The variation in d2– was the only modification that accounted well for all our observations, including the development of a large steady state
current in the presence of 10 mM glutamate for fast recovering channels (B2P6; compare Figure 2C and Figure 1C). Similarly to our observations for chimeric receptors, the peak current-concentration relation was not changed by variation in the exit rate from AD2 ( Figure 2D). In contrast, reducing CHIR-99021 in vitro bound lifetime on the background of slow recovery (by changing the rates k– and kd–) could not produce the fast recovery of wild-type GluA2 and B2P6. Although slower recovery is possible by slowing dissociation on a fast recovering background, this is accompanied by major shifts and distortions of the concentration
response relation ( Figure 2F). This scenario reproduced well the findings of previous AZD8055 molecular weight reports where mutations at the jaws of the LBDs alter the stability or lifetime of all glutamate bound states ( Robert et al., 2005 and Weston et al., 2006b). However, apparent affinity was altered little in our chimeras, ruling out changes in resting state affinity as the sole explanation for the physiological difference between AMPA and kainate receptors, and between our chimeras. The similar rate of entry to desensitization for AMPA and kainate receptors, and similar peak open probability, rules out significant changes in the transition AR – AD, but variation in the reverse transition (d1–) could conceivably produce different recovery rates – perhaps corresponding to different re-association kinetics of the active LBD dimers. We repeated the simulations, varying the rate of exit from the AD state, again on two backgrounds, slow and fast exit from the AD2 state ( Figure 2G). These simulations failed to give a wide range of recovery rates. Rather, the simulated currents strongly resembled the results of manipulations that stabilize the D1 dimer interface (data not shown). The variation in exit from AD on a background of fast recovery resembled the Cell press effect of the L483Y mutant or allosteric modulators
such as cyclothiazide ( Sun et al., 2002). The same manipulation on a slow background reproduced the effects of stabilizing the GluK2 D1 dimer interface with mutations ( Chaudhry et al., 2009b). More complex covariations of multiple rate constants (or more realistic activation mechanisms) could potentially also recreate our observations. However, the kinetic behavior caused by variation in the lifetime of a deep desensitized state is quite distinct from the effects reported in previously published studies (see above). This distinction drew us to investigate differences between GluA2 and GluK2, located away from previously described sites that could differentially stabilize a glutamate-bound, deep desensitized state.