↓ Skip to main content

Mechanisms Underlying the Strong Inhibition of Muscle-Type Nicotinic Receptors by Tetracaine

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mechanisms Underlying the Strong Inhibition of Muscle-Type Nicotinic Receptors by Tetracaine
Published in
Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnmol.2018.00193
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raúl Cobo, Magdalena Nikolaeva, Armando Alberola-Die, Gregorio Fernández-Ballester, José M. González-Ros, Isabel Ivorra, Andrés Morales

Abstract

Nicotinic acetylcholine (ACh) receptors (nAChRs) are included among the targets of a variety of local anesthetics, although the molecular mechanisms of blockade are still poorly understood. Some local anesthetics, such as lidocaine, act on nAChRs by different means through their ability to present as both charged and uncharged molecules. Thus, we explored the mechanisms of nAChR blockade by tetracaine, which at physiological pH is almost exclusively present as a positively charged local anesthetic. The nAChRs from Torpedo electroplaques were transplanted to Xenopus oocytes and the currents elicited by ACh (I ACh s), either alone or co-applied with tetracaine, were recorded. Tetracaine reversibly blocked I ACh , with an IC 50 (i.e., the concentration required to inhibit half the maximum I ACh ) in the submicromolar range. Notably, at very low concentrations (0.1 μM), tetracaine reduced I ACh in a voltage-dependent manner, the more negative potentials produced greater inhibition, indicating open-channel blockade. When the tetracaine concentration was increased to 0.7 μM or above, voltage-independent inhibition was also observed, indicating closed-channel blockade. The I ACh inhibition by pre-application of just 0.7 μM tetracaine before superfusion of ACh also corroborated the notion of tetracaine blockade of resting nAChRs. Furthermore, tetracaine markedly increased nAChR desensitization, mainly at concentrations equal or higher than 0.5 μM. Interestingly, tetracaine did not modify desensitization when its binding within the channel pore was prevented by holding the membrane at positive potentials. Tetracaine-nAChR interactions were assessed by virtual docking assays, using nAChR models in the closed and open states. These assays revealed that tetracaine binds at different sites of the nAChR located at the extracellular and transmembrane domains, in both open and closed conformations. Extracellular binding sites seem to be associated with closed-channel blockade; whereas two sites within the pore, with different affinities for tetracaine, contribute to open-channel blockade and the enhancement of desensitization, respectively. These results demonstrate a concentration-dependent heterogeneity of tetracaine actions on nAChRs, and contribute to a better understanding of the complex modulation of muscle-type nAChRs by local anesthetics. Furthermore, the combination of functional and virtual assays to decipher nAChR-tetracaine interactions has allowed us to tentatively assign the main nAChR residues involved in these modulating actions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Professor 2 13%
Other 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 27%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 5 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 November 2020.
All research outputs
#5,976,200
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
#796
of 2,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,331
of 331,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
#41
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,930 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,157 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.