Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Jan 14;17(1):e0261960. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261960

Differential voltage-dependent modulation of the ACh-gated K+ current by adenosine and acetylcholine

Ana Laura López-Serrano 1,#, Rodrigo Zamora-Cárdenas 1,#, Iván A Aréchiga-Figueroa 2, Pedro D Salazar-Fajardo 1, Tania Ferrer 1, Javier Alamilla 3, José A Sánchez-Chapula 1, Ricardo A Navarro-Polanco 1, Eloy G Moreno-Galindo 1,*
Editor: Roger A Bannister4
PMCID: PMC8759768  PMID: 35030226

Abstract

Inhibitory regulation of the heart is determined by both cholinergic M2 receptors (M2R) and adenosine A1 receptors (A1R) that activate the same signaling pathway, the ACh-gated inward rectifier K+ (KACh) channels via Gi/o proteins. Previously, we have shown that the agonist-specific voltage sensitivity of M2R underlies several voltage-dependent features of IKACh, including the ‘relaxation’ property, which is characterized by a gradual increase or decrease of the current when cardiomyocytes are stepped to hyperpolarized or depolarized voltages, respectively. However, it is unknown whether membrane potential also affects A1R and how this could impact IKACh. Upon recording whole-cell currents of guinea-pig cardiomyocytes, we found that stimulation of the A1R-Gi/o-IKACh pathway with adenosine only caused a very slight voltage dependence in concentration-response relationships (~1.2-fold EC50 increase with depolarization) that was not manifested in the relative affinity, as estimated by the current deactivation kinetics (τ = 4074 ± 214 ms at -100 mV and τ = 4331 ± 341 ms at +30 mV; P = 0.31). Moreover, IKACh did not exhibit relaxation. Contrarily, activation of the M2R-Gi/o-IKACh pathway with acetylcholine induced the typical relaxation of the current, which correlated with the clear voltage-dependent effect observed in the concentration-response curves (~2.8-fold EC50 increase with depolarization) and in the IKACh deactivation kinetics (τ = 1762 ± 119 ms at -100 mV and τ = 1503 ± 160 ms at +30 mV; P = 0.01). Our findings further substantiate the hypothesis of the agonist-specific voltage dependence of GPCRs and that the IKACh relaxation is consequence of this property.

Introduction

Stimulation of both cholinergic muscarinic M2 receptors (M2R) and adenosine A1 receptors (A1R) has an important physiological impact on the electrophysiology and mechanical function of the heart by acting on the same downstream signaling pathway. These receptors activate, via pertussis-toxin-sensitive G-proteins (Gi/o), the acetylcholine (ACh)-gated inward rectifier K+ (KACh) channels [14], which are composed of the G-protein-coupled inwardly rectifying K+ channel subunits, Kir3.1 and Kir3.4 [5]. Once stimulated by M2R or A1R, Gi/o proteins release Gα subunits to ultimately inhibit the cardiac contractility by a cAMP-dependent mechanism, whereas Gβγ subunits directly activate KACh channels to produce electrophysiological effects, such as slowing the heart rate, reducing the action potential duration and the effective refractory period, hyperpolarizing the resting membrane potential, and prolonging the spontaneous diastolic depolarization [2, 4, 6].

Recently, in cat atrial myocytes we have shown that M2R exhibits agonist-specific voltage dependence, where the intrinsic voltage sensitivity of this receptor [79] modifies its affinity for diverse agonists in a ligand-selective manner, which is eventually reflected on the activation of the coupled KACh channels [10]. This property can be distinguished in the deactivation kinetics of the current carried by these channels, IKACh [11]. Also, we previously proposed that this is the molecular mechanism underlying a very distinctive attribute of receptor-stimulated Kir3.x currents (including IKACh), known as relaxation [12], which consists of a time-dependent augment or reduction of the current upon hyperpolarizing or depolarizing, respectively, the cardiomyocyte membrane with voltage steps [13, 14]. Agonists with higher affinity at hyperpolarized potentials induce IKACh to manifest its typical relaxation behavior, whereas those ligands with inverse voltage dependence, i.e., higher affinity at depolarized voltages, lead to this current to display the appearance of an "opposite" relaxation, with delayed rectifying characteristics [12, 15, 16].

Alike as for M2R, voltage sensitivity is an emerging property for several other G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) [1724]. In cardiomyocytes, IKACh is the effector for M2R but also for A1R and it is currently unknown how voltage affects this latter and how this important potassium current is modulated in consequence. However, in cat atrial cells the signaling pathway A1R-Gi/o-IKACh was not functional in our conditions. Therefore, in this work we used guinea-pig atrial myocytes (where this pathway is operative [25, 26]) to assess the effects of membrane potential on the IKACh activation and the ability to induce a voltage-dependent hallmark of the current (relaxation) when the signaling pathway is triggered by adenosine (Ado) through A1R.

Materials and methods

Ethics

Animals were treated humanely following the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals published by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH Publication No. 85–23, revised 1996). The experimental protocol was approved by the Institutional Animal Care Committee of the University of Colima.

Isolation of atrial myocytes

Single myocytes were obtained from the left atrium of adult guinea pigs of either sex (400–600 g) by collagenase/protease enzymatic perfusion as previously described [25]. Guinea pigs were anaesthetized with sodium pentobarbitone (40 mg/kg, I.P.), heparinized (1000 U/kg, I.P.), and then euthanized by excision of the heart en bloc when deeply anesthetized. The lack of pedal withdrawal reflexes was used to check the extent of anesthesia. Isolated myocytes were kept in Kraft-Brühe solution at 4°C for 2–12 h before being used for electrophysiological recordings. The composition of the Kraft-Brühe solution was (in mM): 80 K-glutamate, 40 KCl, 20 taurine, 10 KH2PO4, 5 MgSO4, 10 glucose, 10 Hepes, 0.5 creatine, 10 succinic acid, and 0.2 EGTA; pH was adjusted to 7.4 with KOH. This solution was bubbled with 100% O2.

Electrophysiological recordings

IKACh was recorded from atrial myocytes by means of the whole-cell configuration of the patch-clamp technique. Recordings were obtained using an Axopatch-200B amplifier and a Digidata 1440 A digitizer (Molecular Devices, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), while pulse generation and data acquisition were done using the pCLAMP 10 software (Molecular Devices). Patch pipettes were prepared from borosilicate capillary glass (WPI, Sarasota, FL, USA) and had tip resistance between 1.5 and 3 MΩ. The pipette solution contained (mM): 80 K-aspartate, 20 KCl, 10 KH2PO4, 5 Hepes, 5 K4BAPTA, 1 MgSO4, 0.2 Na-GTP, and 3 Na2ATP; pH was adjusted to 7.25 with KOH. Currents were filtered with a four-pole Bessel filter at 1 kHz and digitized at 5 kHz. The bath was grounded through an agar-KCl bridge. Capacitance and series resistance were compensated to minimize the duration of the capacitive current.

For recordings, the extracellular solution contained (in mM): 136 NaCl, 4 KCl, 10 Hepes, 0.5 CoCl2, 1 MgCl2, 0.1 CaCl2, and 11 glucose (pH was adjusted to 7.35 with NaOH). The rapid delayed rectifier (IKr) and slow delayed rectifier currents (IKs) were blocked by 3 μM E-4031 and 50 μM chromanol 293B, respectively. Recordings for concentration-response (C-R) relationships and for the estimation of the IKACh deactivation kinetics (tau) were carried out at room temperature (22–24°C) and according to previous publications [9, 11]. For these two approaches, inward rectifier current (IK1) was greatly reduced by adding 2 μM BaCl2 in the recording extracellular solution [27]. In addition, a fast perfusion system composed of a triple-barrel glass pipette controlled by an electromechanical switching device (SF-77B, Warner Instruments, Hamden, CT, USA) was used to exchange bath (extracellular) solutions within ~ 250 ms. Voltage-step (square-pulse) protocols were performed at 36 ± 0.5°C and using a standard perfusion system (exchange rate ~1 mL/min) to apply the external solution containing Ado or ACh until reaching steady-state effects, and thereby IKACh was obtained by digitally subtracting control currents from those obtained in the presence of these agonists.

Drugs

Ado and ACh (Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, MO, USA) were dissolved in deionized water to make 10 mM stock solutions and stored at -20°C. Working agonist concentrations were freshly prepared in the recording extracellular solution. E-4031 and chromanol 293B were obtained from Tocris Bioscience (Ellisville, MO, USA), K4BAPTA was acquired from Santa Cruz Technology (Dallas, TX, USA), and all other reagents were from Sigma-Aldrich.

Data analysis

Data analysis was done using pCLAMP 10 (Molecular Devices) and Origin 8 software (OriginLab Corp., Northampton, MA, USA). IKACh deactivation time constants were obtained by fitting a single exponential equation to the current traces. For C-R relationships, the normalized amplitude of IKACh (E) was plotted as a function of the Ado or ACh concentration ([X]). These data were fitted to a Hill equation: E=Emax*XnHEC50n+XnH to estimate EC50 (the half-maximal effective concentration), nH (Hill coefficient), and Emax (the maximum asymptotic value). pEC50 was calculated as the negative logarithm of the EC50.

Statistical analysis

Results are reported as mean ± SEM (n = number of cardiomyocytes). Statistical analyses were performed using the Origin 8 software (OriginLab Corp.). Statistical difference was evaluated by the paired t test after verifying the normal distribution of data with the Shapiro-Wilk test. Otherwise, the Wilcoxon signed rank test was applied. A P value less than 0.05 was considered as significant.

Results

Null or very weak voltage-dependent effects of Ado on the cardiac A1R-Gi/o-IKACh signaling pathway

In previous studies, we described the agonist-specific voltage sensitivity of M2R, where membrane depolarization reduces, augments, or not modifies the receptor activation by several muscarinic agonists [9, 11, 16]. Here, we investigated whether A1R exhibits a voltage-dependent interaction with its physiological agonist Ado, by measuring IKACh activation in guinea pig cardiomyocytes. The effects of different Ado concentrations on IKACh at +30 and -100 mV are shown in Fig 1A. The C-R relationship was marginally shifted to hyperpolarized potentials, displaying a slight but statistically significant (P = 0.03; paired t test) greater potency at the negative potential (Fig 1B and S1 Table). The pEC50 for current activation at +30 mV was 6.54 ± 0.08 (288 nM), while at -100 mV was 6.62 ± 0.07 (240 nM), thereby a ~1.2-fold EC50 increase with depolarization.

Fig 1. Effects of membrane potential on IKACh evoked by Ado through A1R in guinea pig atrial myocytes.

Fig 1

a) Examples of IKACh traces elicited when sequentially perfusing the cells with increasing Ado concentrations and recorded at Vh of +30 mV (red traces) and -100 mV (black traces). The zero current level is indicated by the dashed line. b) C-R relationships for IKACh activated by Ado at Vh +30 mV (red circles) and -100 mV (black squares). The filled symbols represent the current amplitudes normalized to that activated by 100 μM Ado. The solid lines depict the best data fit to a Hill equation. The pEC50 values are reported in the text. The maximum asymptote (0.98 ± 0.01 at +30 mV and 1.00 ± 0.01 at -100 mV) was not significantly altered by voltage (P = 0.16; Wilcoxon signed rank test) neither was the Hill coefficient (1.03 ± 0.12 at +30 mV and 1.02 ± 0.09 at -100 mV) (P = 0.98; paired t test). n = 9 myocytes. For this and subsequent figures, the filled symbols represent the mean values, while the open symbols denote the individual raw data points.

Next, we analyzed the effect of voltage on the deactivation kinetics of IKACh, as this reflects the rate of agonist unbinding, and is therefore a comparative index of affinity [2830]. Fig 2A depicts current traces of IKACh elicited by 10 μM Ado recorded at +30 and -100 mV. The time course of current deactivation was not significantly different at the two holding potentials evaluated (Fig 2B): 4331 ± 341 ms (+30 mV) and 4074 ± 214 ms (at -100 mV; P = 0.31; paired t test), suggesting that the affinity agonist-receptor, assayed by this approach, is not affected by the membrane voltage.

Fig 2. Deactivation of IKACh induced by Ado is not voltage-dependent.

Fig 2

a) Current recordings (IKACh) activated by 10 μM Ado at +30 (red trace) and -100 mV (black trace) to estimate the deactivation kinetics (b). For a, the dashed lines designate the basal current level. n = 7 myocytes. ns = not significant.

Afterwards, we assessed whether the classical IKACh relaxation can be induced by the activation of A1R with Ado, as is characteristic when sub-saturating concentrations of agonist are used [12, 13, 17, 31]. For this purpose, the currents evoked by a sub-saturating (0.3 μM) and a saturating (30 μM) Ado concentration were recorded at -110 mV for 2.5 s, after pre-pulses of 2.5 s between -110 and +50 mV, with 20-mV increments, from a holding potential (Vh) of -50 mV (Fig 3A and 3B). Interestingly, in our experimental conditions the typical voltage-dependent relaxation of IKACh was not generated by any of Ado concentrations, and thus currents at -110 mV (and even those obtained with the pre-pulses) did not exhibit time-dependence, that is to say, a gradual change in current amplitudes was not perceived. This effect was quantified in Fig 3C, where it is illustrated the relationship between the instantaneous current (Iins) at the beginning of the pulse at -110 mV in respect to the maximal current (Imax) at the end of the pulse, as a function of the pre-pulse potential. The fraction of open channels at the pre-pulse potentials, denoted by the ratio Iins/Imax, remained virtually unchanged and it was very similar for both Ado concentrations.

Fig 3. IKACh relaxation is not induced by Ado.

Fig 3

Illustrative steady-state current traces evoked by 0.3 (a) and 30 μM (b) Ado using the square wave voltage protocol shown in the inset. For clarity, currents at voltages -110, -90, -70, -30, +10, and +50 mV are only shown. Iins and Imax are explained in the text. c) Iins/Imax ratio against the pre-pulse potential for the currents elicited by 0.3 (n = 8) and 30 μM Ado (n = 5).

Stimulation of the M2R-Gi/o-IKACh signaling pathway by ACh is voltage-dependent

Given the null or very weak influence of voltage on the IKACh induced by Ado through A1R in guinea-pig cardiomyocytes, we also assessed the effects of ACh on the IKACh activation through M2R in this species using the same experimental conditions (Fig 4A). With ACh-M2R, the C-R relationship obtained at -100 mV was also shifted to the left in comparison to that at +30 mV. However, in contrast to the very weak (EC50 change ~1.2-fold) influence of voltage with Ado-A1R, the voltage-dependent effect to activate IKACh was stronger with ACh-M2R, since at -100 mV pEC50 = 6.34 ± 0.10 (457 nM), whereas at +30 mV pEC50 = 5.90 ± 0.06 (1259 nM) (P = 0.01; paired t test), and hence a ~2.8-fold EC50 increase with depolarization (Fig 4B and S2 Table).

Fig 4. Activation of IKACh by ACh is voltage-dependent.

