| Literature DB >> 29892559 |
Jennifer M Egan1, Colleen A Peterson1, W Mark Fry1.
Abstract
The sodium leak channel NALCN is poorly understood, but is reported as a Na+-permeable, nonselective cation leak channel which regulates resting membrane potential and electrical excitability. Previous work has indicated that NALCN currents can be stimulated by activation of several G protein coupled receptors, including the M3 muscarinic receptor. We undertook a study using voltage clamp electrophysiology to investigate NALCN currents. We compared currents elicited from untransfected control HEK239 cells in response to M3R agonists muscarine or Oxotremorine M to currents elicited from cells transfected with M3R only or the M3R plus NALCN and cDNA encoding accessory proteins UNC-80 and Src. Currents with similar properties were observed in all three groups of cells in response to muscarine agonists, in similar proportions of cells tested, from all three groups of cells. Our findings do not support previous electrophysiological studies suggesting that heterologously expressed NALCN functions as a Na+ leak channel in HEK293 cells. More research will be required to determine the molecular requirements for successful expression of the NALCN channel.Entities:
Keywords: ERS, external recording solution; HEK293; IRS, internal recording solution; M3R, M3 muscarinic receptor; Muscarinic receptor; NALCN; NALCN, sodium leak channel, non-selective; Patch clamp
Year: 2018 PMID: 29892559 PMCID: PMC5991895 DOI: 10.1016/j.biopen.2018.01.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biochim Open ISSN: 2214-0085
Fig. 1Representative currents elicited by voltage ramps (−80 mV to +20 mV over 1000 ms) from (A) untransfected cells, (B) eGFP cells (C) M3R cells, and (D) M3R + NALCN/Unc80/Src cells before application of muscarinic receptor agonist (100 μM muscarine iodide or Oxo-M). Control, response and recovery indicated by arrows.
Fig. 2Currents observed in M3R and M3R + NALCN/Unc80/Src cells exhibited similar properties to currents observed in untransfected cells and eGFP transfected cells. (A) The amplitude of the current at +20 mV before and after application of muscarinic receptor agonist (muscarine iodide or Oxo-M) at 100 μM for all cells tested. There was a significant main effect between the current amplitude before and after agonist (within-subject effect in a two-way mixed-design ANOVA, DF = 1, p = 7.0 × 10−7, followed by Bonferroni post hoc tests; where * indicates p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the current amplitudes of untransfected, eGFP, M3R or M3R + NALCN/Unc80/Src cells (between subject effects; DF = 3, p = 0.53). (B) The amplitude of the current at +20 mV before and after application of muscarinic receptor agonist (muscarine iodide or Oxo-M) at 100 μM for only responsive cells. There was a significant main effect between the current amplitude before and after agonist (within-subject effect in a two-way mixed-design ANOVA, DF = 1, p = 9.1 × 10−6, followed by Bonferroni post hoc tests; where * indicates p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the current amplitudes of untransfected, eGFP, M3R or M3R + NALCN/Unc80/Src cells (between subject effects; DF = 3, p = 0.55). (C) Percentage of untransfected, eGFP, M3R and M3R + NALCN/Unc80/Src cells considered responsive to muscarinic receptor agonist application were not significantly different (p = 0.51, Chi-square test). (D) Mean reversal potentials for currents elicited from responsive untransfected, eGFP, M3R and M3R + NALCN/Unc80/Src cells were not significantly different (p = 0.49, one way ANOVA). All error bars represent ±SEM.