Understanding the physiological role of NaV1.9: Challenges and opportunities for pain modulation.

Voltage-activated Na+ (NaV) channels are crucial contributors to rapid electrical signaling in the human body. As such, they are among the most targeted membrane proteins by clinical therapeutics and natural toxins. Several of the nine mammalian NaV channel subtypes play a documented role in pain or other sensory processes such as itch, touch, and smell. While causal relationships between these subtypes and biological function have been extensively described, the physiological role of NaV1.9 is less understood. Yet, mutations in NaV1.9 can cause striking disease phenotypes related to sensory perception such as loss or gain of pain and chronic itch. Here, we explore our current knowledge of the mechanisms by which NaV1.9 may contribute to pain and elaborate on the challenges associated with establishing links between experimental conditions and human disease. This review also discusses the lack of comprehensive insights into NaV1.9-specific pharmacology, an unfortunate situation since modulatory compounds may have tremendous potential in the clinic to treat pain or as precision tools to examine the extent of NaV1.9 participation in sensory perception processes.

Neonatal NaV 1.5 channels: pharmacological distinctiveness of a cancer-related voltage-gated sodium channel splice variant.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Voltage-gated sodium (NaV ) channels are expressed de novo in carcinomas where their activity promotes invasiveness. Breast and colon cancer cells express the neonatal splice variant of NaV 1.5 (nNaV 1.5), which has several amino acid substitutions in the domain I voltage-sensor compared with its adult counterpart (aNaV 1.5). This study aimed to determine whether nNaV 1.5 channels could be distinguished pharmacologically from aNaV 1.5 channels. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Cells expressing either nNaV 1.5 or aNaV 1.5 channels were exposed to low MW inhibitors, an antibody or natural toxins, and changes in electrophysiological parameters were measured. Stable expression in EBNA cells and transient expression in Xenopus laevis oocytes were used. Currents were recorded by whole-cell patch clamp and two-electrode voltage-clamp, respectively. KEY RESULTS: Several clinically used blockers of NaV channels (lidocaine, procaine, phenytoin, mexiletine, ranolazine, and riluzole) could not distinguish between nNaV 1.5 or aNaV 1.5 channels. However, two tarantula toxins (HaTx and ProTx-II) and a polyclonal antibody (NESOpAb) preferentially inhibited currents elicited by either nNaV 1.5 or aNaV 1.5 channels by binding to the spliced region of the channel. Furthermore, the amino acid residue at position 211 (aspartate in aNaV 1.5/lysine in nNaV 1.5), that is, the charge reversal in the spliced region of the channel, played a key role in the selectivity, especially in antibody binding. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: We conclude that the cancer-related nNaV 1.5 channel can be distinguished pharmacologically from its nearest neighbour, aNaV 1.5 channels. Thus, it may be possible to design low MW compounds as antimetastatic drugs for non-toxic therapy of nNaV 1.5-expressing carcinomas.