2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.molbrainres.2004.01.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modification of Kv2.1 K+ currents by the silent Kv10 subunits

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
16
0
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
16
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The observed differences in the V 1/2 of inactivation of K v 2 channels recorded in native cells and heterologous expression systems have been well documented and are thought to be due to the presence of additional electrically silent K v subunits in native cells (23,26,41) or differences in the phosphorylation status of the channel (21,22). The silent K v subunits comprise the K v 5, K v 6, K v 8, and K v 9 families, which cannot form functional ion channels when expressed alone, but can modify the biophysical properties when coexpressed with the other pore-forming K v subunits (26,27,30,31,39,41,42). Thus, coexpression of K v 2.1 with the silent subunit K v 9.3 has been shown to slow deactivation, shift the activation V 1/2 by approximately Ϫ20 mV, and alter the inactivation V 1/2 by approximately Ϫ15 mV (26,41).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The observed differences in the V 1/2 of inactivation of K v 2 channels recorded in native cells and heterologous expression systems have been well documented and are thought to be due to the presence of additional electrically silent K v subunits in native cells (23,26,41) or differences in the phosphorylation status of the channel (21,22). The silent K v subunits comprise the K v 5, K v 6, K v 8, and K v 9 families, which cannot form functional ion channels when expressed alone, but can modify the biophysical properties when coexpressed with the other pore-forming K v subunits (26,27,30,31,39,41,42). Thus, coexpression of K v 2.1 with the silent subunit K v 9.3 has been shown to slow deactivation, shift the activation V 1/2 by approximately Ϫ20 mV, and alter the inactivation V 1/2 by approximately Ϫ15 mV (26,41).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reported differences in Kv2 channels upon γ subunit coexpression include decrease in the current amplitude, changes in the voltage dependence of activation and inactivation, in the time course of activation, inactivation and deactivation and in the drug sensitivity of the heteromultimeric channels. In the case of Kv6.3, there are only a few studies (Ottschytsch et al 2002; Sano et al 2002; Vega‐Saenz de Miera, 2004) in which the modifications reported are not fully coincident, and for this reason we have carried out the comparative study (Kv2.1 versus Kv2.1/Kv6.3 currents) in transfected HEK cells. We found a decrease of the current amplitude in heteromeric Kv2.1/Kv6.3 that has been previously reported in one of the above‐mentioned studies (Vega‐Saenz de Miera, 2004) but was not explored in the others.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the case of Kv6.3, there are only a few studies (Ottschytsch et al 2002; Sano et al 2002; Vega‐Saenz de Miera, 2004) in which the modifications reported are not fully coincident, and for this reason we have carried out the comparative study (Kv2.1 versus Kv2.1/Kv6.3 currents) in transfected HEK cells. We found a decrease of the current amplitude in heteromeric Kv2.1/Kv6.3 that has been previously reported in one of the above‐mentioned studies (Vega‐Saenz de Miera, 2004) but was not explored in the others. Regarding the kinetic changes, we saw a significant slowdown of activation (in agreement with the data of Vega‐Saenz de Miera but opposite to the report of Ottschytsch et al ) and deactivation (reported by Sano et al 2002), but found to be not significant in the work of Ottschytsch et al Finally, we saw a leftward shift in the steady‐state activation curve in the presence of Kv6.3 channels as reported by Ottschytsch et al but not by Sano et al It is likely that the differences in the expression systems used (oocytes, L929 and Ltk cells) as well as in the ratio of Kv2.1: Kv6.3 (Vega‐Saenz de Miera, 2004) contribute to the observed discrepancies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most silent subunits affect the Kv2.1 inactivation and current density markedly, whereas the effects on the Kv2.1 activation are more limited (13,(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27). This is also the case for Kv6.4: WT Kv6.4 subunits do not affect the activation properties markedly but shift the voltage dependence of inactivation by Ϫ40 mV in a hyperpolarized direction and cause a severe down-regulation of the Kv2.1 current density (13) (in the original nomenclature Kv6.3).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These latter Kv subfamilies are designated silent ␣-subunits because they fail to express functional channels in a homotetrameric configuration (13)(14)(15)(16)(17) and are retained in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). This retention is rescued by the selective co-assembly with members of the Kv2 subfamily in which the silent Kv subunits modulate the Kv2 currents by reducing the current amplitude, altering the inactivation and deactivation kinetics and shifting the voltage dependence of inactivation toward more hyperpolarized potentials (13,(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%