↓ Skip to main content

Expression and Pharmacology of Endogenous Cav Channels in SH-SY5Y Human Neuroblastoma Cells

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Expression and Pharmacology of Endogenous Cav Channels in SH-SY5Y Human Neuroblastoma Cells
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0059293
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silmara R. Sousa, Irina Vetter, Lotten Ragnarsson, Richard J. Lewis

Abstract

SH-SY5Y human neuroblastoma cells provide a useful in vitro model to study the mechanisms underlying neurotransmission and nociception. These cells are derived from human sympathetic neuronal tissue and thus, express a number of the Cav channel subtypes essential for regulation of important physiological functions, such as heart contraction and nociception, including the clinically validated pain target Cav2.2. We have detected mRNA transcripts for a range of endogenous expressed subtypes Cav1.3, Cav2.2 (including two Cav1.3, and three Cav2.2 splice variant isoforms) and Cav3.1 in SH-SY5Y cells; as well as Cav auxiliary subunits α2δ1-3, β1, β3, β4, γ1, γ4-5, and γ7. Both high- and low-voltage activated Cav channels generated calcium signals in SH-SY5Y cells. Pharmacological characterisation using ω-conotoxins CVID and MVIIA revealed significantly (∼ 10-fold) higher affinity at human versus rat Cav2.2, while GVIA, which interacts with Cav2.2 through a distinct pharmacophore had similar affinity for both species. CVID, GVIA and MVIIA affinity was higher for SH-SY5Y membranes vs whole cells in the binding assays and functional assays, suggesting auxiliary subunits expressed endogenously in native systems can strongly influence Cav2.2 channels pharmacology. These results may have implications for strategies used to identify therapeutic leads at Cav2.2 channels.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 81 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 20%
Researcher 14 17%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Master 10 12%
Professor 7 8%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 14 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 17%
Neuroscience 9 11%
Engineering 6 7%
Chemistry 6 7%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 16 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 March 2013.
All research outputs
#20,185,720
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#172,974
of 193,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,604
of 197,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,416
of 5,373 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,818 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 197,383 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,373 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.