Skip to main content
The Journal of Physiology logoLink to The Journal of Physiology
. 2017 Oct 11;595(22):6793–6795. doi: 10.1113/JP274495

CrossTalk proposal: Proton permeation through HV1 requires transient protonation of a conserved aspartate in the S1 transmembrane helix

Thomas E DeCoursey 1,
PMCID: PMC5685829  PMID: 29023793

Here I present evidence in support of the premise that H+ selective permeation through the voltage gated proton channel HV1 involves obligatory protonation/deprotonation of an aspartic acid residue (Asp112 in human HV1) in the middle of the S1 transmembrane helix. An alternative view is the ‘frozen water’ mechanism, in which the channel traps one or more water molecules that block cation flux but permit Grotthuss‐style proton hopping. I concede at the outset that the issue is not resolved and is not in fact resolvable based on current evidence.

The historical basis for evaluating HV1 conduction mechanisms was a series of measurements of the biophysical properties of H+ currents. For over a decade the fundamental paradigm was to compare proton fluxes through HV1 with those through gramicidin (Table 1), known to be a cylindrical pore through which ions and water permeate in single file (Rosenberg & Finkelstein, 1978; Wallace & Ravikumar, 1988). The characteristics of H+ current through gramicidin differ from proton conduction in bulk water, but H+ conduction through HV1 is radically different from both (Table 1). Hence, many papers from this era concluded that the pathway through HV1 is more complex than a water‐filled pore and includes obligatory protonation/deprotonation of at least one amino acid side‐chain (DeCoursey & Cherny, 1994, 1997, 1998).

Table 1.

Proton conduction through water, gramicidin, and HV1 channels

Property Bulk water Gramicidin HV1
Selectivity (PH+/P Na +) 71 38–1502 >106–108 (3)
Deuterium isotope effect (IH+/ID+) 1.414 1.355 1.96
Activation energy (kcal mol−1) 2.67 4.88 18–279

The activation energy is for proton permeation through open channels. The temperature dependence of gramicidin includes measurements on dioxolane‐linked channels. 1Robinson & Stokes, 1959; 2Myers & Haydon, 1972; 3DeCoursey, 2003; 4Lewis & Doody, 1933; 5Akeson & Deamer, 1991; Chernyshev et al. 2003; 6DeCoursey & Cherny, 1997; 7Robinson & Stokes, 1959; 8Akeson & Deamer, 1991; 9DeCoursey & Cherny, 1998. This table was reprinted with minor changes from: DeCoursey TE. (2008). Voltage‐gated proton channels: what's next? J Physiol 586, 5305–5324.

This interpretation has been questioned, most explicitly by Ramsey and colleagues (2010), although others have espoused the view that H+ permeates HV1 via a water wire (Wood et al. 2012; Pupo et al. 2014). What follows are six relevant properties of HV1 currents, which to my knowledge are not in dispute, and their implications for the conduction mechanism.

Selectivity

HV1 is extremely selective for H+, excluding all other ions. This extraordinary selectivity can be explained by invoking obligatory protonation/deprotonation of a titratable group during permeation (Nagle & Morowitz, 1978). Just such a group was identified as a perfectly conserved (among at least 140 species in the National Centre for Biotechnology Information database) Asp in the middle of the S1 transmembrane helix. Proton selectivity is compromised if this critical Asp is mutated to a neutral amino acid, converting the channel to anion selectivity (Musset et al. 2011). In a reduced quantum mechanical model of the selectivity filter of HV1, interaction of H3O+ with the Asp and Arg side‐chains sufficed to produce H+ selective conduction, while excluding other ions (Dudev et al. 2015). Similarly, obligatory protonation/deprotonation of His37 imparts H+ selectivity to the M2 influenza A viral proton channel (Pinto et al. 1997).

Anomalous Gu+ permeation

Despite its selectivity for H+ (DeCoursey, 2003), at non‐physiologically high pH HV1 appears to conduct guanidinium ions, Gu+ (DeCoursey, 2013). The anomalous permeation of this foreign ion was attributed to its ability to denature proteins by breaking hydrogen bonds and disrupting water structure (DeCoursey, 2013). H+ selective permeation is proposed to occur when H3O+ protonates Asp, breaking its hydrogen bonds with Arg, leaving a neutral H2O molecule bridging the two side‐chains (Dudev et al. 2015). Gu+ can break salt bridges between Glu and Arg or Lys by interacting specifically with carboxylate groups (Meuzelaar et al. 2015); thus it permeates HV1 by violating the hydrogen bonds that occlude the pore to other ions. If the HV1 conduction pathway were a simple water wire, it is difficult to fathom why Gu+ would permeate but smaller or larger cations would not.

