The auditory system is able to detect movement down to atomic dimensions. This sensitivity comes in part from mechanisms associated with gating of hair cell mechanoelectric transduction (MET) channels. MET channels, located at the tops of stereocilia, are poised to detect tension induced by hair bundle deflection. Hair bundle deflection generates a force by pulling on tip-link proteins connecting adjacent stereocilia. The resting open probability (Popen) of MET channels determines the linearity and sensitivity to mechanical stimulation. Classically,Popenis regulated by a calcium-sensitive adaptation mechanism in which lowering extracellular calcium or depolarization increasesPopen. Recent data demonstrated that the fast component of adaptation is independent of both calcium and voltage, thus requiring an alternative explanation for the sensitivity ofPopento calcium and voltage. Using rat auditory hair cells, we characterize a mechanism, separate from fast adaptation, whereby divalent ions interacting with the local lipid environment modulate restingPopen. The specificity of this effect for different divalent ions suggests binding sites that are not an EF-hand or calmodulin model. GsMTx4, a lipid-mediated modifier of cationic stretch-activated channels, eliminated the voltage and divalent sensitivity with minimal effects on adaptation. We hypothesize that the dual mechanisms (lipid modulation and adaptation) extend the dynamic range of the system while maintaining adaptation kinetics at their maximal rates. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTClassically, changes in extracellular calcium and voltage affect open probability (Popen) through mechanoelectric transduction adaptation, and this mechanism is the only means of controlling the set point of the channel. Here, we further characterize the effects of extracellular calcium and voltage on the channel and for the first time determine that these manipulations occur through a mechanism that is independent of fast adaptation and involves the lipid bilayer. These data additionally demonstrate that effects onPopenare not enough to characterize adaptation and thus may clarify some of the discrepancies within the literature as to mechanisms underlying adaptation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peng et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: