|
Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M001782200 on July 18, 2000
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 275, Issue 39, 30196-30201, September 29, 2000
Binding Properties of Agonists and Antagonists to Distinct
Allosteric States of the Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Are
Incompatible with a Concerted Model*
Michael
Krauss ,
Daniel
Korr ,
Andreas
Herrmann§, and
Ferdinand
Hucho ¶
From AG Neurochemie, Institut für Biochemie,
Freie Universität Berlin, Thielallee 63, 14195 Berlin, Germany
and the § Institut für Biologie/Biophysik,
Humboldt-Universität Berlin, Invalidenstrasse 43, 10115 Berlin,
Germany
Received for publication, March 3, 2000, and in revised form, July 11, 2000
 |
ABSTRACT |
Recent work has shown that the nicotinic
acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) can be fixed in distinct conformations
by chemical cross-linking with glutardialdehyde, which abolishes
allosteric transitions in the protein. Here, two conformations that
resemble the desensitized and the resting states were compared with
respect to their affinities for different classes of ligands. The same ligands were tested for their ability to convert the nAChR from a
conformation with low affinity to a conformation with high affinity for
acetylcholine. As expected, agonists were found to bind with higher
affinity to the desensitized state-like conformation and to induce a
shift of the nAChR to this high affinity state. In contrast, although
most antagonists tested bound preferentially to the desensitized
receptor as well they failed to induce a change of the affinity for
acetylcholine. These observations sharply contradict basic predictions
of the concerted model, including the postulate of a preformed
equilibrium between the different states of the nAChR in the absence of
agonist. With a similar approach we could show that the non-competitive
inhibitor ethidium is displaced in a non-allosteric manner by other
well characterized channel blockers from the cross-linked nAChR. These
results require revision of current models for the mechanisms
underlying non-competitive antagonism at the nAChR.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The nicotinic acetylcholine receptor
(nAChR)1 from the electric
tissue of Torpedo californica is a prototype of the large
family of ligand-gated ion channels (1, 2). It is an allosteric protein
(3, 4) that can exist in at least three distinct, yet interconvertible
conformational states (5): In the resting state the receptor has low
affinity for acetylcholine and the ion channel is closed. Binding of
two agonist molecules in a positively cooperative manner triggers
gating of the intrinsic ion channel, which in turn leads to the
permeation of cations. Prolonged agonist exposition induces receptor
desensitization (6). In the desensitized conformation the nAChR has an
increased affinity for acetylcholine as compared with the resting
state, but the ion channel is closed. Each of these allosteric states
is characterized by a distinct protein conformation.
The structure of the nAChR meets basic prerequisites of allosteric
regulatory proteins: First, it is an oligomer formed by five subunits
with the stoichiometry 2  . Second, given the homology of the subunits (7) and considering the fact that the neuronal
7-subunits can form functional homomeric receptors, one can assume
that these subunits are arranged in a pseudo-symmetric manner. Indeed,
in the pentamer the -helical transmembrane segments M2 of each
subunit contribute to a central ion channel (8), whereas the residual
segments are oriented toward the plasma membrane or neighboring
subunits. Third, the binding sites for agonists and competitive
antagonists are located at the interfaces between neighboring subunits,
i.e. in the case of Torpedo and of muscle-type nAChR an -subunit and the adjacent - or -subunit (9-11). This emphasizes the importance of the quaternary structure for the cooperativity of ligand binding and receptor activity. Fourth, the
active site of the protein, i.e. the ion channel, is located along the central axis of pseudo-symmetry.
Several studies demonstrated that agonist binding and channel gating
occur at topographically distinct sites within the receptor molecule
and further underlined the allosteric nature of channel activation.
Among these are affinity labeling experiments in which an
-neurotoxin derivative formed a photo-induced cross-link with the
upper part of the channel-forming M2 helix (12). According to this
finding the distance between the binding sites for peptide antagonists
and the ion channel is in the range of between 15 and 20 Å.
The lumen of the ion channel includes several rings of negatively
charged amino acids contributed by all five M2 helices, which render
the nAChR selective for cations. Many positively charged
non-competitive antagonists (NCAs) exhibit high affinities to the nAChR
(13) and bind to this luminar site when the receptor is in the open
state. These NCAs are therefore described as channel blockers, which
occlude the pore like a cork sticking in a bottle neck.
Photoaffinity labeling experiments support this model, because some
NCAs, among others such as triphenylmethylphosphonium (8, 14, 15),
chlorpromazine (16-18), and tetracaine (19), have been shown to
contact homologous residues within the channel-forming M2 helices.
However, for some NCAs non-luminal binding sites have been postulated:
Ethidium, for instance, binds in a mutually exclusive manner with other
high affinity channel blockers (20), but the binding site is expected
to lie in the outer vestibule of the ion channel, about 40 Å away from
the entrance of the ion channel and slightly above the agonist binding
sites (21). Quinacrine is believed to bind to a "peri-annular"
locus (22), which is, in contrast to the ethidium locus, accessible to
lipophilic and hydrophilic quenching molecules in the closed
desensitized state (23) and in the open state (24). As a consequence of
this view, the channel blocking properties of ethidium and quinacrine have been postulated to be mediated by allosteric mechanisms.
