of the left flipper (LF) domain. On the basis of our findings, we propose that the bound ATP-induced distinct allostery of the LF domain with that of other functional subtypes has caused the weak ATP response of rP2X5 receptors. The findings of our study provide the prerequisite for future transgenic studies on the physiological and pathological functions of P2X5 receptors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sun et al. (2019) studied this question. S191F or F195H substitutions vs. Wild-type rP2X5 was evaluated on Current amplitude of rP2X5.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: