↓ Skip to main content

The neural γ2α1β2α1β2 gamma amino butyric acid ion channel receptor: structural analysis of the effects of the ivermectin molecule and disulfide bridges

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Molecular Modeling, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
The neural γ2α1β2α1β2 gamma amino butyric acid ion channel receptor: structural analysis of the effects of the ivermectin molecule and disulfide bridges
Published in
Journal of Molecular Modeling, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00894-018-3739-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meral Ayan, Sebnem Essiz

Abstract

While ~30% of the human genome encodes membrane proteins, only a handful of structures of membrane proteins have been resolved to high resolution. Here, we studied the structure of a member of the Cys-loop ligand gated ion channel protein superfamily of receptors, human type A γ2α1β2α1β2 gamma amino butyric acid receptor complex in a lipid bilayer environment. Studying the correlation between the structure and function of the gamma amino butyric acid receptor may enhance our understanding of the molecular basis of ion channel dysfunctions linked with epilepsy, ataxia, migraine, schizophrenia and other neurodegenerative diseases. The structure of human γ2α1β2α1β2 has been modeled based on the X-ray structure of the Caenorhabditis elegans glutamate-gated chloride channel via homology modeling. The template provided the first inhibitory channel structure for the Cys-loop superfamily of ligand-gated ion channels. The only available template structure before this glutamate-gated chloride channel was a cation selective channel which had very low sequence identity with gamma aminobutyric acid receptor. Here, our aim was to study the effect of structural corrections originating from modeling on a more reliable template structure. The homology model was analyzed for structural properties via a 100 ns molecular dynamics (MD) study. Due to the structural shifts and the removal of an open channel potentiator molecule, ivermectin, from the template structure, helical packing changes were observed in the transmembrane segment. Namely removal of ivermectin molecule caused a closure around the Leu 9 position along the ion channel. In terms of the structural shifts, there are three potential disulfide bridges between the M1 and M3 helices of the γ2 and 2 α1 subunits in the model. The effect of these disulfide bridges was investigated via monitoring the differences in root mean square fluctuations (RMSF) of individual amino acids and principal component analysis of the MD trajectory of the two homology models-one with the disulfide bridge and one with protonated Cys residues. In all subunit types, RMSF of the transmembrane domain helices are reduced in the presence of disulfide bridges. Additionally, loop A, loop F and loop C fluctuations were affected in the extracellular domain. In cross-correlation analysis of the trajectory, the two model structures displayed different coupling in between the M2-M3 linker region, protruding from the membrane, and the β1-β2/D loop and cys-loop regions in the extracellular domain. Correlations of the C loop, which collapses directly over the bound ligand molecule, were also affected by differences in the packing of transmembrane helices. Finally, more localized correlations were observed in the transmembrane helices when disulfide bridges were present in the model. The differences observed in this study suggest that dynamic coupling at the interface of extracellular and ion channel domains differs from the coupling introduced by disulfide bridges in the transmembrane region. We hope that this hypothesis will be tested experimentally in the near future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 5 21%
Unknown 7 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Neuroscience 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Other 6 25%
Unknown 8 33%
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 17 July 2018.
All research outputs
#17,985,001
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Molecular Modeling
#501
of 825 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,303
of 327,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Molecular Modeling
#12
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 825 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 327,152 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.