Home | About | Journals | Submit | Contact Us | Français |

**|**J Gen Physiol**|**v.135(3); 2010 March**|**PMC2828911

Formats

Article sections

Authors

Related links

J Gen Physiol. 2010 March; 135(3): 217–227.

PMCID: PMC2828911

Correspondence to David T. Yue: Email: ude.imhj@euyd; or Michael R. Tadross: Email: moc.liamg@ssordatm

Received 2009 July 31; Accepted 2010 January 15.

Copyright © 2010 Tadross and Yue

This article is distributed under the terms of an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike–No Mirror Sites license for the first six months after the publication date (see http://www.rupress.org/terms). After six months it is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, as described at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/).

See "Molecular endpoints of Ca^{2+}/calmodulin- and voltage-dependent inactivation of Ca_{v}1.3 channels" on page 197.

See commentary "Reduction of Ca_{V} channel activities by Ca^{2+}–CaM: inactivation or deactivation?" on page 297.

See "Reduction of Ca_{V} channel activities by Ca^{2+}–CaM: inactivation or deactivation?" on page 297.

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

The state from which channel inactivation occurs is both biologically and mechanistically critical. For example, preferential closed-state inactivation is potentiated in certain Ca^{2+} channel splice variants, yielding an enhancement of inactivation during action potential trains, which has important consequences for short-term synaptic plasticity. Mechanistically, the structural substrates of inactivation are now being resolved, yielding a growing library of molecular snapshots, ripe for functional interpretation. For these reasons, there is an increasing need for experimentally direct and systematic means of determining the states from which inactivation proceeds. Although many approaches have been devised, most rely upon numerical models that require detailed knowledge of channel-state topology and gating parameters. Moreover, prior strategies have only addressed voltage-dependent forms of inactivation (VDI), and have not been readily applicable to Ca^{2+}-dependent inactivation (CDI), a vital form of regulation in numerous contexts. Here, we devise a simple yet systematic approach, applicable to both VDI and CDI, for semiquantitative mapping of the states from which inactivation occurs, based only on open-channel measurements. The method is relatively insensitive to the specifics of channel gating and does not require detailed knowledge of state topology or gating parameters. Rather than numerical models, we derive analytic equations that permit determination of the states from which inactivation occurs, based on direct manipulation of data. We apply this methodology to both VDI and CDI of Ca_{V}1.3 Ca^{2+} channels. VDI is found to proceed almost exclusively from the open state. CDI proceeds equally from the open and nearby closed states, but is disfavored from deep closed states distant from the open conformation. In all, these outcomes substantiate and enrich conclusions of our companion paper in this issue (Tadross et al. 2010. *J. Gen. Physiol.* doi:10.1085/jgp.200910308) that deduces endpoint mechanisms of VDI and CDI in Ca_{V}1.3. More broadly, the methods introduced herein can be readily generalized for the analysis of other channel types.

In the earliest conceptions of voltage-gated channels, inactivation of Na^{+} channels was thought to proceed equally from all noninactivated channel conformations, and transitions leading to inactivation were believed intrinsically voltage dependent (Hodgkin and Huxley, 1952). With measurements of increasing resolution, however, many voltage-dependent inactivation (VDI) processes were seen to proceed preferentially from the open conformation, with little genuine voltage dependence attributable to actual transitions into inactivated states in Na^{+} and K^{+} channels (Armstrong and Bezanilla, 1977; Bean, 1981; Aldrich et al., 1983; Bezanilla and Stefani, 1994; Zagotta et al., 1994). Moreover, notable variations on this theme have been observed in certain K^{+} channels, where VDI proceeds preferentially from intermediate closed states in the activation pathway (Aldrich, 1981; Klemic et al., 1998). Similarly, such preferential closed-state inactivation can also be detected in neuronal Ca_{V}2 Ca^{2+} channels that are comprised of certain auxiliary subunits (Jones et al., 1999; Patil et al., 1998) and splice variations (Thaler et al., 2004). These latter case examples of preferential closed-state inactivation amplify the inactivation seen upon neuronal spike activation, compared with the square-pulse depolarization commonly used in biophysical analysis. Accordingly, such closed-state inactivation in Ca^{2+} channels holds important consequences for short-term synaptic plasticity (Patil et al., 1998; Thaler et al., 2004; Xu and Wu, 2005).

Growing awareness of these biological implications, along with the emergence of x-ray structures that could establish an atomic view of inactivation (MacKinnon, 2003; Cuello et al., 2009), heightens the motivation for improved methodologies to ascertain preferred pathways into inactivation. Although such methodologies exist, as exemplified in the aforementioned references, the task can be inherently challenging, as the most direct measurements are of ionic current through the open conformation, whereas the closed states leading to inactivation and inactivation itself are inherently nonconducting, and thereby one or more steps removed from direct observation. Moreover, the existing methodologies are often numerical modeling intensive and require detailed knowledge of the gating structure of specific channels in question. Finally, none of the present strategies addresses a different but important class of inactivation, that driven by intracellular Ca^{2+} (Brehm and Eckert, 1978). Such Ca^{2+}-dependent inactivation (CDI) furnishes a critical form of Ca^{2+} feedback, wherein certain transitions leading to inactivation are inherently Ca^{2+} dependent.

Nowhere are these methodological deficits more apparent than in the setting of voltage-gated Ca^{2+} channels, which manifest both VDI and CDI. Due to longstanding technical challenges in the study of these channels, such as limited expression levels and channel rundown upon patch excision (Wu et al., 2002), in-depth knowledge of gating kinetics is more limited here than in voltage-gated K^{+} and Na^{+} channels. Here, we therefore devise a simple, yet systematic strategy for determining preferred pathways into VDI and CDI, based only upon readily accessible open-channel measurements. The method makes few assumptions about the gating scheme of the channel in question, allows for direct analytic manipulation of experimental data, and circumvents the need for detailed numerical modeling. For VDI, the technique only requires knowledge of steady-state inactivation as a function of voltage. In the case of CDI, single-channel open probability, unitary current amplitude, and whole cell “voltage block” experiments (Tadross et al., 2008) are additionally required. From these data, we can furnish semiquantitative mapping of the states from which inactivation occurs. We apply this methodology to the inactivation of Ca_{V}1.3 Ca^{2+} channels, the subject of investigation in our companion paper (see Tadross et al. in this issue). In these channels, VDI is seen to proceed almost exclusively from the open state. CDI paints a somewhat different picture, proceeding equally from the open and nearby closed states, while proceeding less well from closed states more distant from the open conformation. All of these particular outcomes strengthen the mechanistic deductions of our companion paper, which concern the end points of Ca_{V}1.3 inactivation. Viewed from a wider perspective, our methodologies represent general tools applicable to the analysis of many other types of channels.

HEK293 cells were cultured, maintained, and transfected with Ca_{V}1.3 channel subunits as described in our companion paper (Tadross et al., 2010). Whole cell recording methodology and analysis were also as described in that publication. Single-channel data are reproduced from prior work (Tadross et al., 2008), which contains detailed single-channel methodology.

As a prelude to the upcoming analysis, we found it useful to cast the standard equilibrium expressions for activation and inactivation in a compact and general format. To start, Fig. 1 A illustrates a familiar multistate gating scheme featuring voltage-dependent transitions between numerous closed states and a single open state. The voltage-dependent equilibria between states in the top row are given by *Q*(*V*) and *L*(*V*). For example, *Q*_{1}(*V*) specifies the ratio of state C_{2} to state C_{1} occupancy at equilibrium, and so forth. Likewise, inactivation may occur from any of the states in the top row, according to equilibrium constants *J*_{C1}, *J*_{C2}, … , *J*_{O}. As well, no explicit interconnections are drawn between inactivated states because equilibria between these states would already be specified by the parameters shown, according to the dictates of thermodynamic cycles. Although we show four closed states, the actual number of closed states could be increased or decreased without affecting our upcoming analysis. Moreover, no restrictions are imposed upon the voltage-dependent equilibrium constants *Q*(*V*) and *L*(*V*); they can bear a standard single-exponential dependence on voltage, or they can be arbitrarily complex functions of voltage. To facilitate interpretation of the final result, the inactivation equilibrium constants (*J*_{C1}, *J*_{C2}, … , *J*_{O}) are taken to be voltage independent; however, the methodology is still applicable if this condition is relaxed.

VDI analysis for detailed, multistate gating diagram. (A) Channel activation involves numerous closed states, with a single open state (top row). Inactivation (bottom row) can occur from any or all of the states in the top row. Equilibrium constants are **...**

Given that activation usually occurs much faster than inactivation, mainly states in the top row are occupied during the first few milliseconds of depolarization, so the approximate probability of occupying each state during this time window would be:

$$\begin{array}{l}{P}_{\text{C1}}\left(V\right)=\frac{1}{1+{Q}_{1}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}\cdot L}\\ {P}_{\text{C2}}\left(V\right)=\frac{{Q}_{1}}{1+{Q}_{1}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}\cdot L}\\ {P}_{\text{C3}}\left(V\right)=\frac{{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}}{1+{Q}_{1}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}\cdot L}\\ {P}_{\text{C4}}\left(V\right)=\frac{{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}}{1+{Q}_{1}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}\cdot L}\\ {P}_{\text{O}}\left(V\right)=\frac{{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}\cdot L}{1+{Q}_{1}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}\cdot L}\end{array}$$

(1)

These are steady-state probabilities in the absence of inactivation. After some time, inactivated states also become occupied, yielding an equilibrium open probability:

$$\begin{array}{l}{P}_{\text{O,SS}}\left(V\right)=\\ \frac{{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}\cdot L}{\left(\begin{array}{lllll}1& +{Q}_{1}& +{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}& +{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}& +{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}\cdot L\text{\hspace{1em}}+\\ {J}_{\text{C1}}& +{Q}_{1}\cdot {J}_{\text{C2}}& +{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {J}_{\text{C3}}& +{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}\cdot {J}_{\text{C4}}& +{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}\cdot L\cdot {J}_{\text{O}}\end{array}\right)}\end{array}$$

(2)

Next, we consider two simplifications. First, without any assumptions on the parameters of Fig. 1 A, we can recapitulate the behavior of this state diagram using a simpler but equivalent scheme, shown in Fig. 1 B. Here, the top and bottom rows become single aggregate states, interconnected by a single “effective” equilibrium constant *J*_{EFF}, which is equal to the weighted sum of individual *J* factors. Importantly, the weighting factors are the steady-state probabilities of occupying various states in the top row, given residence in the top row.

$$\begin{array}{l}{J}_{\text{EFF}}\left(V\right)={J}_{\text{C1}}\cdot {P}_{\text{C1}}\left(V\right)+{J}_{\text{C2}}\cdot {P}_{\text{C2}}\left(V\right)+\\ {J}_{\text{C3}}\cdot {P}_{\text{C3}}\left(V\right)+{J}_{\text{C4}}\cdot {P}_{\text{C4}}\left(V\right)+{J}_{\text{O}}\cdot {P}_{\text{O}}\left(V\right)=\\ {\displaystyle \sum _{k\in \left[\begin{array}{l}\text{gating\hspace{0.17em}state}\\ \text{in\hspace{0.17em}upper\hspace{0.17em}row}\end{array}\right]}^{}{J}_{\left[\begin{array}{l}\text{inactivation}\\ \text{constant}\\ \text{from\hspace{0.17em}state\hspace{0.17em}}k\end{array}\right]}\times {P}_{\left[\begin{array}{l}\text{occupancy}\\ \text{of\hspace{0.17em}state\hspace{0.17em}}k\\ \text{upper\hspace{0.17em}row\hspace{0.17em}residence}\end{array}\right]}\left(V\right)}\end{array}$$

(3)

Second, the system in Fig. 1 B can be further simplified into the system shown in Fig. 1 C, as follows. We start by reorganizing *P*_{O}(*V*) from Eq. 1 into

$${P}_{\text{O}}\left(V\right)=\frac{\frac{{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}}{1+{Q}_{1}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}}\cdot L}{1+\frac{{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}}{1+{Q}_{1}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}}\cdot L}$$

(4)

It now becomes natural to define:

$${Q}_{\text{EFF}}\left(V\right)=\frac{{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}}{1+{Q}_{1}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}+{Q}_{1}\cdot {Q}_{2}\cdot {Q}_{3}}$$

(5)

Combining the last two equations yields a modified version of Eq. 1:

$${P}_{\text{O}}\left(V\right)=\frac{{Q}_{\text{EFF}}\left(V\right)\cdot L}{1+{Q}_{\text{EFF}}\left(V\right)\cdot L}$$

(6)

Similarly, Eq. 2 can be modified to yield:

$${P}_{\text{O,SS}}\left(V\right)={P}_{\text{O}}\left(V\right)\cdot \frac{1}{1+{J}_{\text{EFF}}\left(V\right)}$$

(7)

Eqs. 6 and 7 describe the activated and steady-state open probability of the most simplified scheme in Fig. 1 C. Because Eqs. 6 and 7 are identical to Eqs. 1 and 2 (derived for Fig. 1 A), all three schemes in Fig. 1 (A–C) must behave identically with regard to peak and steady-state open probabilities. In this sense, all three state diagrams in Fig. 1 (A–C) are equivalent without loss of generality and without any assumptions on the state transition parameters. These different but equivalent diagrams are helpful in our subsequent deliberations.

Given these preliminaries, we turned to the identification of preferred states leading to VDI. As in our companion paper (Tadross et al., 2010), we consider a standard measure of inactivation, the fraction of peak current lost at steady state. From Eqs. 6 and 7, this is given by:

$$VDI\left(V\right)=\frac{{P}_{\text{O}}\left(V\right)-{P}_{\text{O,SS}}\left(V\right)}{{P}_{\text{O}}\left(V\right)}=\frac{{J}_{\text{EFF}}\left(V\right)}{1+{J}_{\text{EFF}}\left(V\right)}$$

(8)

Because *VDI* is completely determined by *J*_{EFF}, we can invert this relation as follows:

$${J}_{\text{EFF}}\left(V\right)=\frac{VDI\left(V\right)}{1-VDI\left(V\right)}$$

(9)

Eq. 9 yields a very useful and simple result. It enables us to calculate *J*_{EFF}(*V*) based upon readily obtained experimental measurements of *VDI*(*V*). Moreover, it can be shown that Eq. 9 holds for considerably more complex models of channel gating. For example, even if gating involved *N* (arbitrary number) of closed states, Eq. 9 would still hold, with *J*_{EFF}(*V*) consisting of *N* + 1 terms, as described by Eq. 3.

From the voltage dependence of *J*_{EFF}(*V*), we can determine whether inactivation occurs preferentially from certain states along the activation pathway, as illustrated in Fig. 1 (D–F). First, if inactivation were to proceed exclusively from the open state (as diagrammed in Fig. 1 D, 1), *J*_{EFF}(*V*) would rise with increasing voltage (blue curve in Fig. 1 D, 2), mirroring *P*_{O}(*V*) (dashed curve). In contrast, for inactivation that proceeds exclusively from an intermediate closed state (e.g., state C_{3} in Fig. 1 E, 1), *J*_{EFF}(*V*) would exhibit a bell-shaped dependence upon *V* (blue curve in Fig. 1 E, 2), mirroring *P*_{C3}(*V*). Finally, if inactivation were to proceed equally from states C_{2}, C_{3}, C_{4}, and O (Fig. 1 F, 1), *J*_{EFF}(*V*) would assume the monotonically increasing blue relation in Fig. 1 F (2), which notably rises to the left of channel opening. From these, it is clear that preferential inactivation from closed versus open states could be clearly distinguished. Importantly, all that is needed to determine the state dependence of VDI is Eq. 9 in conjunction with an experimental measure of VDI as a function of depolarization voltage.

Fig. 2 shows the actual analysis applied to experimental data for two Ca_{V}1.3 constructs (D1464P and F1166P) from our companion paper (Tadross et al., 2010). These constructs have been engineered for enhanced VDI, thereby furnishing a robust context for this analysis. In Fig. 2, A and C display the extent of VDI as a function of step potential, and these are transformed via Eq. 9 into the corresponding plots of *J*_{EFF}(*V*) (blue relations) shown in B and D. The close similarity of *J*_{EFF}(*V*) to the plot of normalized open probability *P*_{O}(*V*) (B and D, black relations and data points reproduced from Tadross et al., 2010) argues that VDI proceeds predominantly from the open state in these channels.

In voltage-gated Ca^{2+} channels, another important form of inactivation is driven by elevations of intracellular Ca^{2+}, rather than depolarization (Evans and Zamponi, 2006; Dunlap, 2007). This CDI furnishes a biologically essential form of activity-dependent regulation. For the majority of Ca^{2+} channels, those in the Ca_{V}1 and Ca_{V}2 clades, CDI is mediated by a resident calmodulin (CaM) molecule, which is persistently associated with the channel as a functional channel subunit. In this manner, CaM acts as the Ca^{2+} sensor that triggers CDI in the CaM/channel complex. Despite this added level of complexity, our methodology for extracting the state dependence of CDI will be analogous to the VDI case, with some additional techniques to account explicitly for variable Ca^{2+} entry through channels, which is itself a voltage-dependent process.

As before, our goal will be to derive an analytic expression for *J*_{EFF}(*V*) that holds for a broad class of gating models. For this treatment, we consider a generalized gating scheme for CaM-mediated CDI of Ca^{2+} channels (Fig. 3 A), which pertains directly to extensively characterized forms of CDI driven by Ca^{2+} binding to a single lobe of CaM (Tadross et al., 2008). As in the VDI treatment, horizontal transitions represent the voltage-dependent gating steps involved in channel activation, with numerous closed states and a single open state. The additional feature here concerns the extensive system of vertical transitions linking the top four rows, which represent CaM-mediated steps involved in CDI. These four rows are based upon a previously established four-state mechanism of CDI (Tadross et al., 2008). The bottom row (row 5) shows the familiar set of inactivated states, analogous to the VDI case. A cartoon next to each row depicts the essential features of each configuration, as follows. The top row represents Ca^{2+}-free CaM (apoCaM; yellow circle) bound to the channel pre-association site (round pocket). Row 2 portrays apoCaM after it has released from the pre-association site, at which point it can bind Ca^{2+} to produce Ca^{2+}/CaM (square) in row 3. Importantly, it is not until the channel reaches row 4 (where Ca^{2+}/CaM is bound to the channel effector site, shown as a square pocket) that outright CDI may be achieved in row 5. Indeed, rows 4 and 5 are closely analogous to the VDI scheme in Fig. 1 A, where *J* factors (*J*_{C1}, *J*_{C2}, … , *J*_{O}) concern the inactivation from various states in row 4.

As for the vertical transitions among rows 1–4, we use a first-order approximation where channel affinity for apoCaM (specified by *e* and *d*) and channel affinity for Ca^{2+}/CaM (specified by *α* and *β*) are independent of activation gating. Similarly, the CaM affinity for Ca^{2+} (specified by *k*_{on} and *k*_{off}) is considered independent of activation. However, because Ca^{2+} entry is coupled to channel gating, the downward rate constants between rows 2 and 3 differ for closed versus open states. For closed states, the downward rate constants are set to 0 due to the lack of Ca^{2+} elevation during closures. This is particularly true given our use of high intracellular Ca^{2+} buffering, which eliminates residual Ca^{2+} between openings. In the open conformation, the downward rate constant is equal to *k*_{on} · *i*(*V*)^{2} · *F*_{U}, where *k*_{on} is in units of sec^{−1} · pA^{−2}, and *i*(*V*) is the unitary calcium current in the open state, which depends on voltage via a GHK-like relation (Tadross et al., 2008). The squared dependence on unitary current reflects the cooperative binding of two Ca^{2+} ions by a lobe of CaM (Peterson et al., 2000). *F*_{U} (“fraction unblocked”) is a parameter that becomes relevant during voltage block experiments (Tadross et al., 2008), data from which will be incorporated in our upcoming analysis. During a normal depolarization, *F*_{U} = 1, indicating that open channels always permeate calcium. During voltage block experiments, 0 < *F*_{U} < 1 because the protocol “chop blocks” Ca^{2+} entry for a fraction of time, even in the open conformation.

Similar to our prior VDI analysis, the scheme in Fig. 3 A can be transformed into compact equivalent forms. Without loss of generality, each row can be converted into an aggregate state wherein horizontal gating transitions are compressed into two-state C↔O schemes, with *Q*_{EFF}(*V*) specified by Eq. 5. The resulting rows in Fig. 3 B are now interconnected by effective equilibrium constants, where *ε* = *e*/*d*, *Γ* = *α*/*β*, and *J*_{EFF} is equal to the weighted sum of individual *J* factors as specified by Eq. 3. As for the directly Ca^{2+}-driven transitions between rows 2 and 3, an effective equilibrium constant can also be specified so long as *k*_{off} is slow relative to horizontal gating transitions. This is known as the “slow CaM” condition, which has been shown to predominate in Ca_{V}1.3 channels (Tadross et al., 2008). The resulting equilibrium constant becomes *K*_{D}^{−1} · *P*_{O}(*V*) · *i*(*V*)^{2} · *F*_{U}, where *K*_{D} = *k*_{off}/*k*_{on} is the Ca^{2+} dissociation constant of CaM, and *P*_{O}(*V*) is the open probability of noninactivated channels (Eq. 1). Finally, the top four rows of Fig. 3 B, which characterize Ca^{2+} binding by the CaM/channel complex, can be entirely recapitulated by the two-row scheme in Fig. 3 C. In this condensed format, the effective Ca^{2+} dissociation constant, *K*_{D,EFF} = *K*_{D} · (*ε* + 1)/(*Γ* + 1), represents the Ca^{2+} dissociation constant of the entire CaM/channel complex. As well, *J*_{EFF}(*V*) is nominally scaled by a constant *Γ*/(*Γ* + 1), which is nonetheless ~1 for the usual CDI that nearly achieves completion. In all then, the steady-state behavior of the scheme in Fig. 3 A is equivalent to that in Fig. 3 C, with no assumptions other than the slow CaM condition.

Given this setup, we can deduce that CDI depends on *J*_{EFF}(*V*), much as VDI did in Eq. 8. By analogy to the logic underlying that VDI equation, the state diagram in Fig. 3 yields a closely similar expression for a standard measure of inactivation as given in Eq. 8:

$$CDI(V,{F}_{\text{U}})=\frac{{J}_{\text{EFF}}\left(V\right)\cdot X(V,{F}_{\text{U}})}{1+{J}_{\text{EFF}}\left(V\right)\cdot X(V,{F}_{\text{U}})},$$

(10A)

where

$$X(V,{F}_{\text{U}})=\frac{\Gamma}{\Gamma +1}\xb7\frac{{P}_{\text{O}}\left(V\right)\xb7i{\left(V\right)}^{2}\xb7{F}_{\text{U}}}{{K}_{\text{D,EFF}}+{P}_{\text{O}}\left(V\right)\xb7i{\left(V\right)}^{2}\xb7{F}_{\text{U}}}$$

(10B)

The term *X* in Eq. 10 accounts for the voltage dependence of Ca^{2+} entry through the channel. In particular, for the context of Fig. 3 A, *X* equals the fractional occupancy of row 4, given residence in rows 1 through 4. This parameter then gives the fraction of noninactivated channels immediately poised for entry into the inactivated states within row 5. By inspection of Eq. 10B, it can be appreciated that *X* adheres to a Michaelis-Menten relationship, where *P*_{O} · *i*^{2} · *F*_{U} represents the amount of calcium driving the system, and *K*_{D,EFF} is the effective Ca^{2+} dissociation constant of the CaM/channel complex. Substituting Eq. 10B into Eq. 10A, followed by algebraic simplification, yields an alternate but equivalent expression for *CDI*:

$$CDI(V,{F}_{\text{U}})=\frac{\u0134\left(V\right)}{\u0134\left(V\right)+1}\xb7\frac{{P}_{\text{O}}\left(V\right)\xb7{F}_{\text{U}}}{{K}_{\text{D,EFF}}/[{i}_{{\left(V\right)}^{2}}\xb7(\u0134\left(V\right)+1\left)\right]+{P}_{\text{O}}\left(V\right)\xb7{F}_{\text{U}}},$$

(10C)

where $\u0134\left(V\right)={J}_{\text{EFF}}\left(V\right)\xb7\Gamma /(\Gamma +1)$. Eq. 10 forms the basis of our upcoming analysis, wherein we extend our experimental determination of *J*_{EFF}(*V*) to the CDI case, and establish equivalence of the full-blown CDI mechanism here (Fig. 3) to the simpler formalism used in our companion paper (Tadross et al., 2010), and to those in our previously published work (Tadross et al., 2008).

The full-blown CDI state diagram in Fig. 3 A contains significantly more detail than the relatively simplified schemes used in our companion paper (Fig. 1, C and E, in Tadross et al., 2010) and our previously published work (Fig. 2 A of Tadross et al., 2008). Although the full-blown gating scheme of the present work furnishes a richer appreciation of the molecular features that potentially underlie CDI, all three formalisms are ultimately equivalent, as follows. For comparison of Eq. 10 to our previously published mechanism of CDI (Tadross et al., 2008), we recall that the main form of CDI for Ca_{V}1.3 channels was found to adhere to the following slow CaM relation (Eq. 1 in Tadross et al., 2008):

$$CDI(V={V}_{\text{U}},{F}_{\text{U}})=G\cdot \frac{{P}_{\text{O}}\left({V}_{\text{U}}\right)\cdot {F}_{\text{U}}}{{K}_{\text{eff}}+{P}_{\text{O}}\left({V}_{\text{U}}\right)\cdot {F}_{\text{U}}}$$

(11)

The condition *V* = *V*_{U} reflects the fact that our previous work probed CDI at a single voltage *V*_{U}, but with a variable degree of chop block (0 < *F*_{U} < 1). Notably, Eq. 11 (from our prior work) is of the same form as Eq. 10C of this work, and the two equations become identical given *V* = *V*_{U} and:

$$G=\u0134\left({V}_{\text{U}}\right)/\left(\u0134\right({V}_{\text{U}})+1)$$

(12A)

and

$${K}_{\text{eff}}={K}_{\text{D,EFF}}/[i{\left({V}_{\text{U}}\right)}^{2}\xb7(1+\u0134\left({V}_{\text{U}}\right)\left)\right]$$

(12B)

Thus, our previously published slow CaM mechanism is equivalent to the full-blown scheme in this present work.

In relation to our companion paper (Tadross et al., 2010), Eq. 10C can be seen as equivalent to Eq. 4 of that work. In particular, noting that *F*_{U} = 1 in our companion paper (given the use of standard depolarizations with no voltage block), and making the reasonable approximation $\u0134\left(V\right)/\left(\u0134\right(V)+1)$ ~1, such that CDI proceeds to near completion under saturating Ca^{2+}, Eq. 10C becomes

$$CDI\left(V\right)\approx \frac{{P}_{\text{O}}\left(V\right)}{{K}_{\text{D,EFF}}/[i{\left(V\right)}^{2}\xb7(\u0134\left(V\right)+1\left)\right]+{P}_{\text{O}}\left(V\right)}$$

(13)

Eq. 13 thus corresponds precisely to Eq. 4 of our companion paper, where ${K}_{\text{eff}}={K}_{\text{D,EFF}}/[i{\left(V\right)}^{2}\xb7(\u0134\left(V\right)+1\left)\right]$, in agreement with Eq. 12B. In all then, the dependence of CDI upon depolarization voltage, as well as on the degree of chop block, is equivalent among the CDI schemes in Fig. 3 here, those in our companion paper, and those in our previously published work (Tadross et al., 2008).

By analogy to our VDI analysis, a semiquantitative mapping of the state dependence of CDI relies upon our ability to derive an experimentally constrained analytic expression for *J*_{EFF}(*V*). Eq. 10A furnishes a nearly direct relationship between *CDI* and *J*_{EFF}, except for an additional term *X*, which was absent within the VDI case seen in Eq. 8. Fortunately, all of the parameters underlying *X* (Eq. 10B) can be experimentally determined. First, *P*_{O}(*V*) and *i*(*V*) can be accurately determined from single-channel experiments (Tadross et al., 2008). Next, determination of *K*_{D,EFF} can be deduced from previously determined values of *G* and *K*_{eff} in Eq. 11 (Tadross et al., 2008), as determined at a particular voltage, *V*_{U}. This is achieved by simple algebraic rearrangement of Eq. 12, which reveals that $\u0134\left({V}_{\text{U}}\right)=G/(1-G)$ and thus:

$${K}_{\text{D,EFF}}=\frac{{K}_{\text{eff}}}{(1-G)}\cdot i{\left({V}_{\text{U}}\right)}^{2}$$

(14)

Hence, the effective Ca^{2+} dissociation constant of the CaM/channel complex (*K*_{D,EFF}) can be directly obtained from our previous voltage block experiments (Tadross et al., 2008). Although this determination of *K*_{D,EFF} is based upon experiments performed at *V* = *V*_{U}, the expression for *K*_{D,EFF} (Eq. 14) is notably independent of voltage. Thus, we can substitute the value of *K*_{D,EFF} from Eq. 14 into our voltage-dependent expression for *X* (Eq. 10B) to yield:

$$X\left(V\right)=\frac{\Gamma}{\Gamma +1}\cdot \frac{{P}_{\text{O}}\left(V\right)\cdot i{\left(V\right)}^{2}}{\frac{{K}_{\text{eff}}}{(1-G)}\cdot i{\left({V}_{\text{U}}\right)}^{2}+{P}_{\text{O}}\left(V\right)\cdot i{\left(V\right)}^{2}}$$