It has been demonstrated that allosteric transitions in the nAChR can
be prevented by covalent cross-linking with homo-bifunctional reagents
(25). The intermolecular connection of neighboring subunits reduces
mobility at the interfaces and thereby apparently disturbs signal
transfer between the agonist binding sites and the ion channel.
Cross-linking in the absence of ligand "freezes" the receptor in a
conformation with low affinity for acetylcholine that resembles the
resting state, whereas cross-linking in the presence of carbachol
yields a population of receptors in a high affinity conformation, which
likely represents receptors in the desensitized state. Thus, it is now
possible to examine the ligand binding properties of distinct
conformations under well defined conditions, because the ligand itself
cannot affect the conformation of the cross-linked nAChR.
In the present work, the two conformations resulting from cross-linking
in the presence or absence of agonist were compared with respect to
their affinities for agonists and competitive antagonists by
competition experiments with [3H]ACh. Furthermore,
different classes of ligands were tested for their ability to convert
the nAChR from the low affinity state to a conformation of high
affinity for acetylcholine. Taken together the results of these
experiments contradict basic predictions of the concerted (symmetry or
MWC) model (26), including the postulate of a preformed equilibrium
between the different receptor states in the absence of agonists. In
addition, we monitored the fluorescence properties of the
non-competitive antagonist ethidium in the two well-defined states
after cross-linking and found that ethidium could be displaced by
luminal NCAs even when allosteric transitions were abolished. The
observations require revision of current models of the binding of nAChR
channel blockers.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Materials--
Liquid nitrogen-frozen tissue from Torpedo
californica was supplied by C. Winkler (San Pedro, CA).
Carbamoylcholine, ethidium bromide, eserine, ( )-nicotine,
tetracaine, d-tubocurarine, and chlorpromazine were from
Sigma (Deisenhofen, Germany). Triphenylmethylphosphonium (TPMP+) was from Aldrich (Steinheim, Germany), and
glutardialdehyde was from Merck. [3H]ACh and
[ -125I]bungarotoxin were purchased from NEN Life
Science Products (Cologne, Germany).
Preparation of nAChR-rich Membranes--
nAChR-rich membranes
were prepared from the electric organ of T. californica as
described previously (27). In the resulting suspension the
concentration of nAChR was determined by
[ -125I]bungarotoxin binding assays (28).
Cross-linking--
Cross-linking of nAChR-rich membranes with
glutardialdehyde was performed in 50 mM
Na2H2PO4/Na2HPO4,
pH 7.4, with a final cross-linker concentration of 4 mM and
a protein concentration of 1 mg/ml for 20-28 h at room temperature.
Cross-linking in the presence of ligand was started after preincubation
of nAChR-rich membranes with the respective ligand for 30 min at room
temperature. After the cross-linking reaction, the ligand was removed
from the mixture by repeated centrifugation (100,000 × g; 15 min) and thorough resuspension of the membrane pellet.
Binding Assays--
Binding of [3H]ACh (40 mCi/mmol) to nAChR-rich membranes was determined as described by Watty
et al. (25). NTII from Naja naja oxiana was
radioactively iodinated with 125I as described previously
(29). As for [3H]ACh binding assays, the centrifugation
technique was used to determine binding of increasing concentrations of
NTII to receptor-rich membranes in the native, the desensitized, and
the resting state. The final nAChR concentration in the assay was 50 nM.
Fluorescence Measurements--
All fluorescence measurements
were performed at room temperature using an Aminco Bowman spectrometer
series 2 (Rochester, NY). Fluorescence of ethidium bound to the
native or to defined allosteric states of the nAChR was determined by
monitoring emission at 595 nm upon excitation at 490 nm. As for all
following fluorescence measurements the slit widths were 4 nm for both
excitation and emission. To obtain the concentration of specifically
bound ethidium binding, curves had to be corrected for the unspecific
component of ethidium fluorescence. Therefore, in a parallel cuvette,
ethidium fluorescence was monitored under the same conditions in the
presence of 150 µM tetracaine and 150 µM
TPMP+. The apparent dissociation constant of
non-fluorescent compounds was determined in fluorescence titrations as
described by Bixel et al. (30).
 |
RESULTS |
Agonists Exclusively Convert the nAChR from a Conformation with Low
Affinity to a Conformation with High Affinity for
Acetylcholine--
It was shown previously by Watty et al.
(25) that the nAChR can be fixed in distinct conformational states by
covalent cross-linking with different homo-bifunctional reagents.
Accordingly, in our experiments, treatment of nAChR-rich membranes in
the absence of agonist with the non-desensitizing cross-linker
glutardialdehyde resulted in a population of low affinity binding sites
(KD = 0.7 ± 0.2 µM) for
acetylcholine (Fig. 1A,
left panel), whereas after cross-linking in the presence of
carbachol binding sites with high affinity for acetylcholine
(KD = 26.5 ± 3.5 nM) were
obtained. These two different receptor conformations have been
interpreted to be the resting and the desensitized state, respectively.
