A number of neurotransmitters including acetylcholine, dopamine, and serotonin, hormones and growth factors bind to GPCRs that stimulate phospholipases to liberate fatty acids, such as AA, from autonomic end organs and from nerve cell membranes [
115–
120]. AA release following muscarinic stimulation has been examined most extensively where AA is primarily liberated from inositol phospholipids. This relationship raises the question of whether neurotransmitters regulate PIP
2 and AA levels to modulate VGCC activity. Muscarinic modulation of L- and N-current by a slow signaling pathway [
121–
124], first described in SCG neurons (see Hille 1994[
125] and Suh & Hille 2005 [
126] for review), mimics current enhancement and inhibition by exogenously applied AA [
23,
39,
49,
127,
128]. However, whether endogenously released AA plays a role in modulating VGCC currents following muscarinic receptor activation is controversial. Here, we discuss the evidence for and against endogenously liberated AA downstream of G
qPCRs mediating VGCC current modulation.
7.1 AA participation in Ca2+ current modulation by GqPCRs is controversial
The muscarinic agonist oxotremorine-M (Oxo-M) inhibits L- and N-current in SCG neurons by the slow pathway via M
1 muscarinic receptors (M
1Rs), G
q and metabolism of PIP
2 by phospholipase C (PLC) [
49,
104,
106,
129–
131]. Additional phospholipid breakdown appears to participate in current modulation since decreasing AA release by pharmacologically antagonizing PLA
2 activity with oleyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine (OPC) or 7,7-dimethyl-5,8-eicosadienoic acid (DEDA), minimized VGCC current inhibition in SCG and cortical () neurons [
49,
127,
128,
132]. This slow pathway contrasts the fast, voltage-dependent N-current inhibition by direct G-protein binding to the pore-forming subunit [
113]. OPC and DEDA have no inhibitory effects on this fast pathway [
133,
134].
Little free AA is found in cell membranes. Instead AA is situated in phospholipids of the inner leaflet of the cell membrane. Acyl transferases covalently link AA to the C2 (also referred to as the
sn-2) carbon of the glycerol backbone of phospholipids, whereas a saturated or mono-saturated fatty acid normally occupies the
sn-1 position [
135]. 80% of PIP
2 has AA in the
sn-2 position [
136] (). Phospholipase A
2 (PLA
2) cleaves fatty acids from the
sn-2 position of phospholipids, with lysophospholipid arising as the other by-product. Group IVa PLA
2, a cytoplasmic, Ca
2+-sensitive PLA
2, also called cPLA
2, exhibits selectivity specifically for AA in the
sn-2 position of phospholipids [
137]. cPLA
2 associates with membranes by binding to PIP
2 via a C2 domain with an effective increase in enzyme activity [
137]. Phosphorylation by ERK1/2 acutely activates cPLA
2 following G
qPCR stimulation. These same receptors are associated with phosphatidylinositol metabolism, suggesting that cPLA
2 in vivo may exhibit some preference for cleaving AA from PIP
2. However careful studies with purified or recombinant cPLA
2 have not been performed to fully understand its substrate specificity. PLA
2 will also cleave AA from phosphatidic acid. When antibodies were dialyzed into SCG neurons as functional antagonists of slow pathway modulation, cPLA
2 antibodies but not non-immunized IgG or iPLA
2 or sPLA
2 antibodies minimized inhibition by Oxo-M raising the intriguing possibility that in neurons, cPLA
2 may act to liberate AA from PIP
2 to inhibit VGCC activity.
The finding that cPLA
2 may participate in M
1R inhibition of L- and N-current challenged a model, illustrated in , where dissociation of PIP
2 from VGCCs and subsequent breakdown by PLC is not only necessary but also sufficient for observing inhibition [
2,
104,
106]. The Hille lab originally proposed this “PIP
2” model for M-current modulation by M
1Rs. In this model, PIP
2 molecules cycle between binding and dissociating from the KCNQ proteins that give rise to M-current. PIP
2 association increases channel availability to open. Following stimulation of M
1Rs, activated PLC cleaves the inositol head group from unbound PIP
2 [
138–
141]. Consequently less PIP
2 is present to rebind to channels resulting in decreased M-current. Whether PLA
2 participates in M-current modulation was examined by pharmacologically antagonizing PLA
2 but no adverse effect was found [
127,
142,
143]. Additionally small molecules and various kinases were tested but were also found to play no role in current inhibition [
125,
126] supporting the idea that PIP
2 breakdown by PLC is sufficient for its modulation by M
1Rs. Because L-, M- and N-current inhibition by the slow pathway in both primary neurons and recombinant systems requires M
1Rs, G
q and PLC [
49,
104,
106,
126,
127,
138,
140–
142,
144], the Hille lab and others proposed that the same signal transduction pathway similarly modulates all three currents.
Consistent with the PIP
2 model, Gamper et al. [
106] reported no effect of OPC following a 2 min incubation period on N-current inhibition by Oxo-M, when recording from perforated patches of SCG neurons. These findings contrasted whole-cell studies where a 2 minute preincubation with the same OPC concentration resulted in a loss of inhibition by Oxo-M [
49]. Gamper et al. [
106] suggested that the differences observed with OPC, most likely reflect variations in experimental design rather than in the biology of the system. Similarly, Bannister et al. [
145] found that the PLA
2 antagonist quinacrine had no effect on slow pathway inhibition of recombinant L-current (Ca
V1.2); however this compound poorly antagonizes cPLA
2 [
146]. Lastly, Lechner et al. [
147] found that inhibition of presynaptic currents by bradykinin was blocked when PIP
2 breakdown was antagonized, yet remained normal when PLA
2 was antagonized with DEDA. In each study, no control experiments were presented that documented selective cPLA
2 antagonism, nevertheless these studies raised questions surrounding cPLA
2’s role in the slow pathway of VGCC currents.
In a fourth study the PIP
2 analog, diC8-PIP
2 was dialyzed into SCG neurons to effectively expose the VGCCS to unlimited amounts of PIP
2 agonist. Under these conditions, minimal Ca
2+ current inhibition by Oxo-M occurred, suggesting that if enough endogenous PIP
2 or exogenously applied diC8-PIP
2 remains available to bind to VGCCs, no inhibition will occur [
106]. DiC8-PIP
2 lacks the normal fatty acid chains associated with PIP
2, e.g., AA and stearic acid in the
sn-1 and
sn-2 positions respectively. Thus diC8-PIP
2 might also act as a substrate competitor of cPLA
2, antagonizing AA release from PIP
2 and as a consequence, minimal current inhibition would occur. While this experiment highlighted the importance of PIP
2 in VGCC gating, it did not rule out a requirement for PLA
2 during slow pathway stimulation, leaving cPLA
2’s role uncertain.
Subsequent biochemical, imaging, and genetic approaches pointed to a prominent role for cPLA
2 activity during L- and N-current inhibition by the slow pathway. First, cPLA
2 protein was acutely phosphorylated in SCG neurons following exposure to muscarinic agonist, but blocked in the presence of the MT-7 toxin, a M
1R antagonist, demonstrating its acute activation by M
1Rs [
127]. Second, including BSA either in the pipette or bath solution to limit AA levels, antagonized L- and N-current inhibition [
49,
127]. Moreover, when the BSA-containing bath solution was analyzed for fatty acid content by GC-MS, free AA levels were found to increase approximately 2-fold following ganglion exposure to Oxo-M documenting muscarinic stimulation of AA release from SCG. Most notably, L- and N-current inhibition by Oxo-M, was lost in cPLA
2−/− SCG neurons [
127,
128]. No significant difference in control current amplitude or magnitude of current inhibition by AA was observed between cPLA
2+/+ versus cPLA
2−/− neurons, indicating normal VGCC activity in cPLA
2−/− neurons. In contrast to VGCCs, no change in M-current inhibition occurred in cPLA
2−/− SCG neurons, demonstrating that breakdown of PIP
2 by PLC still must occur under these experimental conditions despite loss of L- and N-current inhibition.
Taken together the data indicate that L- and N-current inhibition occurs by a signal transduction cascade diverging from that mediating M-current inhibition [
49,
127,
128,
132,
133]. This conclusion is supported by recent work using palmitoylated charged peptides to sequester PIP
2. Dialyzing low peptide concentrations into neurons disrupted M-current but not N-current modulation by M
1Rs [
148]. Free fatty acids, most likely AA, liberated from the
sn-2 position during phospholipid metabolism mediate current inhibition. AA itself, rather than a metabolite, serves as the effector since antagonizing cyclo-oxygenases, lipoxygenases or P-450 epoxygenases individually or all together had no effect on AA or Oxo-M’s ability to inhibit current [
23,
39,
49,
133].
7.2 PLC, cPLA2, and DAG lipase participate in M1R modulation of Ca2+ currents
Recent findings help advance our understanding in how PIP
2 and AA regulate VGCC activity. In addition to PIP
2 breakdown by PLC and AA release by acutely activated cPLA
2, a third lipase called diacylglycerol (DAG) lipase appears to antagonize inhibition of native and recombinant L- and N-current () following M
1R stimulation [
149]. DAG lipase α and β cleave fatty acids (normally stearic acid) preferentially from the
sn-1 position of PIP
2 or from DAG [
150,
151]. This conclusion of DAG lipase involvement in the slow pathway is based on findings that pharmacologically antagonizing DAG lipases with the selective compound RHC-80267 minimizes L- and N-current inhibition. In contrast RHC-80267 has no effect on M-current inhibition by the slow pathway, N-current inhibition by direct G-protein binding to Ca
V2.2, or L-and N-current inhibition by exogenous AA [
134], indicating its actions selectively target slow pathway modulation of L- and N-currents [
108,
149].
That three lipases are required for VGCC inhibition may seem implausible and excessively complicated. However, the need for all three lipases suggests a linear signal transduction cascade that generates a signaling molecule, such as AA, may not be responsible for Ca
2+ current inhibition [
127]. Similarly, the PIP
2 model where removal of the phosphoinositol head group by PLC is necessary and sufficient for observing Ca
2+ current inhibition [
104,
106] also cannot explain why cPLA
2−/− neurons exhibit little L- and N-current inhibition, while M-current inhibition proceeds normally, indicating that PLC is active [
127,
134]. Thus both models fail in explaining all the results; however a remarkably simple “PIP
2-AA” model shown in successfully combines the essence of each model to explain slow pathway modulation of Ca
2+ currents.
Moreover, the PIP
2-AA model successfully incorporates virtually all previously published findings from a number of research groups into an unexpectedly simple scheme. Oxo-M binds to M
1Rs which couple to G
q to activate PLC. Activated PLC directly cleaves the inositol head group in the
sn-3 from PIP
2 molecules associated with channels Additionally PLC stimulates phosphorylation of cPLA
2. Activated cPLA
2 and DAG lipase liberate the two fatty acid tails of PIP
2 in situ by acting specifically at the
sn-2 and
sn-1 positions respectively of the glycerol backbone. Consequently, the released IP
3 and glycerol will enter the cytoplasm while the two freed fatty acids remain bound to channels. Alternatively the phosphoinositide headgroup could remain bound to the channel. Disassembling PIP
2 may uncouple a hydrophobic region of the channel that binds the fatty acid tails from the predicted charged pocket that interacts with the phosphoinositol head group. This separation may impede coordinated conformational changes that closed channels undergo as they reconfigure into an open conformation, thus changing the availability of channels to open. The bound free fatty acid tails antagonize binding of a PIP
2 to the site. Thus it is the loss of the glycerol backbone uncoupling the fatty acid tails from the head group that causes a decrease in channel opening, stabilizing a closed conformation. Three findings hint that a similar mechanism may occur for some K
+ channels: 1) the antagonistic actions of PIP
2 and AA on certain K
+ channels [
78,
152]; 2) overlapping binding sites for PIP
2 and AA at the proximal end of the C-terminus of Kir3 channels [
78]; and 3) the importance of the head group and fatty acid tails for coupling voltage sensing to opening [
153,
154].
Another way to think of the consequences of PIP
2 breakdown may be that somehow voltage sensing uncouples from channel opening. Though sheer speculation, this idea brings to mind, intriguing crystal data from the MacKinnon lab of phospholipid placement in the inner regions of a voltage-dependent K
+ channel where just one phospholipid crystallized with each subunit [
154]. The lipid tails sandwich between the voltage sensor and the inner pore with the head group pointing towards the cytoplasm. One could image that the phospholipid acts like Velcro between the two regions perhaps slipping as S6 flexes during opening only to re-attach as S6 straightens on closing. Whether VGCCs have a phospholipid in a similar region remains to be determined though a similar placement of PIP
2 in a VGCC would be an ideal site to explain PIP
2 and AA’s actions at the “S” site. Few clues exist that hint as to whether the PIP
2 “R” site (which we hypothesizes confers enhancement by AA) is also located at the inner pore. It is possible that 4 phospholipids wedge between each voltage sensor and inner pore helix. Whether one or more of these wedged PIP
2s may confer reluctant gating kinetics is an attractive possibility. Unlike the crystallized K
+ channels, VGCCs do not have four-fold symmetry, so that homologous PIP
2 interaction sites may influence channel opening differently. Alternatively recent findings with K
+ channel structures reveal the importance of S1 for exerting the force on the outer pore region by the voltage sensor paddle [
155]. Whether lipid packing in the crevices around S1 and the pore is important for channel opening no doubt will be an important question to answer.
Oxo-M also enhances N-current in SCG neurons similar to AA by increasing the voltage-sensitivity and kinetics of activation. Moreover muscarinic enhancement of N-current also involves PLA
2 activity [
49]. In recombinant studies M
1Rs stimulation, as with exogenously applied AA, resulted in sustained enhancement of N-current only when Ca
V2.2 was expressed with the palmitoylated β
2a [
102]. We imagine that by forming multiple binding sites with cytoplasmic domains of Ca
V2.2, the Ca
Vβ2a protein effectively “docks” its two palmitic acids at a site extremely close to Ca
V2.2 promoting their interaction with the channel. This constraint creates a high local concentration of palmitic acid that promotes competition with AA and possibly PIP
2 for the “S” site acting there as a phospholipid mimic. No change in channel availability is observed with muscarinic stimulation, only the “R” site undergoes modulation. Thus the PIP
2-AA model successfully incorporates the actions of
three lipid moities: PIP
2, AA and palmitoylated β2a. No doubt, lipid regulation of VGCCs does not occur exactly this way. This thinking however, creates a starting point for testing this molecular image of lipids competing for sites on VGCCs that effect channel opening. Critical to developing this model will be further experiments that examine whether mutating certain channel residues change the response to AA and to palmitoylation.
7.3 Control of PIP2 interaction with VGCCs by three lipases provides a highly regulated mechanism for modulation
The PIP
2-AA model is appealing in that it provides more regulatory control of lipid interaction with channels compared to a “naked” channel with no bound lipid (). The local breakdown of PIP
2 should give rise to variety of byproducts that each alters VGCC gating in unique ways. Moreover, this new model resolves previous conceptual conflicts in mechanism and provides a framework for raising new predictions and pursuing a new direction of questioning around how lipids regulate VGCCs in normal and pathological situations. First, this model predicts that the lipid tails of PIP
2 and free AA interact with Ca
Vα
1 though whether PIP
2 or free AA act by directly interacting with the channel remains uncertain. The PIP
2-AA model is compatible with the idea that loss of PIP
2 from channels occurs following M
1R stimulation [
104,
106]. If we assume that PIP
2 directly interacts with the channel, then the simplest model would predict that cPLA
2 liberates AA on location and exogenously applied AA may dislodge PIP
2 by competing with its fatty acid tails for binding sites. Metabolizing PIP
2 still bound to channels can account for why inhibiting either PLA
2 or DAG lipase will antagonize channel modulation. However whether these enzymes are able to access PIP
2 molecules while bound to the channel needs to be tested more directly.
Though increases in free AA in the bath solution are detected following muscarinic stimulation [
127], this new model predicts that free AA generated locally confers inhibition. In support of this idea, AA inhibits recombinant T-current, exhibiting similar inhibition as L- and N-currents [
20,
21]. Since T-current arises from channels with no accessory subunits, AA’s actions are predicted to occur on the pore-forming subunit. Whether the Hill coefficient of ~2 for AA binding to T-channels [
21] suggests that AA acts at two sites on the channel or that the two tails of PIP
2 act together at one site remains to be tested. This question of whether two tails participate in current inhibition raise an additional question of whether two AAs mediate inhibition or whether inhibition occurs from AA and the fatty acid, most likely stearic acid, from the
sn-1 position; or just AA from the
sn-2 position. The actions of stearic acid have not yet been tested on L- or N-current though other saturated fatty acids can enhance N-current (Barrett et al., 2001). Once liberated, AA may diffuse a short distance to its site of action. Whether other G
qPCRs require both cPLA
2 and DAG lipase to observe VGCC modulation has not been examined. Notably M
3Rs couple to G
q to activate an endogenous AA-dependent noncapacitative Ca
2+ current in HEK cells that also requires cPLA
2 [
156]. However, other G
qPCRs require both PLA
2 and DAGL activity and AA release to regulate a variety of cellular processes [
156–
163], documenting widespread association between DAGL and cPLA
2. These questions and many others arise from contemplating the predictions of this simple new model; the answers of which may be as surprising as what the field has discovered so far on how lipids regulate VGCC activity.