Deuterium isotope effect

The deuterium isotope effect on current amplitude is 1.9 (H+/D+) (DeCoursey & Cherny, 1997), much greater than that for H+ conduction in bulk water or in the water‐filled pore of gramicidin (Table 1). The isotope effect for bulk H+ mobility is 1.4 (Lewis & Doody, 1933). Other molecules whose H+ transport pathways involve protonation/deprotonation of amino acids exhibit higher isotope effects (Blair & Berg, 1990; DeCoursey & Cherny, 1997). The isotope effect of 2 in the M2 proton channel (Mould et al. 2000) is consistent with His protonation/deprotonation kinetics. Because D+ binds more tightly than H+, the pK a of many proteins increases in heavy water; a carboxyl group binds D+ threefold more tightly than H+ (Schowen, 1977). The isotope effect is consistent with protonation/deprotonation of Asp112 during each conduction event.

HV1 has extraordinary temperature dependence

Both permeation and gating of HV1 have a higher Q 10 (the factor by which a rate increases for a 10°C increase in temperature) than almost any other ion channel, 2–3 and 6–9, respectively (DeCoursey & Cherny, 1998; Kuno et al. 2009). The Q 10 for permeation in other ion channels is typically 1.2–1.5 (DeCoursey & Cherny, 1998), like that for ion conductivity in bulk solution. This suggests either that diffusive entry into the pore of other channels is rate determining, or their permeation path mimics aqueous diffusion. The temperature dependence of H+ conductivity in bulk solution is lower than that of other ions, so the high Q 10 for permeation through HV1 indicates an energetically difficult pathway. For example, rotation of a protonated side‐chain could advance the proton across a narrow hydrophobic region. An imidazolium ring flip likely occurs during H+ conduction in the M2 viral proton channel, which also has a high Q 10 (Lin & Schroeder, 2001; Hu et al. 2010). In contrast, H+ permeates the gramicidin water wire easily, with Q 10 1.35 (Table 1). In addition, the apparent mobility of H+ inside gramicidin is not much lower than in bulk solution (Cukierman, 2000). Ion carriers and pumps exhibit high Q 10 in the range of HV1 (Blair & Berg, 1990; DeCoursey & Cherny, 1998). A telling example is the Shaker voltage sensing domain with the Arg→His mutation R365H, in which the introduced His acts as a proton carrier, shuttling protons with a Q 10 of 2.6 (Starace et al. 1997).

Permeation is rate limiting

In contrast with the water‐filled pore of gramicidin (Decker & Levitt, 1988), diffusion of protonated buffer to the HV1 channel is not rate limiting because the current decreases only slightly when buffer concentration is lowered 100‐fold, from 100 to 1 mm (DeCoursey & Cherny, 1996). At even lower buffer concentration, 150 μm, H+ current through M2 channels was decreased by 89% (Mould et al. 2000). H+ current through the gramicidin water wire is roughly proportional to [H+] over many orders of magnitude (DeCoursey, 2003). In contrast, the HV1 unitary conductance increases only 3.7‐fold unit−1 as pHi is lowered (Cherny et al. 2003).

Kinetic competence

The HV1 permeation mechanism must be capable of conducting at least 105 H+ s−1. This gives a mean transit time of ≤10 μs at pHi 5.5 at 120 mV above E H with a unitary conductance of 140 fS (Cherny et al. 2003). The gramicidin water‐filled pore can conduct up to 2 × 109 H+ s−1 (Cukierman, 2000); showing that a water wire is kinetically competent, if not excessively so. Nagle and Morowitz estimated that a generic hydrogen bonded chain (HBC) involving amino acid side‐chains might conduct 4 × 105 H+ s−1 (Nagle & Morowitz, 1978). The Shaker voltage sensing domain with R362H mutation acts as a hyperpolarization‐activated proton channel, with the introduced His shuttling 5.6 × 104 H+ s−1 (Starace & Bezanilla, 2004). Carbonic anhydrase II shuttles protons via His64 and is the fastest known enzyme, with a turnover rate of 106 s−1 (Rowlett & Silverman, 1982). These examples show that obligatory proton shuttling by an amino acid side‐chain (including protonation, side‐chain excursion, and deprotonation) can occur at appropriate rates.

Future solutions

One could measure water flux. Rapid water flux through HV1 would argue against the frozen water model, but could be compatible with ion exclusion as occurs in aquaporins. NMR could detect the protonation state and protonation kinetics of key amino acids. High‐resolution crystal structures of open and closed HV1 channels might show the presence or absence of a fully‐formed water wire capable of transferring H+. Then again they might not.

Call for comments

Readers are invited to give their views on this and the accompanying CrossTalk articles in this issue by submitting a brief (250 word) comment. Comments may be submitted up to 6 weeks after publication of the article, at which point the discussion will close and the CrossTalk authors will be invited to submit a ‘Last Word’. Please email your comment, including a title and a declaration of interest, to jphysiol@physoc.org. Comments will be moderated and accepted comments will be published online only as ‘supporting information’ to the original debate articles once discussion has closed.

Additional information

Competing interests

None declared.

Funding

Support: NIH 1R01GM102336, NSF MCB‐1242985.

Biography

Thomas E. DeCoursey's scientific path meandered through a childhood highlighted by summers spent in King's Canyon and Wind Cave National Parks, then to Cincinnati (mentor: Shirley H Bryant), Glasgow (Otto F Hutter), Irvine, California (Michael D Cahalan), and finally Rush University in Chicago where he is Professor of Physiology & Biophysics. Potassium and other channels served as ‘gateway’ channels leading to the discovery of voltage‐gated proton channels in mammals in 1991. For the past quarter century his focus has been on all aspects of proton channels, from their critical roles in phagocytes and dinoflagellates to site‐directed mutagenesis aimed at elucidating structure‐function relationships.

graphic file with name TJP-595-6793-g001.gif

Linked articles This article is part of a CrossTalk debate. Click the links to read the other articles in this debate: https://doi.org/10.1113/JP274553, https://doi.org/10.1113/JP274982 and https://doi.org/10.1113/JP274984.