As indicated by the linearity of the Scatchard plot and a Hill
coefficient of 1, cooperativity of agonist binding was lost after
glutardialdehyde treatment. In the conformation resembling the resting
state, a minor population (25-35%) of high affinity binding sites was
observed, which was explained by a preformed equilibrium existing
between the different states of the nAChR in the absence of ligand. To test the validity of this explanation, nAChR-rich membranes were preincubated with various ligands. After the cross-linking procedure, the tested ligands were removed by repeated centrifugation. Finally, the affinity state of the resulting membrane preparation was monitored by [3H]ACh binding assays. According to the concerted
model, a change of the proportion of high affinity binding sites as
compared with the resting state-like conformation is expected for those
ligands that show preferential binding to one of the two states.

View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Influence of various types of ligands on the
conformational state of the nAChR. The affinity state of
nAChR-rich membranes was determined after cross-linking with the
homo-bifunctional reagent glutardialdehyde (A) in the
absence (left panel, open squares) and in the
presence of the agonists carbamoylcholine (100 µM;
left panel, solid squares) or ( )-nicotine (20 µM; right panel, open squares);
(B) in the presence of the competitive antagonists gallamine
(50 µM; left panel) and hexamethonium (100 µM; right panel); and (C) in the
presence of the non-competitive antagonists ethidium (10 µM; left panel) and TPMP+ (50 µM; right panel). Binding data are shown in
Scatchard plots. In each experiment, control curves of nAChR-rich
membranes fixed in the presence of 100 µM
carbamoylcholine (solid squares) are shown for determining
the maximal number of binding sites.
|
|
As in the case of carbachol, cross-linking in the presence of
( )-nicotine yielded a homogenous population of high affinity binding
sites (Fig. 1A, right panel). This observation
clearly demonstrates that the presence of agonist during cross-linking triggers a conversion of the nAChR from a conformation of low affinity
to a conformation of high affinity for acetylcholine. In contrast to
agonists, the competitive antagonists hexamethonium, d-tubocurarine, or gallamine failed to induce a change of
the affinity status of the agonist binding sites (Fig. 1B):
The nAChR remained in a conformation with low affinity for
acetylcholine. A subpopulation of high affinity sites was detected;
however, the size of this population was not altered (35%, 33%, and
32% for hexamethonium, d-tubocurarine, and gallamine,
respectively) as compared with the preparation obtained by
cross-linking in the absence of ligand. A similar result was obtained
when the non-competitive antagonists ethidium and TPMP+
(30% and 34% high affinity binding sites, respectively) were tested
for their capability to affect the conformation of the nAChR in the
absence of agonist (Fig. 1C). Thus, apparently exclusively, agonists had the potency to convert the nAChR from the resting state-like to the desensitized state-like conformation. Upon exposition to all antagonists the receptor remained in the resting state-like conformation.
Affinity of Agonists and Competitive Antagonists for Distinct
Receptor Conformations--
An important prediction of the concerted
model for nAChR activation is that agonists act by shifting the
preformed equilibrium toward the open state, whereas antagonists exert
their inhibiting effect by stabilizing the resting state. Both
predictions would be consistent with the findings described above as
long as antagonists had higher affinity for the nAChR in the resting
state. Therefore, in a second approach we cross-linked native
nAChR-rich membranes in the absence or presence of carbachol. Then
competition studies with 2 µM [3H]ACh were
performed with the membrane preparations to evaluate the affinity of
different ligands for the two preparations. As expected all tested
agonists preferentially bound to the nAChR cross-linked in the presence
of agonist (Table I) with the highest affinity observed for acetylcholine as compared with carbamoylcholine (0.5 µM in the desensitized state-like versus
35 µM in the resting state) or ( )-nicotine (1.4 versus 120 µM). The antagonist gallamine bound
dramatically stronger to the desensitized state-like conformation as
well (1.9 µM versus 1 mM).
Hexamethonium, on the other hand, had similar affinity for both
preparations (350-550 µM).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table I
Affinities of various ligands for distinct conformations of the nAChR
Apparent dissociation constants (Kapp) were
determined by competition experiments with 2 µM
[3H]ACh after fixing nAChR-rich membranes in the resting
state-like or in the desensitized state-like conformation by covalent
cross-linking with glutardialdehyde. Kapp values are
given in µM. Please note that the determination of
Kapp values is based on different ACh affinities in
the two states.
|
|
Likewise, the larger peptide antagonists -neurotoxin II from
N. naja oxiana (NTII) was not able to discriminate between
the two conformations (Fig. 2): Scatchard
plots of [125I]NTII binding reveal that -neurotoxins
bind with similar affinities (KD = 16 ± 3 nM) to receptors cross-linked in presence or absence of
agonist. The dissociation constants for NTII binding to the cross-linked nAChR are about three times lower than the one for NTII
binding to untreated nAChR-rich membranes (5 nM; data not shown).

