Conserved structural and functional control of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor Gating by transmembrane domain M3

Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Journal of Biological Chemistry (Impact Factor: 4.6). 09/2005; 280(33):29708-16. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M414215200
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The molecular events controlling glutamate receptor ion channel gating are complex. The movement of transmembrane domain M3 within N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor subunits has been suggested to be one structural determinant linking agonist binding to channel gating. Here we report that covalent modification of NR1-A652C or the analogous mutation in NR2A, -2B, -2C, or -2D by methanethiosulfonate ethylammonium (MT-SEA) occurs only in the presence of glutamate and glycine, and that modification potentiates recombinant NMDA receptor currents. The modified channels remain open even after removing glutamate and glycine from the external solution. The degree of potentiation depends on the identity of the NR2 subunit (NR2A < NR2B < NR2C,D) inversely correlating with previous measurements of channel open probability. MTSEA-induced modification of channels is associated with increased glutamate potency, increased mean single-channel open time, and slightly decreased channel conductance. Modified channels are insensitive to the competitive antagonists D-2-amino-5-phosphonovaleric acid (APV) and 7-Cl-kynurenic acid, as well as allosteric modulators of gating (extracellular protons and Zn(2+)). However, channels remain fully sensitive to Mg(2+) blockade and partially sensitive to pore block by (+)MK-801, (-)MK-801, ketamine, memantine, amantadine, and dextrorphan. The partial sensitivity to (+)MK-801 may reflect its ability to stimulate agonist unbinding from MT-SEA-modified receptors. In summary, these data suggest that the SYTANLAAF motif within M3 is a conserved and critical determinant of channel gating in all NMDA receptors.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Ν-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor channel is an obligatory heterotetramer formed by two GluN1 and two GluN2 subunits. However, the differential contribution of the two different subunits to channel operation is not clear. We found that the apparent affinity of glycine to GluN1 (K gly ∼ 0.6 μM) is much higher than NMDA or glutamate to GluN2 (K NMDA ∼ 36 μM, K glu ∼ 4.8 μM). The binding rate constant (derived from the linear regression of the apparent macroscopic binding rates) of glycine to GluN1 (∼9.8 × 10(6) M(-1) s(-1)), however, is only slightly faster than NMDA to GluN2 (∼4.1 × 10(6) M(-1) s(-1)). Accordingly, the apparent unbinding rates of glycine from activated GluN1 (time constant ∼2 s) are much slower than NMDA from activated GluN2 (time constant ∼70 ms). Moreover, the decay of NMDA currents upon wash-off of both glycine and NMDA seems to follow the course of NMDA rather than glycine unbinding. But if only glycine is washed off, the current decay is much slower, apparently following the course of glycine unbinding. The apparent binding rate of glycine to the fully deactivated channel, in the absence of NMDA, is roughly the same as that measured with co-application of both ligands, whereas the apparent binding rate of NMDA to the fully deactivated channel in the absence of glycine is markedly slower. In this regard, it is interesting that the seventh residue in the highly conserved SYTANLAAF motif (A7) in GluN1 and GluN2 are so close that they may interact with each other to control the dimension of the external pore mouth. Moreover, specific mutations involving A7 in GluN1 but not in GluN2 result in channels showing markedly enhanced affinity to both glycine and NMDA and readily activated by only NMDA, as if the channel is already partially activated. We conclude that GluN2 is most likely directly responsible for the activation gate of the NMDA channel, whereas GluN1 assumes a role of more global control, especially on the gating conformational changes in GluN2. Structurally, this intersubunit regulatory interaction seems to involve the SYTANLAAF motif, especially the A7 residue.
    Pflügers Archiv - European Journal of Physiology 10/2014; DOI:10.1007/s00424-014-1630-z · 3.07 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The clinical benefits of the glutamate receptor antagonists memantine and ketamine have helped sustain optimism that glutamate receptors represent viable targets for development of therapeutic drugs. Both memantine and ketamine antagonize N-methyl-d-aspartate receptors (NMDARs), a glutamate receptor subfamily, by blocking the receptor-associated ion channel. Although many of the basic characteristics of NMDAR inhibition by memantine and ketamine appear similar, their effects on humans and to a lesser extent on rodents are strongly divergent. Some recent research suggests that preferential inhibition by memantine and ketamine of distinct NMDAR subpopulations may contribute to the drugs' differential clinical effects. Here we review studies that shed light on possible explanations for differences between the effects of memantine and ketamine. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Current Opinion in Pharmacology 12/2014; 20C:54-63. DOI:10.1016/j.coph.2014.11.006 · 4.23 Impact Factor
  • Source