References

  1. Akeson M & Deamer DW (1991). Proton conductance by the gramicidin water wire. Model for proton conductance in the F1F0 ATPases? Biophys J 60, 101–109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Blair DF & Berg HC (1990). The MotA protein of E. coli is a proton‐conducting component of the flagellar motor. Cell 60, 439–449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cherny VV, Murphy R, Sokolov V, Levis RA & DeCoursey TE (2003). Properties of single voltage‐gated proton channels in human eosinophils estimated by noise analysis and by direct measurement. J Gen Physiol 121, 615–628. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chernyshev A, Pomès R & Cukierman S (2003). Kinetic isotope effects of proton transfer in aqueous and methanol containing solutions, and in gramicidin A channels. Biophys Chem 103, 179–190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cukierman S (2000). Proton mobilities in water and in different stereoisomers of covalently linked gramicidin A channels. Biophys J 78, 1825–1834. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Decker ER & Levitt DG (1988). Use of weak acids to determine the bulk diffusion limitation of H+ ion conductance through the gramicidin channel. Biophys J 53, 25–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. DeCoursey TE (2003). Voltage‐gated proton channels and other proton transfer pathways. Physiol Rev 83, 475–579. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. DeCoursey TE (2013). Voltage‐gated proton channels: molecular biology, physiology, and pathophysiology of the HV family. Physiol Rev 93, 599–652. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. DeCoursey TE & Cherny VV (1994). Voltage‐activated hydrogen ion currents. J Membr Biol 141, 203–223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. DeCoursey TE & Cherny VV (1996). Effects of buffer concentration on voltage‐gated H+ currents: does diffusion limit the conductance? Biophys J 71, 182–193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. DeCoursey TE & Cherny VV (1997). Deuterium isotope effects on permeation and gating of proton channels in rat alveolar epithelium. J Gen Physiol 109, 415–434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. DeCoursey TE & Cherny VV (1998). Temperature dependence of voltage‐gated H+ currents in human neutrophils, rat alveolar epithelial cells, and mammalian phagocytes. J Gen Physiol 112, 503–522. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dudev T, Musset B, Morgan D, Cherny VV, Smith SM, Mazmanian K, DeCoursey TE & Lim C (2015). Selectivity mechanism of the voltage‐gated proton channel, HV1. Sci Rep 5, 10320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hu F, Luo W & Hong M (2010). Mechanisms of proton conduction and gating in influenza M2 proton channels from solid‐state NMR. Science 330, 505–508. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kuno M, Ando H, Morihata H, Sakai H, Mori H, Sawada M & Oiki S (2009). Temperature dependence of proton permeation through a voltage‐gated proton channel. J Gen Physiol 134, 191–205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Lewis GN & Doody TC (1933). The mobility of ions in H2H2O. J Am Chem Soc 55, 3504–3506. [Google Scholar]
  17. Lin TI & Schroeder C (2001). Definitive assignment of proton selectivity and attoampere unitary current to the M2 ion channel protein of influenza A virus. J Virol 75, 3647–3656. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Meuzelaar H, Panman MR & Woutersen S (2015). Guanidinium‐induced denaturation by breaking of salt bridges. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 54, 15255–15259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Mould JA, Li HC, Dudlak CS, Lear JD, Pekosz A, Lamb RA & Pinto LH (2000). Mechanism for proton conduction of the M2 ion channel of influenza A virus. J Biol Chem 275, 8592–8599. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Musset B, Smith SME, Rajan S, Morgan D, Cherny VV & DeCoursey TE (2011). Aspartate 112 is the selectivity filter of the human voltage‐gated proton channel. Nature 480, 273–277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Myers VB & Haydon DA (1972). Ion transfer across lipid membranes in the presence of gramicidin A. II. The ion selectivity. Biochim Biophys Acta 274, 313–322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Nagle JF & Morowitz HJ (1978). Molecular mechanisms for proton transport in membranes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 75, 298–302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Pinto LH, Dieckmann GR, Gandhi CS, Papworth CG, Braman J, Shaughnessy MA, Lear JD, Lamb RA & DeGrado WF (1997). A functionally defined model for the M2 proton channel of influenza A virus suggests a mechanism for its ion selectivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94, 11301–11306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Pupo A, Baez‐Nieto D, Martinez A, Latorre R & González C (2014). Proton channel models: filling the gap between experimental data and the structural rationale. Channels (Austin) 8, 180–192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ramsey IS, Mokrab Y, Carvacho I, Sands ZA, Sansom MSP & Clapham DE (2010). An aqueous H+ permeation pathway in the voltage‐gated proton channel Hv1. Nat Struct Mol Biol 17, 869–875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Robinson RA & Stokes RH (1959). Electrolyte Solutions. Butterworths, London. [Google Scholar]
  27. Rosenberg PA & Finkelstein A (1978). Interaction of ions and water in gramicidin A channels: streaming potentials across lipid bilayer membranes. J Gen Physiol 72, 327–340. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Rowlett RS & Silverman DN (1982). Kinetics of the protonation of buffer and hydration of CO2 catalyzed by human carbonic anhydrase II. J Am Chem Soc 104, 6737–6741. [Google Scholar]
  29. Schowen RL (1977). Solvent isotope effects on enzymic reactions In Isotope Effects on Enzyme‐catalyzed Reactions, eds Cleland WW, O'Leary MH. & Northrop DB, pp. 64–99. University Park Press, Baltimore. [Google Scholar]
  30. Starace DM & Bezanilla F (2004). A proton pore in a potassium channel voltage sensor reveals a focused electric field. Nature 427, 548–553. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Starace DM, Stefani E & Bezanilla F (1997). Voltage‐dependent proton transport by the voltage sensor of the Shaker K+ channel. Neuron 19, 1319–1327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Wallace BA & Ravikumar K (1988). The gramicidin pore: crystal structure of a cesium complex. Science 241, 182–187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Wood ML, Schow EV, Freites JA, White SH, Tombola F & Tobias DJ (2012). Water wires in atomistic models of the Hv1 proton channel. Biochim Biophys Acta 1818, 286–293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Physiology are provided here courtesy of The Physiological Society

RESOURCES