Dharia S and Rabbitt RD (2011), Monitoring voltage-dependent charge displacemen...

XB-ART-42884

PLoS One 2011 Feb 04;62:e17363. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017363.

Show Gene links Show Anatomy links

Monitoring voltage-dependent charge displacement of Shaker B-IR K+ ion channels using radio frequency interrogation.

Dharia S , Rabbitt RD .

Abstract
Here we introduce a new technique that probes voltage-dependent charge displacements of excitable membrane-bound proteins using extracellularly applied radio frequency (RF, 500 kHz) electric fields. Xenopus oocytes were used as a model cell for these experiments, and were injected with cRNA encoding Shaker B-IR (ShB-IR) K(+) ion channels to express large densities of this protein in the oocyte membranes. Two-electrode voltage clamp (TEVC) was applied to command whole-cell membrane potential and to measure channel-dependent membrane currents. Simultaneously, RF electric fields were applied to perturb the membrane potential about the TEVC level and to measure voltage-dependent RF displacement currents. ShB-IR expressing oocytes showed significantly larger changes in RF displacement currents upon membrane depolarization than control oocytes. Voltage-dependent changes in RF displacement currents further increased in ShB-IR expressing oocytes after ∼120 µM Cu(2+) addition to the external bath. Cu(2+) is known to bind to the ShB-IR ion channel and inhibit Shaker K(+) conductance, indicating that changes in the RF displacement current reported here were associated with RF vibration of the Cu(2+)-linked mobile domain of the ShB-IR protein. Results demonstrate the use of extracellular RF electrodes to interrogate voltage-dependent movement of charged mobile protein domains--capabilities that might enable detection of small changes in charge distribution associated with integral membrane protein conformation and/or drug-protein interactions.

PubMed ID: 21387000
PMC ID: PMC3046147
Article link: PLoS One
Grant support: [+]

Species referenced: Xenopus laevis
Genes referenced: shb

Article Images: [+] show captions

	Figure 1. Set-up and circuit model.A) Changes in RF membrane impedance (\|ÎZRF\|) during TEVC were measured by passing RF current from an electrode surrounding the meridian of the cell (black) to a ground electrode (media, above the cell). Contour lines and colors of the saggital cross-section of a cell in the recording chamber, shown here, illustrate the general spatial distribution of the RF electric potential expected based on the Maxwell equations for a passive cell under axisymmetric conditions (Ï/4 phase shown). B) A circuit model of the chamber including the shunt resistance (Rs,), membrane impedance (Zm), intracellular resistance (Ri), and electrode double layer (Zdl). C) Using the circuit model, the frequency-dependent RF impedance would change (Î\|ZRF\|) with an increase or decrease in membrane capacitance â a change that would be most easily detectable at frequency Ï* where the maxima of the \|ÎZRF\| occurs. The present study reports changes in RF impedance \|ÎZRF\| evoked by TEVC step changes in membrane potential.
	Figure 2. Temporally Resolved RF Measurements.A) RF impedance changes (\|ÎZRF\|) measured during TEVC relative to the impedance at holding potential (â90 mV) in control oocytes, expressing endogenous proteins only (nâ=â10, left column), and ShB-IR expressing oocytes (nâ=â9, right column). ShB-IR expressing oocytes elicited a membrane-potential-dependent (Vm) RF response different than control oocytes. RF impedance changes were analyzed in two regions; the RF response during the onset of voltage-step (o, average \|ÎZRF\|o 0â1 ms after voltage step, dVm/dt > 0) and the RF response after membrane potential achieved its command (steady-state) level (s, average \|ÎZRF\|s 5â35 ms after voltage step, dVm*/dt â 0). B) TEVC current measurements were used to verify ion-channel expression and responses (leak current subtracted, capacitive transient unsubtracted) to C) whole-cell voltage-clamp.
	Figure 3. Steady-state RF response for ShB-IR and Control Cells.A) Significant (xpâ=â.1, *pâ=â.05) voltage-dependent differences in \|ÎZRF\| s were observed between control oocytes, expressing endogenous proteins only (âEndoâ, orange), and ShB-IR expressing oocytes (express both endogenous and ShB-IR proteins, âShB-IR + Endoâ, brown). The âEndoâ response was subtracted from the âShB-IR + Endoâ response to estimate the isolated RF response from the ShB-IR channels only (âShB-IR onlyâ, blue). Error bars denote +/â standard errors of the mean (SEM). B) The SEM for the isolated ShB-IR proteins (âShB-IR onlyâ, blue) was also estimated by subtracting the SEM from the control oocytes (âEndoâ, orange) from the SEM associated with the ShB-IR expressing oocytes (âShB-IR + Endoâ, brown). The SEM for isolated ShB-IR expressing oocytes was largest near the half-activation potential for these ion channels. C) ShB-IR channel expression and voltage-dependent whole-cell current was verified using TEVC, and this data was used to estimate ShB-IR conductance (G/Gmax, inset).
	Figure 4. Copper treatment and steady-state ShB-IR RF response.A) Voltage-dependent differences in \|ÎZRF\|s were observed between Shaker expressing oocytes (âShB-IR + Endoâ, green line) and the same cells exposed to â¼120 ÂµM Cu2+ (purple line). A similar effect was apparent, albeit to a lesser extent, for control cells before (âEndoâ, green markers)/after Cu2+ treatment (purple markers). Error bars denote +/â standard errors of the mean (SEM). B) Even though RF charge displacements increased in Cu2+-exposed ShB-IR expressing oocytes, TEVC whole-cell current decreased showing that Cu2+ successfully blocked the channels (channel conductance shown as inset).
	Figure 5. Onset RF Response in ShB-IR Expressing Oocytes.Changes in RF impedance during the onset of voltage-clamp (\|ÎZRF\|o, 0â1 ms after whole-cell depolarization) were slightly depressed in control oocytes with the addition of Cu2+ (Cu2+-free - green markers, Cu2+ addition - purple markers), but were significantly greater in ShB-IR expressing oocytes (Cu2+-free - green line, Cu2+ addition - purple line).

References [+] :

Armstrong, Inactivation of the sodium channel. II. Gating current experiments. 1977, Pubmed

	Figure 1. Set-up and circuit model.A) Changes in RF membrane impedance (\|ÎZRF\|) during TEVC were measured by passing RF current from an electrode surrounding the meridian of the cell (black) to a ground electrode (media, above the cell). Contour lines and colors of the saggital cross-section of a cell in the recording chamber, shown here, illustrate the general spatial distribution of the RF electric potential expected based on the Maxwell equations for a passive cell under axisymmetric conditions (Ï/4 phase shown). B) A circuit model of the chamber including the shunt resistance (Rs,), membrane impedance (Zm), intracellular resistance (Ri), and electrode double layer (Zdl). C) Using the circuit model, the frequency-dependent RF impedance would change (Î\|ZRF\|) with an increase or decrease in membrane capacitance â a change that would be most easily detectable at frequency Ï* where the maxima of the \|ÎZRF\| occurs. The present study reports changes in RF impedance \|ÎZRF\| evoked by TEVC step changes in membrane potential.
	Figure 2. Temporally Resolved RF Measurements.A) RF impedance changes (\|ÎZRF\|) measured during TEVC relative to the impedance at holding potential (â90 mV) in control oocytes, expressing endogenous proteins only (nâ=â10, left column), and ShB-IR expressing oocytes (nâ=â9, right column). ShB-IR expressing oocytes elicited a membrane-potential-dependent (Vm) RF response different than control oocytes. RF impedance changes were analyzed in two regions; the RF response during the onset of voltage-step (o, average \|ÎZRF\|o 0â1 ms after voltage step, dVm/dt > 0) and the RF response after membrane potential achieved its command (steady-state) level (s, average \|ÎZRF\|s 5â35 ms after voltage step, dVm*/dt â 0). B) TEVC current measurements were used to verify ion-channel expression and responses (leak current subtracted, capacitive transient unsubtracted) to C) whole-cell voltage-clamp.
	Figure 3. Steady-state RF response for ShB-IR and Control Cells.A) Significant (xpâ=â.1, *pâ=â.05) voltage-dependent differences in \|ÎZRF\| s were observed between control oocytes, expressing endogenous proteins only (âEndoâ, orange), and ShB-IR expressing oocytes (express both endogenous and ShB-IR proteins, âShB-IR + Endoâ, brown). The âEndoâ response was subtracted from the âShB-IR + Endoâ response to estimate the isolated RF response from the ShB-IR channels only (âShB-IR onlyâ, blue). Error bars denote +/â standard errors of the mean (SEM). B) The SEM for the isolated ShB-IR proteins (âShB-IR onlyâ, blue) was also estimated by subtracting the SEM from the control oocytes (âEndoâ, orange) from the SEM associated with the ShB-IR expressing oocytes (âShB-IR + Endoâ, brown). The SEM for isolated ShB-IR expressing oocytes was largest near the half-activation potential for these ion channels. C) ShB-IR channel expression and voltage-dependent whole-cell current was verified using TEVC, and this data was used to estimate ShB-IR conductance (G/Gmax, inset).
	Figure 4. Copper treatment and steady-state ShB-IR RF response.A) Voltage-dependent differences in \|ÎZRF\|s were observed between Shaker expressing oocytes (âShB-IR + Endoâ, green line) and the same cells exposed to â¼120 ÂµM Cu2+ (purple line). A similar effect was apparent, albeit to a lesser extent, for control cells before (âEndoâ, green markers)/after Cu2+ treatment (purple markers). Error bars denote +/â standard errors of the mean (SEM). B) Even though RF charge displacements increased in Cu2+-exposed ShB-IR expressing oocytes, TEVC whole-cell current decreased showing that Cu2+ successfully blocked the channels (channel conductance shown as inset).
	Figure 5. Onset RF Response in ShB-IR Expressing Oocytes.Changes in RF impedance during the onset of voltage-clamp (\|ÎZRF\|o, 0â1 ms after whole-cell depolarization) were slightly depressed in control oocytes with the addition of Cu2+ (Cu2+-free - green markers, Cu2+ addition - purple markers), but were significantly greater in ShB-IR expressing oocytes (Cu2+-free - green line, Cu2+ addition - purple line).