Reply from Pei‐Chi Yang, Jonathan D. Moreno, Mao‐Tsuen Jeng, Xander H. T. Wehrens, Sergei Noskov and Colleen E. Clancy

Pei-Chi Yang, J. Moreno, Mao-Tsuen Jeng, X. Wehrens, S. Noskov, C. Clancy
{"title":"Reply from Pei‐Chi Yang, Jonathan D. Moreno, Mao‐Tsuen Jeng, Xander H. T. Wehrens, Sergei Noskov and Colleen E. Clancy","authors":"Pei-Chi Yang, J. Moreno, Mao-Tsuen Jeng, X. Wehrens, S. Noskov, C. Clancy","doi":"10.1113/JP273143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We appreciate Williams et al. (2016) taking the time to comment on our recently published study (Yang et al. 2016). In their letter, the authors question the ‘usefulness’ of the computational modelling and simulation approaches that we used in part because as they state, ‘The blocking parameters used in Yang et al. (2016) are based on values reported in Hilliard et al. (2010) and subsequent publications from the same group.’ This statement does not reflect the careful process that we actually used in building our modelling approaches, where we rather considered the full range of experimentally measured IC50 values for flecainide interaction that have been reported in multiple studies. In addition to the assumption of IC50 = 0 μM (i.e. no interaction with RyR) as reported by the Williams group (Bannister et al. 2015), we reported the following in our paper (Yang et al. 2016): ‘Isoproterenol-stimulated Ca2+ waves in CASQ2 knockout (KO) CASQ2(−/−) mice were inhibited by flecainide with an IC50 of 2.0 ± 0.2 μM (Hwang et al. 2011), while other experimental preparations measured an IC50 range from 2 to 17 μM (Brunton et al. 2010; Hilliard et al. 2010; Hwang et al. 2011; Mehra et al. 2014) . . . We also predicted cases for variable flecainide IC50 = 3, 4, and 5 μM shown in Fig. 1.’ The model simulations led to the predictions that IC50 values above 5 μM are too low to show therapeutic benefit to normalize the catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) phenotype. An alternative interpretation is that the concentration of flecainide near the receptor is considerably higher than in the bulk water compartments, a possibility supported by our physics-based approach (Fig. 5 in Yang et al. 2016) that shows accumulation of flecainide on the membrane surface and very favourable conditions for neutral flecainide in the hydrophobic core of the membrane. Detailed investigations into membrane partitioning of drugs are ongoing in our group. The point of the simulations in our study was to make predictions about the necessary and sufficient targets of flecainide and the range of IC50 that would allow for normalization of the CPVT phenotype since the experimental literature has shown such variety in reported values. When we started the investigation reported in Yang et al. (2016), we had no preconceived intent or notion about the results. The predictions are the resulting outputs of the model, and suggest that Na+ channel block alone is not sufficient to prevent the CPVT phenotype. The critical point here is that the disparity in sensitivity of the dose–response for flecainide interaction with the RyR depends on the experimental approach being used. This issue has been the subject of discussion by others (Steele et al. 2013; Sikkel et al. 2013b; Smith & MacQuaide, 2015). Williams et al. describe their recent work in their letter. It is important to mention, however, the numerous other studies that report alternative data and explanations. Some in native myocytes show very clear effects of flecainide on spontaneous Ca2+ release (i.e. Ca2+ waves) under experimental conditions where cytosolic [Ca2+] and [Na+] are clamped, demonstrating a direct action of flecainide on RyR2-mediated sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR) Ca2+ release (Savio-Galimberti & Knollmann, 2015; Hilliard et al., 2010; Galimberti & Knollmann, 2011). Moreover, in native myocytes, flecainide does not inhibit physiological Ca2+ current-induced SR Ca2+ release but only inhibits spontaneous SR Ca2+ release, which occurs in the setting of diastolic [Ca2+] (i.e. 100 nM) (Hilliard et al. 2010). Such conditions are