Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2021 Jan 27;153(2):e202012706. doi: 10.1085/jgp.202012706

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

© 2021 Catacuzzeno et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike–No Mirror Sites license for the first six months after the publication date (see http://www.rupress.org/terms/). After six months it is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 4.0 International license, as described at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).

PMC Copyright notice

Figure 8. — Contribution of the changes in the energy peak and well to the kinetic change of gating currents. (A) Total energy profiles (Gtot) of the voltage sensor assessed at +30 mV of applied potential using our Brownian model, with a relative dielectric constant of the WA region of the gating pore set to either 20 (black) or 60 (blue), in order to predict the effect of the I287T mutation. (B) Macroscopic gating currents predicted for the energy profiles in A using the Fokker–Planck equation. The initial condition of the simulation is a probability density function placing all voltage sensors at the first well of the energy profile (x_S4 = −1.425 nm). (C–F) Starting from the WT model, the energy profile was manually altered to selectively lower the second well (brown trace in C) or the first barrier (green trace in E). The effects of these changes on the time course of the macroscopic gating currents, predicted using the Fokker–Planck equation, are shown in D and F, respectively.