FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2008092682> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2008092682 endingPage "86" @default.
• W2008092682 startingPage "85" @default.
• W2008092682 abstract "HomeCirculation ResearchVol. 91, No. 2Connexin Diversity Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBConnexin DiversityDiscriminating the Message Mario Delmar Mario DelmarMario Delmar From the Department of Pharmacology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY. Search for more papers by this author Originally published26 Jul 2002https://doi.org/10.1161/01.RES.0000028342.56448.9FCirculation Research. 2002;91:85–86In cardiac electrophysiology, gap junctions are often conceptualized as passive resistors that allow for electrical charge to move between cells. From that standpoint, gap junctions seem like rigid structures that sit idle between cells as small ions traverse across. Yet, although the importance of gap junctions in electrical synchronization is not questioned, it is generally accepted that these structures are more than electrical elements. Indeed, gap junctions are highly regulable molecular complexes present in the vast majority of cells in the body, including many cell types that are electrically nonexcitable. In addition to allowing the passage of ions, gap junctions allow the passage of small molecules as well. Hence, gap junctions provide not only electrical coupling to excitable cells but also metabolic coupling to all cell types where they are present.1 Yet, although the nature of the message that carries electrical information is rather well understood (ions carrying charge), the nature of the molecule(s) providing metabolic coupling is mostly unknown. The answer to the obvious question remains elusive: what goes through gap junctions in living cells?The answer to this question is complicated by the fact that not all gap junctions are exactly the same. Gap junctions are formed by the oligomerization of a protein called connexin (Figure). Six connexin subunits noncovalently bind to form a hemichannel (or connexon); two connexons, one provided by each cell, dock their extracellular domains and open a hydrophilic pore into the neighboring cytoplasmic spaces, forming a gap junction channel. Twenty connexins have been identified in the human genome.2 Each connexin forms a channel with a signature unitary conductance and voltage dependence.1 Not all connexins act as substrates for the same kinases, and only a few are known to associate with either scaffolding proteins,3 microtubules,4 or other intracellular proteins.5 As such, a gap junction channel formed by one connexin isotype may function quite differently from another, built by a different isotype. In fact, genetic manipulation studies show that connexins are not interchangeable. Indeed, malformations caused by the absence of one connexin are not prevented when the missing connexin is substituted by a different isotype.6,7 Given that individual connexins seem to have such a strong identity, it is reasonable to speculate that the molecular messages that can traverse across a gap junction would be different depending on the type of connexin that is present. Download figureDownload PowerPointConnexins are the protein subunits that form gap junctions. Six connexins oligomerize to form a connexon (or hemichannel). Two connexons, one provided by each cell, dock in the extracellular space to form a gap junction channel. These channels cluster into gap junction plaques, which are found at the site of cell-cell apposition. In the case of cardiac myocytes, gap junctions are mostly found at the intercalated disk, where they control the passage of electrical and molecular information between cells.Adding to the complexity is the fact that many cells express more than one connexin isotype. Atrial myocytes, for example, express both Cx40 and Cx43, which oligomerize into the same hemichannel.8 In other words, atrial connexons may be heteromeric, with anywhere between 1 and 5 subunits being of one connexin (eg, Cx40) and the rest from the alternative isotype (Cx43). The question then is whether, in the case of a gap junction channel made out of two different connexins, the properties of the channel are dictated by the dominant behavior of one subunit or by the sum of the individual properties of each connexin in the complex.The elegant studies of Valiunas et al,9 published in this issue of Circulation Research, bring us a step closer to understanding the functional consequences of connexin diversity. These authors have combined two techniques previously used independently to study gap junctions: patch clamp and dye transfer. Through a series of simple calculations, the authors estimate the number of Lucifer yellow molecules that traverse a gap junction channel depending on the connexin isotype that is present: Cx40, Cx43, or a combination of both. The findings are clear: Lucifer yellow passes with much more ease through a Cx43 channel than a Cx40 channel. Indeed, whereas 1351 molecules of Lucifer yellow can move through a Cx43 channel in one second, only 272 molecules pass when the gap junction is formed by Cx40. Comparing the ratio of potassium to Lucifer yellow permeability gives a similar result: the ratio is more than an order of magnitude higher in the case of Cx43. Interestingly, the numbers for heteromeric Cx40/Cx43 channels fall in between those obtained for the homomeric pairs. These data convincingly support the hypothesis that the ability of a molecule to navigate a gap junction is a function of the molecular composition of that particular channel. The findings are as robust as they are significant. It is tempting to