British journal of pharmacology · 2021
Neonatal NaV 1.5 channels: pharmacological distinctiveness of a cancer-related voltage-gated sodium channel splice variant.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fraser Scott P, Onkal Rustem, Theys Margaux, Bosmans Frank, Djamgoz Mustafa B A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Voltage-gated sodium (NaV ) channels are expressed de novo in carcinomas where their activity promotes invasiveness. Breast and colon cancer cells express the neonatal splice variant of NaV 1.5 (nNaV 1.5), which has several amino acid substitutions in the domain I voltage-sensor compared with its adult counterpart (aNaV 1.5). This study aimed to determine whether nNaV 1.5 channels could be distinguished pharmacologically from aNaV 1.5 channels.
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Cells expressing either nNaV 1.5 or aNaV 1.5 channels were exposed to low MW inhibitors, an antibody or natural toxins, and changes in electrophysiological parameters were measured. Stable expression in EBNA cells and transient expression in Xenopus laevis oocytes were used. Currents were recorded by whole-cell patch clamp and two-electrode voltage-clamp, respectively.
KEY RESULTS: Several clinically used blockers of NaV channels (lidocaine, procaine, phenytoin, mexiletine, ranolazine, and riluzole) could not distinguish between nNaV 1.5 or aNaV 1.5 channels. However, two tarantula toxins (HaTx and ProTx-II) and a polyclonal antibody (NESOpAb) preferentially inhibited currents elicited by either nNaV 1.5 or aNaV 1.5 channels by binding to the spliced region of the channel. Furthermore, the amino acid residue at position 211 (aspartate in aNaV 1.5/lysine in nNaV 1.5), that is, the charge reversal in the spliced region of the channel, played a key role in the selectivity, especially in antibody binding.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: We conclude that the cancer-related nNaV 1.5 channel can be distinguished pharmacologically from its nearest neighbour, aNaV 1.5 channels. Thus, it may be possible to design low MW compounds as antimetastatic drugs for non-toxic therapy of nNaV 1.5-expressing carcinomas.
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Cells expressing either nNaV 1.5 or aNaV 1.5 channels were exposed to low MW inhibitors, an antibody or natural toxins, and changes in electrophysiological parameters were measured. Stable expression in EBNA cells and transient expression in Xenopus laevis oocytes were used. Currents were recorded by whole-cell patch clamp and two-electrode voltage-clamp, respectively.
KEY RESULTS: Several clinically used blockers of NaV channels (lidocaine, procaine, phenytoin, mexiletine, ranolazine, and riluzole) could not distinguish between nNaV 1.5 or aNaV 1.5 channels. However, two tarantula toxins (HaTx and ProTx-II) and a polyclonal antibody (NESOpAb) preferentially inhibited currents elicited by either nNaV 1.5 or aNaV 1.5 channels by binding to the spliced region of the channel. Furthermore, the amino acid residue at position 211 (aspartate in aNaV 1.5/lysine in nNaV 1.5), that is, the charge reversal in the spliced region of the channel, played a key role in the selectivity, especially in antibody binding.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: We conclude that the cancer-related nNaV 1.5 channel can be distinguished pharmacologically from its nearest neighbour, aNaV 1.5 channels. Thus, it may be possible to design low MW compounds as antimetastatic drugs for non-toxic therapy of nNaV 1.5-expressing carcinomas.