Engineering vanilloid-sensitivity into the rat TRPV2 channel

  1. Feng Zhang
  2. Sonya M Hanson
  3. Andres Jara-Oseguera
  4. Dmitriy Krepkiy
  5. Chanhyung Bae
  6. Larry V Pearce
  7. Peter M Blumberg
  8. Simon Newstead
  9. Kenton J Swartz  Is a corresponding author
  1. National Institutes of Health, United States
  2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, United States
  3. National Cancer Institute, United States
  4. University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Abstract

The TRPV1 channel is a detector of noxious stimuli, including heat, acidosis, vanilloid compounds and lipids. The gating mechanisms of the related TRPV2 channel are poorly understood because selective high affinity ligands are not available, and the threshold for heat activation is extremely high (> 50 {degree sign}C). Cryo-EM structures of TRPV1 and TRPV2 reveal that they adopt similar structures, and identify a putative vanilloid binding pocket near the internal side of TRPV1. Here we use biochemical and electrophysiological approaches to investigate the resiniferatoxin (RTx) binding site in TRPV1 and to explore the functional relationships between TRPV1 and TRPV2. Collectively, our results support the interaction of vanilloids with the proposed RTx binding pocket, and demonstrate an allosteric influence of a tarantula toxin on vanilloid binding. Moreover, we show that sensitivity to RTx can be engineered into TRPV2, demonstrating that the gating and permeation properties of this channel are similar to TRPV1.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Feng Zhang

    Molecular Physiology and Biophysics Section, Porter Neuroscience Research Center, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Sonya M Hanson

    Computational Biology Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Andres Jara-Oseguera

    Molecular Physiology and Biophysics Section, Porter Neuroscience Research Center, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Dmitriy Krepkiy

    Molecular Physiology and Biophysics Section, Porter Neuroscience Research Center, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Chanhyung Bae

    Molecular Physiology and Biophysics Section, Porter Neuroscience Research Center, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Larry V Pearce

    Laboratory of Cancer Biology and Genetics, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Peter M Blumberg

    Laboratory of Cancer Biology and Genetics, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Simon Newstead

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Kenton J Swartz

    Molecular Physiology and Biophysics Section, Porter Neuroscience Research Center, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    For correspondence
    swartzk@ninds.nih.gov
    Competing interests
    Kenton J Swartz, Reviewing editor, eLife.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Indira M Raman, Northwestern University, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocol (#1253-15) of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Version history

  1. Received: March 26, 2016
  2. Accepted: May 12, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 13, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: June 14, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 2,524
    views
  • 675
    downloads
  • 47
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Feng Zhang
  2. Sonya M Hanson
  3. Andres Jara-Oseguera
  4. Dmitriy Krepkiy
  5. Chanhyung Bae
  6. Larry V Pearce
  7. Peter M Blumberg
  8. Simon Newstead
  9. Kenton J Swartz
(2016)
Engineering vanilloid-sensitivity into the rat TRPV2 channel
eLife 5:e16409.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16409

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16409

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Damien M Rasmussen, Manny M Semonis ... Nicholas M Levinson
    Research Article

    The type II class of RAF inhibitors currently in clinical trials paradoxically activate BRAF at subsaturating concentrations. Activation is mediated by induction of BRAF dimers, but why activation rather than inhibition occurs remains unclear. Using biophysical methods tracking BRAF dimerization and conformation, we built an allosteric model of inhibitor-induced dimerization that resolves the allosteric contributions of inhibitor binding to the two active sites of the dimer, revealing key differences between type I and type II RAF inhibitors. For type II inhibitors the allosteric coupling between inhibitor binding and BRAF dimerization is distributed asymmetrically across the two dimer binding sites, with binding to the first site dominating the allostery. This asymmetry results in efficient and selective induction of dimers with one inhibited and one catalytically active subunit. Our allosteric models quantitatively account for paradoxical activation data measured for 11 RAF inhibitors. Unlike type II inhibitors, type I inhibitors lack allosteric asymmetry and do not activate BRAF homodimers. Finally, NMR data reveal that BRAF homodimers are dynamically asymmetric with only one of the subunits locked in the active αC-in state. This provides a structural mechanism for how binding of only a single αC-in inhibitor molecule can induce potent BRAF dimerization and activation.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Nicholas James Ose, Paul Campitelli ... Sefika Banu Ozkan
    Research Article

    We integrate evolutionary predictions based on the neutral theory of molecular evolution with protein dynamics to generate mechanistic insight into the molecular adaptations of the SARS-COV-2 spike (S) protein. With this approach, we first identified candidate adaptive polymorphisms (CAPs) of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein and assessed the impact of these CAPs through dynamics analysis. Not only have we found that CAPs frequently overlap with well-known functional sites, but also, using several different dynamics-based metrics, we reveal the critical allosteric interplay between SARS-CoV-2 CAPs and the S protein binding sites with the human ACE2 (hACE2) protein. CAPs interact far differently with the hACE2 binding site residues in the open conformation of the S protein compared to the closed form. In particular, the CAP sites control the dynamics of binding residues in the open state, suggesting an allosteric control of hACE2 binding. We also explored the characteristic mutations of different SARS-CoV-2 strains to find dynamic hallmarks and potential effects of future mutations. Our analyses reveal that Delta strain-specific variants have non-additive (i.e., epistatic) interactions with CAP sites, whereas the less pathogenic Omicron strains have mostly additive mutations. Finally, our dynamics-based analysis suggests that the novel mutations observed in the Omicron strain epistatically interact with the CAP sites to help escape antibody binding.