View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Affinity of neurotoxin II from N. naja
oxiana in the resting and the desensitized state.
nAChR-rich membranes have been cross-linked in the presence or absence
of 100 µM carbamoylcholine prior to binding assays with
[125I]NTII. As shown in Scatchard analysis, the affinity
is similar in the resting state-like (solid line) and the
desensitized state-like (dotted line) conformations.
|
|
Binding of the Non-competitive Antagonist Ethidium to Distinct
Receptor Conformations--
The NCA ethidium has been shown to be a
potent blocker of the nAChR (31). Binding of ethidium is accompanied by
an enhancement of fluorescence intensity and a blue shift in the
emission maximum as compared with ethidium dissolved in buffer (20).
Like many other NCAs, ethidium binds preferentially to the nAChR in the presence of agonist. Here we used the fluorescence of ethidium to
examine binding properties of distinct receptor conformations for NCAs
in the absence of other ligands. As can be seen in Fig. 3A,
TPMP+/tetracaine-sensitive fluorescence excitation and
emission maxima of ethidium bound to the two cross-linked conformations
were similar to those of ethidium bound to native nAChR-rich membranes.
All three fluorescence spectra showed an excitation maximum at 505 nm
and an emission maximum at 587 nm. However, differences were visible
with regard to fluorescence intensity: The fluorescence of ethidium
bound to nAChR-rich membranes cross-linked in the absence of agonist
was rather weak. Importantly, in contrast to native receptor-rich
membranes, the fluorescence intensity was not significantly enhanced
upon addition of carbamoylcholine. This proves that the receptor could
not be converted to a conformation of high affinity for ethidium after
being locked in the resting state-like conformation. The fluorescence
of ethidium bound to nAChR-rich membranes cross-linked in the presence
of agonist was much stronger; it was not affected by the addition of
agonist as well. As compared with native receptor-rich membranes in the presence of desensitizing concentrations of carbamoylcholine we observed an approximate 30% loss in fluorescence intensity, indicating a direct influence of lysine modification by glutardialdehyde on
ethidium binding. This loss was even stronger when higher
concentrations of glutardialdehyde were applied during the
cross-linking procedure (data not shown).

View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Fluorescence properties of ethidium bound to
native, resting, and desensitized nAChR-rich membranes.
A, corrected fluorescence spectra of ethidium bound to the
nAChR (1 µM in -bungarotoxin binding sites) in the
native state (solid line) and after cross-linking in the
absence (dotted line) or presence (dashed line)
of 100 µM carbamoylcholine. When the nAChR was fixed in
the resting state-like conformation, only a slight increase of
fluorescence intensity was detected after addition of carbachol
(compare the two dotted lines). Excitation spectra were
recorded monitoring emission of 1.5 µM ethidium at 620 nm, emission spectra were obtained upon excitation at 490 nm. Spectra
were corrected for unspecifically bound ethidium determined in the
presence of 150 µM tetracaine and 150 µM
TPMP+. B, affinity of ethidium for nAChR-rich
membranes in the native state (diamonds), after
cross-linking in the absence of agonists (circles) and after
cross-linking in the presence (squares) of 100 µM carbamoylcholine. The protein concentration was 20 or
30 µg/ml when the nAChR was examined in the native state or after
covalent cross-linking, respectively. Ethidium binding was monitored by
fluorescence titrations using emission at 595 nm upon excitation at 490 nm. Binding curves are corrected for unspecific fluorescence
determined in the presence of 150 µM TPMP+
and 150 µM tetracaine.
|
|
Fluorescence titrations (Fig. 3B) were performed to
determine the affinity of ethidium for native receptor-rich membranes as well as for the two cross-linked membrane preparations. We found
that fluorescence of ethidium bound to cross-linked nAChR-rich membranes was sensitive to the presence of non-competitive inhibitors (see below and Fig. 4). Thus, the
resulting titration curves were corrected for unspecifically bound
ethidium, which was quantified by measuring fluorescence in the
presence of saturating concentrations of tetracaine/TPMP+.
Scatchard plots revealed that in each case ethidium was bound to a
single class of binding sites. The affinity of ethidium was larger for
native nAChR-rich membranes (KD = 75 nM) than for receptors cross-linked in the presence of
agonist (KD = 250 nM). The
dissociation constant of ethidium binding to the nAChR in the resting
state-like conformation was in the range of 2 µM. This
demonstrates that ethidium does not only bind to the nAChR in the open
but also in the closed desensitized or resting conformations, yet with different affinities.

View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Luminal localization of the ethidium binding
site on the nAChR. A, dissociation of ethidium from the
nAChR (1 µM in -bungarotoxin binding sites)
cross-linked in the high affinity conformation resembling the
desensitized state. Emission was monitored at 595 nm upon excitation at
490 nm. Ethidium was displaced by tetracaine (solid line),
chlorpromazine (dotted line), and TPMP+
(dashed line) in concentrations between between 0.1 and 200 µM. B, conversion of the dissociation curves
into Hill-like plots. Slopes of one indicated direct competition
between ethidium and the NCAs tested. The apparent dissociation
constant of each competitor was deduced from the intercept with the
abscissa.
|
|
Luminal Binding Site of Ethidium--
Because the localization of
the ethidium binding site is still a matter of debate, we addressed
this question with our approach: It was proposed earlier that ethidium
bound to the upper part within the receptor funnel, slightly above the
agonist binding sites (21). According to this localization, the
inhibiting effect would be mediated by an allosteric mechanism, because
the binding event affected the function of the ion channel about 30 Å away. Therefore, we performed competition experiments with other NCAs, namely TPMP+ (14), chlorpromazine (16-18), and tetracaine
(19), all of which have been proven to bind to the channel lumen by
photoaffinity labeling. As shown in Fig. 4A increasing
concentrations of these compounds induced a continuous reduction of the
emission of ethidium bound to nAChR-rich membranes that had been locked
in the desensitized state-like conformation in the presence of
carbamoylcholine. This reduction was not due to quenching mechanisms as
determined by measuring ethidium fluorescence in buffer with increasing
concentrations of NCA (data not shown). The apparent dissociation
constants determined for the three NCIs from the competition
experiments performed with locked receptors are close to the values
obtained for native nAChR-rich membranes. Because cross-linking has
been shown to abolish allosteric mechanisms, we concluded that the
compounds tested competed directly for the ethidium binding site. This
is supported by the notion that in all cases Hill coefficients were close to 1 (Table II), indicating that
ethidium was displaced from a homogenous population of binding sites in
a non-allosteric manner.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table II
Equilibrium dissociation constants for NCA binding to nAChR-rich
membranes fixed in the desensitized state-like conformation
Affinities were determined by competition experiments with 6.6 µM ethidium. 1 mM carbamoylcholine was added
to prevent NCA binding to the acetylcholine binding sites.
Kapp values are given in µM.
nH = Hill coefficient.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
Ligand Binding to Distinct Conformations of the nAChR after
Covalent Cross-linking--
In our study ligand binding properties of
defined receptor conformations were correlated with respective
predictions of the MWC model, which was established to explain the
allosteric mechanism of channel activation in the nAChR. According to
this model a preformed equilibrium should exist between the different
states of the nAChR even in the absence of agonist (4); this
equilibrium should be shifted by the addition of a given ligand to the
state that has higher affinity for the respective compound. We found that, exclusively, agonists induced receptor desensitization. Consistent with previous observations (25) the nAChR remained in the
resting state when the cross-linking was done in the absence of
agonist. When competitive or non-competitive antagonists were applied
during the cross-linking procedure, the receptor remained in a resting
state-like conformation as deduced from the low affinity for
[3H]ACh.
Comparison of the affinities of these defined receptor conformations
for different compounds revealed that most ligands of the ACh binding
sites had higher affinity to the desensitized state-like conformation
(Table I). It is also known that the non-competitive antagonist
TPMP+ can be cross-linked to the -subunit much more
efficiently in the desensitized state than in the resting state (14,
15). In addition we could show by fluorescence titrations that ethidium binds with almost 10-fold higher affinity to the desensitized nAChR
than to the resting nAChR (Fig. 3B).
These observations sharply contradict the prediction that a preformed
equilibrium exists between the different allosteric states of the nAChR
(26): According to the MWC model ethidium, TPMP+ and
gallamine, which have been shown to bind preferentially to the
desensitized conformation, should shift this equilibrium toward the
desensitized state. Because this shift is supposed to be accompanied by
an overall conformational change of the protein, it should also affect
the structure of the agonist binding sites. Thus, after "freezing"
the nAChR in the resulting conformation, this shift should be
detectable by an increase of the affinity of the binding sites for
acetylcholine. However, this was not the case.
In a different approach, Prince and Sine (32) demonstrated that a
concerted model can not accurately describe the binding properties of
epibatidine and acetylcholine to muscle nAChR; they proposed an
uncoupled model according to which the two agonist binding sites can
act independently. This uncoupled model, however, is not supported by
our results as well, because it includes agonist-independent conversions between the desensitized and the resting state.
Alternatively, the sequential model (33) suggests that the binding of
the agonist (and not an antagonist) molecule triggers a specific
conformational change at the subunit interfaces, which propagates to
the channel lumen and finally leads to receptor activation and
subsequent desensitization. In support of this model, multiple
subconductance states have been observed for the nAChR (34, 35)
indicating that the two -subunits can act independently.
The observation that spontaneous openings of the nAChR occur even in
the absence of ligand (36) has been interpreted in support of the MWC
model. Whenever we detected the low affinity conformation of the nAChR
after covalent cross-linking, a significant proportion (about 25-35%
of Bmax) of high affinity binding sites was
detected in parallel. This proportion could not be reduced by the
prolongation of the cross-linking procedure or by an increase of the
concentration of glutardialdehyde used (25). Thus, its existence is not
due to incompletely fixed nAChR-rich membranes. Considering that
spontaneous opening events are rare and brief (36) and have properties
that differ from those of agonist-induced openings (37), we believe
that the population of high affinity binding sites observed here is too
big to be indicative of a hypothetic equilibrium existing between
different states. More likely, these high affinity sites are an
artifact of the preparation representing simply non-functional receptor
molecules. This is mirrored by an approximate 30% reduction of the
number of binding sites for ethidium upon cross-linking (see below).
