4.8 Article

An amantadine-sensitive chimeric BM2 ion channel of influenza B virus has implications for the mechanism of drug inhibition

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0910584106

关键词

inhibition; binding site; proton-selective

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 AI- 20201, R01 Al-57363]
  2. Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Influenza A virus M2 (A/M2) and the influenza B virus BM2 are both small integral membrane proteins that form proton-selective ion channels. Influenza A virus A/M2 channel is the target of the antiviral drug amantadine (and its methyl derivative rimantadine), whereas BM2 channel activity is not affected by the drug. The atomic structure of the pore-transmembrane (TM) domain peptide has been determined by x-ray crystallography [Stouffer et al. (2008) Nature 451: 596-599] and of a larger M2 peptide by NMR methods [Schnell and Chou (2008) Nature 451: 591-595]. The crystallographic data show electron density (at 3.5 angstrom resolution) in the channel pore, consistent with amantadine blocking the pore of the channel. In contrast, the NMR data show 4 rimantadine molecules bound on the outside of the helices toward the cytoplasmic side of the membrane. Drug binding includes interactions with residues 40-45 and a polar hydrogen bond between rimantadine and aspartic acid residue 44 (D44). These 2 distinct drug-binding sites led to 2 incompatible drug inhibition mechanisms. We have generated chimeric channels between amantadine-sensitive A/M2 and amantadine-insensitive BM2 designed to define the drug-binding site. Two chimeras containing 5 residues of the A/M2 ectodomain and residues 24-36 of the A/M2 TM domain show 85% amantadine/rimantadine sensitivity and specific activity comparable to that of WT BM2. These functional data suggest that the amantadine/rimantadine binding site identified on the outside of the 4 helices is not the primary site associated with the pharmacologic inhibition of the A/M2 ion channel.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据