Table IV. Effect of constraining... | Rockefeller University Press

Table IV.

Effect of constraining parameters on coupling and cooperativity^a

Allosteric factors	No constraints on the gating parameters^b	Constraints from Horrigan et al. (1999) ^c	Constraints from Fig. 2 ^d
Scheme IV
D	22.9 ± 4.0	21.9 ± 0.4	16.6 ± 1.8
E	0.997 ± 0.080	1.23 ± 0.47	1.00 ± 0.054
Scheme V
D	17.4 ± 2.2	18.0 ± 2.6	12.9 ± 0.4
E	1.48 ± 0.06	1.41 ± 0.31	1.21 ± 0.13
U	5.02 ± 3.24	2.46 ± 0.57	4.27 ± 1.64
W	1.34 ± 0.39	1.27 ± 0.50	1.23 ± 0.38

Allosteric factors	No constraints on the gating parameters^b	Constraints from Horrigan et al. (1999) ^c	Constraints from Fig. 2 ^d
Scheme IV
D	22.9 ± 4.0	21.9 ± 0.4	16.6 ± 1.8
E	0.997 ± 0.080	1.23 ± 0.47	1.00 ± 0.054
Scheme V
D	17.4 ± 2.2	18.0 ± 2.6	12.9 ± 0.4
E	1.48 ± 0.06	1.41 ± 0.31	1.21 ± 0.13
U	5.02 ± 3.24	2.46 ± 0.57	4.27 ± 1.64
W	1.34 ± 0.39	1.27 ± 0.50	1.23 ± 0.38

Values are the mean ± SEM for BK_B channels DM1–4.

All the gating parameters in the indicated schemes were free, with their values determined by maximum likelihood fitting.

q_a, q_b, q_H, and q_K were fixed to values in Horrigan et al. (1999) of 0.275 e_o, −0.275 e_o, 0.262 e_o, and −0.138 e_o, respectively.

H, K, q_H, and q_K were fixed to the values from Fig. 2 of 3.85 s−1, 6423 s⁻¹, 0.237 e_o, and −0.0994 e_o, respectively.