Handling of intracellular K+ determines voltage dependence of plasmalemmal monoamine transporter function

  1. Shreyas Bhat
  2. Marco Niello
  3. Klaus Schicker
  4. Christian Pifl
  5. Harald H Sitte
  6. Michael Freissmuth
  7. Walter Sandtner  Is a corresponding author
  1. Medical University of Vienna, Austria
  2. University of Vienna, Austria

Abstract

The concentrative power of the transporters for dopamine (DAT), norepinephrine (NET) and serotonin (SERT) is thought to be fueled by the transmembrane Na+ gradient, but it is conceivable that they can also tap other energy sources, e.g. membrane voltage and/or the transmembrane K+ gradient. We address this by recording uptake of endogenous substrates or the fluorescent substrate APP+ ((4-(4-dimethylamino)phenyl-1-methylpyridinium) under voltage control in cells expressing DAT, NET or SERT. We show that DAT and NET differ from SERT in intracellular handling of K+. In DAT and NET, substrate uptake was voltage-dependent due to the transient nature of intracellular K+ binding, which precluded K+ antiport. SERT, however, antiports K+ and achieves voltage-independent transport. Thus, there is a trade-off between maintaining constant uptake and harvesting membrane potential for concentrative power, which we conclude to occur due to subtle differences in the kinetics of co-substrate ion binding in closely related transporters.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for Figures 2,3,5,6 in the following DOI published by dryad. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.6q573n5z8

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Shreyas Bhat

    Institute of Pharmacology, Center for Physiology and Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7019-9180
  2. Marco Niello

    Center for Physiology and Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Klaus Schicker

    2Division of Neurophysiology and Neuropharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Christian Pifl

    University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Harald H Sitte

    Institute of Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1339-7444
  6. Michael Freissmuth

    Center for Physiology and Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Walter Sandtner

    Center for Physiology and Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
    For correspondence
    walter.sandtner@meduniwien.ac.at
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3637-260X

Funding

Austrian Science Fund (P 31599)

  • Walter Sandtner

Austrian Science Fund (P 31813)

  • Walter Sandtner

Austrian Science Fund (W1232)

  • Harald H Sitte

Vienna Science and Technology Fund (CS15-033)

  • Harald H Sitte

Vienna Science and Technology Fund (LS17-026)

  • Michael Freissmuth

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2021, Bhat 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

  • 1,129
    views
  • 149
    downloads
  • 27
    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. Shreyas Bhat
  2. Marco Niello
  3. Klaus Schicker
  4. Christian Pifl
  5. Harald H Sitte
  6. Michael Freissmuth
  7. Walter Sandtner
(2021)
Handling of intracellular K+ determines voltage dependence of plasmalemmal monoamine transporter function
eLife 10:e67996.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.67996

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.67996

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yamato Niitani, Kohei Matsuzaki ... Michio Tomishige
    Research Article

    The two identical motor domains (heads) of dimeric kinesin-1 move in a hand-over-hand process along a microtubule, coordinating their ATPase cycles such that each ATP hydrolysis is tightly coupled to a step and enabling the motor to take many steps without dissociating. The neck linker, a structural element that connects the two heads, has been shown to be essential for head–head coordination; however, which kinetic step(s) in the chemomechanical cycle is ‘gated’ by the neck linker remains unresolved. Here, we employed pre-steady-state kinetics and single-molecule assays to investigate how the neck-linker conformation affects kinesin’s motility cycle. We show that the backward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the front kinesin head confers higher affinity for microtubule, but does not change ATP binding and dissociation rates. In contrast, the forward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the rear kinesin head decreases the ATP dissociation rate but has little effect on microtubule dissociation. In combination, these conformation-specific effects of the neck linker favor ATP hydrolysis and dissociation of the rear head prior to microtubule detachment of the front head, thereby providing a kinetic explanation for the coordinated walking mechanism of dimeric kinesin.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christopher T Schafer, Raymond F Pauszek III ... David P Millar
    Research Article

    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.