Venomous animals from distinct phyla such as spiders, scorpions, snakes, cone snails, or sea anemones produce small toxic proteins interacting with a variety of cell targets. Their bites often cause pain. One of the ways of pain generation is the activation of TRPV1 channels. Screening of 30 different venoms from spiders and sea anemones for modulation of TRPV1 activity revealed inhibitors in tropical sea anemone Heteractis crispa venom. Several separation steps resulted in isolation of an inhibiting compound. This is a 56-residue-long polypeptide named APHC1 that has a Bos taurus trypsin inhibitor (BPTI)/Kunitztype fold, mostly represented by serine protease inhibitors and ion channel blockers. APHC1 acted as a partial antagonist of capsaicin-induced currents (32 ؎ 9% inhibition) with half-maximal effective concentration (EC 50 ) 54 ؎ 4 nM. In vivo, a 0.1 mg/kg dose of APHC1 significantly prolonged tail-flick latency and reduced capsaicin-induced acute pain. Therefore, our results can make an important contribution to the research into molecular mechanisms of TRPV1 modulation and help to solve the problem of overactivity of this receptor during a number of pathological processes in the organism.During the evolutionary process, different poisonous animals combined a set of bioactive compounds in their venoms used mainly to paralyze prey and/or as a defense against predators (1, 2). Bites of these creatures may induce inflammation, pain, tissue necrosis, allergic reactions, and neurotoxic effects such as convulsions, paralysis, respiratory failure, and cardiovascular stroke (3). Numerous toxic peptides are found within these venoms, and some of them can discriminate between closely related cellular targets that make them attractive for drug development and scientific use (4). Molecules accounting for lethal and inflammation effects of venoms have been extensively characterized, but less is known about the properties of other compounds. We concentrated on searching the compounds able to reduce TRPV1 2 conductivity. These receptors are expressed in mammalians in small and medium size dorsal root ganglion neurons and are localized in peripheral and central neuronal system (5-7). At present, it is accepted that TRPV1 receptors are molecular integrators of pain stimulus and initiate neuronal response during inflammation. Experiments with knock-out mice lacking the gene of vanilloid receptor clearly demonstrate its role in pain perception (8, 9). Since vanilloid receptor had been disclosed and cloned in 1997, it became an object of numerous investigations as a potential target for novel drugs against pain of different origin (10). As recently reported, vanillotoxins from a tarantula Psalmopoeus cambridgei directly activate TRPV1 in micromolar concentrations, causing pain effect in the same way as capsaicin does (11). Venoms of several jellyfish also seem to interact with TRPV1, knocking down its desensitization (12). A number of small molecules were synthesized that selectively inhibit TRPV1 in nanomolar concentration ...

Using whole-cell patch-clamp techniques, we studied the interaction of open NMDA channels with tetraalkylammonium compounds: tetraethylammonium (TEA), tetrapropylammonium (TPA), tetrabutylammonium (TBA), and tetrapentylammonium (TPentA). Analysis of the blocking kinetics, concentration, and agonist dependencies using a set of kinetic models allowed us to create the criteria distinguishing the effects of these blockers on the channel closure, desensitization, and agonist dissociation. Thus, it was found that TPentA prohibited, TBA partly prevented, and TPA and TEA did not prevent either the channel closure or the agonist dissociation. TPentA and TBA prohibited, TPA slightly prevented, and TEA did not affect the channel desensitization. These data along with the voltage dependence of the stationary current inhibition led us to hypothesize that: (1) there are activation and desensitization gates in the NMDA channel; (2) these gates are distinct structures located in the external channel vestibule, the desensitization gate being located deeper than the activation gate. The size of the blocker plays a key role in its interaction with the NMDA channel gating machinery: small blockers (TEA and TPA) bind in the depth of the channel pore and permit the closure of both gates, whereas larger blockers (TBA) allow the closure of the activation gate but prohibit the closure of the desensitization gate; finally, the largest blockers (TPentA) prohibit the closure of both activation and desensitization gates. The mean diameter of the NMDA channel pore in the region of the activation gate localization was estimated to be approximately 11 A.

Background: Sea anemone peptides are promising tools for understanding physiological functions of ion channels. Results: A new peptide, Ugr 9-1, was isolated from the sea anemone venom and was shown to inhibit the acid-sensing ion channel 3 (ASIC3) channel. Conclusion: Ugr 9-1 affects the ASIC3 channel, produces analgesic effects, and has a unique spatial structure and mechanism of action. Significance: Ugr 9-1 represents a novel structural fold of natural short peptides modulating neuronal channels.

No abstract

Using whole‐cell patch‐clamp techniques, the mechanisms of NMDA channel blockade by amino‐adamantane derivatives (AADs) memantine (3,5‐dimethyl‐aminoadamantane, MEM) and amantadine (1‐aminoadamantane, AM) have been studied in rat hippocampal neurons acutely isolated by the vibrodissociation method. A rapid concentration‐jump technique was used to replace superfusing solutions. The aspartate (Asp)‐induced channel opening greatly accelerated but was not a prerequisite for the recovery from the block by MEM: it was able to leave the channel without agonist assistance. The co‐agonist (glycine) as well as the competitive NMDA antagonist dl‐2‐amino‐7‐phosphonoheptanoic acid (APV), did not affect this recovery. Membrane depolarization accelerated it, strongly suggesting that this process proceeded via the hydrophilic pathway of the channel. A comparison of the kinetics of the recovery from the block by AADs in the presence and absence of the agonist prompted a hypothesis that the blocker trapped in the channel increased the probability of its transition to the open state. Both MEM and AM were able to block NMDA channels not only in the presence but also in the absence of Asp, although in the latter case the effective blocking concentrations were much higher and the rate of the block development was much smaller than in the former case. The extent of the block increased with the duration of the blocker application. Glycine enhanced this block, while APV attenuated it. The MEM‐induced blockade of agonist‐unbound channels was enhanced by membrane hyperpolarization and weakened by external Mg2+. These findings strongly suggested that the blocker reached its binding sites via the same hydrophilic pathway both in the presence and absence of the agonist. A comparative analysis of the channel unblocking kinetics in the presence of Asp after their blockade with or without the agonist assistance led us to conclude that in the two cases AADs were bound to the same blocking sites in the channel.