Fig 4

a) Representative IKACh recordings evoked at +30 mV (red traces) and -100 mV (black traces) by increasing concentrations of ACh. The dashed line symbolizes the zero current level. b) C-R curves for IKACh activation by ACh at both voltages studied (red squares at +30 mV and black circles at -100 mV). Data were fitted to a Hill equation (solid lines). pEC50 are mentioned in the text. Neither the maximum asymptote (1.01 ± 0.01 at +30 mV and 0.98 ± 0.01 at -100 mV) nor the Hill coefficient (1.04 ± 0.06 at +30 mV and 1.23 ± 0.07 at -100 mV) were significantly modified by voltage (P = 0.14 and 0.13, respectively; paired t test). n = 6 myocytes.

Contrary to the results obtained with Ado, we observed that membrane potential affected the deactivation kinetics of IKACh when evoked by ACh-M2R. Indeed, the time course of IKACh deactivation with ACh was significantly slower at -100 mV compared to that at +30 mV (Fig 5A). Time constants for current deactivation were 1762 ± 119 ms at -100 mV versus 1503 ± 160 ms at +30 mV (P = 0.01; paired t test) (Fig 5B), suggesting a higher affinity of ACh for M2R at hyperpolarized potentials.

Fig 5. Voltage-dependent deactivation of IKACh when it is activated by ACh.

Fig 5

a) IKACh generated by 10 μM ACh at +30 (red trace) and -100 mV (black trace) to measure the time course of the deactivation process (b). The basal current level is indicated by the dashed lines in panel a. n = 7 myocytes. *, P = 0.01.

Finally, to verify if the IKACh relaxation property of IKACh can be generated by ACh-M2R, we used the same double-pulse voltage protocol as that for Ado-A1R (inset of Fig 6). With the sub-saturating ACh concentration (0.3 μM), outward currents obtained at depolarized pre-pulses exhibited an instantaneous component followed by a slow time-dependent decrease, whereas hyperpolarization to -110 mV induced a gradual increase of inward currents (Fig 6A). This typical behavior, the IKACh relaxation, was strikingly reduced in the presence of 10 μM ACh, a nearly saturating concentration of this agonist (Fig 6B). With 0.3 μM ACh, the fraction of open channels (Iins/Imax) progressively diminished as pre-pulse potentials were more depolarized, but this effect was greatly attenuated with 10 μM ACh (Fig 6C). These data clearly show that, in contrast to Ado, ACh is able to induce the relaxation property of IKACh.

Fig 6. IKACh relaxation is induced by ACh-M2R.

Fig 6

a) Typical steady-state IKACh traces obtained in the presence of 0.3 (A) and 10 μM ACh (b) with a voltage protocol (inset). For clarity, current traces evoked at voltages -110, -90, -70, -30, +10, and +50 mV are only depicted. c) Fraction of open channels (Iins/Imax) as a function of the pre-pulse potential for the currents evoked by 0.3 and 10 μM ACh. n = 5 for each ACh concentration.

Discussion

Despite M2R and A1R activate the same downstream signaling pathway in cardiac myocytes, in this work we found a differential voltage-dependent modulation of IKACh by the physiological agonists ACh and Ado, that is, a null or very weak influence of voltage on the IKACh evoked by Ado-A1R that made this current to display no relaxation behavior. By contrast, with ACh-M2R a clear voltage-dependent effect was observed on IKACh, as well as the development of the characteristic relaxation of the current.

Our results herein support the agonist-specific voltage sensitivity of GPCRs [9, 11, 21, 22, 32, 33]. Indeed, the slower IKACh deactivation kinetics at hyperpolarized potentials (Fig 5) indicates a greater affinity of ACh towards M2R [8, 28, 30] that explains the leftward shift of the C-R relationship (Fig 4). This correlates with the time-dependent increase of the current upon hyperpolarization; and the opposite with depolarization, thereby giving rise to the relaxation process of IKACh (Fig 6A and 6C). This property is strikingly reduced by high ACh concentrations (Fig 6B and 6C) due to the maximal activation of KACh channels both at negative and positive potentials. These results are consistent with those obtained in feline cardiomyocytes with the superagonist iperoxo [34]. In the activation of the A1R-Gi/o-IKACh pathway with Ado, the slight voltage dependence detected in the C-R curves (Fig 1) was not reflected in the relative affinity assessed by the current deactivation kinetics (Fig 2) [29, 30]; and thus time-dependent changes of the current upon modifying the membrane voltage (relaxation) were not observed (Fig 3).

As a molecular mechanism, our findings are not consistent with the concept that M2R voltage dependence arises from voltage-induced transitions between the high-and low-affinity states of the receptor when coupled or not to its cognate G-protein, respectively [8, 28, 35, 36], since this view is contradictory with evidence showing diverse voltage-dependent effects of different agonists on the same GPCR [11, 15, 16, 21, 22, 32, 33]. Alternatively, our data are more compatible with the idea that membrane potential induces conformational changes directly at the agonist binding (orthosteric) site of GPCRs, independent of G-protein coupling, which determine the modulation of the remainder signaling pathway [9, 11, 15, 20, 22]. Thus, regardless of the same effector of both cardiac signaling pathways, in M2R the hyperpolarization-induced conformational changes (at the orthosteric site and the external access [34, 37]) provoke an increase in the affinity for ACh [8, 11, 28] that yields a higher stimulation of downstream cellular elements. In A1R, it is conceivable that voltage also alters its molecular conformation but in such a manner that only a very slight change in the potency (probably the affinity) for Ado is generated (Fig 1), which is not mirrored in other less sensitive functional assays (deactivation kinetics and currents evoked with voltage step protocols). Interestingly, although Ado activates A1R-IKACh with very slight voltage dependence, our results implicate that A1R possesses voltage sensitivity, which suggests that other adenosine agonists could induce disparate voltage-dependent patterns, as evidenced by the agonist-specific voltage sensitivity of other GPCRs. Using here guinea-pig cardiomyocytes as a cellular model, where A1R and M2R converge in the same effector (IKACh), makes more evident how voltage sensitivity of GPCRs is determinant in the remote modulation of downstream cellular effectors [38].

RGS proteins, particularly RGS4, has been considered responsible for the IKACh relaxation because this property only emerges if this protein is expressed in Xenopus oocytes reconstituted with the other main components of the muscarinic IKACh pathway, i.e., Kir3.1/Kir3.4 subunits and M2R [13, 3941]. Nevertheless, it has been previously shown that relaxation can still arise in oocytes (expressing Kir3.1/Kir3.4 and M2R) that lack RGS4, although on a slower timescale [31], which indeed reinforces the critical role of RGS proteins in the regulation of IKACh kinetics, but convincingly demonstrating that they are not the determining factor of the relaxation mechanism. Furthermore, changes in the intracellular Ca2+ have been argued as a key factor of the IKACh relaxation since this feature is abolished when the efficacious intracellular Ca2+ chelator BAPTA is used [13]. However, we (here and in [12]) and other [31] have been able to reproduce the characteristic relaxation of IKACh despite the use of such compound. Interestingly, the mutant D2s S193A receptor, which practically annulled the voltage dependence of D2s receptor with dopamine, also greatly decreases the relaxation, supporting the notion that this property is determined by the GPCR voltage sensitivity [31].

Altogether, our results provide additional support to the notion of the agonist-specific voltage dependence of GPCRs and that the voltage-dependent features of coupled effectors, such as the IKACh relaxation, are determined by this property.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Individual parameters obtained from the fits of the C-R relationships for Ado.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Individual parameters obtained from the fits of the C-R relationships for ACh.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Miguel Angel Flores-Virgen for technical assistance.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by SEP-CONACYT, Mexico. Grant No. CB-2011-01-167109 (to E.G.M-G.), and CB-2013-01-220742 (to R.A.N-P). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Breitwieser GE, Szabo G. Uncoupling of cardiac muscarinic and beta-adrenergic receptors from ion channels by a guanine nucleotide analogue. Nature. 1985;317(6037):538–40. doi: 10.1038/317538a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mustafa SJ, Morrison RR, Teng B, Pelleg A. Adenosine receptors and the heart: role in regulation of coronary blood flow and cardiac electrophysiology. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2009(193):161–88. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-89615-9_6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pfaffinger PJ, Martin JM, Hunter DD, Nathanson NM, Hille B. GTP-binding proteins couple cardiac muscarinic receptors to a K channel. Nature. 1985;317(6037):536–8. doi: 10.1038/317536a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wang X, Liang B, Skibsbye L, Olesen SP, Grunnet M, Jespersen T. GIRK channel activation via adenosine or muscarinic receptors has similar effects on rat atrial electrophysiology. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2013;62(2):192–8. doi: 10.1097/FJC.0b013e3182965221 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Corey S, Krapivinsky G, Krapivinsky L, Clapham DE. Number and stoichiometry of subunits in the native atrial G-protein-gated K+ channel, IKACh. J Biol Chem. 1998;273(9):5271–8. doi: 10.1074/jbc.273.9.5271 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dhein S, van Koppen CJ, Brodde OE. Muscarinic receptors in the mammalian heart. Pharmacol Res. 2001;44(3):161–82. doi: 10.1006/phrs.2001.0835 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ben-Chaim Y, Chanda B, Dascal N, Bezanilla F, Parnas I, Parnas H. Movement of ’gating charge’ is coupled to ligand binding in a G-protein-coupled receptor. Nature. 2006;444(7115):106–9. doi: 10.1038/nature05259 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ben-Chaim Y, Tour O, Dascal N, Parnas I, Parnas H. The M2 muscarinic G-protein-coupled receptor is voltage-sensitive. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(25):22482–91. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M301146200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Navarro-Polanco RA, Moreno Galindo EG, Ferrer-Villada T, Arias M, Rigby JR, Sanchez-Chapula JA, et al. Conformational changes in the M2 muscarinic receptor induced by membrane voltage and agonist binding. J Physiol. 2011;589(Pt 7):1741–53. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2010.204107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Moreno-Galindo EG, Sanchez-Chapula JA, Tristani-Firouzi M, Navarro-Polanco RA. Pharmacological Conversion of a Cardiac Inward Rectifier into an Outward Rectifier Potassium Channel. Mol Pharmacol. 2016;90(3):334–40. doi: 10.1124/mol.116.104950 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Moreno-Galindo EG, Alamilla J, Sanchez-Chapula JA, Tristani-Firouzi M, Navarro-Polanco RA. The agonist-specific voltage dependence of M2 muscarinic receptors modulates the deactivation of the acetylcholine-gated K(+) current (I KACh). Pflugers Arch. 2016;468(7):1207–14. doi: 10.1007/s00424-016-1812-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Moreno-Galindo EG, Sanchez-Chapula JA, Sachse FB, Rodriguez-Paredes JA, Tristani-Firouzi M, Navarro-Polanco RA. Relaxation gating of the acetylcholine-activated inward rectifier K+ current is mediated by intrinsic voltage sensitivity of the muscarinic receptor. J Physiol. 2011;589(Pt 7):1755–67. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2010.204115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ishii M, Inanobe A, Fujita S, Makino Y, Hosoya Y, Kurachi Y. Ca(2+) elevation evoked by membrane depolarization regulates G protein cycle via RGS proteins in the heart. Circ Res. 2001;89(11):1045–50. doi: 10.1161/hh2301.100815 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Noma A, Trautwein W. Relaxation of the ACh-induced potassium current in the rabbit sinoatrial node cell. Pflugers Arch. 1978;377(3):193–200. doi: 10.1007/BF00584272 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Navarro-Polanco RA, Arechiga-Figueroa IA, Salazar-Fajardo PD, Benavides-Haro DE, Rodriguez-Elias JC, Sachse FB, et al. Voltage sensitivity of M2 muscarinic receptors underlies the delayed rectifier-like activation of ACh-gated K(+) current by choline in feline atrial myocytes. J Physiol. 2013;591(17):4273–86. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2013.255166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Salazar-Fajardo PD, Arechiga-Figueroa IA, Lopez-Serrano AL, Rodriguez-Elias JC, Alamilla J, Sanchez-Chapula JA, et al. The voltage-sensitive cardiac M2 muscarinic receptor modulates the inward rectification of the G protein-coupled, ACh-gated K(+) current. Pflugers Arch. 2018;470(12):1765–76. doi: 10.1007/s00424-018-2196-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Agren R, Sahlholm K. Voltage-Dependent Dopamine Potency at D1-Like Dopamine Receptors. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:581151. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.581151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Martinez-Pinna J, Gurung IS, Vial C, Leon C, Gachet C, Evans RJ, et al. Direct voltage control of signaling via P2Y1 and other Galphaq-coupled receptors. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(2):1490–8. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M407783200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ohana L, Barchad O, Parnas I, Parnas H. The metabotropic glutamate G-protein-coupled receptors mGluR3 and mGluR1a are voltage-sensitive. J Biol Chem. 2006;281(34):24204–15. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M513447200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Rinne A, Birk A, Bunemann M. Voltage regulates adrenergic receptor function. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(4):1536–41. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212656110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Rinne A, Mobarec JC, Mahaut-Smith M, Kolb P, Bunemann M. The mode of agonist binding to a G protein-coupled receptor switches the effect that voltage changes have on signaling. Sci Signal. 2015;8(401):ra110. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.aac7419 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ruland JG, Kirchhofer SB, Klindert S, Bailey CP, Bunemann M. Voltage modulates the effect of mu-receptor activation in a ligand-dependent manner. Br J Pharmacol. 2020;177(15):3489–504. doi: 10.1111/bph.15070 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sahlholm K, Marcellino D, Nilsson J, Fuxe K, Arhem P. Differential voltage-sensitivity of D2-like dopamine receptors. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2008;374(3):496–501. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2008.07.052 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sahlholm K, Nilsson J, Marcellino D, Fuxe K, Arhem P. Voltage sensitivities and deactivation kinetics of histamine H(3) and H(4) receptors. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1818(12):3081–9. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2012.07.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Benavides-Haro DE, Sanchez-Chapula JA. Chloroquine blocks the background potassium current in guinea pig atrial myocytes. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2000;361(3):311–8. doi: 10.1007/s002109900185 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Brandts B, Borchard R, Macianskiene R, Gendviliene V, Dirkmann D, Van Bracht M, et al. Inhibition of G protein-coupled and ATP-sensitive potassium currents by 2-methyl-3-(3,5-diiodo-4-carboxymethoxybenzyl)benzofuran (KB130015), an amiodarone derivative. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2004;308(1):134–42. doi: 10.1124/jpet.103.057646 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Beckmann C, Rinne A, Littwitz C, Mintert E, Bosche LI, Kienitz MC, et al. G protein-activated (GIRK) current in rat ventricular myocytes is masked by constitutive inward rectifier current (I(K1)). Cell Physiol Biochem. 2008;21(4):259–68. doi: 10.1159/000129381 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ben Chaim Y, Bochnik S, Parnas I, Parnas H. Voltage affects the dissociation rate constant of the m2 muscarinic receptor. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e74354. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Benians A, Leaney JL, Tinker A. Agonist unbinding from receptor dictates the nature of deactivation kinetics of G protein-gated K+ channels. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(10):6239–44. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1037595100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bunemann M, Bucheler MM, Philipp M, Lohse MJ, Hein L. Activation and deactivation kinetics of alpha 2A- and alpha 2C-adrenergic receptor-activated G protein-activated inwardly rectifying K+ channel currents. J Biol Chem. 2001;276(50):47512–7. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M108652200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sahlholm K. The role of RGS protein in agonist-dependent relaxation of GIRK currents in Xenopus oocytes. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2011;415(3):509–14. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2011.10.106 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sahlholm K, Barchad-Avitzur O, Marcellino D, Gomez-Soler M, Fuxe K, Ciruela F, et al. Agonist-specific voltage sensitivity at the dopamine D2S receptor—molecular determinants and relevance to therapeutic ligands. Neuropharmacology. 2011;61(5–6):937–49. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.06.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Sahlholm K, Marcellino D, Nilsson J, Fuxe K, Arhem P. Voltage-sensitivity at the human dopamine D2S receptor is agonist-specific. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2008;377(4):1216–21. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2008.10.117 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lopez-Serrano AL, De Jesus-Perez JJ, Zamora-Cardenas R, Ferrer T, Rodriguez-Menchaca AA, Tristani-Firouzi M, et al. Voltage-induced structural modifications on M2 muscarinic receptor and their functional implications when interacting with the superagonist iperoxo. Biochem Pharmacol. 2020;177:113961. doi: 10.1016/j.bcp.2020.113961 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Barchad-Avitzur O, Priest MF, Dekel N, Bezanilla F, Parnas H, Ben-Chaim Y. A Novel Voltage Sensor in the Orthosteric Binding Site of the M2 Muscarinic Receptor. Biophys J. 2016;111(7):1396–408. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2016.08.035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ben-Chaim Y, Broide C, Parnas H. The coupling of the M2 muscarinic receptor to its G protein is voltage dependent. PLoS One. 2019;14(10):e0224367. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224367 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Dekel N, Priest MF, Parnas H, Parnas I, Bezanilla F. Depolarization induces a conformational change in the binding site region of the M2 muscarinic receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(1):285–90. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1119424109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Olcese R. I(KACh) at the whim of a capricious M2R. J Physiol. 2011;589(Pt 8):1869–70. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2011.207951 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Chen IS, Furutani K, Inanobe A, Kurachi Y. RGS4 regulates partial agonism of the M2 muscarinic receptor-activated K+ currents. J Physiol. 2014;592(6):1237–48. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2013.269803 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Chen IS, Furutani K, Kurachi Y. Structural determinants at the M2 muscarinic receptor modulate the RGS4-GIRK response to pilocarpine by impairment of the receptor voltage sensitivity. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):6110. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-05128-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Fujita S, Inanobe A, Chachin M, Aizawa Y, Kurachi Y. A regulator of G protein signalling (RGS) protein confers agonist-dependent relaxation gating to a G protein-gated K+ channel. J Physiol. 2000;526 Pt 2:341–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2000.00341.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Roger A Bannister