It was shown for mouse muscle nAChR (38, 39) that the mutation of a
highly conserved leucine residue in the middle of the M2 domain
(Leu-251 in the -subunit) causes significant shifts of the
dose-response curves to lower acetylcholine concentrations. On first
glimpse this observation seems to be another argument in favor of the
MWC model, because it indicates that residues in the pore region
influence the structure of the agonist binding sites. However, these
shifts were not based on a higher affinity of the ligand but by a
change of the channel's open time. Therefore, in muscle-type nAChR
each residue in the leucine ring contributes to the destabilization of
the arrangement of the five M2 helices in the channel's open state;
the mutation does not affect the structural determinants of the agonist
binding site. Similarly, the effects of the mutations T264P or
T265P within a ring of conserved serine/threonine residues are
restricted to the ion channel (40). In the -subunit, however, the
mutation S268P influences in a yet unknown way channel activation as
well as agonist binding.
In neuronal homomeric 7-receptors (41), the role of the conserved
leucine residue is apparently more complex: The mutation L247T does not
only alter the EC50 but also produces an additional conductance state and converts the competitive antagonists
hexamethonium and dihydro- -erythroidin of the wild type receptor
into agonists (42). The structural basis for these pleiotropic changes
is still unclear, and it is possible that allosteric transitions in
7-receptors have properties that are different from those in muscle
nAChR.
In contrast to smaller antagonists, snake peptide toxins were found to
be unable to discriminate between the desensitized and the resting
states. We conclude that -neurotoxins do not act by preferentially
stabilizing the resting conformation of the nAChR as proposed earlier
(43) but inhibit agonist binding in a direct competition for
overlapping binding sites. Interestingly, we observed a slight but
significant reduction of the toxin's affinity after cross-linking
native nAChR-rich membranes. This might indicate an influence of
mobility at the subunit interfaces on the access of -neurotoxins as
discussed recently (29). The relatively low affinity observed in our
study for gallamine in the resting state-like conformation might have
similar reasons.
Luminal Localization of the Ethidium Binding Locus--
In the
second part of our study we examined the interaction of the fluorescent
NCA ethidium with defined conformations of the nAChR. Our results
demonstrate that ethidium has similar fluorescence properties with
respect to emission and excitation maxima, when bound to desensitized
nAChRs before and after cross-linking, and therefore, is exposed to
similar environments. However, the approximate 4-fold reduction of the
affinity of ethidium for the nAChR after cross-linking indicates that
glutardialdehyde treatment significantly affects the binding site.
Three well-characterized luminal NCAs could displace ethidium from its
binding site even when allosteric transitions have been abolished by
covalent cross-linking (Fig. 4). This strongly suggests that ethidium
is displaced by a direct competitive mechanism from an overlapping
luminar binding site and not by wide-range allosteric effects. Taken
together with the observation that quinacrine directly competes with
ethidium for a common locus on the nAChR (44),2 our observations
suggest that all high affinity NCAs bind in a mutually exclusive manner
to the lumen of the nAChR. The geometry of the channel lumen is
affected by changes of the conformational state of the receptor so that
different NCAs show different preferences for the one or the other
state. However, the finding that tetracaine and TPMP+ or
chlorpromazine contact the same residues in the resting and the
desensitized state, respectively, implies that the M2 helices differ
only slightly in their orientation in the two conformations. Therefore,
the structural rearrangements accompanying receptor desensitization are
less pronounced than expected (45).
Because ethidium fluorescence increases upon binding and cannot be
quenched efficiently by D2O or iodide (46), its high affinity binding site is most probably located in a hydrophobic cavity
on the receptor molecule, which is neither easily accessible to
water-soluble hydrophilic molecules nor to spin-labeled lipid analogues
(23). This view is in line with the observation of multiple
"tunnels" in the wall of the nAChR close to the cytoplasmic surface
visualized by recent cyro-electronmicroscopic investigations (47) and
with the finding that some uncharged and reversibly charged anesthetics
can approach their high affinity binding site on a hydrophobic path,
probably through the lipid bilayer (48). Furthermore, channel permeant
cations compete with ethidium (49), indicating a strong influence of
polar interactions between the fluorophor and the receptor.
The binding stoichiometry of one channel blocker molecule per receptor
monomer together with the labeling pattern of the compounds mentioned
above indicates that the luminal NCAs bind along the central axis of
pseudo-symmetry. Alternatively, however, they could accommodate
themselves at the interfaces between adjacent subunits such that the
aromatic moiety is hidden in a hydrophobic pocket, whereas the charged
amino group is exposed to the channel lumen and inhibits the ion flux.
Slight differences in the structure of the interfaces would provide a
reason why some NCAs are incorporated specifically into distinct
subunits. This model is in agreement with our finding that the
reduction of the mobility at the subunit interfaces decreases the
affinity of the binding site for ethidium, because among the many
lysine residues potentially cross-linked very conserved ones are
located at the edge of each transmembrane segment. Similar to ethidium,
a spin-labeled phencyclidine derivative was shown to be highly
immobilized when bound to the desensitized nAChR and surrounded by a
very hydrophobic environment (50). Furthermore, the low association and
dissociation rate constants for tetracaine in the resting state were
interpreted such that access to the tetracaine binding site is hindered
and apparently depends on slow structural rearrangements in the channel
region (19).
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We thank H. Bayer and G. Bandini for help
with the preparation of the nAChR and excellent technical assistance.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported by grants from the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 312) and the Fonds der Chemischen
Industrie.The costs of publication of this
article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
¶
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Institut für
Biochemie, AG Neurochemie, Freie Universität Berlin, Thielallee 63, D-14195 Berlin, Germany. Tel.: 49-30-8385-5545; Fax:
49-30-8385-3753; E-mail: hucho@chemie.fu-berlin.de.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, July 18, 2000, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M001782200
2
M. Krauss, A. Herrmann, and F. Hucho,
unpublished results.
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
nAChR, nicotinic
acetylcholine receptor;
NCA, non-competitive antagonist;
ACh, acetylcholine;
TPMP+, triphenylmethylphosphonium;
NTII, neurotoxin II;
MWC, Monod- Wyman-Changeux.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Karlin, A.,
and Akabas, M. H.
(1995)
Neuron
15,
1231-1244
|
| 2.
|
Hucho, F.,
Tsetlin, V. I.,
and Machold, J.
(1996)
Eur. J. Biochem.
239,
539-557
|
| 3.
|
Changeux, J.-P.
(1990)
FIDIA Res. Found. Neurosci. Award Lect.
4,
21-168
|
| 4.
|
Changeux, J.-P.,
and Edelstein, S. J.
(1998)
Neuron
21,
959-980
|
| 5.
|
Karlin, A.
(1967)
J. Theor. Biol.
16,
306-320
|
| 6.
|
Katz, B.,
and Thesleff, S.
(1957)
J. Physiol.
138,
63-80
|
| 7.
|
Noda, M.,
Takahashi, H.,
Tanabe, T.,
Toyosato, M.,
Kikyotani, S.,
Furutani, Y.,
Hirose, T.,
Takashima, H.,
Inayama, S.,
Miyata, T.,
and Numa, S.
(1983)
Nature
302,
538-532
|
| 8.
|
Hucho, F.,
Oberthür, W.,
and Lottspeich, F.
(1986)
FEBS Lett.
205,
137-142
|
| 9.
|
Pedersen, S. E.,
and Cohen, J. B.
(1990)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
87,
2785-2789
|
| 10.
|
Czajkowsky, C.,
and Karlin, A.
(1991)
J. Biol. Chem.
266,
22603-22612
|
| 11.
|
Chiara, D. C.,
and Cohen, J. B.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
32940-32950
|
| 12.
|
Machold, J.,
Utkin, Y.,
Kirsch, D.,
Kaufmann, R.,
Tsetlin, V.,
and Hucho, F.
(1995)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
92,
7282-7286
|
| 13.
|
Arias, H. R.
(1996)
Mol. Membr. Biol.
13,
1-17
|
| 14.
|
Oberthür, W.,
Muhn, P.,
Baumann, H.,
Lottspeich, F.,
Wittmann-Liebold, B.,
and Hucho, F.
(1986)
EMBO J.
5,
1815-1819
|
| 15.
|
Oberthür, W.,
and Hucho, F.
(1988)
J. Protein Chem.
7,
141-150
|
| 16.
|
Giraudat, J.,
Dennis, M.,
Heidmann, T.,
Chang, J. Y.,
and Changeux, J.-P.
(1986)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
83,
2719-2723
|
| 17.
|
Giraudat, J.,
Dennis, M.,
Heidmann, T.,
Haumont, P. Y.,
Lederer, F.,
and Changeux, J.-P.
(1987)
Biochemistry
26,
2410-2418
|
| 18.
|
Giraudat, J.,
Gali, J.,
Revah, F.,
Changeux, J.-P.,
Haumont, P.,
and Lederer, F.
(1989)
FEBS Lett.
253,
190-198
|
| 19.
|
Gallagher, M. J.,
and Cohen, J. B.
(1999)
Mol. Pharmacol.
56,
300-307
|
| 20.
|
Herz, J. M.,
Johnson, D. A.,
and Taylor, P.
(1987)
J. Biol. Chem.
262,
7238-7242
|
| 21.
|
Johnson, D. A.,
and Nuss, J. M.
(1994)
Biochemistry
33,
9070-9077
|
| 22.
|
Arias, H. R.
(1997)
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
1347,
9-22
|
| 23.
|
Arias, H. R.,
Valenzuela, F.,
and Johnson, D. A.
(1993)
Biochemistry
32,
6237-6242
|
| 24.
|
Johnson, D. A.,
and Ayres, S.
(1996)
Biochemistry
35,
6330-6336
|
| 25.
|
Watty, A.,
Methfessel, C.,
and Hucho, F.
(1997)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
94,
8202-8207
|
| 26.
|
Monod, J.,
Wyman, J.,
and Changeux, J.-P.
(1965)
J. Mol. Biol.
12,
88-118
|
| 27.
|
Schiebler, W.,
and Hucho, F.
(1978)
Eur. J. Biochem.
85,
55-63
|
| 28.
|
Hartig, P.,
and Raftery, M.
(1979)
Biochemistry
18,
1146-1150
|
| 29.
|
Saez-Briones, P.,
Krauss, M.,
Dreger, M.,
Herrmann, A.,
Tsetlin, V. I.,
and Hucho, F.
(1999)
Eur. J. Biochem.
265,
902-910
|
| 30.
|
Bixel, M. G.,
Krauss, M.,
Liu, Y.,
Bolognesi, M. L.,
Rosini, M.,
Mellor, I. S.,
Usherwood, P. N.,
Melchiorre, C.,
Nakanishi, K.,
and Hucho, F.
(2000)
Eur. J. Biochem.
267,
110-120
|
| 31.
|
Sterz, R.,
Hermes, M.,
Peper, K.,
and Bradley, R. J.
(1982)
Eur. J. Pharmacol.
80,
393-399
|
| 32.
|
Prince, R. J.,
and Sine, S. M.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
19623-19629
|
| 33.
|
Koshland, D. E.,
Némethy, G.,
and Filmer, D.
(1966)
Biochemistry
5,
365-385
|
| 34.
|
Hamill, O. P.,
and Sakman, B.
(1981)
Nature
294,
462-464
|
| 35.
|
Auerbach, A.,
and Sachs, F.
(1983)
Biophys. J.
42,
1-10
|
| 36.
|
Jackson, M. B.
(1984)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
81,
3901-3904
|
| 37.
|
Auerbach, A.,
Sigurdson, W.,
Chen, J.,
and Akk, G.
(1996)
J. Physiol.
494,
155-179
|
| 38.
|
Labarca, C.,
Nowak, M. W.,
Zhang, H.,
Tang, L.,
Deshpande, P.,
and Lester, H. A.
(1995)
Nature
376,
514-516
|
| 39.
|
Filatov, G. N.,
and White, M. M.
(1995)
Mol. Pharmacol.
48,
379-384
|
| 40.
|
Chen, J.,
and Auerbach, A.
(1998)
Biophys. J.
75,
218-225
|
| 41.
|
Revah, F.,
Bertrand, D.,
Galzi, J. L.,
Devillers-Thiery, A.,
Mulle, C.,
Hussy, N.,
Bertrand, S.,
Ballivet, M.,
and Changeux, J.-P.
(1991)
Nature
353,
846-849
|
| 42.
|
Bertrand, D.,
Devillers-Thiery, A.,
Revah, F.,
Galzi, J. L.,
Hussy, N.,
Mulle, C.,
Bertrand, S.,
Ballivet, M.,
and Changeux, J.-P.
(1992)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
89,
1261-1265
|
| 43.
|
Moore, M. A.,
and McCarthy, M. P.
(1995)
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
1235,
336-342
|
| 44.
|
Lurtz, M. M.,
Hareland, M. L.,
and Pedersen, S. E.
(1997)
Biochemistry
36,
2068-2075
|
| 45.
|
Unwin, N.
(1995)
Nature
373,
37-43
|
| 46.
|
Herz, J. M.,
and Atherton, S. J.
(1992)
Biophys. J.
62,
74-76
|
| 47.
|
Miyazawa, A.,
Fujiyoshi, Y.,
Stowell, M.,
and Unwin, N.
(1999)
J. Mol. Biol.
288,
765-786
|
| 48.
|
Blanton, M.,
McCardy, E.,
Gallaher, T.,
and Wang, H. H.
(1988)
Mol. Pharmacol.
33,
634-642
|
| 49.
|
Herz, J. M.,
Kolb, S. J.,
Erlinger, T.,
and Schmid, E.
(1991)
J. Biol. Chem.
266,
16691-16698
|
| 50.
|
Palma, A. L.,
and Wang, H. H.
(1991)
J. Membr. Biol.
122,
143-153
|
Copyright © 2000 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
C. Lopes, E. F. R. Pereira, H.-Q. Wu, P. Purushottamachar, V. Njar, R. Schwarcz, and E. X. Albuquerque
Competitive Antagonism between the Nicotinic Allosteric Potentiating Ligand Galantamine and Kynurenic Acid at {alpha}7* Nicotinic Receptors
J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.,
July 1, 2007;
322(1):
48 - 58.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. G. Bixel, C. Weise, M. L. Bolognesi, M. Rosini, M. J. Brierly, I. R. Mellor, P. N. R. Usherwood, C. Melchiorre, and F. Hucho
Location of the Polyamine Binding Site in the Vestibule of the Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Ion Channel
J. Biol. Chem.,
February 23, 2001;
276(9):
6151 - 6160.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
Copyright © 2000 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
|