Intravascular flow stimulates PKD2 (polycystin-2) channels in endothelial cells to reduce blood pressure
Abstract
PKD2 (polycystin-2, TRPP1), a TRP polycystin channel, is expressed in endothelial cells (ECs), but its physiological functions in this cell type are unclear. Here, we generated inducible, EC-specific Pkd2 knockout mice to examine vascular functions of PKD2. Data show that a broad range of intravascular flow rates stimulate EC PKD2 channels, producing vasodilation. Flow-mediated PKD2 channel activation leads to calcium influx that activates SK/IK channels and eNOS serine 1176 phosphorylation in ECs. These signaling mechanisms produce arterial hyperpolarization and vasodilation. In contrast, EC PKD2 channels do not contribute to acetylcholine-induced vasodilation, suggesting stimulus-specific function. EC-specific PKD2 knockout elevated blood pressure in mice without altering cardiac function or kidney anatomy. These data demonstrate that flow stimulates PKD2 channels in ECs, leading to SK/IK channel and eNOS activation, hyperpolarization, vasodilation and a reduction in systemic blood pressure. Thus, PKD2 channels are a major component of functional flow sensing in the vasculature.
Data availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.
Article and author information
Author details
Funding
National Institutes of Health (HL133256)
- Jonathan H Jaggar
National Institutes of Health (HL137745)
- Jonathan H Jaggar
American Heart Association (16SDG27460007)
- Simon Bulley
American Heart Association (15SDG22680019)
- M Dennis Leo
American Heart Association (20POST35210200)
- Charles E MacKay
American Heart Association (16POST30960010)
- Raquibul Hasan
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Ethics
Animal experimentation: All procedures were approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Tennessee (protocol 17-068.0).
Copyright
© 2020, MacKay et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 2,079
- views
-
- 356
- downloads
-
- 30
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
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)
Further reading
-
- Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
The canonical chemokine receptor CXCR4 and atypical receptor ACKR3 both respond to CXCL12 but induce different effector responses to regulate cell migration. While CXCR4 couples to G proteins and directly promotes cell migration, ACKR3 is G-protein-independent and scavenges CXCL12 to regulate extracellular chemokine levels and maintain CXCR4 responsiveness, thereby indirectly influencing migration. The receptors also have distinct activation requirements. CXCR4 only responds to wild-type CXCL12 and is sensitive to mutation of the chemokine. By contrast, ACKR3 recruits GPCR kinases (GRKs) and β-arrestins and promiscuously responds to CXCL12, CXCL12 variants, other peptides and proteins, and is relatively insensitive to mutation. To investigate the role of conformational dynamics in the distinct pharmacological behaviors of CXCR4 and ACKR3, we employed single-molecule FRET to track discrete conformational states of the receptors in real-time. The data revealed that apo-CXCR4 preferentially populates a high-FRET inactive state, while apo-ACKR3 shows little conformational preference and high transition probabilities among multiple inactive, intermediate and active conformations, consistent with its propensity for activation. Multiple active-like ACKR3 conformations are populated in response to agonists, compared to the single CXCR4 active-state. This and the markedly different conformational landscapes of the receptors suggest that activation of ACKR3 may be achieved by a broader distribution of conformational states than CXCR4. Much of the conformational heterogeneity of ACKR3 is linked to a single residue that differs between ACKR3 and CXCR4. The dynamic properties of ACKR3 may underly its inability to form productive interactions with G proteins that would drive canonical GPCR signaling.