speculate, for example, that variations in connexin expression within a tissue may be a key component of any remodeling process. A case in point may be that of atrial fibrillation, where it has been shown that the ratio of atrial Cx40/Cx43 expression is regionally modified.10 Could that be translated into a different type of intercellular message that may differentially regulate myocyte gene expression and control cardiac remodeling? In general, the results of this study suggest that the diversity of connexins translates into a diverse set of filters that can be placed between cells to control the flux of molecular information as it is proper to that particular cell group, under a particular set of conditions.Although the nature of the molecules still remains to be determined, this study improves our understanding of the properties that are relevant for a molecule to move (or not) through a cardiac connexin channel. The results also support previous evidence indicating that, at least in the case of Cx40 and Cx43, a mixed channel is not dominated by one isotype. Instead, properties are added (either linearly or not11,12) to bring about a functional unit with unique characteristics. This democratic organization brings to the system enormous flexibility (and complexity), as separate individuals keep their identity but, at the same time, integrate into a unified structure to preserve the function of the cell.Connexin is not the only family of channel proteins that is composed of multiple isotypes. Yet, because of the peculiarities of the channel, connexins have been actively studied to determine what molecules, other than ions, move through, and which functions (other than the one relevant to electrophysiology) they cover. The data presented in this study and in others (see Reference 1 for review) clearly show that connexin diversity carries multiple functional implications, many of them unrelated to the electrical behavior of the organ. One must wonder if this is a fact exclusive to the connexin family. Take for example the potassium channels. Numerous integral membrane proteins have the ability to form a hydrophilic, potassium selective pore. But is that their only function? Could they also have a different role in cell homeostasis, maybe through their association with other intracellular proteins and/or extracellular molecules? Could that be a partial explanation for the large diversity of potassium channel-forming genes?In summary, the study by Valiunas et al9 represents a very valuable contribution to the gap junction field and has implications for other ion channels as well. Their data emphasize the fact that connexins may act as selectivity filters for molecular information, and that the composition of such filters can be modulated by the combination of individual subunits in a somewhat democratic fashion. The big questions are still outstanding. But this study moves us one significant step closer to the long-sought answers.The opinions expressed in this editorial are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.FootnotesCorrespondence to Mario Delmar, MD, PhD, Department of Pharmacology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, 766 Irving Ave, Syracuse, NY 13210. E-mail [email protected] References 1 Harris AL. Emerging issues of connexin channels: biophysics fills the gap. Q Rev Biophys. 2001; 34: 325–472.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Willecke K, Elberger J, Degen J, Eckardt D, Romualdi A, Guldenagel M, Deutsch U, Sohl G. Structural and functional diversity of connexin genes in the mouse and human genome. Biol Chem. 2002; 383: 725–737.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 Toyofuku T, Yabuki M, Otsu K, Kuzuya T, Hori M, Tada M. Direct association of the gap junction protein connexin-43 with ZO-1 in cardiac myocytes. J Biol Chem. 1998; 273: 12725–12731.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Giepmans BN, Verlaan I, Hengeveld T, Janssen H, Calafat J, Falk MM, Moolenaar WH. Gap junction protein connexin-43 interacts directly with microtubules. Curr Biol. 2001; 11: 1364–1368.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 Giepmans BN, Hengeveld T, Postma FR, Moolenaar WH. Interaction of c-Src with gap junction protein connexin-43: role in the regulation of cell-cell communication. J Biol Chem. 2001; 276: 8544–8549.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 Plum A, Hallas G, Magin T, Dombrowski F, Hagendorff A, Schumacher B, Wolpert C, Kim J, Lamers WH, Evert M, Meda P, Traub O, Willecke K. Unique and shared functions of different connexins in mice. Curr Biol. 2000; 10: 1083–1091.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 White TW. Unique and redundant connexin contributions to lens development. Science. 2002; 295: 319–320.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 Elenes S, Rubart M, Moreno AP. Junctional communication between isolated pairs of canine atrial cells is mediated by homogeneous and heterogeneous gap junction channels. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 1999; 10: 990–1004.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Valiunas V, Beyer EC, Brink PR. Cardiac gap junction channels show quantitative differences in selectivity. Circ Res. 2002; 91: 104–111.LinkGoogle Scholar10 van der Velden HM, Ausma J, Rook MB, Hellemons AJ, van Veen TA, Allessie MA, Jongsma HJ. Gap junctional remodeling in relation to stabilization of atrial fibrillation in the goat. Cardiovasc Res. 2000; 46: 476–486.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11 Gu H, Ek-Vitorin JF, Taffet SM, Delmar M. Coexpression of connexins 40 and 43 enhances the pH sensitivity of gap junctions: a model for synergistic interactions among connexins. Circ Res. 2000; 86: e98–e103.