difficult to model using RyR2 channels incorporated into artificial bilayers and hence were never tested by the group of Williams et al. Other studies demonstrate a clear benefit of flecainide in the clinical CPVT setting, but not in experiments with other Na+ channel blockers (Watanabe et al. 2009; Hwang et al. 2011; van der Werf et al. 2011). Williams et al. performed single-channel experiments in an experimental model comprising phosphatidylethanolamine (PE) bilayers to show that flecainide does not block ion current by binding to a site within the cytosolic domain of the pore-forming domain of RyR2. However, other data and the physics-based computational approaches in our paper suggest that lipophilic drug access may be critical and is a vital component of drug interactions with membrane protein targets such as RyR2. The potential of mean force calculations we performed in our study suggest that flecainide concentration in the lipid phase could be substantially greater than what would be expected in the bilayer studies. Carvedilol is another example of a very hydrophobic/lipophilic drug that interacts with RyR2 without blocking unitary conductance in single-channel experiments. Liposome partitioning experiments suggest that up to 90% of carvedilol molecules are lipid-phase localized (Cheng et al. 1996). The lipophilic access mechanism would imply different dose–response ratios and use-dependent features of drug interaction with the RyR2 target in contrast to a single-site drug block mechanism endorsed by Williams et al. It is important to point out that lipophilic access mechanisms have been shown recently for various membrane targets found in the heart (Lees-Miller et al. 2015; Boiteux et al. 2014) and are likely to exist for RyR2 given the lipophilicity of many drugs interacting with this channel. Williams et al. have undertaken valuable biophysical studies using purified recombinant channels in artificial lipid bilayers. We argue, however, that such a system is far removed from the physiological reality and cannot unequivocally prove the absence of a flecainide interaction with RYR2 channels in a native cellular environment. For example, Cannon et al. (2003) reconstituted RyR2 into a bilayer composed by 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoylphosphatidylethanolamine (POPE) and 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-phosphatidylcholine (POPC) showing that channel activity depends critically on the bilayer composition. Another study showed that the polyunsaturated fatty acid eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) exerts its antiarrhythmic effect by reducing the opening probability of RyR2 (Swan et al. 2003). This is important, because the artificial bilayer used by Williams et al. was composed of 100% (PE), but the actual SR lipid content from dog hearts showed the presence of triglycerides, cholesterol and other phospholipids like phosphatidylinositol (PI), phosphatidylcholine (PC), sphingomyelin (SM) and phosphatidylserine (PS). Most of these","PeriodicalId":22512,"journal":{"name":"The Japanese journal of physiology","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Japanese journal of physiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1113/JP273143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

We appreciate Williams et al. (2016) taking the time to comment on our recently published study (Yang et al. 2016). In their letter, the authors question the ‘usefulness’ of the computational modelling and simulation approaches that we used in part because as they state, ‘The blocking parameters used in Yang et al. (2016) are based on values reported in Hilliard et al. (2010) and subsequent publications from the same group.’ This statement does not reflect the careful process that we actually used in building our modelling approaches, where we rather considered the full range of experimentally measured IC50 values for flecainide interaction that have been reported in multiple studies. In addition to the assumption of IC50 = 0 μM (i.e. no interaction with RyR) as reported by the Williams group (Bannister et al. 2015), we reported the following in our paper (Yang et al. 2016): ‘Isoproterenol-stimulated Ca2+ waves in CASQ2 knockout (KO) CASQ2(−/−) mice were inhibited by flecainide with an IC50 of 2.0 ± 0.2 μM (Hwang et al. 2011), while other experimental preparations measured an IC50 range from 2 to 17 μM (Brunton et al. 2010; Hilliard et al. 2010; Hwang et al. 2011; Mehra et al. 2014) . . . We also predicted cases for variable flecainide IC50 = 3, 4, and 5 μM shown in Fig. 1.’ The model simulations led to the predictions that IC50 values above 5 μM are too low to show therapeutic benefit to normalize the catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) phenotype. An alternative interpretation is that the concentration of flecainide near the receptor is considerably higher than in the bulk water compartments, a possibility supported by our physics-based approach (Fig. 5 in Yang et al. 2016) that shows accumulation of flecainide on the membrane surface and very favourable conditions for neutral flecainide in the hydrophobic core of the membrane. Detailed investigations into membrane partitioning of drugs are ongoing in our group. The point of the simulations in our study was to make predictions about the necessary and sufficient targets of flecainide and the range of IC50 that would allow for normalization of the CPVT phenotype since the experimental literature has shown such variety in reported values. When we started the investigation reported in Yang et al. (2016), we had no preconceived intent or notion about the results. The predictions are the resulting outputs of the model, and suggest that Na+ channel block alone is not sufficient to prevent the CPVT phenotype. The critical point here is that the disparity in sensitivity of the dose–response for flecainide interaction with the RyR depends on the experimental approach being used. This issue has been the subject of discussion by others (Steele et al. 2013; Sikkel et al. 2013b; Smith & MacQuaide, 2015). Williams et al. describe their recent work in their letter. It is important to mention, however, the numerous other studies that report alternative data and explanations. Some in native myocytes show very clear effects of flecainide on spontaneous Ca2+ release (i.e. Ca2+ waves) under experimental conditions where cytosolic [Ca2+] and [Na+] are clamped, demonstrating a direct action of flecainide on RyR2-mediated sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR) Ca2+ release (Savio-Galimberti & Knollmann, 2015; Hilliard et al., 2010; Galimberti & Knollmann, 2011). Moreover, in native myocytes, flecainide does not inhibit physiological Ca2+ current-induced SR Ca2+ release but only inhibits spontaneous SR Ca2+ release, which occurs in the setting of diastolic [Ca2+] (i.e. 100 nM) (Hilliard et al. 2010). Such conditions are difficult to model using RyR2 channels incorporated into artificial bilayers and hence were never tested by the group of Williams et al. Other studies demonstrate a clear benefit of flecainide in the clinical CPVT setting, but not in experiments with other Na+ channel blockers (Watanabe et al. 2009; Hwang et al. 2011; van der Werf et al. 2011). Williams et al. performed single-channel experiments in an experimental model comprising phosphatidylethanolamine (PE) bilayers to show that flecainide does not block ion current by binding to a site within the cytosolic domain of the pore-forming domain of RyR2. However, other data and the physics-based computational approaches in our paper suggest that lipophilic drug access may be critical and is a vital component of drug interactions with membrane protein targets such as RyR2. The potential of mean force calculations we performed in our study suggest that flecainide concentration in the lipid phase could be substantially greater than what would be expected in the bilayer studies. Carvedilol is another example of a very hydrophobic/lipophilic drug that interacts with RyR2 without blocking unitary conductance in single-channel experiments. Liposome partitioning experiments suggest that up to 90% of carvedilol molecules are