9 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-24751Differential voltage-dependent modulation of the ACh-gated K+ current by adenosine and acetylcholinePLOS ONE

Dear Marino-Galindo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration by three reviewers and myself, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the all points raised during the review process.

In addressing the specific points of the reviewers, we ask that 1) a more rigorous statistical analysis be performed and described in the Methods and/or figure legends corresponding to the analyses, and 2) a tract be added to the Discussion which clearly and adequately distinguishes your current findings from earlier work published by your group.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 24 October 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Roger A. Bannister, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

[Doctoral Fellowships were awarded to A.L.L-S., R.Z-C., and P.D.S-F. (#286520, 587036, and 231965, respectively) from CONACYT, Mexico. The authors wish to thank Miguel Angel Flores-Virgen for technical assistance.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

 [This work was supported by SEP-CONACYT, Mexico. Grant No. CB-2011-01-167109 (to E.G.M-G.), and CB-2013-01-220742 (to R.A.N-P). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this paper, Lopez-Serrano examined the modulation of GIRK currents by Adenosine and ACh in guinea pig cardiac myocytes. The authors have shown in previous publications how ACh can modulate GIRK currents in a voltage-sensitive manner. In the current study, they compared Adenosine with ACh effects. Their results confirm the ACh effects, while Adenosine does not appear to modulate GIRK channels in a similar manner. Overall, the paper is well written and logically presented. However, the findings presented with ACh are not novel. The authors have shown similar findings previously, albeit in cat cardiac myocytes. They have not presented a clear justification of why they are replicating previous work. There is no insight provided (nor learned) on the mechanism by which adenosine may be different from ACh even though they use the same Gai/o G proteins.

In regards to Figure 1B, the authors state that the Adenosine C-R obtained at -100 mV was significantly different (P<0.03) than the C-R obtained at +30 mV. This does not seem to be the case and the authors do not state what statistical test they employed to arrive to this conclusion. They must provide the test to the reader, otherwise it is not convincing.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript "Differential voltage-dependent modulation of the Ash-gated K current by adenosine and acetylcholine," by Lopez-Serrano et al., describes a study aimed at determining whether membrane voltage alters adenosine receptor function. Previous work had shown the muscarinic receptors can exhibit altered function with strong changes in membrane potential, including changes in agonist affinity and/or binding. Here the authors examined adenosine receptors in cardiac myocytes to test whether they exhibited similar voltage dependent changes. They found that apparent agonist affinity (measured using I-KAch as an assay for receptor activity and current deactivation as a proxy for ligand-receptor unbinding) appeared unaltered. Authors also reported no change in I-KAch relaxation with membrane potential. By contrast, authors show that similar parameters were altered when currents were activated by acetylcholine, as previously reported, thus acting as a positive control. Ultimately the data provided were compelling that adenosine receptors do not show voltage dependence.

