Paradoxical Stimulation of a DEG/ENaC Channel by Amiloride*

Christopher M. AdamsDagger , Peter M. Snyder, and Michael J. Welsh§

From the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Departments of Internal Medicine and Physiology and Biophysics, University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa 52242

    ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Extracellular amiloride inhibits all known DEG/ENaC ion channels, including BNC1, a proton-activated human neuronal cation channel. Earlier studies showed that protons cause a conformational change that activates BNC1 and exposes residue 430 to the extracellular solution. Here we demonstrate that, in addition to blocking BNC1, amiloride also exposes residue 430. This result suggested that, like protons, amiloride might be capable of activating the channel. To test this hypothesis, we introduced a mutation in the BNC1 pore that reduces amiloride block, and found that amiloride stimulated these channels. Amiloride inhibition was voltage-dependent, suggesting block within the pore, whereas stimulation was not, suggesting binding to an extracellular site. These data show that amiloride can have two distinct effects on BNC1, and they suggest two different interaction sites. The results suggest that extracellular amiloride binding may have a stimulatory effect similar to that of protons in BNC1 or extracellular ligands in other DEG/ENaC channels.

    INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

A characteristic shared by DEG/ENaC cation channels is that extracellular amiloride inhibits their current. The ability of amiloride to inhibit the human epithelial Na+ channel (ENaC) makes it clinically useful as a diuretic (1). Amiloride-sensitivity is also a valuable marker of currents generated by other DEG/ENaC channels from vertebrates, insects, mollusks, and nematodes (2, 3). However, the mechanism of amiloride's action is not understood. For example, some data suggest that amiloride blocks current by occluding the ion-conducting pore (4), whereas other evidence suggests that amiloride binds a predicted extracellular domain of ENaC (5, 6).

The relationship between amiloride block and channel activity is interesting. For example, the Drosophila Na+ channel Ripped Pocket (RPK) generates a minimal Na+ current that is blocked by relatively high concentrations of amiloride (7). However, when RPK contains a "Deg" mutation that increases Na+ current 50-fold, current is blocked by 20 times lower concentrations of amiloride. In this study we further examined the relationship between amiloride and channel activity. The DEG/ENaC channel that we studied was BNC1 (also called MDEG and BNaC1), a proton-gated channel from human neurons that may be involved in synaptic transmission and the sensation of pain and sour taste (8-12). Under basal conditions at neutral extracellular pH, BNC1 generates only a very small whole cell Na+ current (8). However, lowering extracellular pH activates a large transient Na+ current (11).

Like RPK, BNC1 is activated by a Deg mutation, which alters a critical glycine residue at position 430 (9). Residue 430 is a site where analogous mutations in some Caenorhabditis elegans family members cause neurodegeneration (13). In BNC1, mutation of Gly430 to valine or larger amino acids locks the channel in an activated state, even at neutral pH (9). In contrast, mutation of Gly430 to cysteine (BNC1-G430C), generates only small constitutive currents (14), and confers a unique sensitivity to sulfhydryl-reactive methanethiosulfonate (MTS)1 compounds (15). The ability of MTS compounds to modify Cys430 is state-dependent. Under basal conditions at extracellular pH 7.4 with the channel closed, Cys430 is largely protected from extracellular MTS compounds. However when the channel is activated by protons, Cys430 becomes accessible to extracellular MTS compounds, which covalently modify Cys430 to make its side chain larger. As a result, the channel is irreversibly activated because it is unable to return to the inactive state.

In the course of investigating the role of residue 430 in channel activation and in inhibition by amiloride, we made the surprising discovery that under certain conditions amiloride could activate current. Here we describe our investigation of the responsible mechanisms.

    EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

cDNA Constructs-- BNC1 mutants were constructed by single-stranded mutagenesis of BNC1 (8) in pBluescript. The validity of constructs was confirmed by DNA sequencing. Constructs were cloned into pMT3 (16) for expression.

Expression and Electrophysiological Analysis in Xenopus Oocytes-- cDNA constructs were expressed in defolliculated albino Xenopus laevis oocytes (Nasco, Fort Atkinson, WI) by nuclear injection of plasmid DNA. cDNA encoding BNC1-G430C was injected at 5 ng/µl. cDNA encoding BNC1-G430V/G437C was injected at 40 ng/µl. For coexpression of the double mutant BNC1-G430V/G437C with BNC1-G430V, we injected 10 and 2 ng/µl, respectively. For coexpression of BNC1-G430V/G437C with wild-type BNC1, we injected 25 and 5 ng/µl, respectively. Following injection, oocytes were incubated at 18 °C in modified Barth's solution. Generally, cells were studied 12-24 h after injection; however, cells expressing BNC1-G430V/G437C (with or without wild-type BNC1) were studied 36-48 h after injection. Whole cell currents were measured using a two-electrode voltage clamp. During recording, oocytes were bathed in frog Ringer's solution (116 mM NaCl, 0.4 mM CaCl2, 1 mM MgCl2, 5 mM HEPES, pH 7.4). MTS compounds were from Toronto Research Biochemicals (Toronto, Ontario) and included cationic reagents, 2-aminoethyl methanethiosulfonate bromide (MTSEA) and 2-(trimethylammonium)ethyl methanethiosulfonate bromide (MTSET), and an anionic reagent, sodium 2-sulfonatoethyl methanethiosulfonate (MTSES).

    RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Zn2+ Reversibly Activates BNC1-G430C-- In earlier work (15) we showed that when Gly430 was mutated to cysteine, covalent modification of residue 430 by MTS reagents irreversibly locked BNC1-G430C in an activated state. Therefore we hypothesized that a noncovalent interaction between Zn2+ and Cys430 might also activate the channel, but in a reversible way. Fig. 1A shows that extracellular Zn2+ had no effect on current in oocytes expressing wild-type BNC1. However, at neutral extracellular pH, Zn2+ reversibly activated current in oocytes expressing BNC1-G430C (Fig. 1B). The EC50 for activation of BNC1-G430C by Zn2+ was approximately 300 µM (Fig. 1C).


View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   Zn2+ reversibly activates BNC1-G430C. A, effect of extracellular Zn2+ on wild-type BNC1; B, BNC1-G430C; C, effect of Zn2+ concentration on current in BNC1-G430C. Data are mean ± S.E. of percent maximal activation, n = 7. D, Zn2+ allows MTSES (abbreviated ES) to irreversibly activate BNC1-G430C. Zn2+ (100 µM), MTSES (5 mM), and amiloride (1 mM) were present during times indicated by bars. We previously showed that MTSES alone has no effect on BNC1-G430C when extracellular pH is 7.4 (see Ref. 15 and Fig. 3C). In all figures, the 0 indicates zero current and membrane voltage was -60 mV.

Previous studies (15) showed that pH-dependent activation of BNC1-G430C allowed MTS compounds to modify Cys430. Fig. 1D shows that activation by Zn2+ also allowed the MTS compound, MTSES, to modify Cys430 and irreversibly activate the channel. How might both Zn2+ and MTSES interact with Cys430? Because the BNC1 channel is a homomultimer composed of multiple BNC1 subunits (17), it is likely that within one channel there are multiple cysteines with which these agents may interact. Taken together, these data indicate that Zn2+ binds to Cys430 to reversibly activate BNC1-G430C.

Amiloride Increases the Accessibility of Cys430 to Zn2+ and MTS Reagents-- Fig. 2A shows that 100 µM Zn2+ activated BNC1-G430C and that current was blocked by 1 mM amiloride. However, as shown in Fig. 2, B and C, Zn-activated currents were not smaller but larger if a submaximal concentration of amiloride (100 µM) was present. In the absence of Zn2+, amiloride either had no effect (Fig. 2B) or blocked a small amount of current (Fig. 2C), depending on the amount of basal current generated by BNC1-G430C. The combined effects of amiloride and Zn2+ concentrations are shown in Fig. 2D; at low concentrations, amiloride enhanced Zn2+ stimulation of current, and amiloride blocked at high concentrations. Enhanced stimulation in the presence of intermediate amiloride concentrations may also explain the transient current stimulation observed on washing out high concentrations of amiloride and Zn2+ (Fig. 2A).


View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   Amiloride enhances stimulation by extracellular Zn2+. A, effect of 1 mM amiloride on current activated by 100 µM Zn2+; B, effect of 100 µM amiloride and 100 µM Zn2+; C, effect of 100 µM amiloride and 30 µM Zn2+; D, effect of Zn2+ concentration in the presence of indicated concentrations of amiloride. Data are mean ± S.E. from at least six oocytes. All experiments were performed with BNC1-G430C.

These data show that amiloride alone does not stimulate current, but when both amiloride (intermediate concentrations) and Zn2+ are present, current is greater than with Zn2+ alone. One interpretation of these results is that amiloride binds to the channel, and in so doing makes Cys430 more accessible for interaction with Zn2+. In this respect, amiloride might be similar to protons; a decrease in extracellular pH causes a conformational change that exposes Cys430 to the extracellular solution where it can be irreversibly modified by MTS reagents (15).

Therefore, we hypothesized that amiloride causes a conformational change that exposes Cys430 to the extracellular solution. To test this hypothesis, we asked if amiloride would allow MTS reagents to irreversibly modify and activate the channel at pH 7.4. Fig. 3A shows that in the absence of amiloride, MTSEA had little or no effect at pH 7.4. Current remained low when amiloride and MTSEA were simultaneously present in the extracellular solution. However, once amiloride and MTSEA were removed, it was apparent that a large current had been activated; this current was blocked by subsequent treatment with amiloride. We obtained similar results with two other MTS reagents, MTSET and MTSES (Fig. 3, B and C). These results indicate that in the presence of amiloride, MTS reagents irreversibly modified Cys430, locking the channel open. Because the activated channel remained sensitive to amiloride block, current was only apparent after amiloride was removed from the extracellular solution.


View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3.   Amiloride exposes Cys430 to extracellular MTS compounds in BNC1-G430C. Panels A-C, effect of amiloride on modification by 100 µM MTSEA (EA), 100 µM MTSET (ET), or 3 mM MTSES (ES). Amiloride concentration was 300 µM. Because of amiloride block, channel activation was not apparent until amiloride was removed from the extracellular solution. Membrane voltage was -60 mV in panels A and B and -40 mV in panel C.

The G437C Mutation Reduces Sensitivity to Amiloride Block-- Extracellular amiloride and protons shared the ability to expose Cys430 to MTS compounds. However, an important difference between the two interventions was that protons activated current (15), whereas amiloride alone did not. We hypothesized that amiloride might have two effects; like protons, amiloride might bind to one site to stimulate current, but in addition, amiloride might bind to a second site to block the channel. Thus, any stimulatory effect would be obscured by the ability of amiloride to simultaneously block the channel. To test this hypothesis, we asked whether the inhibitory effect of amiloride could be selectively abolished by mutation. We tested a mutation equivalent to a mutation that reduces amiloride block of ENaC: substitution of cysteine for Gly437 (Fig. 4A). Residue 437 lies within the predicted pore-forming second membrane-spanning domain and is highly conserved among DEG/ENaC channels (9). In ENaC subunits, mutations equivalent to G437C had several effects; if present in the beta  or gamma  subunits of the channel, the mutations reduced amiloride block and Na+ conductance. Also, the introduced cysteine could be modified by MTSET to inhibit current (17, 18). However, if present in all ENaC subunits, the mutations abolished channel activity (18).


View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4.   Amiloride stimulates current when the blocking effect of amiloride is attenuated. A, sequence pile-up comparing BNC1 (8) with that of the alpha , beta , and gamma  subunits of human ENaC (25, 26) showing the locations of Gly430 and Gly437 in BNC1; B, inhibition of BNC1-G430V by amiloride. Amiloride concentrations are indicated. C, effect of amiloride on oocytes expressing BNC1-G430V/G437C plus BNC1-G430V in a 5:1 ratio. Amiloride and MTSEA (1 mM) were applied as indicated. D, effect of amiloride on current in cells expressing BNC1-G430V/G437C plus wild-type BNC1 in a 5:1 ratio; E, effect of amiloride on wild-type BNC1. Membrane voltage was -60 mV.

To determine whether the G437C mutation reduced amiloride inhibition, we studied it in the context of BNC1-G430V, which generates large constitutive currents (9, 15). BNC1-G430V generated large currents (904 ± 84 nA; n = 9) that were blocked by amiloride (Fig. 4B). Expression of the double mutant BNC1-G430V/G437C failed to generate current; this was consistent with the observation that mutations abolish ENaC function if present in all subunits of that channel (18). Therefore, we coexpressed BNC1-G430V/G437C with a lesser amount of BNC1-G430V (5:1 ratio). This combination generated large constitutive currents (773 ± 63 nA; n = 10; Fig. 4C) like BNC1-G430V. However in contrast to BNC1-G430V, 3 mM amiloride blocked only 38 ± 4% of the current (n = 6). MTSEA blocked a larger portion of the current (69 ± 3%; n = 6, Fig. 4C). MTSEA block was likely due to covalent modification of Cys437, because block was irreversible, and MTSEA did not block channels that lacked the G437C mutation (wild-type BNC1 or BNC1-G430V; not shown). These data indicate that when subunits containing the G437C mutation are included in a BNC1 channel complex, the sensitivity to block by amiloride is reduced.

A hint of amiloride stimulation came from examining the response to increasing amiloride concentrations (Fig. 4C, left part of trace). Amiloride produced a biphasic response, with inhibition at 100 µM, an increase in current at 1 mM, followed by inhibition at 3 mM. However, because the G430V Deg mutation was present in every subunit, a stimulatory effect of amiloride would be minimized.

Amiloride Stimulates Current in Cells Expressing BNC1-G430V/G437C with Wild-type BNC1-- To test whether amiloride might stimulate BNC1-G430V/G437C, we coexpressed it with a small amount of wild-type BNC1 (5:1 ratio). This combination generated no current on its own; basal current (133 ± 13 nA; n = 10) was not different from that in uninjected cells (not shown). However, addition of amiloride stimulated current (Fig. 4D). In contrast, amiloride did not stimulate wild-type BNC1 (Fig. 4E). Simulation was reversible and evident only at concentrations greater than 100 µM. 3 mM amiloride increased current by 279 ± 40 nA (n = 10). This result, coupled with the ability of amiloride to increase access of residue 430, indicated that amiloride, like protons, could stimulate BNC1.

Amiloride May Interact with Two Different Sites in BNC1-- Because amiloride had two effects (stimulation and inhibition), we hypothesized it might interact with two separate sites in BNC1. To test this idea, we determined the effect of voltage on inhibition and stimulation. Because amiloride is positively charged, effects should be voltage-dependent if the binding site lies within the membrane electrical field. To test inhibition, we studied BNC1-G430V. Block was steeply voltage-dependent, suggesting that amiloride blocked within the membrane electrical field (Fig. 5, A-D). Fig. 5, B and C, shows that block depended on the reversal potential of BNC1 current, suggesting that outward flow of cations prevented amiloride from reaching a blocking site. These results suggest that when amiloride blocks, it binds within the channel pore.


View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5.   Voltage dependence of amiloride block and amiloride stimulation. Panels A-D, amiloride block of BNC1-G430V. Panel A, families of BNC1-G430V currents at voltages ranging from -120 to +60 mV. Holding voltage (Vh) was -20 mV. Amiloride concentration is indicated. Panel B, current-voltage relationship from an oocyte expressing large BNC1-G430V currents. For several minutes before current measurements were made, holding voltage was clamped to 0, -40, or -80 mV, as indicated. When holding voltage was -40 or -80 mV, intracellular Na+ accumulated and the reversal potential became more negative (27). In oocytes expressing ENaC, a similar increase in intracellular [Na+] occurs (26). Once the reversal potential no longer drifted, current was measured during brief 1 s voltage steps in the absence (open symbols) or presence (closed symbols) of 30 µM amiloride. Panel C, current values from panel B normalized to the reversal potential in each condition. Panel D, current-voltage relationship of amiloride-inhibited current. Amiloride concentration was 1 µM (squares), 10 µM (inverted triangles), 100 µM (circles), or 1 mM (triangles). Data are average ± S.E. from six oocytes where Vh was -20 mV. Panels E and F, amiloride stimulation of current in oocytes expressing BNC1-G430V/G437C with wild-type BNC1. Panel E, current-voltage relationship of amiloride-stimulated current. Amiloride concentration was 1 mM (black-square) or 3 mM (open circle ). Data are average ± S.E. from three oocytes. Panel F, families of currents at voltages ranging from -120 mV to +40 mV. Amiloride concentration is indicated.

To test stimulation, we studied oocytes expressing BNC1-G430V/G437C and wild-type BNC1 (5:1 ratio). Fig. 5, E and F, shows that stimulation was not appreciably voltage-dependent. This result suggested that amiloride stimulated the channel by binding a site outside the membrane electrical field, different from the site of amiloride block.

    DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Our data show that amiloride can have two distinct effects on the BNC1 channel and suggest that there may be two different sites of interaction. One site appears to lie within the channel pore; when amiloride interacts with this site it blocks the channel. Three pieces of evidence suggest that amiloride blocks within the channel pore: the voltage dependence suggested block within the membrane electrical field; alteration of the reversal potential and the outward flow of cations reduced block by extracellular amiloride; and block was attenuated by mutation of residue 437, which other data suggest lies within the second membrane-spanning helix (19, 20).

The other site appears to be different from the blocking site; when amiloride interacts there it can cause a conformational change that activates the channel and exposes residue 430 to extracellular MTS reagents. Our data make no predictions about the location of the stimulatory site, except that it is not likely deep within the pore because the transmembrane electrical field has little effect on amiloride-dependent stimulation.

We considered the possibility that amiloride-dependent stimulation might represent the interaction of amiloride at a single site producing open channel block. However, this mechanism does not explain stimulation because net current increased in the presence of amiloride, and amiloride stimulated current in channels that were largely insensitive to amiloride block. Moreover, membrane voltage had an effect on block, but not on stimulation. We also considered the possibility that amiloride might interact with a single binding site that might move during channel gating to give both voltage-dependent and -independent effects. This also seems unlikely, because the G437C mutation selectively attenuated block. Nevertheless, we cannot exclude an interaction at a single site that somehow both blocks and activates the channel; the multimeric nature of BNC1 might allow for such an effect.

Our data suggesting that amiloride may interact with two sites may help explain earlier studies of other DEG/ENaC channels. Studies of ENaC suggest that amiloride might block the pore. First, amiloride block is voltage-dependent (4). Second, amiloride is a more potent blocker in reduced extracellular Na+, suggesting that amiloride and Na+ may compete for a binding site in the channel pore (4). Third, mutations that alter ion conduction or selectivity also alter amiloride block (4, 18, 20, 21). On the other hand, studies of ENaC identified residues in the predicted extracellular domain that bind an amiloride anti-idiotypic antibody; mutation of those sites altered amiloride sensitivity (5). In addition, nonfunctional ENaC splice variants that lack the pore-forming second transmembrane domain but retain much of the extracellular domain retain binding to phenamil (an amiloride derivative) with high specificity (6). These findings are consistent with an extracellular amiloride-binding site on ENaC. The suggestion of two interaction sites in BNC1 raises the question of whether amiloride will have two effects on all DEG/ENaC family members. Alternatively, some family members may lack one or both sites and may not be inhibited by amiloride.

The large extracellular domain may regulate the function of DEG/ENaC channels. In the FMRFamide-activated Na+ channel (FaNaCh), this region may form a ligand-binding site for channel activation (22). Consistent with this possibility, mutations in the predicted extracellular domain reduce sensitivity to FMRFamide.2 In BNC1, ASIC, and DRASIC, this region may be responsible for proton activation (2). In C. elegans DEG/ENaC proteins, genetic studies suggest that this region may interact with extracellular collagen to affect channel gating (23, 24). Our data suggest that there is also an amiloride-binding site in BNC1, perhaps located in the extracellular domain, that can modulate channel activity. Future studies that identify this site may help our understanding of the function of the extracellular domain and could possibly identify agents that activate or inhibit the channels for therapeutic purposes.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Dan Bucher, Dawn Melsson, Ellen Tarr, and Theresa Mayhew for excellent assistance. We especially appreciate the discussions and help of Drs. Margaret Price, Joseph Cotten, and John Rogers. We thank the University of Iowa DNA Core Facility for assistance with sequencing and oligonucleotide synthesis.

    FOOTNOTES

* This work was supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Dagger Predoctoral trainee supported by National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health Grant T32 AG 00214.

§ Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. To whom correspondence should be addressed: Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Iowa College of Medicine, 500 EMRB, Iowa City, IA 52242. Tel.: 319-335-7619; Fax: 319-335-7623; E-mail: mjwelsh{at}blue.weeg.uiowa.edu.

2 J. Rogers and M. J. Welsh, unpublished observations.

    ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations used are: MTS, methanethiosulfonate; MTSEA, 2-aminoethyl methanethiosulfonate bromide; MTSET, 2-(trimethylammonium)ethyl methanethiosulfonate bromide; MTSES, sodium 2-sulfonatoethyl methanethiosulfonate.

    REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
  1. Fyfe, G. K., Quinn, A., and Canessa, C. M. (1998) Semin. Nephrol. 18, 138-151[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Waldmann, R., and Lazdunski, M. (1998) Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 8, 418-424[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. García-Anoveros, J., Garcia, J. A., Liu, J. D., and Corey, D. P. (1998) Neuron 20, 1231-1241[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. McNicholas, C. M., and Canessa, C. M. (1997) J. Gen. Physiol. 109, 681-692[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Ismailov, I. I., Kieber-Emmons, T., Lin, C., Berdiev, B. K., Shlyonsky, V. Gh., Patton, H. K., Fuller, C. M., Worrell, R., Zuckerman, J. B., Sun, W., Eaton, D. C., Benos, D. J., and Kleyman, T. R. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 21075-21083[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Li, X.-J., Xu, R.-H., Guggino, W. B., and Snyder, S. H. (1995) Mol. Pharmacol. 47, 1133-1140[Abstract]
  7. Adams, C. M., Anderson, M. G., Motto, D. G., Price, M. P., Johnson, W. A., and Welsh, M. J. (1998) J. Cell Biol. 140, 143-152[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Price, M. P., Snyder, P. M., and Welsh, M. J. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 7879-7882[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Waldmann, R., Champigny, G., Voilley, N., Lauritzen, I., and Lazdunski, M. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 10433-10436[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. García-Anoveros, J., Derfler, B., Neville-Golden, J., Hyman, B. T., and Corey, D. P. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 1459-1464[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Lingueglia, E., de Weille, J. R., Bassilana, F., Heurteaux, C., Sakai, H., Waldmann, R., and Lazdunski, M. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 29778-29783[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Ugawa, S., Minami, Y., Guo, W., Saishin, Y., Takatsuji, K., Yamamoto, T., Tohyrama, M., and Shimada, S. (1998) Nature 395, 555-556[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Driscoll, M., and Chalfie, M. (1991) Nature 349, 588-593[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Champigny, G., Voilley, N., Waldmann, R., and Lazdunski, M. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 15418-15422[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Adams, C. M., Snyder, P. M., Price, M. P., and Welsh, M. J. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 30204-30207[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Swick, A. G., Janicot, M., Cheneval-Kastelic, T., McLenithan, J. C., and Lane, M. D. (1992) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 89, 1812-1816[Abstract]
  17. Snyder, P. M., Cheng, C., Prince, L. S., Rogers, J. C., and Welsh, M. J. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 681-684[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Schild, L., Schneeberger, E., Gautschi, I., and Firsov, D. (1997) J. Gen. Physiol. 109, 15-26[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Hong, K., and Driscoll, M. (1994) Nature 367, 470-473[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Waldmann, R., Champigny, G., and Lazdunski, M. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 11735-11737[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Fuller, C. M., Berdiev, B. K., Shlyonsky, V. G., Ismailov, I. I., and Benos, D. J. (1997) Biophys. J. 72, 1622-1632[Abstract]
  22. Lingueglia, E., Champigny, G., Lazdunski, M., and Barbry, P. (1995) Nature 378, 730-733[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Liu, J., Schrank, B., and Waterston, R. H. (1996) Science 273, 361-364[Abstract]
  24. Du, H., Gu, G., William, C. M., and Chalfie, M. (1996) Neuron 16, 183-194[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. McDonald, F. J., Snyder, P. M., McCray, P. B., Jr., and Welsh, M. J. (1994) Am. J. Physiol. 266, L728-L734[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. McDonald, F. J., Price, M. P., Snyder, P. M., and Welsh, M. J. (1995) Am. J. Physiol. 268, C1157-C1163[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Adams, C. M., Price, M. P., Snyder, P. M., and Welsh, M. J. (1999) Biophys. J. 76, 1377-1383[Abstract/Free Full Text]


Copyright © 1999 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.