lipid-phase localized (Cheng et al. 1996). The lipophilic access mechanism would imply different dose–response ratios and use-dependent features of drug interaction with the RyR2 target in contrast to a single-site drug block mechanism endorsed by Williams et al. It is important to point out that lipophilic access mechanisms have been shown recently for various membrane targets found in the heart (Lees-Miller et al. 2015; Boiteux et al. 2014) and are likely to exist for RyR2 given the lipophilicity of many drugs interacting with this channel. Williams et al. have undertaken valuable biophysical studies using purified recombinant channels in artificial lipid bilayers. We argue, however, that such a system is far removed from the physiological reality and cannot unequivocally prove the absence of a flecainide interaction with RYR2 channels in a native cellular environment. For example, Cannon et al. (2003) reconstituted RyR2 into a bilayer composed by 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoylphosphatidylethanolamine (POPE) and 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-phosphatidylcholine (POPC) showing that channel activity depends critically on the bilayer composition. Another study showed that the polyunsaturated fatty acid eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) exerts its antiarrhythmic effect by reducing the opening probability of RyR2 (Swan et al. 2003). This is important, because the artificial bilayer used by Williams et al. was composed of 100% (PE), but the actual SR lipid content from dog hearts showed the presence of triglycerides, cholesterol and other phospholipids like phosphatidylinositol (PI), phosphatidylcholine (PC), sphingomyelin (SM) and phosphatidylserine (PS). Most of these
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我们感谢Williams et al.(2016)花时间评论我们最近发表的研究(Yang et al. 2016)。在他们的信中,作者质疑我们使用的计算建模和模拟方法的“有用性”,部分原因是正如他们所说,“Yang等人(2016)使用的阻塞参数是基于Hilliard等人(2010)和同一组后续出版物中报告的值。”“这种说法并没有反映出我们在建立模型方法时实际使用的仔细过程,我们考虑的是在多个研究中报告的氟氯胺相互作用的全部实验测量IC50值。”除了IC50 = 0μM的假设(即不与RyR)据威廉姆斯集团(班尼斯特et al . 2015年),我们在论文报告以下(杨et al . 2016年):“Isoproterenol-stimulated Ca2 +波CASQ2淘汰赛(KO) CASQ2(−−)老鼠被氟卡尼的IC50 2.0±0.2μM(黄et al . 2011年),而其他实验准备测定IC50范围从2到17μM(勃氏et al . 2010;Hilliard et al. 2010;Hwang et al. 2011;Mehra et al. 2014)…如图1所示,我们还预测了可变氟氯胺IC50 = 3、4和5 μM的病例。模型模拟预测,IC50值高于5 μM太低,无法显示治疗效果,无法使儿茶酚胺能多态性室性心动过速(CPVT)表型正常化。另一种解释是,受体附近的flecainide浓度明显高于大水隔室,我们基于物理的方法支持了这种可能性(Yang等人2016年的图5),该方法显示了flecainide在膜表面的积累,以及在膜疏水核心中中性flecainide的非常有利条件。我们小组正在对药物的膜分配进行详细的研究。在我们的研究中,模拟的目的是预测flecainide的必要和充分的靶点,以及IC50的范围,这将允许CPVT表型正常化,因为实验文献已经显示了报道值的多样性。当我们开始Yang et al.(2016)报道的调查时,我们对结果没有先入为主的意图或概念。预测是模型的结果输出,并表明仅Na+通道阻断不足以阻止CPVT表型。这里的关键点是氟氯胺与RyR相互作用的剂量反应灵敏度的差异取决于所使用的实验方法。这个问题已经被其他人讨论过(Steele et al. 2013;Sikkel et al. 2013;Smith & MacQuaide, 2015)。Williams等人在信中描述了他们最近的工作。然而,重要的是要提到,许多其他研究报告了不同的数据和解释。一些天然肌细胞在细胞浆[Ca2+]和[Na+]被固定的实验条件下,显示出flecainide对自发Ca2+释放(即Ca2+波)的非常明显的影响,表明flecainide对ryr2介导的肌浆网(SR) Ca2+释放有直接作用(Savio-Galimberti & Knollmann, 2015;Hilliard et al., 2010;Galimberti & Knollmann, 2011)。此外,在天然肌细胞中,flecainide不抑制生理Ca2+电流诱导的SR Ca2+释放,而只抑制自发性SR Ca2+释放,这发生在舒张[Ca2+](即100 nM)的环境中(Hilliard等人,2010)。这样的条件很难使用纳入人工双层的RyR2通道来建模,因此Williams等人的研究小组从未对其进行过测试。其他研究表明氟氯胺在临床CPVT中有明显的益处,但在其他Na+通道阻滞剂的实验中没有(Watanabe et al. 2009;Hwang et al. 2011;van der Werf et al. 2011)。Williams等人在包含磷脂酰乙醇胺(PE)双层的实验模型中进行了单通道实验,表明flecainide不会通过结合RyR2成孔结构域的细胞质区域内的一个位点来阻断离子电流。然而,我们论文中的其他数据和基于物理的计算方法表明,亲脂性药物通路可能是关键的,并且是药物与膜蛋白靶点(如RyR2)相互作用的重要组成部分。我们在研究中进行的平均力计算的潜力表明,脂相中的氟氯胺浓度可能大大高于双分子层研究中预期的浓度。卡维地洛是另一种非常疏水/亲脂的药物,在单通道实验中与RyR2相互作用而不阻断单一电导。脂质体分配实验表明,高达90%的卡维地洛分子是脂相定位的(Cheng et al. 1996)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The substantia nigra modulates proximal colon tone and motility in a vagally-dependent manner in the rat. Mechanisms of Hebbian‐like plasticity in the ventral premotor – primary motor network Maternal obesity: influencing the heart right from the start Motor unit dysregulation following 15 days of unilateral lower limb immobilisation Back to the beginning: can we stop brain injury before it starts?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1