(15)

Note that we have now set *F*_{U} = 1 (for normal depolarizations). Recalling that *Γ*/(*Γ* + 1) ~1 for the usual CDI that achieves near completion, we arrive at a relationship (based on Eq. 10A) that constrains *J*_{EFF}(*V*) in terms of experimentally determined entities:

$${J}_{\text{EFF}}\left(V\right)=\frac{CDI\left(V\right)}{1-CDI\left(V\right)}/\underset{X\left(V\right)}{\underbrace{\frac{{P}_{\text{O}}\left(V\right)\cdot i{\left(V\right)}^{2}/i{\left({V}_{\text{U}}\right)}^{2}}{\frac{{K}_{\text{eff}}}{(1-G)}+{P}_{\text{O}}\left(V\right)\cdot i{\left(V\right)}^{2}/i{\left({V}_{\text{U}}\right)}^{2}}}}$$

(16)

Eq. 16 thus allows us to calculate *J*_{EFF}(*V*) for the CDI case. To summarize the methodology, determination of the state dependence of CDI via Eq. 16 requires an experimental measure of *CDI*(*V*), single-channel ramp data to determine channel open probability (*P*_{O}(*V*)) and unitary current amplitude (*i*(*V*)) (Tadross et al., 2008), and whole cell voltage block experiments to determine the effective Ca^{2+} dissociation constant of the CaM/channel complex (*K*_{eff}/(1-*G*)) (Tadross et al., 2008).

Beyond determining the state dependence of entry into CDI, this methodology has further specific relevance to key deductions of our companion paper (Tadross et al., 2010). To articulate this connection, let us briefly summarize how our companion paper examines the end-point mechanisms of CDI. There, we argue that data from an S6 mutagenesis scan distinguishes in favor of an allosteric, rather than hinged-lid or pore collapse, CDI mechanism. Importantly, the ability to distinguish between these differing mechanisms relies upon a conceptually simple formulation of *F*_{CDI}, defined in our companion paper as the fraction of channels that are inactivated at steady state (compare with Figs. 1, C–F, of Tadross et al., 2010). For reference, *F*_{CDI} equals *CDI* if inactivated channels are electrically silent, whereas *CDI* would undershoot *F*_{CDI} if inactivated channels open sparsely (as in an allosteric CDI mechanism) (Tadross et al., 2010). In our companion paper, we assume that *F*_{CDI} depends only upon Ca^{2+} entry through the channel and not upon state occupancy along the activation pathway. Given this assumption, *F*_{CDI} would attain a value near unity for S6 mutations that strongly enhance Ca^{2+} entry through the channel and monotonically decline for mutations that diminish Ca^{2+} entry. Critically, however, if this presumed monotonic decline of *F*_{CDI} were invalid, as might be the case if inactivation were to proceed preferentially from certain states along the activation pathway, the deductions in our companion paper could become ambiguous.

Fortunately, the methodology in this work allows us to explicitly analyze the factors underlying *F*_{CDI} and to ultimately confirm the relationship between *F*_{CDI} and mutation-induced perturbation of channel activation presumed in our companion paper. In this spirit, Fig. 4 displays three instructive channel gating schemes, nearly identical to those presented in Fig. 1 (D, 1, to F), except here an additional Ca^{2+}-driven step is included. In Fig. 4 (A, 1), inactivation proceeds exclusively from the open state. As in the VDI case, *J*_{EFF}(*V*) rises with increasing voltage (blue curve in Fig. 4 A, 2), mirroring *P*_{O}(*V*) (dashed curve). If we now fix *V* = 0, the effects of S6 mutations can be simulated by varying parameter ‘*a*,’ which scales the final activation transition (*L* in Fig. 4 A, 1). In this regimen, we can observe the dependence of *F*_{CDI} upon ΔΔ*G*_{a} = −*R* · T · ln(*a*), the mutation-induced change in the free energy of channel activation (Tadross et al., 2010). Specifically, then, we can recast Eq. 10A as:

$${F}_{\text{CDI}}\left(\Delta \Delta {G}_{a}\right)=\frac{{J}_{\text{EFF}}\left(\Delta \Delta {G}_{a}\right)\cdot X\left(\Delta \Delta {G}_{a}\right)}{1+{J}_{\text{EFF}}\left(\Delta \Delta {G}_{a}\right)\cdot X\left(\Delta \Delta {G}_{a}\right)},$$

(17)

where the ΔΔ*G*_{a} dependence of Eq. 17 arises from altered versions of Eqs. 1 and 2, in which *L*(*V*) is scaled by parameter *a*. Fig. 4 A (3) shows the ΔΔ*G*_{a} dependence of *F*_{CDI} and its underlying components, *X* and *J*_{EFF}. Thus, for the preferential open-state inactivation scheme of Fig. 4 A (1), all three terms decline as channel opening is diminished by mutation (ΔΔ*G*_{a} > 0), according to the presumptions of our companion paper. *X* decreases because a drop in *P*_{O} reduces average Ca^{2+} entry; *J*_{EFF} also decreases because a drop in *P*_{O} diminishes occupancy in the only state from which CDI can proceed (only *J*_{O} ≠ 0). Both factors contribute to the monotonic decline of *F*_{CDI} with increasing ΔΔ*G*_{a} (Fig. 4 A, 3). In contrast, in a second scenario where CDI proceeds far more readily from closed rather than open states, a very different outcome can be observed (Fig. 4 B). Here, only *J*_{C3} is nonzero (Fig. 4 B, 1) yielding the hallmark bell-shaped *J*_{EFF}(*V*) profile in Fig. 4 B (2) that mirrors occupancy within state C_{3}. Moreover, although *P*_{O} and *X* diminish with increasing ΔΔ*G*_{a} (Fig. 4 B, 3, dashed relation), *J*_{EFF} actually increases with ΔΔ*G*_{a} (Fig. 4 B, 3, blue curve), owing to enhanced state C_{3} occupancy with attenuated opening. The combined effect of these opposing trends yields a bell-shaped *F*_{CDI}–ΔΔ*G*_{a} relation (Fig. 4 B, 3). Notably, such an outcome could alone account for the principal experimental results of our companion paper (Fig. 4 A in Tadross et al., 2010), without postulating an allosteric mechanism (Fig. 1 F in Tadross et al., 2010). In a third possible scenario, inactivation proceeds equally from states C_{2}, C_{3}, C_{4}, and O (Fig. 4 C, 1), yielding the *J*_{EFF} profile in Fig. 4 C (2). As in the previous two cases, *X* declines with increasing ΔΔ*G*_{a} because of the drop in *P*_{O} and thereby average Ca^{2} (Fig. 4 C, 3, dashed curve). In contrast, *J*_{EFF} is now essentially independent of ΔΔ*G*_{a} (blue curve) because inactivation can proceed equally well from open and several nearby closed states. As in the first scenario, *F*_{CDI} still declines with increasing ΔΔ*G*_{a}, but only due to the decline in Ca^{2+} entry (Fig. 4 C, 3). In all, only a configuration with preferential closed-state inactivation (Fig. 4 B) could undermine the deductions within our companion paper.

Thus armed with analytic insight, Fig. 5 shows the actual determination of *J*_{EFF} for the CDI process of wild-type Ca_{V}1.3 channels, as well as for the L0396P variant. These constructs were chosen because all their voltage block and single-channel parameters have been previously determined (Tadross et al., 2008), enabling use of Eq. 16. Fig. 5 A displays the single-channel data for the wild-type channel, as reproduced from prior work (Tadross et al., 2008), and Fig. 5 C shows the experimentally determined voltage dependence of *CDI* for this channel. These two datasets are transformed in Fig. 5 B to give the requisite components for *J*_{EFF} determination via Eq. 16, where *CDI*/(1 − *CDI*) is in red, and *X* is in black. Taking the ratio of these yields *J*_{EFF} in Fig. 5 D (blue symbols), which is plotted along with the single-channel *P*_{O} relation (dashed black relation replicated from Fig. 5 A). From the monotonically rising shape of this experimentally determined *J*_{EFF}(*V*), we conclude that CDI can proceed equally from both the open as well as some closed states near to the open state (compare with Fig. 4 C, 2). Although our experimentally derived determination of *J*_{EFF}(*V*) does not require any explicit numerical modeling, for illustrative purposes, we fit the *P*_{O}(*V*) and *J*_{EFF}(*V*) data in Fig. 5 (A and D) to the model in Fig. 4 C (1), yielding the solid blue and dashed black curves in Fig. 5 D. The resulting parameters enabled us to simulate the *F*_{CDI}–ΔΔ*G*_{a} relation in Fig. 5 E, which recapitulates the features of Fig. 4 C (3). Importantly, the data in Fig. 5 D could not be fit by a preferential closed-state model (e.g., Fig. 4 B) or an exclusive open-state inactivation scheme (Fig. 4 A). Thus, the curves in Fig. 5 E are well constrained by data in Fig. 5 D.

Actual tests for preferential closed state CDI. (A) Single-channel and tail-activation analysis of wild-type Ca_{V}1.3, reproduced from prior work (Tadross et al., 2008), after shifting along the voltage axis to account for different external solution used **...**

A similar analysis was performed on the L0396P mutant (Fig. 5, F–J). Again, the experimentally determined *J*_{EFF}(*V*) relation (Fig. 5 I) corresponds well to a scenario in which CDI can proceed at least as well from the open, compared with several nearby closed, states. Reassuringly, only minor shifts in the details of the projected *F*_{CDI}–ΔΔ*G*_{a} relations are apparent between wild-type and L0396P mutant (Fig. 5, E and J, solid black curves), consistent with the approximation that a single bell-shaped relation pertains to the suite of S6 mutations in our companion paper (Fig. 4 A in Tadross et al., 2010). Overall, in-depth analysis of the states from which inactivation occurs confirms the deductions of our companion paper, which argue that the end point of CDI involves an allosteric inhibition of activation gating.

This paper develops a systematic and straightforward approach for mapping the extent to which inactivation occurs from various states along the activation pathway, based only on open-channel measurements. The approach applies equally well to VDI and CDI, and emphasizes analytic manipulations of experimental data, rather than numerical simulations with numerous parameters. Additionally, our approach is applicable to the analysis of many other voltage-gated channels.

There are, however, certain limitations to the mapping strategy that warrant explicit consideration. Regarding VDI, the analysis assumes that activation proceeds more quickly than does inactivation. This assumption is usually true, but there are notable exceptions, such as with HERG voltage-gated K channels, where the relative speeds of inactivation and activation are reversed. In regard to CDI, our strategy requires that the off-rate of Ca^{2+} from CaM be slow, such that a slow CaM regimen holds true (Tadross et al., 2008). Other forms of CDI, such as an “SQS mechanism” in which Ca^{2+} unbinding from CaM is rapid (Tadross et al., 2008), may not be suitable for the analysis in this study.

With specific reference to inactivation properties of Ca_{V}1.3 channels, we detect very different state preferences for VDI and CDI. VDI is found to proceed almost exclusively from the open conformation (Figs. 1 D and and2).2). This propensity to inactivate only from the open state fits nicely with our homology models of open and closed conformations (Fig. 7 G in Tadross et al., 2010), in which the receptor for a hinged lid seems accessible only in the open but not closed state. In contrast, CDI transpires equally well from the open and nearby closed states, but is disfavored from deep closed states distant from the open conformation (Figs. 4 C and and5).5). This stark contrast furnishes still further evidence that VDI and CDI are indeed distinct processes, a conclusion reached independently in our companion paper (Tadross et al., 2010). With specific regard to CDI, our analysis also demonstrates that the fraction of inactivated channels at steady state (*F*_{CDI}) bears a monotonic and roughly unique decline with increasing ΔΔ*G*_{a}, the change in free energy of channel activation produced by S6 mutations (Fig. 5, E and J). This outcome is critical to our companion paper, which assumed this result, in order to conclude that CDI ultimately represents an allosteric inhibition of activation gating. More broadly, numerous biological signaling pathways, including those controlling neuro-synaptic development (Krey and Dolmetsch, 2009), may be preferentially triggered by channels adopting specific conformations beyond the readily observable open state. As such, methodologies like those in this work may help to discern the state dependence of an expanding set of vital biological processes.

We thank Ivy Dick for her single-channel data in Tadross et al. (2008) and feedback on the manuscript, and Manu Ben Johny for helpful comments on the manuscript.

This work is supported by an Medical Scientist Training Program fellowship of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (to M.R. Tadross) and by grant RO1MH065531 of the National Institute of Mental Health (to D.T. Yue).

Angus C. Nairn served as editor.

- apoCaM
- Ca
^{2+}-free calmodulin - CaM
- calmodulin
- CDI
- Ca
^{2+}-dependent inactivation - VDI
- voltage-dependent inactivation

- Aldrich R.W. 1981. Inactivation of voltage-gated delayed potassium current in molluscan neurons. A kinetic model. Biophys. J. 36:519–532 10.1016/S0006-3495(81)84750-9 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
- Aldrich R.W., Corey D.P., Stevens C.F. 1983. A reinterpretation of mammalian sodium channel gating based on single channel recording. Nature. 306:436–441 10.1038/306436a0 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
- Armstrong C.M., Bezanilla F. 1977. Inactivation of the sodium channel. II. Gating current experiments. J. Gen. Physiol. 70:567–590 10.1085/jgp.70.5.567 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
- Bean B.P. 1981. Sodium channel inactivation in the crayfish giant axon. Must channels open before inactivating? Biophys. J. 35:595–614 10.1016/S0006-3495(81)84815-1 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
- Bezanilla F., Stefani E. 1994. Voltage-dependent gating of ionic channels. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 23:819–846 10.1146/annurev.bb.23.060194.004131 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
- Brehm P., Eckert R.
1978.
Calcium entry leads to inactivation of calcium channel in
*Paramecium*. Science. 202:1203–1206 10.1126/science.103199 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] - Cuello L.G., Vishwanath J., Cortes D.M., Pan A.C., Gagnon D.G., Cordero-Morales J.F., Chakrapani S., Roux B., Perozo E. 2009. Structural basis for the coupling between activation and inactivation gating in potassium channels. Biophys. J. 96:381a 10.1016/j.bpj.2008.12.2852 [Cross Ref]
- Dunlap K. 2007. Calcium channels are models of self-control. J. Gen. Physiol. 129:379–383 10.1085/jgp.200709786 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
- Evans R.M., Zamponi G.W. 2006. Presynaptic Ca2+ channels—integration centers for neuronal signaling pathways. Trends Neurosci. 29:617–624 10.1016/j.tins.2006.08.006 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
- Hodgkin A.L., Huxley A.F. 1952. A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. J. Physiol. 117:500–544 [PubMed]
- Jones L.P., DeMaria C.D., Yue D.T. 1999. N-type calcium channel inactivation probed by gating-current analysis. Biophys. J. 76:2530–2552 10.1016/S0006-3495(99)77407-2 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
- Klemic K.G., Shieh C.C., Kirsch G.E., Jones S.W. 1998. Inactivation of Kv2.1 potassium channels. Biophys. J. 74:1779–1789 10.1016/S0006-3495(98)77888-9 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
- Krey J.F., Dolmetsch R. 2009. The Timothy Syndrome mutation in CaV1.2 causes dendritic retraction through calcium-independent activation of the Rhoa pathway. Biophys. J. 96:221a–222a 10.1016/j.bpj.2008.12.1927 [Cross Ref]
- MacKinnon R. 2003. Potassium channels. FEBS Lett. 555:62–65 10.1016/S0014-5793(03)01104-9 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
- Patil P.G., Brody D.L., Yue D.T. 1998. Preferential closed-state inactivation of neuronal calcium channels. Neuron. 20:1027–1038 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80483-3 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
- Peterson B.Z., Lee J.S., Mulle J.G., Wang Y., de Leon M., Yue D.T.
2000.
Critical determinants of Ca(
^{2+})-dependent inactivation within an EF-hand motif of L-type Ca(^{2+}) channels. Biophys. J. 78:1906–1920 10.1016/S0006-3495(00)76739-7 [PubMed] [Cross Ref] - Tadross M.R., Dick I.E., Yue D.T. 2008. Mechanism of local and global Ca2+ sensing by calmodulin in complex with a Ca2+ channel. Cell. 133:1228–1240 10.1016/j.cell.2008.05.025 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
- Tadross M.R., Johny M.B., Yue D.T.
2010.
Molecular endpoints of Ca
^{2+}/calmodulin- and voltage-dependent inactivation of Ca_{V}1.3 channels. J. Gen. Physiol. 135:197–215 [PMC free article] [PubMed] - Thaler C., Gray A.C., Lipscombe D. 2004. Cumulative inactivation of N-type CaV2.2 calcium channels modified by alternative splicing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 101:5675–5679 10.1073/pnas.0303402101 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
- Wu L., Bauer C.S., Zhen X.G., Xie C., Yang J. 2002. Dual regulation of voltage-gated calcium channels by PtdIns(4,5)P2. Nature. 419:947–952 10.1038/nature01118 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
- Xu J., Wu L.G. 2005. The decrease in the presynaptic calcium current is a major cause of short-term depression at a calyx-type synapse. Neuron. 46:633–645 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.03.024 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
- Zagotta W.N., Hoshi T., Dittman J., Aldrich R.W. 1994. Shaker potassium channel gating. II: transitions in the activation pathway. J. Gen. Physiol. 103:279–319 10.1085/jgp.103.2.279 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]

Articles from The Journal of General Physiology are provided here courtesy of **The Rockefeller University Press**

PubMed Central Canada is a service of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) working in partnership with the National Research Council's national science library in cooperation with the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the U.S. National Library of Medicine(NCBI/NLM). It includes content provided to the PubMed Central International archive by participating publishers. |