|
Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M209564200 on October 2, 2002
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 51, 49167-49174, December 20, 2002
Suramin Interacts with the Calmodulin Binding Site on the
Ryanodine Receptor, RYR1*
Rao V. L.
Papineni ,
Kristen M. S.
O'Connell§,
Hongwei
Zhang ,
Robert T.
Dirksen§, and
Susan L.
Hamilton ¶
From the Department of Molecular Physiology and
Biophysics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030 and
§ Department of Pharmacology and Physiology, University of
Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry,
Rochester, New York 14642
Received for publication, September 18, 2002, and in revised form, October 1, 2002
 |
ABSTRACT |
Apocalmodulin and Ca2+
calmodulin bind to overlapping sites on the ryanodine receptor
skeletal form, RYR1, but have opposite functional effects on channel
activity. Suramin, a polysulfonated napthylurea, displaces both forms
of calmodulin, leading to an inhibition of activity at low
Ca2+ and an enhancement of activity at high
Ca2+. Calmodulin binding motifs on RYR1 are also able to
directly interact with the carboxy-terminal tail of the transverse
tubule dihydropyridine receptor (DHPR) (Sencer, S., Papineni, R. V., Halling, D. B., Pate, P., Krol, J., Zhang, J. Z., and
Hamilton, S. L. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 38237-38241). Suramin binds directly to a peptide that corresponds to
the calmodulin binding site of RYR1 (amino acids 3609-3643) and blocks
the interaction of this peptide with both calmodulin and the
carboxyl-terminal tail of the DHPR 1-subunit. Suramin,
added to the internal solution of voltage-clamped skeletal myotubes,
produces a concentration-dependent increase in the maximal
magnitude of voltage-gated Ca2+ transients without
significantly altering L-channel Ca2+ channel conducting
activity. Together, these results suggest that an interaction between
the carboxyl-terminal tail of the DHPR 1-subunit with
the calmodulin binding region of RYR1 serves to limit sarcoplasmic
reticulum Ca2+ release during excitation-contraction
coupling and that suramin-induced potentiation of voltage-gated
Ca2+ release involves a relief of this inhibitory interaction.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The skeletal muscle ryanodine receptor (RYR1) functions as a
sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR)1
Ca2+ release channel that plays a central role in
excitation-contraction coupling. Two distinct mechanisms are postulated
to contribute to the release of Ca2+ from the SR in
skeletal muscle. After sarcolemmal depolarization, SR Ca2+
release channels are initially activated via mechanical coupling with
DHPRs (or L-type Ca2+ channels) located in the surface
membrane (2). However, morphological data indicate that only every
other SR Ca2+ release channel is directly coupled with
sarcolemmal DHPRs (3). Adjacent, non-DHPR-coupled release channels (4)
are thought to be activated either by Ca2+ released via the
mechanically coupled channels (3) or by a coordinated or
"coupled-gating" mechanism of activation (5).
RYR1 and DHPR proteins bind CaM in both its Ca2+-bound and
Ca2+-free forms (6-9). Overlapping binding sites for
apoCaM and Ca2+-CaM are located between amino acids 3614 and 3643 of RYR1 (10, 11). The carboxyl-terminal tail of the DHPR
1-subunit (12, 13) appears to have binding sites for
both forms of CaM. C3635, located within the putative CaM binding
region of RYR1, has been postulated to contribute to oxidation-induced
intersubunit cross-linking (14) and was recently demonstrated to be the
site of CaM-dependent NO modulation of RYR1 (15).
Studies of the interaction of both the DHPR and RYR1 with apoCaM and
Ca2+CaM have been primarily carried out with uncoupled
channels, raising the question of whether CaM interacts with either
channel when the two proteins are mechanically coupled in intact
skeletal muscle. Slavik et al. (12) provided evidence that a
sequence within the carboxyl terminus of the DHPR
1-subunit interacts strongly with RYR1. This sequence
was later shown to also be a CaM binding motif (13). More recently,
Sencer et al. (1) demonstrated that the CaM binding site on
RYR1 binds directly to the carboxyl-terminal tail of the DHPR
1-subunit. These findings suggest that the CaM binding
motifs on the DHPR and RYR1 proteins may actually function as
protein-protein interaction motifs rather than strictly as CaM binding
domains. However, the functionally relevant binding partners for these
motifs have not yet been identified. If the DHPR and RYR1 proteins
utilize CaM binding motifs for binding to one another, then CaM could
potentially uncouple the mechanical link formed between the CaM binding
site of RYR1 and the carboxyl-terminal tail of the DHPR
1-subunit. However, the functional consequences of such
CaM-mediated uncoupling have yet to be evaluated.
Suramin, a polysulfonated napthylurea is a potent, reversible activator
of the RYR, increasing both conductance and P0
of the channel (16). Klinger et al. (17) found that suramin
inhibits the RYR1-CaM interaction, possibly by competing for the CaM
binding domain on RYR1. Suko et al. (18) studied the effects
of suramin on the single channel behavior of RYR1 and on
[3H]ryanodine binding and found that RYR1 channels
reconstituted in planar lipid bilayers are activated by high
concentrations (0.3-0.9 mM) of suramin. This effect
appeared to be due to an increased affinity of the Ca2+
activating site on RYR1 for Ca2+. These authors suggested
that the complex functional effects of suramin arise from an allosteric
regulation of the channel and not from alterations in the binding of
endogenous ligands (e.g. CaM) involved in channel gating. In
the current study, we demonstrate that suramin binds directly to a
peptide corresponding to the CaM binding motif on RYR1 and that suramin
blocks the interaction of this peptide with the carboxyl-terminal
region of the DHPR 1-subunit. Moreover, suramin
potentiates voltage-gated SR Ca2+ release in whole cell
voltage-clamped skeletal myotubes, consistent with the idea that
suramin disrupts an intrinsic inhibitory interaction between the DHPR
carboxyl terminus and the CaM binding domain on RYR1.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Materials--
Bovine brain CaM, suramin, and dithiothreitol
were obtained from Sigma. Tran35S-label (>1000 Ci/mmol)
was purchased from ICN Biomedicals, Inc. (Irvine, CA).
[3H]Ryanodine was purchased from Amersham Biosciences,
and unlabeled ryanodine was purchased from Calbiochem. A fluorescent
derivative of CaM, Alexa FluorTM 594-conjugated CaM (Alexa CaM), was
purchased from Molecular Probes (Eugene, OR). The peptides
were synthesized in the core facility at Baylor College of Medicine
(Houston, TX).
SR Membrane Preparation--
SR and transverse tubule-enriched
membranes were prepared from rabbit hind leg and back-strap skeletal
muscle and purified using sucrose gradient centrifugation (19). Protein
concentrations were estimated by the method of Lowry using bovine serum
albumin as the standard (20).
[35S]Methionine Labeling of CaM--
The mammalian
CaM was generously provided by Dr. Ruth Altschuld. Metabolic labeling
of calmodulin with Tran35S-label was performed according to
a procedure described previously (7).
Equilibrium [35S]CaM Binding
Assay--
35S-Labeled CaM binding to SR membranes (10 µg) was determined as described previously (7). The binding buffer
contained 50 mM MOPS (pH 7.4), 300 mM NaCl,
0.1% CHAPS, and 1 mM EGTA with 1.2 mM
CaCl2 (high Ca2+ binding buffer, 200 µM free Ca2+) or 1 mM EGTA alone
(low Ca2+ binding buffer, 10 nM free
Ca2+). Samples were incubated for 2 h at room
temperature. Bound radioligand was separated from free by filtration
through Whatman GF/F filters and washing 5 times with 3 ml of the
ice-cold binding buffer.
Equilibrium [3H]Ryanodine Binding
Assay--
20-µg SR membranes per assay were incubated with 5 nM [3H]ryanodine at room temperature for
17 h in binding buffer (300 mM NaCl, 50 mM
MOPS (pH 7.4), 0.1% CHAPS, and either 1 mM EGTA or 1.2 mM CaCl2). Nonspecific binding was defined in
the presence of unlabeled ryanodine (final concentration of 10 µM). Bound [3H]ryanodine was separated from
free by filtering through Whatman GF/F glass fiber filters and washing
5 times with 3 ml of ice-cold binding buffer. The radioactivity was
quantified by scintillation counting.
Fluorescence Spectroscopy--
The interaction of suramin and
R3609-43 was determined by monitoring the changes in intrinsic
tryptophan fluorescence of R3609-43. The fluorescence was recorded on
a ISS PC1 photon counting spectrophotometer (Champaign, IL).
R3609-43 in the presence of different concentrations of suramin was
excited at 295 nm (UV-solar pass filter), and emission spectra
(320-450 mM) were recorded with a "Cut-on" filter of
309 nm.
Suramin inhibition of Alexa-CaM-R3609-43 binding was determined by
monitoring the changes in emission of Alexa CaM recorded on an ISS
PC1 photon-counting spectrophotometer. Samples of Alexa CaM (1 µM) alone or in the presence of R3609-43 (1 µM) were incubated with 10 µM suramin for
30 min at room temperature. The samples in 100-µl cuvettes (Starna
Cells, Atascadero, CA) were excited at 594 nm (Cut-on filter of 550 nM), and the emission at 622 nm was collected as relative
fluorescence units with a Cut-on filter of 595 nM.
Nondenaturing Gel Electrophoresis--
The electrophoretic
mobility of CaM was evaluated by nondenaturing polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis under discontinuous conditions as a modified technique
described by Laemmli (21). Nondenaturing gels (20% polyacrylamide)
were separated at 30 mA under high Ca2+conditions (200 µM CaCl2 in the gel buffers).
DHPR-RYR Interaction--
Pull-down assays were performed using
a biotinylated R3609-43 peptide and streptavidin beads. Briefly,
transverse tubule-enriched membranes (1 mg/ml in 150 mM
KCl, 25 mM NaCl, 100 µM CaCl2, 50 mM MOPS (pH7.4)) were solubilized with 1% CHAPS. Aliquots
(50 µl) of the solubilized membranes were added to streptavidin beads (50 µl) that had been preincubated for 1 h with 40 µM R3609-43. After gently mixing for 1 h at room
temperature the beads were pelleted for 1 min in a low speed
centrifuge, and the supernatant was removed. An additional 300 µl of
buffer was then added, the sample was vortexed, and the beads were once
again pelleted. After the addition of 100 µl of H2O,
beads were extracted with SDS and electrophoresed on a 7.5%
SDS-polyacrylamide gels and either stained or Western-blotted with the
indicated antibodies.
R3609-43-D1393-1527 Interaction by Nickel Chelate Plate
Assay--
Analysis of the interaction between R3609-43 and the
recombinantly expressed carboxyl-terminal fragment of DHPR
1-subunit was determined as follows. The cDNA
encoding the skeletal DHPR amino acids 1-1393-1527
(D1393-1527) was used to express His-tagged recombinant protein as
described by Sencer et al. (1). The His-tagged protein was
coupled to nickel chelate assay plates as recommended by the
manufacturer (BD Biosciences). 1 µM biotinylated R3609-43 (150 mM KCl, 25 mM NaCl, 100 µM CaCl2, 50 mM MOPS (pH7.4)) in
the presence of various concentrations of suramin was added to the
wells, and the plates were mixed at 100 rpm for 1 h at room
temperature. The bound biotinylated R3609-43 was calorimetric-assayed using avidin-conjugated alkaline phosphate enzyme (1:1000), and p-nitrophenyl phosphate as a substrate/chromogen. The
reaction was measured at 405 nm on a SpectraMax microplate
spectrophotometer (Molecular Devices Corp., Sunnyvale, CA).
Whole Cell Patch Clamp Measurements of Voltage-gated L-currents
and Intracellular Calcium Transients in Mouse Myotubes--
Myotubes
were prepared from the skeletal muscle of newborn mice as previously
described (22-24). Voltage-gated Ca2+ currents and
Ca2+ transients were recorded using the whole cell patch
clamp technique. The pipette solution for all experiments was 145 mM cesium aspartate, 0.1 mM
Cs2-EGTA, 1.2 mM MgCl2, 5 mM MgATP, 0.2 mM K5-Fluo-3, 10 mM HEPES, pH 7.4. For suramin experiments, suramin (5 or 50 µM) was also included in the internal solution. The
external solution for all experiments was 145 mM
triethylammonium chloride, 10 mM CaCl2, 10 mM HEPES, 0.003 mM tetrodotoxin (pH
7.4).
Peak L-currents were normalized to cell capacitance
(pA/picofarads), plotted as a function of test potential and fitted
according to the equation,
|
(Eq. 1)
|
where Gmax is the maximal L-channel
conductance, Vm is test potential,
Vrev is the extrapolated reversal potential, VG1/2 is the potential for half-maximal
activation of Gmax and, kG is
a slope factor.
Relative changes in cytosolic Ca2+ were measured using the
Ca2+ indicator K5-Fluo-3 as described
previously (24). Fluorescence traces were analog-filtered ( = 0.5 ms) before digitization and expressed as
F/F0, where
F0 is the base-line fluorescence immediately before depolarization, and F represents the fluorescence
change from base line. Fluorescence amplitudes at the end of each test pulse are plotted as a function of test potential and fitted according to the equation,
|
(Eq. 2)
|
where F/Fmax is the
calculated maximal change in fluorescence for each test potential
(Vm), VF1/2 is the potential for half-maximal activation of
F/Fmax, and kF
is a slope factor.
Data Analysis--
Inhibition of 35S-labeled CaM
binding to SR membranes was analyzed by non-linear regression (Sigma
Plot 2000; Jandel Scientific, San Rafael, CA) using the equation,
|
(Eq. 3)
|
where Bmax is the number of binding
sites, Kd is the apparent dissociation
constant for 35S-labeled CaM binding, [L] is the
concentration of 35S-CaM, y is the concentration
of suramin, x is the amount bound, and Ki
is the apparent inhibitory constant for suramin.
In gel shift assays, densitometry was performed on the peptide-bound
CaM band. Optical density data obtained in the presence of suramin were
normalized to the optical density of the peptide-CaM band alone and
plotted as a function of suramin concentration. The data described are
the mean ± S.E. for at least three independent determinations.
 |
RESULTS |
Suramin Inhibits Ca2-bound and Ca2-free CaM
Binding to RYR1--
Both RYR1 and CaM are Ca2+-binding
proteins. Our studies comparing the interactions of a Ca2+
binding site mutant of CaM and wild type CaM with RYR1 demonstrated that the affinities of both forms of CaM for RYR1 are greater at
µM than at nM Ca2+
concentrations, indicating that Ca2+ binding to RYR1
increases the affinity for CaM (7). Suramin inhibits CaM binding to
RYR1 (17). To determine the affinity of the interaction of suramin with
RYR1 we analyzed the concentration dependence for suramin inhibition of
35S-labeled CaM binding to SR membranes at both
nM and µM Ca2+ concentrations
(Fig. 1). Ki values
for suramin inhibition of CaM binding to RYR1 at 200 µM
and <10 nM free Ca2+ concentrations were
1.7 ± 0.1 (n = 3) and 1.3 ± 0.14 µM (n = 3), respectively. These results
indicate that suramin inhibits the interaction of both apoCaM and
Ca2+-CaM with RYR1 in a manner that is not altered by
Ca2+ binding to RYR1. The complete inhibition of
35S-labeled CaM binding suggests that suramin binding to
RYR1 is competitive with CaM. This is further supported by our finding that the rate of dissociation of 35S-labeled CaM from RYR1
is not altered by suramin (data not shown). The measured dissociation
rate constants for 35S-labeled CaM bound to SR membranes
are 0.33 ± 0.001 min 1 (n = 3) and
0.35 ± 0.002 min 1 (n = 3) in the
absence and presence of suramin, respectively.

View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Suramin inhibits apoCaM and
Ca2-CaM binding to RYR1. SR membranes were incubated
with 5 nM 35S-labeled CaM and increasing
concentrations of suramin at either 200 µM free
Ca2+ (closed circles) or 10 nM free
Ca2+ (closed squares) as described under
"Experimental Procedures." Data (mean ± S.E.) on the
ordinate are plotted as the amount of radioligand bound
normalized to the amount bound in the absence of the competing ligand
(B/B0).
|
|
Suramin Binds to Peptide R3609-43 and Inhibits Its Interaction
with CaM--
The studies of Klinger et al. (17) indicated
that suramin binds competitively to the CaM binding domain on the RYR.
However, Suko et al. (18) suggested that suramin effects on
RYR channel function involve an allosteric mechanism that occurs in the
absence of direct effects on endogenous ligands involved in channel
gating. To address whether the suramin interaction with RYR1 is
competitive or noncompetitive, we examined the ability of suramin to
inhibit the interaction of a peptide corresponding to the CaM binding domain of RYR1 (R3609-3643) with CaM at both high and low
Ca2+ concentrations (Fig. 2).
At 200 µM and <10 nM free Ca2+
concentrations, suramin displaces CaM from R3609-3643. The inhibition was assessed by the changes in the fluorescence of Alexa CaM in the
presence or absence of the peptide (R3609-3643). These results suggest
a competitive interaction between suramin and CaM with the R3609-43
region of RYR1.

View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Inhibition of apoCaM and Ca2-CaM
binding to R3609-43 by suramin. The interactions of the
fluorescent derivative of CaM, Alexa CaM, with R3609 at 10 nM or 200 µM free Ca2+ were
assessed in the presence and absence of suramin (10 µM).
The figure shows the change in steady-state Alexa CaM fluorescence at
10 nM free Ca2+ (panel A) and 200 µM free Ca2+ (panel B). a, Alexa
CaM (1 µM); b, Alexa CaM and R3609-43 (1 µM each); c, Alexa CaM (1 µM)
and suramin (10 µM); d, Alexa CaM (1 µM) in the presence of R3609-43 (1 µM) and
suramin (10 µM). Data represent the mean ± S.E. for
three independent experiments. The asterisk (*) indicates
p < 0.001 compared with bar a, and the
double asterisk (**) indicates p < 0.001 compared with bar b. AU, absorbance
units.
|
|
Competitive inhibition by suramin of the interaction of CaM with
R3609-43 was confirmed by nondenaturing polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. As shown in Fig. 3, the
ability of R3609-3643 to bind CaM on non-denaturing gels is completely
inhibited at suramin concentrations above 10 µM. CaM
binding to a peptide (D1665-1685) corresponding to the CaM binding
domain of the carboxyl-terminal region of the DHPR
1-subunit (13) is not affected by suramin (Fig. 3).
These results indicate that suramin inhibition of the binding of CaM is
relatively selective to the CaM recognition sequence found in RYR1.

View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
The ability of suramin to inhibit CaM binding
to RYR1 or DHPR peptides. The effects of suramin on the
interaction between CaM and R3609-43 or D1665-1685 were assessed by
nondenaturing gel electrophoresis. Peptides (1.5 µM) and
CaM (1.5 µM) in 200 µM free Ca2
were incubated in the presence of increasing concentrations of suramin
followed by electrophoresis and Coomassie Brilliant Blue staining.
Panel A, Coomassie-stained gel. The arrow with a
solid line indicates the CaM band bound to the peptide, and
the dotted arrow indicates the uncomplexed CaM band.
lane a, no suramin; lane b, 100 nM
suramin; lane c, 1.25 µM suramin; lane
d, 2.5 µM suramin; lane e, 5 µM suramin; lane f, 10 µM
suramin; lane g, 20 µM suramin; lane
h, 40 µM suramin; lane i, 80 µM suramin. B, densitometric analysis of
uncomplexed CaM band in the presence of peptide R3609-43 (closed
circles) and D1665-1685 (open circles) and increasing
concentrations of suramin (0, 100 nM, and,
1.25, 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 40, and 80 µM).
|
|
To demonstrate direct binding between suramin and R3609-3643, we
analyzed changes in intrinsic tryptophan fluorescence (excitation at
295 nm) of R3609-3643 in the presence and absence of 10 µM suramin (Fig. 4). The
addition of suramin to R3609-43 peptide (Fig. 4A) induced a
shift in tryptophan emission spectra (from a peak at ~350 nm in the
absence of suramin to ~420 nm in the presence of suramin). The
suramin-induced shift in emission spectra arises from fluorescence
resonance energy transfer (FRET) between the single tryptophan residue
of peptide R3609-43, acting as donor, and the naphthalene rings of
suramin as acceptor. The addition of either free tryptophan (data not
shown) or a control peptide representing amino acids 135-160 of RYR1
(R135-160) (Fig. 4B) did not significantly affect suramin
emission spectra. These findings further support a model in which
suramin binds directly to the CaM binding region of RYR1 (residues
3609-3643).

View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Emission spectrum for tryptophan fluorescence
of peptides. The steady-state tryptophan fluorescence of R3609-43
(A) and R135-160 (B) was determined in the
presence (open circles) and absence (closed
circles) of suramin (10 µM). Steady-state tryptophan
fluorescence was negligible for control samples containing suramin
alone (closed inverted triangles). Fluorescence data
(relative fluorescence units (RFU)) obtained were corrected
for buffer effects (1) and plotted as a function of emission wavelength
(n = 3). AU, absorbance units.
|
|
Effects of Suramin on [3H]Ryanodine Binding in the
Presence and Absence of CaM--
We assessed the ability of suramin to
act as a competitive antagonist to Ca2+-CaM and apoCaM
modulation of RYR1. [3H]Ryanodine binding is widely used
to screen for effects of modulators on RYR activity. ApoCaM, like most
RYR activators, increases [3H]ryanodine binding to RYR1,
whereas Ca2+-CaM like other channel inhibitors decreases
[3H]ryanodine binding to RYR1 (7). As expected, a
decrease in [3H]ryanodine binding to RYR1 was observed in
the presence of Ca2+-CaM (Fig.
5A), whereas apoCaM enhanced
[3H]ryanodine binding to RYR1 (Fig. 5B). These
effects of CaM were overcome by increasing concentrations of suramin
(from 0.1 to 10 µM), suggesting that suramin competes
with CaM for a binding site on RYR1 over this concentration range.
Higher suramin concentrations (>100 µM) resulted in both
the displacement of endogenous FKBP12 and enhanced
[3H]ryanodine binding to RYR independent of the presence
of CaM (data not shown).

View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
Effect of suramin on CaM regulation of
[3H]ryanodine binding to RYR1. The effect of
increasing concentrations of suramin on [3H]ryanodine
binding to SR membranes (20 µg) was determined at 200 µM Ca2+ (A) and 10 nM
Ca2+ (B) in the absence (closed
squares) or presence (closed circles) of CaM (1 µM).
|
|
Suramin at concentrations greater than 1 µM increases
[3H]ryanodine binding to RYR1 even in the absence of
added CaM (Fig. 5A). The increase in
[3H]ryanodine binding is likely due to displacement of
endogenous calmodulin in these membranes by suramin. Consistent with
this, Western blotting of these membranes with an antibody to
calmodulin shows the presence of endogenous calmodulin that is
partially displaced by 10 µM suramin (Fig.
6A). Endogenous CaM bound to RYR was, however, completely displaced by 10 µM suramin
(Fig. 6B). This was inferred from the amounts of CaM
detected in the proteins extracted from the filters routinely used for
binding assays. Moreover, the suramin-induced changes in
[3H]ryanodine binding in the absence of added CaM was not
observed when SR membranes were pre-washed extensively (Fig.
6C).

View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Endogenous calmodulin bound to RYR1 is
displaced by suramin. A, the presence of CaM was
determined by Western blotting. 30 µg of SR membranes (0.2 mg/ml) was
incubated with 0 and 10 µM suramin in 0.2 mM
CaCl2, 300 mM NaCl, 50 mM
MOPS (pH 7.4) for 30 min on ice. Soluble proteins were separated from
membranes by centrifugation in a Beckman Airfuge for 5 min at 30 p.s.i. and resolved by 15% SDS-PAGE. CaM was detected using monoclonal
anti-CaM antibodies Research Diagnostics Inc. (Flanders, NJ) and
visualized by ECL. Lane a, pellet (no suramin); lane
b, supernatant (no suramin); lane c, pellet (10 µM suramin); lane d, supernatant (10 µM suramin). B, endogenous CaM bound to RYR1
was determined by separating SR membranes (10 µg, 0.2 mg/ml) in 0.1%
CHAPS, 0.2 mM CaCl2, 300 mM NaCl,
50 mM MOPS (pH7.4) by filtration through Whatman GF/F
filters with 5 × 3-ml washes with the above buffer followed by
Western blotting. The filters were incubated with Laemmli sample
buffer. The proteins extracted from the filters were subjected to
SDS-PAGE electrophoresis followed by transfer onto Immobilon-P
membranes (Millipore Bedford, MA). Anti-CaM antibodies (Research
Diagnostics) were used to detect CaM. The densities of CaM band are
shown in the absence (a) and presence (b) of 10 µM suramin. AU, absorbance units.
C, SR membranes (1.2 mg) were prewashed once in low
Ca2+ buffer (300 mM NaCl, 1 mM
EGTA, 50 mM MOPS (pH 7.4)) followed by a prewash in high
Ca2+ buffer (300 mM NaCl, 1.2 mM
CaCl2, 50 mM MOPS (pH 7.4)). Membranes (20 µg) in the presence (open circles) or absence
(closed circles) of CaM (1 µM) were used to
determine the effect of suramin on [3H]ryanodine
binding.
|
|
Modulation of DHPR-R3609-43 Interaction by Suramin--
The CaM
binding motif of RYR1 physically interacts with the carboxyl terminus
of the DHPR 1-subunit (1). We analyzed the effect of
suramin on this interaction by assessing the ability of R3609-43 to
pull down the DHPR from detergent-solubilized T-tubule membranes. In
these experiments a biotinylated derivative of R3609-3643 (R3609-3643-biotin) and streptavidin beads was used to pull down DHPRs. Western blotting with anti- 1-DHPR antibodies of
the pull-down fractions demonstrated that 50 µM suramin
blocked the pull down of the DHPR 1-subunit (Fig.
7A). The effect of suramin on
the interaction of R3609-43 and a recombinant protein fragment of carboxyl terminus of the DHPR 1-subunit (His-tagged
D1393-1527) expressed in Escherichia coli was also
analyzed. The interaction was completely inhibited by 10 µM suramin (Fig. 7B).

View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
Suramin inhibits DHPR-RYR interaction.
A, pull-down assays were performed using biotinylated
R3609-43 and streptavidin beads in the presence of control buffer and
either 5 µM CaM or 50 µM suramin as
described under "Experimental Procedures." After SDS-PAGE and
Western blotting, the blots were probed for the
1-subunit of the DHPR using an antibody (Affinity
Bioreagents, Golden, Co) specific for the 1-subunit.
a, pull down with 3609-43 alone; b, pull down in
the presence of CaM; c, pull down in the presence of
suramin. Data represent the mean plus the S.E. of the mean for three
determinations. B, binding between the RYR peptide
(R3609-43) and DHPR fragment (His-tagged D1393-1527) were analyzed
using nickel chelate plate assay described under "Experimental
Procedures." Data represent the mean plus the S.E. of the mean for
three determinations, a, control; b, suramin, 1 µM; c, suramin 10 µM. C,
[3H]ryanodine binding to RYR was performed in the
presence of expressed carboxyl-terminal fragment of DHPR (D1393-1527).
The preparation includes His tag as a contaminant. SR membranes were
washed in low Ca2+ buffer (300 mM NaCl, 1 mM EGTA, 50 mM MOPS (pH 7.4)) and then high
Ca2+ buffer (300 mM NaCl, 1.2 mM
CaCl2, 50 mM MOPS (pH 7.4)).
[3H]Ryanodine binding to prewashed membranes (20 µg)
was performed in the presence of 0 µM (a),
0.75 µM (b and c), and 1 µM (d and e) of D1393-1527.
Samples b and d were added with 10 µM of suramin. AU, absorbance units.
|
|
The carboxyl terminus of the DHPR 1-subunit
(D1393-1527) has been shown to inhibit ryanodine binding to RYR1 (1).
D1393-1527 was isolated using nickel-chelated beads after thrombin
cleavage to determine whether suramin could prevent inhibition of
ryanodine binding. The D1393-1527 preparation contained His tag as a
contaminant. 10 µM suramin completely attenuated the
inhibition of [3H]ryanodine binding by D1393-1527 (Fig.
7C). The His tag by itself has no effect on the
[3H]ryanodine binding to RYR1 (data not shown). Together
these results indicate that suramin effectively uncouples the physical
interaction between the carboxyl terminus of the DHPR
1-subunit and a peptide corresponding to the CaM binding
site of RYR1.
Effect of Suramin on Excitation-Contraction Coupling in Mouse
Myotubes--
The results reported here demonstrate that suramin
disrupts binding of both CaM and the carboxyl terminus of the DHPR
1-subunit to a peptide corresponding to the CaM binding
domain of RYR1. To determine whether these effects alter
excitation-contraction coupling in intact skeletal muscle cells, we
measured L-type Ca2+ channel currents and voltage-gated SR
Ca2+ release in normal myotubes in the presence and absence
suramin. Because suramin is not membrane-permeant, 50 µM
suramin was included in the patch pipette internal solution (with
buffer alone used as control), and recordings were made 5 min after
establishing the whole cell configuration. For these experiments, 50 µM suramin was used because this concentration of suramin
was found in biochemical experiments to maximally inhibit CaM binding
to RYR1 (Figs. 1 and 3) and would, therefore, be likely to overcome
potential limitations with regard to suramin dialysis and accessibility
to junctional RYR1 proteins in patch-clamped myotubes. Maximal L-type
Ca2+ channel conductance (Gmax) and
the voltage required for half-maximal activation of
Gmax (VG1/2) were
similar in the presence and absence of 50 µM internal
suramin (Fig. 8A and Table
I). The lack of an effect of suramin on
L-type Ca2+ channel activity is consistent with the finding
reported here that suramin does not interact with the CaM binding
region of the skeletal muscle DHPR. However, 50 µM
suramin caused a significant increase (67.9 ± 0.2%,
n = 13; p < 0.05) in the maximal
F/F0 without altering
VF1/2, the voltage required for half-maximal release (Fig.
8B and Table I). The effects of suramin on maximal voltage-gated SR Ca2+ release were
concentration-dependent since a smaller increase in maximal
F/F0 was observed at a lower
concentration (5 µM suramin: 39.7 ± 0.2%,
n = 16; p < 0.05). The increase in
maximal voltage-gated Ca2+ release could arise from either
a direct stimulatory effect of suramin on activated SR Ca2+
release channels or via a suramin-mediated disruption of an inhibitory interaction between the carboxyl-terminal region of the DHPR
1-subunit and the CaM binding domain of RYR1 (see
"Discussion").

View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 8.
Suramin potentiates voltage-gated SR
Ca2 release in mouse myotubes. A, average
peak I-V plot for mouse myotubes dialyzed with internal
solutions containing buffer alone (closed circles) or 50 µM suramin (open circles)-treated myotubes.
Data from each cell were fit according to Equation 1 and the average
parameters given in Table I (I-V). The solid line
through the data represents a fit of the average data according to
Equation 1 (control: Gmax = 211 nanosiemens per nanofarad, VG1/2 = 15.8 mV, k = 7.0 mV; Suramin: Gmax = 193 nanosiemens/nanofarads VG1/2 = 18.3 mV,
k = 6.3 mV). B, average peak
F/F0 values for control
(closed circles)- and suramin (open
circles)-dialyzed myotubes. Data were fit according to Equation 2,
and the solid line is a fit of the average data (Table I,
F-V) (control: F/Fmax = 2.7, VF1/2 = 2.8 mV, k = 6.2 mV; suramin: F/Fmax = 4.2, VF1/2 = 3.0 mV, k = 5.6 mV). In A and B, peak currents and transients
were elicited by 200-ms depolarizations to the indicated test
potentials. Representative L-currents (C) and
Ca2+ transients (D) for control and suramin
dialyzed-myotubes are shown. Currents and transients for each condition
are from the same cell.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
Our results indicate that suramin inhibits both
Ca2+-CaM and apoCaM binding to RYR1 with nearly identical
Ki values (~1-2 µM), suggesting
that inhibition by suramin is independent of Ca2+ binding
to both CaM and RYR1. A recent study (17) reported that a suramin
IC50 for inhibition of Ca2+-CaM binding to RYR1
be ~10-fold higher than we are reporting. The reason for the
different apparent affinity of suramin for RYR1 is not clear but may be
related to the use of 125I-labeled CaM in their study
versus 35S-labeled CaM in the current study. We
have previously demonstrated that the iodination of CaM using the
Bolton-Hunter reagent can produce substantial artifacts in the analysis
of CaM binding to RYR1 (10).
Suramin was found to bind to and competitively inhibit CaM binding to a
peptide (R3609-43) that corresponds to the CaM binding region of RYR1.
Therefore, suramin would be expected to compete with CaM for binding to
RYR1 proteins that are not interacting with the DHPR (e.g.
purified RYR1 proteins or adjacent non-coupled RYR1 proteins present
within SR-T tubule junctions). At low Ca2+ concentrations,
CaM is an activator of RYR1, whereas at high Ca2+
concentrations CaM inhibits RYR1 activity. Accordingly, if suramin competes with CaM for binding to RYR1, then suramin would inhibit RYR1
channel activity at low Ca2+ and activate RYR1 channels at
high Ca2+. These predictions are consistent with our
findings with isolated SR vesicles that suramin reduces
[3H]ryanodine binding at nM Ca2+
and enhances [3H]ryanodine binding at µM
Ca2+, with the most pronounced effects at both
Ca2+ concentrations observed with added CaM (Fig. 5).
Suramin is apparently selective for certain types of CaM binding motifs
since it does not inhibit CaM binding to the CaM binding domain of the
carboxyl-terminal region of the DHPR 1-subunit (Fig. 3).
Because there is considerable difference in the primary sequence of the
putative CaM binding domains of these two proteins, it seems likely
that these differences form the basis of suramin RYR1 selectivity. This
observation is also in agreement with the report by Klinger et
al. (17) who found that suramin discriminates among different CaM
binding motifs.
Our data demonstrate that suramin competes effectively for binding to
the CaM binding site on RYR1. We have previously suggested that the CaM
binding motif on RYR1 not only binds CaM but also interacts strongly
with the carboxyl-terminal tail of the DHPR 1-subunit
(1). In addition, the DHPR carboxyl terminus significantly inhibits
RYR1 activity as assessed by effects on [3H]ryanodine
binding to SR membranes (1) and on the activity of Ca2+
release channels reconstituted into planar lipid bilayers (12). We
found that the pull down of the detergent-solubilized DHPRs using
biotinylated R3609-43 peptide and streptavidin beads is blocked by
suramin. Also, suramin relieves the RYR1 inhibition by the
carboxy-terminal tail of the DHPR 1-subunit (Fig.
7C). Combined with our previous findings, these data suggest
that suramin may have very different effects on DHPR-coupled and
non-DHPR-coupled RYR1s. As outlined above, suramin should block the
interaction of uncoupled channels with CaM, resulting in inhibition of
activity at low Ca2+ levels and enhancement at high
Ca2+. However, because the carboxyl-terminal tail of the
DHPR 1-subunit inhibits RYR1 activity at both high and
low Ca2+ levels, then suramin would be expected to increase
the activity of DHPR-coupled RYR1 channels by relieving inhibition
mediated by the DHPR carboxyl terminus.
Consistent with this model, suramin significantly augmented maximal
voltage-gated SR Ca2+ release in whole cell voltage-clamped
mouse myotubes in a manner that occurred in the absence of effects on
the Ca2+-conducting activity of the DHPR. This finding
supports the model in which suramin acts specifically on modulating
RYR1 activity. Two possible explanations exist for suramin potentiation
of voltage-gated SR Ca2+ release. First of all, the DHPR
carboxyl terminus-RYR1 interaction may act to stabilize a
closed/inactivated state of the release channel after membrane
depolarization, thus limiting SR Ca2+ release during
excitation-contraction coupling. Suramin competition at this site would
act to counter this inhibitory interaction and result in increased
Ca2+ release channel open probability and a potentiation of
SR Ca2+ release. Alternatively, our data cannot rule out a
possible direct stimulatory effect of suramin on release channel
activity after voltage activation of DHPR-coupled release channels.
However, evidence from previous studies using in vitro
assays (18, 25) indicate that very high levels (0.3-1.0
mM) of suramin are required to activate RYR1,
concentrations that are 6-20 times greater than that found to alter
voltage-gated Ca2+ release in intact skeletal myotubes. Our
observation of a potentiation of voltage-gated Ca2+ release
by a relatively low concentration of suramin is even more striking
considering potential limitations with regard to junctional
accessibility of suramin introduced into myotubes via internal dialysis
of patch-clamped myotubes. Suramin at concentrations higher than 100 µM displaces FKBP12 bound to RYR1 (data not shown), which
may lead to an increase in release channel activity via a mechanism
distinct from what has been suggested here.
In summary, our studies indicate that suramin inhibits both
Ca2+-CaM and apoCaM binding/regulation of RYR1 by competing
for the CaM binding sequence on RYR1 (encoded by RYR1 residues
3609-3643). In addition, suramin increases the magnitude of the
voltage-gated Ca2+ release in skeletal myotubes, possibly
by disrupting an inhibitory interaction between the carboxyl terminus
of the DHPR 1-subunit and the CaM binding region of
RYR1. Future analysis of the effects of suramin analogs and their
binding/regulation of RYR1 is likely to provide better tools for
probing the role of CaM in the regulation of RYR1 and for investigating
the functional role of the DHPR carboxyl terminus in the regulation of
skeletal muscle excitation-contraction coupling.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We thank Dr. Wei Tang, Dr. Serap Sencer, and
Oluwatoyin Thomas for helpful comments on the manuscript.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported by grants from the Muscular
Dystrophy Association (to S. L. H.) and National Institutes of Health Grants AR44864 and AR41802 (to S. L. H.) and AR44657 (to R. T. D.).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. Tel.:
713-798-3894; Fax: 713-798-5441; E-mail:
susanh@bcm.tmc.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, October 2, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M209564200
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
SR, sarcoplasmic
reticulum;
CaM, calmodulin;
DHPR, dihydropyridine receptor;
RYR1, ryanodine receptor skeletal form;
MOPS, 3-(N-morpholino)propanesulfonic acid;
Alexa CaM, Alexa
FluorTM 594-conjugated CaM;
CHAPS, 3-[(3-cholamidopropyl)dimethylammonio]-1-propanesulfonic acid.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Sencer, S.,
Papineni, R., V,
Halling, D. B.,
Pate, P.,
Krol, J.,
Zhang, J. Z.,
and Hamilton, S. L.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
38237-38241[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 2.
|
Beeler, G. W., Jr.,
and Reuter, H.
(1970)
J. Physiol. (Lond.)
207,
191-209[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 3.
|
Franzini-Armstrong, C.,
and Protasi, F.
(1997)
Physiol. Rev.
77,
699-729[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 4.
|
Franzini-Armstrong, C.,
and Kish, J. W.
(1995)
J. Muscle Res. Cell Motil.
16,
319-324[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 5.
|
Marx, S. O.,
Ondrias, K.,
and Marks, A. R.
(1998)
Science
281,
818-821[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 6.
|
Tripathy, A., Xu, L.,
Mann, G.,
and Meissner, G.
(1995)
Biophys. J.
69,
106-119[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 7.
|
Rodney, G. G.,
Williams, B. Y.,
Strasburg, G. M.,
Beckingham, K.,
and Hamilton, S. L.
(2000)
Biochemistry
39,
7807-7812[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 8.
|
Zuhlke, R. D.,
Pitt, G. S.,
Deisseroth, K.,
Tsien, R. W.,
and Reuter, H.
(1999)
Nature
399,
159-162[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 9.
|
Peterson, B. Z.,
DeMaria, C. D.,
Adelman, J. P.,
and Yue, D. T.
(1999)
Neuron
22,
549-558[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 10.
|
Moore, C. P.,
Rodney, G.,
Zhang, J. Z.,
Santacruz-Toloza, L.,
Strasburg, G.,
and Hamilton, S. L.
(1999)
Biochemistry
38,
8532-8537[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 11.
|
Yamaguchi, N.,
Xin, C.,
and Meissner, G.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
22579-22585[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 12.
|
Slavik, K. J.,
Wang, J. P.,
Aghdasi, B.,
Zhang, J. Z.,
Mandel, F.,
Malouf, N.,
and Hamilton, S. L.
(1997)
Am. J. Physiol.
272,
C1475-C1481[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 13.
|
Pate, P.,
Mochca-Morales, J., Wu, Y.,
Zhang, J. Z.,
Rodney, G. G.,
Serysheva, I. I.,
Williams, B. Y.,
Anderson, M. E.,
and Hamilton, S. L.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
39786-39792[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 14.
|
Zhang, J. Z., Wu, Y.,
Williams, B. Y.,
Rodney, G.,
Mandel, F.,
Strasburg, G. M.,
and Hamilton, S. L.
(1999)
Am. J. Physiol.
276,
C46-C53[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 15.
|
Sun, J.,
Xin, C., Eu, J.,
Stamler, J. S.,
and Meissner, G.
(2001)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
98,
11158-11162[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 16.
|
Sitsapesan, R.,
and Williams, A. J.
(1996)
J. Membr. Biol.
153,
93-103[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 17.
|
Klinger, M.,
Bofill-Cardona, E.,
Mayer, B.,
Nanoff, C.,
Freissmuth, M.,
and Hohenegger, M.
(2001)
Biochem. J.
355,
827-833[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 18.
|
Suko, J.,
Hellmann, G.,
and Drobny, H.
(2001)
Mol. Pharmacol.
59,
543-556[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 19.
|
Hawkes, M. J.,
Diaz-Munoz, M.,
and Hamilton, S. L.
(1989)
Membr. Biochem.
8,
133-145[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 20.
|
Lowry, O. H.,
Rosebrough, N. J.,
Farr, A. L.,
and Randall, R. J.
(1951)
J. Biol. Chem.
193,
265-275[Free Full Text]
|
| 21.
|
Laemmli, U. K.
(1970)
Nature
227,
680-685[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 22.
|
Nakai, J.,
Dirksen, R. T.,
Nguyen, H. T.,
Pessah, I. N.,
Beam, K. G.,
and Allen, P. D.
(1996)
Nature
380,
72-75[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 23.
|
Avila, G.,
and Dirksen, R. T.
(2000)
J. Gen. Physiol.
114,
467-480
|
| 24.
|
Avila, G.,
O'Connell, M. S.,
Groom, L.,
and Dirksen, R. T.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
17732-17738[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 25.
|
Klinger, M.,
Freissmuth, M.,
Nickel, P.,
Stabler-Schwarzbart, M.,
Kassack, M.,
Suko, J.,
and Hohenegger, M.
(1999)
Mol. Pharmacol.
55,
462-472[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
Copyright © 2002 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:

|
 |

|
 |
 
N. Nadif Kasri, G. Bultynck, J. B. Parys, G. Callewaert, L. Missiaen, and H. De Smedt
Suramin and Disulfonated Stilbene Derivatives Stimulate the Ca2+-Induced Ca2+-Release Mechanism in A7r5 Cells
Mol. Pharmacol.,
July 1, 2005;
68(1):
241 - 250.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. M. Rossi and C. W. Taylor
Ca2+ Regulation of Inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate Receptors: Can Ca2+ Function without Calmodulin?
Mol. Pharmacol.,
August 1, 2004;
66(2):
199 - 203.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
N. N. Kasri, G. Bultynck, J. Smyth, K. Szlufcik, J. B. Parys, G. Callewaert, L. Missiaen, R. A. Fissore, K. Mikoshiba, and H. de Smedt
The N-terminal Ca2+-Independent Calmodulin-Binding Site on the Inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate Receptor Is Responsible for Calmodulin Inhibition, Even Though This Inhibition Requires Ca2+
Mol. Pharmacol.,
August 1, 2004;
66(2):
276 - 284.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. P. Hill, O. Kingston, and R. Sitsapesan
Functional Regulation of the Cardiac Ryanodine Receptor by Suramin and Calmodulin Involves Multiple Binding Sites
Mol. Pharmacol.,
May 1, 2004;
65(5):
1258 - 1268.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
|
 |
|
Copyright © 2002 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
|