Minor issues:

In some figures (figs 2&5), authors display scatter plots illustrating raw data points, but in most figures they do not. Although it may clutter the figures, showing all of the raw data points would be preferable.

Fig. 4 shows dose-response curves for Ach responses. Curves do not seem to reach saturation, so it's unclear how accurate the EC50 fits are, nor whether changes in efficacy were evident (since data are only displayed as normalized to max).

Reviewer #3: This is an interesting report on how the activation of adenosine and acetylcholine receptors can modulate the current of K+ activated by acetylcholine (IKACh) in cardiac myocytes. In this work, the authors find a voltage-dependent differential modulation of IKACh by Ado and ACh. In the first case, the influence is null, while the second showed an apparent voltage-dependent effect on IKACh and induced a property known as "relaxation" of the current. Even though both agonists activate the same signaling pathway, the authors argue that both GPCRs show a different voltage sensitivity that modifies their affinity for the ligand that could help explain their differential effects on IKACh. In this reviewer's opinion, it is an interesting work, correctly planned and executed, clearly written in which the data support the authors' conclusions. However, I have a few considerations for the authors:

1) In the description of Figure 1B, the authors mention that the results of the analysis of the IKACh data obtained at -100 and +30 mV after applying Ado at different concentrations are statistically different. However, the data in the graph shows that this may not be the case. The data is very similar. This statement by the authors is actually contrary to their hypothesis (as shown by the results of Figs. 1-3) that Ado does not modify the properties of IKACh. For this reason, conducting a more rigorous and complete statistical analysis would strengthen the paper. This analysis should consider information on how the statistical analysis was conducted in Figs 1B and 4B (whether the t-test is the best option; and indicate the exact P values).

2) On the other hand, this reviewer would not recommend using scatter plots with means ± SD to represent experimental data (specifically in Figs. 2B and 5B). Instead, box-and-whisker plots that provide more information to summarize data should be used. The authors should replace these plots with box-and-whisker plots, with the box showing the median and the 25th and 75th quartiles and the whisker representing the 5th and 95th percentile. In addition, it would be nice if data points could be added to the plot superimposed on the box-and-whisker graphs. It sounds complicated, but fortunately, there are powerful statistical software packages available that can give these results directly.

3) Perhaps it would be worthwhile for the authors to add a paragraph to the discussion section regarding the characteristics, if known, in the molecular machinery that causes Ach receptors to have a higher affinity for the ligand at different voltages.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Paul J. Kammermeier

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 1

Roger A Bannister

25 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-24751R1Differential voltage-dependent modulation of the ACh-gated K+ current by adenosine and acetylcholinePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Moreno-Galindo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.  Given the marginal significance of the p value indicated for Ado in experiments shown in Fig. 1, we ask that the persistent points of Reviewer 1 be addressed as requested and/or that the implications of a borderline p value in this particular case be discussed. Please also tend to the minor change to Fig. 1B.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 09 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Roger A. Bannister, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

********** 

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In the resubmission, the authors have clarified the reason for replicating previous studies.

Additionally, it was requested that the authors indicate the statistics used to conclude that the C-R curves in Figure 1B were "displaying a slight but statistically significant (P=0.03; paired t-test) greater potency at the negative potential". In the resubmission, the authors have provided 2 additional tables with the individual parameters generated by the fits for each cell. Why don't the authors run a test to determine whether the fit for one curve is different from the other curve? Also, why did the authors exclude the EC50 values in both Tables 1 and 2? Is there a reason why the authors chose to compare the difference in pEC50 for each cell instead of the EC50? Did they observe the same statistical differences when comparing EC50 values? Finally, the authors compared the differences of the pEC50 means, and those were significantly different. But the pEC50 values were not compared. So it is incorrect to state that there was a statistically significant greater potency.

Minor: For figure 1B, the authors should remove the individual raw data points and just show the mean values.

Reviewer #3: In the opinion of this reviewer, the authors have adequately addressed the comments raised in the previous round of review.

********** 

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 2

Roger A Bannister

15 Dec 2021

Differential voltage-dependent modulation of the ACh-gated K+ current by adenosine and acetylcholine

PONE-D-21-24751R2

Dear Dr. Moreno-Galindo,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Roger A. Bannister, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please revert to including the data points in Fig. 1, as originally requested by R2.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Roger A Bannister

21 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-24751R2

Differential voltage-dependent modulation of the ACh-gated K+ current by adenosine and acetylcholine

Dear Dr. Moreno-Galindo:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Roger A. Bannister

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Individual parameters obtained from the fits of the C-R relationships for Ado.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Individual parameters obtained from the fits of the C-R relationships for ACh.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers R2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES