Alex T Stern1, Stuart A Forman. 1. From the Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anesthetic contact residues in γ-aminobutyric acid type A (GABAA) receptors have been identified using photolabels, including two propofol derivatives. O-propofol diazirine labels H267 in β3 and α1β3 receptors, whereas m-azi-propofol labels other residues in intersubunit clefts of α1β3. Neither label has been studied in αβγ receptors, the most common isoform in mammalian brain. In αβγ receptors, other anesthetic derivatives photolabel m-azi-propofol-labeled residues, but not βH267. The authors' structural homology model of α1β3γ2L receptors suggests that β3H267 may abut some of these sites. METHODS: Substituted cysteine modification-protection was used to test β3H267C interactions with four potent anesthetics: propofol, etomidate, alphaxalone, and R-5-allyl-1-methyl-5-(m-trifluoromethyl-diazirinylphenyl) barbituric acid (mTFD-MPAB). The authors expressed α1β3γ2L or α1β3H267Cγ2L GABAA receptors in Xenopus oocytes. The authors used voltage clamp electrophysiology to assess receptor sensitivity to γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and anesthetics and to compare p-chloromercuribenzenesulfonate modification rates with GABA versus GABA plus anesthetics. RESULTS: Enhancement of low GABA (eliciting 5% of maximum) responses by equihypnotic concentrations of all four anesthetics was similar in α1β3γ2L and α1β3H267Cγ2L receptors (n > 3). Direct activation of α1β3H267Cγ2L receptors, but not α1β3γ2L, by mTFD-MPAB and propofol was significantly greater than the other anesthetics. Modification of β3H267C by p-chloromercuribenzenesulfonate (n > 4) was rapid and accelerated by GABA. Only mTFD-MPAB slowed β3H267C modification (approximately twofold; P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: β3H267 in α1β3γ2L GABAA receptors contacts mTFD-MPAB, but not propofol. The study results suggest that β3H267 is near the periphery of one or both transmembrane intersubunit (α+/β- and γ+/β-) pockets where both mTFD-MPAB and propofol bind.
BACKGROUND: Anesthetic contact residues in γ-aminobutyric acid type A (GABAA) receptors have been identified using photolabels, including two propofol derivatives. O-propofol diazirine labels H267 in β3 and α1β3 receptors, whereas m-azi-propofol labels other residues in intersubunit clefts of α1β3. Neither label has been studied in αβγ receptors, the most common isoform in mammalian brain. In αβγ receptors, other anesthetic derivatives photolabel m-azi-propofol-labeled residues, but not βH267. The authors' structural homology model of α1β3γ2L receptors suggests that β3H267 may abut some of these sites. METHODS: Substituted cysteine modification-protection was used to test β3H267C interactions with four potent anesthetics: propofol, etomidate, alphaxalone, and R-5-allyl-1-methyl-5-(m-trifluoromethyl-diazirinylphenyl) barbituric acid (mTFD-MPAB). The authors expressed α1β3γ2L or α1β3H267Cγ2L GABAA receptors in Xenopus oocytes. The authors used voltage clamp electrophysiology to assess receptor sensitivity to γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and anesthetics and to compare p-chloromercuribenzenesulfonate modification rates with GABA versus GABA plus anesthetics. RESULTS: Enhancement of low GABA (eliciting 5% of maximum) responses by equihypnotic concentrations of all four anesthetics was similar in α1β3γ2L and α1β3H267Cγ2L receptors (n > 3). Direct activation of α1β3H267Cγ2L receptors, but not α1β3γ2L, by mTFD-MPAB and propofol was significantly greater than the other anesthetics. Modification of β3H267C by p-chloromercuribenzenesulfonate (n > 4) was rapid and accelerated by GABA. Only mTFD-MPAB slowed β3H267C modification (approximately twofold; P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: β3H267 in α1β3γ2L GABAA receptors contacts mTFD-MPAB, but not propofol. The study results suggest that β3H267 is near the periphery of one or both transmembrane intersubunit (α+/β- and γ+/β-) pockets where both mTFD-MPAB and propofol bind.
Authors: David C Chiara; Zuzana Dostalova; Selwyn S Jayakar; Xiaojuan Zhou; Keith W Miller; Jonathan B Cohen Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Grace M S Yip; Zi-Wei Chen; Christopher J Edge; Edward H Smith; Robert Dickinson; Erhard Hohenester; R Reid Townsend; Karoline Fuchs; Werner Sieghart; Alex S Evers; Nicholas P Franks Journal: Nat Chem Biol Date: 2013-09-22 Impact factor: 15.040
Authors: Marcus D Hanwell; Donald E Curtis; David C Lonie; Tim Vandermeersch; Eva Zurek; Geoffrey R Hutchison Journal: J Cheminform Date: 2012-08-13 Impact factor: 5.514
Authors: Alexis M Ziemba; Andrea Szabo; David W Pierce; Marian Haburcak; Alex T Stern; Anahita Nourmahnad; Elizabeth S Halpin; Stuart A Forman Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Anahita Nourmahnad; Alex T Stern; Mayo Hotta; Deirdre S Stewart; Alexis M Ziemba; Andrea Szabo; Stuart A Forman Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Roshan Puthenkalam; Marcel Hieckel; Xenia Simeone; Chonticha Suwattanasophon; Roman V Feldbauer; Gerhard F Ecker; Margot Ernst Journal: Front Mol Neurosci Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 6.261