Figure 2. Discrepancy between macroscopic and unitary effects on WT CFTR quantifies gating stimulation. (A and C) Dose-dependent inhibition by cytosolic NPPB (A) and MOPS− (C) of steady-state macroscopic WT CFTR currents in 2 mM ATP at −120 mV. (B and D) Dose dependence of fractional currents in (B) NPPB and (D) MOPS− at −120 mV (closed symbols), and Hill fits (solid lines); open symbols and dotted lines show dose dependence of pore block, replotted from Fig. 1 (J and L). (E) Gating stimulation by NPPB and MOPS− at −120 mV; Po/Po; control was calculated as the ratio (I/Icontrol):(i/icontrol).
Figure 2.

Discrepancy between macroscopic and unitary effects on WT CFTR quantifies gating stimulation. (A and C) Dose-dependent inhibition by cytosolic NPPB (A) and MOPS− (C) of steady-state macroscopic WT CFTR currents in 2 mM ATP at −120 mV. (B and D) Dose dependence of fractional currents in (B) NPPB and (D) MOPS− at −120 mV (closed symbols), and Hill fits (solid lines); open symbols and dotted lines show dose dependence of pore block, replotted from Fig. 1 (J and L). (E) Gating stimulation by NPPB and MOPS− at −120 mV; Po/Po; control was calculated as the ratio (I/Icontrol):(i/icontrol).

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal