Benzodiazepines (BZDs) (e.g. Valium, Xanax) are one of the most widely prescribed psychotropic drugs today. An estimated nearly 100 million adults in the United States are prescribed a BZD annually (Agarwal and Landon, 2019; Bachhuber et al., 2016; Olfson et al., 2015). Their anxiolytic and sedative properties are used as therapies for conditions including anxiety, panic, insomnia, seizures, muscle spasms, pain, and alcohol withdrawal (Möhler et al., 2002). Although largely effective, BZDs have undesirable effects, including tolerance, addiction, dependence, and withdrawal symptoms, and are often co-abused with alcohol and opioids (Fluyau et al., 2018; Schmitz, 2016; Jones and McAninch, 2015; Jones et al., 2010). Novel therapies with reduced risks are imperative for safer long-term treatment options.

The therapeutic effects of BZDs are conferred upon binding to and modulating the activity of GABA_ARs, which are the primary inhibitory neurotransmitter-gated ion channels in the central nervous system (Smart and Stephenson, 2019). GABA_ARs are part of the Cys-loop superfamily of pentameric ligand-gated ion channels (pLGICs) including homologous glycine (Gly), nicotinic acetylcholine (nACh), serotonin type 3 (5-HT₃), and zinc-activated receptors as well as prokaryotic homologs (Pless and Sivilotti, 2018; Nemecz et al., 2016; Tasneem et al., 2004; Connolly and Wafford, 2004). Each pentameric GABA_AR is comprised of subtype-specific combinations of five homologous but nonidentical subunits (α_1-6, β_1-3, γ_1-3, δ, ε, π, θ, ρ_1-3) that together form a central chloride conducting pore (Figure 1; Olsen and Sieghart, 2008). The most prominent subtype at synapses is comprised of α₁, β_n, and γ₂ subunits (Sieghart and Sperk, 2002). GABA_ARs provide a critical balance with excitatory signaling for normal neural function, and not surprisingly, their dysfunction is related to disorders such as epilepsy, autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, schizophrenia, and neurodevelopmental disorders such as fragile X syndrome (Hernandez and Macdonald, 2019; Gao et al., 2018; Mahdavi et al., 2018; Braat and Kooy, 2015; Vien et al., 2015; Rudolph and Möhler, 2014; Limon et al., 2012; Ramamoorthi and Lin, 2011; Solís-Añez et al., 2007). Although pharmacological manipulation of GABA_ARs is a powerful approach to tuning neural signaling, the rational design of novel therapies is challenged by a lack of understanding of the molecular mechanism by which drugs such as BZDs modulate channel behavior.

Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

In conjunction with structural models of mostly homomeric pLGICs, recent cryo-EM models of heteromeric GABA_ARs with bound neurotransmitter and BZD provide an important conceptual aid to understand the mechanism of action of these drugs (Kim et al., 2020; Masiulis et al., 2019; Laverty et al., 2019; Phulera et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2018). Consistent with earlier functional studies (Sigel and Ernst, 2018; Sigel and Lüscher, 2011; Sigel, 2002; Wagner and Czajkowski, 2001; Kucken et al., 2000; McKernan et al., 1998; Pritchett et al., 1989; Gibbs et al., 1985), they show that BZDs are bound at a specific recognition site in the extracellular domain between α and γ subunits (Figure 1). However, these structures have yet to clarify the mechanism by which BZDs modulate channel activity.

Kinetic models of interacting domains and thermodynamic linkage analysis can be used to estimate the energy of interaction between binding sites and the pore gate from bulk measures of ensemble average activity (Goldschen-Ohm et al., 2014; Chowdhury and Chanda, 2013; Wyman and Gill, 1990). Coupled with mutagenesis or other perturbations, these interactions can be probed to elucidate their physical basis. However, these approaches are challenged for BZDs because they do not evoke robust channel opening by themselves, but instead modulate responses to an agonist such as GABA. Thus, typical experimental measures reflect channels with both agonist and BZD bound. This makes it difficult to dissect whether the drug has altered either agonist binding or channel gating as the two processes are intimately coupled (Colquhoun, 1998). This challenge has contributed to differing conclusions postulating that BZDs alter either agonist binding (Goldschen-Ohm et al., 2010; Perrais and Ropert, 1999; Mellor and Randall, 1997; Rogers et al., 1994; Vicini et al., 1987), pore gating (Li et al., 2013; Downing et al., 2005; Campo-Soria et al., 2006; Rüsch and Forman, 2005), or an intermediate preactivation step (Goldschen-Ohm et al., 2014; Gielen et al., 2012). The ability of BZDs to potentiate current responses to saturating concentrations of partial agonists, and also to directly gate gain of function mutants, implies that the drug’s effect is not due to changes in binding alone. A combination of effects on both binding and gating as predicted by changes in intermediate gating steps energetically coupled with both binding sites and the pore gate is plausible (Goldschen-Ohm et al., 2014). However, the molecular identity of any such intermediate states remains unclear.

Here we examined linkage between the BZD site and pore gate in isolation from any effect of the drug on agonist binding using a spontaneously active gain of function mutant (α₁L9'Tβ₂γ_2L) that is directly gated by BZDs alone (Scheller and Forman, 2002; Chang and Weiss, 1999). In the α₁L9'T background, we serially mutated each residue in the α₁M2–M3 linker to alanine and assessed the effect on modulation of the channel pore by the BZD positive modulator DZ (Valium) in the absence of agonist. The M2–M3 linker is a loop following the pore lining M2 helix that together with several other important interfacial loops defines the region connecting extracellular ligand binding and transmembrane domains known to be crucially involved in the gating process of pLGICs (Figure 1). Structural models show that agonist binding is associated with an outward displacement of the M2–M3 linker from the central pore axis (Nemecz et al., 2016). Mutations in the linker generally impair gating by agonists (Kash et al., 2003; O'Shea and Harrison, 2000), and some are associated with genetic diseases such as epilepsy in GABA_ARs (Hales et al., 2006; Hernandez and Macdonald, 2019) or hyperekplexia in GlyRs (Bode and Lynch, 2014). However, the role of the M2–M3 linker in drug modulation by BZDs is less understood.

We show that alanine substitutions throughout the α₁M2–M3 linker generally impair unliganded pore gating, whereas they have little effect on the efficiency by which chemical energy from DZ binding is transmitted to the pore gate. The notable exception is α₁V279A, which more than doubles DZ’s energetic contribution to pore opening, whereas larger side chains at this site do not. In a wild-type background, α₁V279A enhances DZ potentiation of currents evoked by even saturating GABA, consistent with a direct effect on the pore closed/open equilibrium. Our observations identify an important residue in the α₁M2–M3 linker regulating the efficiency of BZD modulation in GABA_ARs.

The main conclusions of this study are as follows: First, in the α₁L9'T gain of function background alanine substitutions in the α₁M2–M3 linker generally impair unliganded pore opening, indicating that side chain interactions with the linker are important for gating even in the absence of bound agonist. Second, the same mutations have no effect on the amount of chemical energy from DZ binding transmitted to the pore gate, except for α₁V279A which more than doubles DZ’s energetic contribution to pore gating. Thus, α₁V279 plays a crucial role to natively hinder drug modulation as compared to its substitution with alanine. Third, introduction of a bulky tryptophan or charged aspartate at position 279 is less favorable than the smaller alanine, suggesting that DZ modulation is inhibited by side chain interactions at the center of the linker. Fourth, α₁V279D severely impairs unliganded gating. Fifth, α₁V279A similarly enhances DZ potentiation of GABA-evoked currents in a wild-type background. Sixth, the effects of α₁V279A in both α₁L9'T and wild-type backgrounds are explained by specific changes in the pore gating equilibrium and its coupling to DZ binding at the BZD site.

The use of gain of function mutations to study modulatory or weakly activating ligands is well appreciated (Germann et al., 2019; Akk et al., 2018; Campo-Soria et al., 2006; Downing et al., 2005; Rüsch and Forman, 2005; Findlay et al., 2001). Single-channel gating dynamics for combinations of gain of function mutations in AChR suggest that the unliganded and agonist-bound gating mechanisms are similar if not identical and also that they are similarly affected by mutations (Purohit and Auerbach, 2009). Consistent with this idea, MWC models of pseudo steady-state GABA_AR function have been largely successful in describing the effects of gain of function mutations with changes to the pore gating equilibrium independent of agonist binding (Steinbach and Akk, 2019; Downing et al., 2005; Campo-Soria et al., 2006; Rüsch and Forman, 2005; Chang and Weiss, 1999). The model reported here in Figure 9 supports this conclusion.

Although the effects of α₁V279A can also be explained by specific changes to the pore-gating equilibrium, they are dependent on DZ occupation of the BZD site. From the model in Figure 9A, we compute an efficiency for GABA of ${\displaystyle {\eta }_{GABA}=[1-log(K_G)/log(c{K}_G)]\times 100\mathrm{\%}=37\mathrm{\%}}$, similar to that reported previously (Nayak et al., 2019). In contrast, DZ efficiency is ${\displaystyle {\eta }_{DZ}=\left[1-log\left(K_D\right)/log\left(d{K}_D\right)\right]\times 100\mathrm{\%}=3\mathrm{\%}}$. Whereas α₁V279A decreases unliganded pore opening, it also increases DZ efficiency (${\eta }_{DZ,V279A}=9\%$) to the extent that DZ binding overcomes its intrinsic inhibitory effect and results in similar or even enhanced activation as compared to wild type (Figure 9). Interestingly, an M2–M3 linker mutation in the γ₂ subunit was similarly observed to impair activation by GABA and enhance modulation by the general anesthetic propofol (O'Shea et al., 2009).

Our estimates for the energetic effect of DZ binding on pore gating (−0.4 kcal/mol) are similar to prior estimates from direct gating in L9'S/T backgrounds and from kinetic models (Goldschen-Ohm et al., 2014; Gielen et al., 2012; Downing et al., 2005; Rüsch and Forman, 2005). This is approximately 10-fold less than the energy derived from binding each molecule of GABA (Goldschen-Ohm et al., 2014; Maksay, 1994; Jackson, 1992). However, it is sufficient to produce a relevant change in open probability in channels with small free energy differences between closed and open states, such as conferred by single bound agonists, partial agonists, other allosteric modulators, or gain of function mutations. From a clinical perspective, such small perturbations are likely to be more easily tolerated in patients. Given that the M2–M3 linker is associated with early movements during AChR activation (Purohit et al., 2013), it is possible that biasing the linker toward its active conformation in the α₁L9'T background could limit our ability to observe its full range of motion. In this case, our observed effects of linker mutations on DZ modulation may underestimate their effects on the full activation pathway.

The interface between the extracellular agonist- and BZD-binding domains and the transmembrane helices is formed largely by several loops including the M2–M3 linker, Cys loop, β1–β2 loop and β8–β9 linker, and pre-M1 segment from neighboring subunits (Figure 1). Mutagenesis suggests that interactions between these domains are important for channel gating by agonists (Kash et al., 2003; O'Shea and Harrison, 2000) thought to involve an outward radial displacement of the M2–M3 linker (Nemecz et al., 2016). Rate versus free energy linear relationships in AChR suggest that the M2–M3 linker moves early during channel activation, similar to rearrangements at agonist binding sites (Purohit et al., 2013). Consistent with these observations, mutant cycle analysis indicates strong long-range coupling between residues in the M2–M3 linker and agonist binding sites (Gupta et al., 2017). Given the homology between the BZD site at the α/γ interface and agonist sites at β/α interfaces, interactions between the M2–M3 linker and BZD site are reasonable, although they need not be very strong given the relatively small energy DZ contributes to pore gating. As with agonist sites, such interactions could be mediated by global backbone conformational fluctuations or via distinct structural components, or both. Either way, side chain interactions at position 279 in the α₁ subunit play an important role in coupling between the BZD site and pore gate.

In structural models, the M2–M3 linker adopts a C-shaped conformation with α₁V279 oriented inwards toward the center of the arc (Figure 1D; Kim et al., 2020; Laverty et al., 2019; Masiulis et al., 2019; Phulera et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2018). We hypothesize that the side chain at position 279 is centrally involved in steric interactions between linker residues near the top of the M2 and M3 helices. Removing this obstruction (α₁V279A) would allow the linker to become more compact and bring the M2 and M3 helices closer together. In contrast, similar or larger side chains (α₁V279D/W) would sterically inhibit such a conformational change. In this case, we speculate that the closer proximity of the M3 helix could impair unliganded pore gating by hindering radial expansion of the pore lining M2 helix. Conversely, a more compact transmembrane domain may also enhance coupling with the BZD site (Kim et al., 2020). Valine and threonine residues in GlyR and AchR aligning with V279 (Figure 1—figure supplement 1) adopt a similar conformation (Kumar et al., 2020; Nemecz et al., 2016; Du et al., 2015), suggesting that this residue has a conserved role in other pLGICs.

Alternatively, removing most of the central side chain may simply alter linker flexibility. Linker flexibility has been suggested to be inversely correlated with gating, where stabilizing interactions between α₁R19' (located just below α₁V279) and the linker backbone may promote coupling between extracellular and intracellular domains (Masiulis et al., 2019). Thus, the strong inhibition of unliganded opening conferred by α₁V279D could reflect competition for α₁R19', thereby weakening its interaction with the linker backbone and increasing linker flexibility. However, this does not provide a simple explanation for the opposing effects of α₁V279A on unliganded versus DZ-bound gating. Regardless, it is important to keep in mind that the energetic changes that we observe for DZ gating are on the order of a hydrogen bond or two, and thus can be accounted for by relatively subtle changes.

The β8-β9 linker and pre-M1 in the neighboring γ₂ subunit come in close proximity to the α₁M2–M3 linker and are known to be important for BZD modulation, with the β8-β9 linker also contributing to the BZD-binding site (Hanson and Czajkowski, 2011; Hanson and Czajkowski, 2008). In AChR strong coupling with the adjacent β8-β9 linker and pre-M1 segment of the neighboring subunit occurs primarily via the threonine aligning with α₁V279 in GABA_AR and its neighboring serine (Gupta et al., 2017). A reorientation of the linker due to removal of steric interactions near its center could alter coupling to the BZD site via interactions with the γ₂ β8-β9 linker and/or pre-M1. For example, a compression of the ends of the M2–M3 linker would cause the middle of the linker to be squeezed outward toward the neighboring γ₂ subunit, potentially enhancing intersubunit coupling. Comparison of GlyR structures in apo or antagonist-bound versus agonist-bound conformations indicates that intersubunit interactions between the M2–M3 linker in the vicinity of the valine aligning with V279 and the following serine, and the top of the M1 helix in the adjacent subunit are weakened during channel activation (Du et al., 2015; Kumar et al., 2020). Thus, a stronger intersubunit coupling in this area could potentially both reduce unliganded opening and enhance coupling with rearrangements of the γ₂ subunit upon BZD binding. However, other regions including the β4-β5 linker in the channel’s outer vestibule also affect BZD modulation of agonist-evoked currents (Pflanz et al., 2018; Venkatachalan and Czajkowski, 2012). Thus, BZD modulation likely involves larger domain fluctuations in addition to any specific molecular pathways involving α₁V279.

Recent structures of αβγ receptors show DZ bound not only at the classical α/γ site in the extracellular domain, but also in the transmembrane domain below the M2–M3 linker at β/α and γ/β intersubunit interfaces (Kim et al., 2020; Masiulis et al., 2019). Thus, it is intriguing to speculate that enhanced DZ gating as conferred by α₁V279A may involve occupation of a transmembrane site. However, these structures were solved in the presence of 100–200 μM DZ, and the relevance of these transmembrane sites to high affinity binding of ~1 μM DZ at the classical site is unclear (Walters et al., 2000). Also, DZ binding in the transmembrane domain was not observed at α/γ or α/β interfaces. Therefore, we favor the interpretation that our observed effects reflect altered functional coupling with the classical site.

Our observations reveal a critical residue V279 in the α₁M2–M3 linker, which regulates energetic coupling between the BZD site and the pore gate, whereas other linker side chains contribute little or not at all. These data shed new light on the molecular basis for GABA_AR modulation by one of the most widely prescribed classes of psychotropic drugs.

Source code for the modeling depicted in Figure 9 has been provided.

1. 1. Agarwal SD
   2. Landon BE

   (2019) Patterns in outpatient benzodiazepine prescribing in the United States

   JAMA Network Open 2:e187399.

   https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7399

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Akk G
   2. Shin DJ
   3. Germann AL
   4. Steinbach JH

   (2018) GABA type A receptor activation in the allosteric coagonist model framework: relationship between EC₅₀ and basal activity

   Molecular Pharmacology 93:90–100.

   https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.117.110569

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Bachhuber MA
   2. Hennessy S
   3. Cunningham CO
   4. Starrels JL

   (2016) Increasing benzodiazepine prescriptions and overdose mortality in the United States, 1996-2013

   American Journal of Public Health 106:686–688.

   https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303061

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Bode A
   2. Lynch JW

   (2014) The impact of human hyperekplexia mutations on glycine receptor structure and function

   Molecular Brain 7:2.

   https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-6606-7-2

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Boileau AJ
   2. Baur R
   3. Sharkey LM
   4. Sigel E
   5. Czajkowski C

   (2002) The relative amount of cRNA coding for gamma2 subunits affects stimulation by benzodiazepines in GABA(A) receptors expressed in Xenopus oocytes

   Neuropharmacology 43:695–700.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3908(02)00036-9

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Braat S
   2. Kooy RF

   (2015) The GABAA receptor as a therapeutic target for neurodevelopmental disorders

   Neuron 86:1119–1130.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.03.042

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Campo-Soria C
   2. Chang Y
   3. Weiss DS

   (2006) Mechanism of action of benzodiazepines on GABA_A receptors

   British Journal of Pharmacology 148:984–990.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjp.0706796

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Chang Y
   2. Weiss DS

   (1999) Allosteric activation mechanism of the alpha 1 beta 2 gamma 2 gamma-aminobutyric acid type A receptor revealed by mutation of the conserved M2 leucine

   Biophysical Journal 77:2542–2551.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(99)77089-X

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Chowdhury S
   2. Chanda B

   (2013) Free-energy relationships in ion channels activated by voltage and ligand

   Journal of General Physiology 141:11–28.

   https://doi.org/10.1085/jgp.201210860

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Colquhoun D

    (1998) Binding, gating, affinity and efficacy: the interpretation of structure-activity relationships for agonists and of the effects of mutating receptors

    British Journal of Pharmacology 125:923–947.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjp.0702164

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Connolly CN
    2. Wafford KA

    (2004) The Cys-loop superfamily of ligand-gated ion channels: the impact of receptor structure on function

    Biochemical Society Transactions 32:529–534.

    https://doi.org/10.1042/bst0320529

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Downing SS
    2. Lee YT
    3. Farb DH
    4. Gibbs TT

    (2005) Benzodiazepine modulation of partial agonist efficacy and spontaneously active GABA(A) receptors supports an allosteric model of modulation

    British Journal of Pharmacology 145:894–906.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjp.0706251

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Du J
    2. Lü W
    3. Wu S
    4. Cheng Y
    5. Gouaux E

    (2015) Glycine receptor mechanism elucidated by electron cryo-microscopy

    Nature 526:224–229.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14853

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Findlay GS
    2. Ueno S
    3. Harrison NL
    4. Harris RA

    (2001) Allosteric modulation in spontaneously active mutant γ-aminobutyric acidA receptors

    Neuroscience Letters 305:77–80.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3940(01)01646-9

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Fluyau D
    2. Revadigar N
    3. Manobianco BE

    (2018) Challenges of the pharmacological management of benzodiazepine withdrawal, dependence, and discontinuation

    Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology 8:147–168.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/2045125317753340

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Gao F
    2. Qi L
    3. Yang Z
    4. Yang T
    5. Zhang Y
    6. Xu H
    7. Zhao H

    (2018) Impaired GABA neural circuits are critical for fragile X syndrome

    Neural Plasticity 2018:1–7.

    https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8423420

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Germann AL
    2. Steinbach JH
    3. Akk G

    (2019) Application of the co-agonist concerted transition model to analysis of GABAA receptor properties

    Current Neuropharmacology 17:843–851.

    https://doi.org/10.2174/1570159X17666181206092418

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Gibbs TT
    2. Chan CY
    3. Czajkowski CM
    4. Farb DH

    (1985) Benzodiazepine receptor photoaffinity labeling: correlation of function with binding

    European Journal of Pharmacology 110:171–180.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2999(85)90209-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Gielen MC
    2. Lumb MJ
    3. Smart TG

    (2012) Benzodiazepines modulate GABAA receptors by regulating the preactivation step after GABA binding

    Journal of Neuroscience 32:5707–5715.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5663-11.2012

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Goldschen-Ohm MP
    2. Wagner DA
    3. Petrou S
    4. Jones MV

    (2010) An epilepsy-related region in the GABA(A) receptor mediates long-distance effects on GABA and benzodiazepine binding sites

    Molecular Pharmacology 77:35–45.

    https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.109.058289

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Goldschen-Ohm MP
    2. Haroldson A
    3. Jones MV
    4. Pearce RA

    (2014) A nonequilibrium binary elements-based kinetic model for benzodiazepine regulation of GABAA receptors

    Journal of General Physiology 144:27–39.

    https://doi.org/10.1085/jgp.201411183

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Gupta S
    2. Chakraborty S
    3. Vij R
    4. Auerbach A

    (2017) A mechanism for acetylcholine receptor gating based on structure, coupling, phi, and flip

    Journal of General Physiology 149:85–103.

    https://doi.org/10.1085/jgp.201611673

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Hales TG
    2. Deeb TZ
    3. Tang H
    4. Bollan KA
    5. King DP
    6. Johnson SJ
    7. Connolly CN

    (2006) An asymmetric contribution to γ-Aminobutyric type A receptor function of a conserved lysine within TM2–3 of α1, β2, and γ2 subunits

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 281:17034–17043.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M603599200

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Hanson SM
    2. Czajkowski C

    (2008) Structural mechanisms underlying benzodiazepine modulation of the GABAA receptor

    Journal of Neuroscience 28:3490–3499.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5727-07.2008

    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Hanson SM
    2. Czajkowski C

    (2011) Disulphide trapping of the GABAA receptor reveals the importance of the coupling interface in the action of benzodiazepines

    British Journal of Pharmacology 162:673–687.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.01073.x

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Hernandez CC
    2. Macdonald RL

    (2019) A structural look at GABA_A receptor mutations linked to epilepsy syndromes

    Brain Research 1714:234–247.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2019.03.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Im HK
    2. Im WB
    3. Carter DB
    4. McKinley DD

    (1995) Interaction of β-carboline inverse agonists for the benzodiazepine site with another site on GABAA receptors

    British Journal of Pharmacology 114:1040–1044.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.1995.tb13310.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. Book

    1. Jackson MB

    (1992)

    Thermodynamics of Membrane Receptors and Channels

    CRC Press.