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12 He DS, Burt JM. Mechanism and selectivity of the effects of halothane on gap junction channel function. Circ Res. 2000; 86: e104–e109.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar eLetters(0)eLetters should relate to an article recently published in the journal and are not a forum for providing unpublished data. Comments are reviewed for appropriate use of tone and language. Comments are not peer-reviewed. Acceptable comments are posted to the journal website only. Comments are not published in an issue and are not indexed in PubMed. Comments should be no longer than 500 words and will only be posted online. References are limited to 10. Authors of the article cited in the comment will be invited to reply, as appropriate.Comments and feedback on AHA/ASA Scientific Statements and Guidelines should be directed to the AHA/ASA Manuscript Oversight Committee via its Correspondence page.Sign In to Submit a Response to This Article Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Valiunas V, Cohen I and Brink P (2018) Defining the factors that affect solute permeation of gap junction channels, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Biomembranes, 10.1016/j.bbamem.2017.07.002, 1860:1, (96-101), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2018. Roy S, Jiang J, Li A and Kim D (2017) Connexin channel and its role in diabetic retinopathy, Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2017.06.001, 61, (35-59), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2017. Just A, Kurtz L, de Wit C, Wagner C, Kurtz A and Arendshorst W (2009) Connexin 40 Mediates the Tubuloglomerular Feedback Contribution to Renal Blood Flow Autoregulation, Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 10.1681/ASN.2008090943, 20:7, (1577-1585), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2009. Yao J, Suwa M, Li B, Kawamura K, Morioka T and Oite T (2003) ATP-Dependent Mechanism for Coordination of Intercellular Ca2+ Signaling and Renin Secretion in Rat Juxtaglomerular Cells, Circulation Research, 93:4, (338-345), Online publication date: 22-Aug-2003. Hua V, Chang A, Tchieu J, Kumar N, Nielsen P and Saier M (2003) Sequence and Phylogenetic Analyses of 4 TMS Junctional Proteins of Animals: Connexins, Innexins, Claudins and Occludins, The Journal of Membrane Biology, 10.1007/s00232-003-2026-8, 194:1, (59-76), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2003. July 26, 2002Vol 91, Issue 2 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/01.RES.0000028342.56448.9FPMID: 12142338 Originally publishedJuly 26, 2002 Keywordsconnexingap junctionsion channelsPDF download Advertisement" @default.
• W2008092682 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2008092682 creator A5051953374 @default.
• W2008092682 date "2002-07-26" @default.
• W2008092682 modified "2023-10-05" @default.
• W2008092682 title "Connexin Diversity" @default.
• W2008092682 cites W1964525036 @default.
• W2008092682 cites W1967697465 @default.
• W2008092682 cites W2048297880 @default.
• W2008092682 cites W2057645778 @default.
• W2008092682 cites W2100618296 @default.
• W2008092682 cites W2113284357 @default.
• W2008092682 cites W2140769225 @default.
• W2008092682 cites W2152669066 @default.
• W2008092682 cites W2161194374 @default.
• W2008092682 cites W2161305913 @default.
• W2008092682 doi "https://doi.org/10.1161/01.res.0000028342.56448.9f" @default.
• W2008092682 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12142338" @default.
• W2008092682 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W2008092682 type Work @default.
• W2008092682 sameAs 2008092682 @default.
• W2008092682 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W2008092682 countsByYear W20080926822017 @default.
• W2008092682 countsByYear W20080926822018 @default.
• W2008092682 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2008092682 hasAuthorship W2008092682A5051953374 @default.
• W2008092682 hasBestOaLocation W20080926821 @default.
• W2008092682 hasConcept C158157758 @default.
• W2008092682 hasConcept C2780228694 @default.
• W2008092682 hasConcept C79879829 @default.
• W2008092682 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2008092682 hasConcept C95444343 @default.
• W2008092682 hasConceptScore W2008092682C158157758 @default.
• W2008092682 hasConceptScore W2008092682C2780228694 @default.
• W2008092682 hasConceptScore W2008092682C79879829 @default.
• W2008092682 hasConceptScore W2008092682C86803240 @default.
• W2008092682 hasConceptScore W2008092682C95444343 @default.
• W2008092682 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2008092682 hasLocation W20080926821 @default.
• W2008092682 hasLocation W20080926822 @default.
• W2008092682 hasLocation W20080926823 @default.
• W2008092682 hasOpenAccess W2008092682 @default.
• W2008092682 hasPrimaryLocation W20080926821 @default.
• W2008092682 hasRelatedWork W1641042124 @default.
• W2008092682 hasRelatedWork W1965808925 @default.
• W2008092682 hasRelatedWork W1990804418 @default.
• W2008092682 hasRelatedWork W1993764875 @default.
• W2008092682 hasRelatedWork W2082860237 @default.
• W2008092682 hasRelatedWork W2130076355 @default.
• W2008092682 hasRelatedWork W2342113106 @default.
• W2008092682 hasRelatedWork W4312381484 @default.
• W2008092682 hasRelatedWork W4377024647 @default.
• W2008092682 hasRelatedWork W4381429753 @default.
• W2008092682 hasVolume "91" @default.
• W2008092682 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2008092682 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2008092682 magId "2008092682" @default.
• W2008092682 workType "article" @default.