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Jones CM
    2. Paulozzi LJ
    3. Mack KA

    (2010)

    Alcohol involvement in opioid pain reliever and benzodiazepine drug abuse-related emergency department visits and drug-related deaths - United states

    MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 63:881–885.

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Jones CM
    2. McAninch JK

    (2015) Emergency department visits and overdose deaths from combined use of opioids and benzodiazepines

    American Journal of Preventive Medicine 49:493–501.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.03.040

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Kash TL
    2. Jenkins A
    3. Kelley JC
    4. Trudell JR
    5. Harrison NL

    (2003) Coupling of agonist binding to channel gating in the GABA_A receptor

    Nature 421:272–275.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01280

    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Keramidas A
    2. Harrison NL

    (2010) The activation mechanism of α₁β₂γ_2S and α₃β₃γ_2S GABA_A receptors

    Journal of General Physiology 135:59–75.

    https://doi.org/10.1085/jgp.200910317

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Kim JJ
    2. Gharpure A
    3. Teng J
    4. Zhuang Y
    5. Howard RJ
    6. Zhu S
    7. Noviello CM
    8. Walsh RM
    9. Lindahl E
    10. Hibbs RE

    (2020) Shared structural mechanisms of general anaesthetics and benzodiazepines

    Nature 585:303–308.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2654-5

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Kucken AM
    2. Wagner DA
    3. Ward PR
    4. Teissére JA
    5. Boileau AJ
    6. Czajkowski C

    (2000)

    Identification of benzodiazepine binding site residues in the gamma2 subunit of the gamma-aminobutyric acid(A) receptor

    Molecular Pharmacology 57:932–939.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Kumar A
    2. Basak S
    3. Rao S
    4. Gicheru Y
    5. Mayer ML
    6. Sansom MSP
    7. Chakrapani S

    (2020) Mechanisms of activation and desensitization of full-length glycine receptor in lipid nanodiscs

    Nature Communications 11:3752.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17364-5

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Laverty D
    2. Desai R
    3. Uchański T
    4. Masiulis S
    5. Stec WJ
    6. Malinauskas T
    7. Zivanov J
    8. Pardon E
    9. Steyaert J
    10. Miller KW
    11. Aricescu AR

    (2019) Cryo-EM structure of the human α1β3γ2 GABA_A receptor in a lipid bilayer

    Nature 565:516–520.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0833-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Li P
    2. Eaton MM
    3. Steinbach JH
    4. Akk G

    (2013) The benzodiazepine diazepam potentiates responses of α1β2γ2L γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptors activated by either γ-aminobutyric acid or allosteric agonists

    Anesthesiology 118:1417–1425.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e318289bcd3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Limon A
    2. Reyes-Ruiz JM
    3. Miledi R

    (2012) Loss of functional GABA(A) receptors in the alzheimer diseased brain

    PNAS 109:10071–10076.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1204606109

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Mahdavi M
    2. Kheirollahi M
    3. Riahi R
    4. Khorvash F
    5. Khorrami M
    6. Mirsafaie M

    (2018) Meta-Analysis of the association between GABA receptor polymorphisms and autism spectrum disorder (ASD)

    Journal of Molecular Neuroscience 65:1–9.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12031-018-1073-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Maksay G

    (1994) Thermodynamics of gamma-aminobutyric acid type A receptor binding differentiate agonists from antagonists

    Molecular Pharmacology 46:386–390.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00168633

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Masiulis S
    2. Desai R
    3. Uchański T
    4. Serna Martin I
    5. Laverty D
    6. Karia D
    7. Malinauskas T
    8. Zivanov J
    9. Pardon E
    10. Kotecha A
    11. Steyaert J
    12. Miller KW
    13. Aricescu AR

    (2019) GABA_A receptor signalling mechanisms revealed by structural pharmacology

    Nature 565:454–459.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0832-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. McKernan RM
    2. Farrar S
    3. Collins I
    4. Emms F
    5. Asuni A
    6. Quirk K
    7. Broughton H

    (1998) Photoaffinity labeling of the benzodiazepine binding site of alpha1beta3gamma2 gamma-aminobutyric acidA receptors with flunitrazepam identifies a subset of ligands that interact directly with His102 of the alpha subunit and predicts orientation of these within the benzodiazepine pharmacophore

    Molecular Pharmacology 54:33–43.

    https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.54.1.33

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Mellor JR
    2. Randall AD

    (1997) Frequency-dependent actions of benzodiazepines on GABAA receptors in cultured murine cerebellar granule cells

    The Journal of Physiology 503 ( Pt 2:353–369.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7793.1997.353bh.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Möhler H
    2. Fritschy JM
    3. Rudolph U

    (2002) A new benzodiazepine pharmacology

    Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 300:2–8.

    https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.300.1.2

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Nayak TK
    2. Vij R
    3. Bruhova I
    4. Shandilya J
    5. Auerbach A

    (2019) Efficiency measures the conversion of agonist binding energy into receptor conformational change

    Journal of General Physiology 151:465–477.

    https://doi.org/10.1085/jgp.201812215

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Nemecz Ákos
    2. Prevost MS
    3. Menny A
    4. Corringer P-J

    (2016) Emerging Molecular Mechanisms of Signal Transduction in Pentameric Ligand-Gated Ion Channels

    Neuron 90:452–470.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.03.032

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. O'Shea SM
    2. Williams CA
    3. Jenkins A

    (2009) Inverse effects on gating and modulation caused by a mutation in the M2-M3 linker of the GABA(A) receptor gamma subunit

    Molecular Pharmacology 76:641–651.

    https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.109.055111

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. O'Shea SM
    2. Harrison NL

    (2000) Arg-274 and Leu-277 of the γ-Aminobutyric Acid Type A Receptor α2 Subunit Define Agonist Efficacy and Potency

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 275:22764–22768.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M001299200

    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Olfson M
    2. King M
    3. Schoenbaum M

    (2015) Benzodiazepine use in the United States

    JAMA Psychiatry 72:136–142.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.1763

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Olsen RW
    2. Sieghart W

    (2008)

    Subtypes of gamma-aminobutyric acid(A) receptors: classification on the basis of subunit composition, pharmacology, and function

    Pharmacological Reviews 60:243–260.

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Perrais D
    2. Ropert N

    (1999) Effect of zolpidem on miniature IPSCs and occupancy of postsynaptic GABAA receptors in central synapses

    The Journal of Neuroscience 19:578–588.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-02-00578.1999

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Pflanz NC
    2. Daszkowski AW
    3. Cornelison GL
    4. Trudell JR
    5. Mihic SJ

    (2018) An intersubunit electrostatic interaction in the GABAA receptor facilitates its responses to benzodiazepines

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 293:8264–8274.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA118.002128

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Phulera S
    2. Zhu H
    3. Yu J
    4. Claxton DP
    5. Yoder N
    6. Yoshioka C
    7. Gouaux E

    (2018) Cryo-EM structure of the benzodiazepine-sensitive α1β1γ2s tri-heteromeric GABA_A receptor in complex with GABA

    eLife 7:e39383.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.39383

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Pless SA
    2. Sivilotti LG

    (2018) A tale of ligands big and small: an update on how pentameric ligand-gated ion channels interact with agonists and proteins

    Current Opinion in Physiology 2:19–26.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cophys.2017.12.012

    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Pritchett DB
    2. Sontheimer H
    3. Shivers BD
    4. Ymer S
    5. Kettenmann H
    6. Schofield PR
    7. Seeburg PH

    (1989) Importance of a novel GABAA receptor subunit for benzodiazepine pharmacology

    Nature 338:582–585.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/338582a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Purohit P
    2. Gupta S
    3. Jadey S
    4. Auerbach A

    (2013) Functional anatomy of an allosteric protein

    Nature Communications 4:2984.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3984

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Purohit P
    2. Auerbach A

    (2009) Unliganded gating of acetylcholine receptor channels

    PNAS 106:115–120.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809272106

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Ramamoorthi K
    2. Lin Y

    (2011) The contribution of GABAergic dysfunction to neurodevelopmental disorders

    Trends in Molecular Medicine 17:452–462.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2011.03.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Rogers CJ
    2. Twyman RE
    3. Macdonald RL

    (1994) Benzodiazepine and beta-carboline regulation of single GABAA receptor channels of mouse spinal neurones in culture

    The Journal of Physiology 475:69–82.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1994.sp020050

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Rudolph U
    2. Möhler H

    (2014) GABAA receptor subtypes: therapeutic potential in down syndrome, affective disorders, schizophrenia, and autism

    Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 54:483–507.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-011613-135947

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Rüsch D
    2. Forman SA

    (2005) Classic benzodiazepines modulate the Open–Close Equilibrium in α1β2γ2L γ-Aminobutyric Acid Type A Receptors

    Anesthesiology 102:783–792.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200504000-00014

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Scheller M
    2. Forman SA

    (2002)

    Coupled and uncoupled gating and desensitization effects by pore domain mutations in GABA(A) receptors

    The Journal of Neuroscience 22:8411–8421.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Schmitz A

    (2016) Benzodiazepine use, misuse, and abuse: a review

    Mental Health Clinician 6:120–126.

    https://doi.org/10.9740/mhc.2016.05.120

    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Sieghart W
    2. Sperk G

    (2002) Subunit composition, distribution and function of GABA(A) receptor subtypes

    Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry 2:795–816.

    https://doi.org/10.2174/1568026023393507

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Sigel E

    (2002) Mapping of the benzodiazepine recognition site on GABA(A) receptors

    Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry 2:833–839.

    https://doi.org/10.2174/1568026023393444

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Sigel E
    2. Ernst M

    (2018) The benzodiazepine binding sites of GABA_A Receptors

    Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 39:659–671.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2018.03.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Sigel E
    2. Lüscher BP

    (2011) A closer look at the high affinity benzodiazepine binding site on GABAA receptors

    Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry 11:241–246.

    https://doi.org/10.2174/156802611794863562

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Smart TG
    2. Stephenson FA

    (2019) A half century of γ-aminobutyric acid

    Brain and Neuroscience Advances 3:239821281985824.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/2398212819858249

    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Solís-Añez E
    2. Delgado-Luengo W
    3. Hernández ML

    (2007)

    Autism, chromosome 15 and the GABAergic dysfunction hypothesis

    Investigacion Clinica 48:529–541.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Steinbach JH
    2. Akk G

    (2019) Applying the Monod-Wyman-Changeux allosteric activation model to Pseudo-Steady-State responses from GAB_AAReceptors

    Molecular Pharmacology 95:106–119.

    https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.118.113787

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Tasneem A
    2. Iyer LM
    3. Jakobsson E
    4. Aravind L

    (2004) Identification of the prokaryotic ligand-gated ion channels and their implications for the mechanisms and origins of animal Cys-loop ion channels

    Genome Biology 6:R4.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2004-6-1-r4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Venkatachalan SP
    2. Czajkowski C

    (2012) Structural link between γ-Aminobutyric acid type A (GABAA) Receptor agonist binding site and inner β-Sheet governs channel activation and allosteric drug modulation

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 287:6714–6724.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M111.316836

    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Vicini S
    2. Mienville JM
    3. Costa E

    (1987)

    Actions of benzodiazepine and beta-carboline derivatives on gamma-aminobutyric acid-activated Cl- channels recorded from membrane patches of neonatal rat cortical neurons in culture

    The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 243:1195–1201.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Vien TN
    2. Modgil A
    3. Abramian AM
    4. Jurd R
    5. Walker J
    6. Brandon NJ
    7. Terunuma M
    8. Rudolph U
    9. Maguire J
    10. Davies PA
    11. Moss SJ

    (2015) Compromising the phosphodependent regulation of the GABAAR β3 subunit reproduces the core phenotypes of autism spectrum disorders

    PNAS 112:14805–14810.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514657112

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Wagner DA
    2. Czajkowski C

    (2001) Structure and dynamics of the GABA binding pocket: a narrowing cleft that constricts during activation

    The Journal of Neuroscience 21:67–74.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-01-00067.2001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Walters RJ
    2. Hadley SH
    3. Morris KD
    4. Amin J

    (2000) Benzodiazepines act on GABAA receptors via two distinct and separable mechanisms

    Nature Neuroscience 3:1274–1281.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/81800

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. Book

    1. Wyman J
    2. Gill S

    (1990) Binding and Linkage: Functional Chemistry of Biological Macromolecules

    University Science Books.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-5793(91)81192-B

    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Zhu S
    2. Noviello CM
    3. Teng J
    4. Walsh RM
    5. Kim JJ
    6. Hibbs RE

    (2018) Structure of a human synaptic GABAA receptor

    Nature 559:67–72.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0255-3

    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Joseph W Nors

   University of Texas at Austin, Department of Neuroscience, Austin, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

2. Shipra Gupta

   University of Texas at Austin, Department of Neuroscience, Austin, United States

   Contribution

   Resources, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Marcel P Goldschen-Ohm

   University of Texas at Austin, Department of Neuroscience, Austin, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Supervision, Visualization, Methodology, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   marcel.goldschen-ohm@austin.utexas.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1466-9808

• 1,455

  views

• 171

  downloads

• 14

  citations

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