PKD2L1 channels segregated to the apical compartment are the dual-mode pH sensor in cerebrospinal fluid-contacting neurons
- Departamento de Neurofisiología Celular y Molecular, Instituto de Investigaciones Biológicas Clemente Estable, Uruguay
- The Cyprus Institute, Cyprus
Figures
Figure 1
Characterization of PKD2L1 channel activity in CSFcNs from GATA3 mice.
(Aa) Confocal image of a sagittal spinal cord slice (the dissection plane passes through the cc) from a Gata3-eGFP animal showing the distribution of CSFcNs in the anterior-posterior (A-P) direction. (Ab, c, and d) Confocal image of a coronal spinal cord slice from a Gata3-eGFP animal showing the distribution of CSFcNs (b, green) around the cc (dotted line) and the immunoreactivity against the PKD2L1 channel (c, magenta). The overlay of the two channels plus the DNA (blue) are shown in (d). In (b), D is dorsal, V is ventral, L is left, and R is right. Brightness and contrast were adjusted for display purposes. (Ba) Spontaneous activity of a CSFcNs recorded at –60 mV at 34 °C. The green, horizontal dotted lines represent the different states of the channel: c=closed; o1=1 channel open; o2=2 channels open; o3=3 channels open. (Bb) Histogram from the whole-cell current shown in (a), with the four peaks corresponding to c, o1, and o2 (and o3) indicated with arrowheads. (Bc) Boxplot showing the unitary current amplitude measured from 38 different neurons (either somatic, n=13, or ApPr, n=25, whole-cell recordings). Middle horizontal line shows the median value (–15.6 pA), upper and lower horizontal lines the 75th and 25th percentiles, respectively, and top and low whisker the 90th and 10th percentiles, respectively. (Bd) Boxplot showing the apparent open probability for a single channel measured from 38 different neurons (either somatic, n=13, or ApPr, n=25, whole-cell recordings). Middle horizontal line shows the median value (0.04), upper and lower horizontal lines the 75th and 25th percentiles, respectively, and top and low whisker the 90th and 10th percentiles, respectively. (Ca) Spontaneous activity recorded at different holding potentials. (Cb) IV relationship constructed from recordings performed at –52 (n=9),–72 (n=16), –92 (n=14), and –102 mV (n=7) holding potentials. Black symbols show averages ± SDs, and gray diamonds show individual values. The dotted line is a linear fit to the average data. From this fit an average unitary conductance of 222±8.0 pS was calculated, with an extrapolated reversal potential of –2.2 mV. The Vm values have been corrected for a calculated liquid junction potential of –12 mV. In (B), open diamonds correspond to individual neurons and filled circles to the mean ± SD.
Figure 2 with 1 supplement
PKD2L1 channel activity mediates both phasic and tonic currents.
(Aa) Recording of a CSFcN in control condition and during pressure application of dibucaine hydrochloride (100 µM). (Ab) Single-channel event frequency calculated in control conditions and during dibucaine application. The average frequency was reduced from 176.9±163 to 5±8.3 Hz (n=12, p=5 × 10–4). (Ba) Voltage-clamp recording showing how dibucaine application blocks the spontaneous events and reduces the holding current from –23 to –10 pA. The horizontal dotted lines indicate the average baseline current before and during dibucaine application. The bottom trace shows the average current value calculated from 100 ms time-periods, where the reduction in the holding current can be readily appreciated. (Bb) Histograms of the recorded current during the control (black) and the dibucaine (orange) time periods. The data has been adjusted with a Gaussian function (continuous lines). The mean values of the Gaussian fits correspond to the holding current values shown in (Ba) (dotted lines; –23 and –10 pA, control and dibucaine, respectively). (Bc) Current-clamp recording showing the hyperpolarization induced by dibucaine application, from –60.4 to –95 mV in this example. (a) and (c) correspond to different neurons. (Ca) Effect of dibucaine pressure application on the HC: –18.3±9.5 in control to –10.5±6.6 pA in dibucaine (n=13, p=2 × 10–3). (Cb) Effect of dibucaine application on the resting membrane potential: –66.8±11.0 in control to –89.0±14.0 mV in dibucaine (n=11, p=1 × 10–3). (Cc) Effect of dibucaine pressure application on the HC in the presence of voltage-gated and ionotropic channels blockers: –18.1±8.1 pA in control to –10.8±5.4 pA in dibucaine (n=11, p=1 × 10–3). (Cd) Effect of dibucaine pressure application on the HC in the presence of 10 mM BAPTA in the internal solution of the recorded neurons: –13.0±5.7 pA in control to –7.8±2.5 pA in dibucaine (n=11, p=1 × 10–3). (Ce) Input resistance (IR) values calculated from somatic (1.8±0.46 GΩ, n=14), ApPr (2.3±0.48 GΩ, n=29), and isolated ApPr (4.4±0.12 GΩ, n=8) recordings. p=0.002, soma vs whole-ApPr; p=6 × 10–6, iApPr vs soma; and p=4 × 10–7, iApPr vs whole-ApPr. In (Ab) and (C), diamonds correspond to individual neurons and circles to the mean ± SD. Statistical comparison between groups was performed with a Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired data (Ab and Ca to d) and a Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney for unpaired data (Ce).
Figure 2—figure supplement 1
Calmidazolium effect on PKD2L1-mediated tonic and sustained currents.
(Aa) Top: spontaneous PKD2L1 channel activity recorded in a CSFcN at a –60 mV holding potential. The recording lasted 35 seconds, and calmidazolium was pressure-applied at a concentration of 10 µM during 10 seconds (starting at 3 seconds, green area). Middle: membrane charge calculated from the recording on the top. Bottom: mean membrane charge ± SD calculated from 10 neurons tested in the same conditions as the cell shown in the top panel. The dotted line corresponds to a linear fit to the control period (first 3 seconds of the recording). The application of calmidazolium produces an increase in the slope of the membrane charge. (Ab) Holding current from the neuron shown in (a). (Ac) Effect of calmidazolium application on the holding current: –13.3±5.3 pA in control conditions vs –16.0±4.7 pA in calmidazolium (n=10, p=0.008). (Ba) Spontaneous activity of the CSFcN shown in (A), recorded in I-clamp. Calmidazolium application is indicated with the green area. The bottom traces show segments (i) and (ii) with different time and amplitude scales in order to see the increase in spontaneous activity during calmidazolium. (Bb) Effect of calmidazolium application on the resting membrane potential. Notice the shift from –62.3±3.3 in control conditions vs –50.0±5.2 mV in the presence of calmidazolium (n=10, p=0.002). In (Ac) and (Bb), diamonds correspond to individual neurons and circles to the AV ± SD. Cmz: calmidazolium. In (Ac) and (Bb), statistical comparison between groups was performed with a Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Figure 3 with 2 supplements
pH sensitivity of PKD2L1-mediated phasic and tonic currents.
(Aa) Top: spontaneous PKD2L1 channel activity recorded in a CSFcN at a –60 mV holding potential. A pH 6.5 solution was pressure-applied during 10 seconds (starting at 3 seconds, red area). Middle: holding current calculated from the recording shown on the top. Bottom: membrane charge calculated from the recording shown on the top. Inset: segments 7.4 and 6.5 in (Aa) are shown with expanded time and amplitude scales in order to see the decrease in the spontaneous single-channel activity during the application of the acidic solution, without any change in the single-channel current. (Ab) Mean membrane charge ± SD calculated (gray surface) from 10 neurons tested in the same conditions as the cell shown in (a). The dotted line corresponds to a linear fit to the control period (first 3 seconds of the recording). The application of the acidic solution produces a clear decrease in the slope of the membrane charge, indicating a decrease in the spontaneous openings of the channels. (B) Same experiment as in (a), but the spontaneous activity was recorded in I-clamp. The application of the acidic solution produces a hyperpolarization of the RMP (from –57.2 to –80 mV in this example). (Ca) The single-channel open time during 500 ms decreased from 46±47 ms in control conditions to 7±7 ms during the pressure application of a pH 6.5 solution (ctrl vs pH 6.5, n=11, p=0.001). (Cb) Histograms of the nmax values calculated during 500 ms spontaneous, control recordings (black curve) and during the pressure application of a pH 6.5 solution (red curve). The mean nmax decreased from 1.7±0.60 to 1±0 (ctrl vs pH 6.5, n=11, p=0.016). A two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test also indicated a significant difference between the two distributions (p=0.013). (Cc) Effect of a pH 6.5 solution application on the holding current: –16.8±6.7 in control conditions vs –12.0±5.2 pA in the pH 6.5 solution (n=10, p=0.002). (Cd) Effect of a pH 6.5 solution application on the resting membrane potential: –64.5±5.2 in control conditions vs –76.0±3.4 mV in the pH 6.5 solution (n=8, p=0.008). (Ce) Normalized apparent po1 (apparent po1 test/apparent po1 at pH 7.4) as a function of pH. N=10 for pH 6.5, 25 for pH 7.4, 8 for pH 8.4, and 7 for pH 10.4. The dotted line shows the fitting of the data to a Hill equation that yields a half pH value of 8.1±0.04. Error bars are SDs. (Cf) Normalized holding current (HC test/HC at pH 7.4) as a function of pH. N=5 for pH 6, 5 for 6.5, 6 for pH 8.4, and 7 for pH 10.4. The dotted line shows the fitting of the data to a Hill equation that yields a half pH value of 7.5±0.02. Error bars are SDs. In (C), diamonds correspond to individual neurons and circles to the mean ± SD. (D) Relationship between Vm and HC differences recorded in 28 individual neurons. The dotted gray line is a constrained fit (passing through the origin) with a linear function (ax +b, where b=0), which shows a slope of 2.3±0.3 GΩ. The two variables are strongly correlated (Pearson linear correlation coefficient = –0.84; r2=0.71). In (C), statistical comparison between groups was performed with a Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Figure 3—figure supplement 1
Puffing acidic solutions and proton photolysis in the soma can induce ASIC-mediated currents.
(Aa) Top: spontaneous PKD2L1 channel activity recorded in a CSFcN at a –60 mV holding potential. A pH 6.5 solution was pressure-applied during 4 seconds (starting at 2 seconds, magenta area). Bottom: membrane charge calculated from the recording on the top. The dotted line corresponds to a linear fit during the control period (first 2 seconds of the recording). The application of the acidic solution produces a short-lasting inward current that is probably due to the activation of somatic ASIC channels. This is manifested as a sudden increase in the membrane charge (black arrowhead) that is followed by a subsequent decrease. (Ab) Same experiment as in (a), under I-clamp. The application of the acidic solution produces a short-lasting depolarization that is probably due to the activation of somatic ASIC channels, followed by hyperpolarization. Vm: membrane potential. (B) Spontaneous activity recorded in a CSFcN upon the somatic uncaging of MNI-glutamate in the continuous presence of NBQX. The black traces show individual repetitions (seven uncagings at 10-second intervals) and the red trace the corresponding average (AV). Vertical magenta arrowhead and line show the timing of the laser pulse (1 ms, 3 mW). Somatic photolysis does not evoke any PKD2L1-dependent activity, but does produce a small inward current that is probably mediated by ASIC channels.
Figure 3—figure supplement 2
Effect of alkaline ACSF on PKD2L1-mediated currents.
(Aa) Top: spontaneous PKD2L1 channel activity recorded in a CSFcN at a –60 mV holding potential. A pH 8.4 solution was pressure-applied during 10 seconds (starting at 3 seconds, yellow area). Middle: holding current calculated from the recording shown on the top. Bottom: membrane charge calculated from the recording shown on the top. (B) Chosen segments of the recording shown in (A) with different scales. (C) Same experiment as in (A), but the spontaneous activity was recorded in I-clamp. The application of the basic solution produces a depolarization of the RMP (from –64.5 to –47.6 mV in this example). (Da) Effect of the pH 8.4 solution on the total open time of a single channel during a 500 ms time window. The mean single-channel open time increased from 16±11 (ctrl) to 126±73 ms (pH 8.4; n=8, p=0.008). (Db) Histograms of the nmax values calculated during 500 ms time windows for spontaneous recordings (black curve) and during the application of a pH 8.4 solution (magenta curve). The mean nmax increased from 1.25±0.46 (ctrl) to 2.75±0.70 (pH 8.4; n=8, p=0.016). A two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test also indicated a significant difference between the two distributions (p=0.011). (Dc) The application of a pH 8.4 solution produced a shift of the holding current from –11.7±7.3 to -15.2±7.9 pA (n=8, p=0.0078). (Dd) A pH 8.4 solution induced a shift of the resting membrane potential from –75.2±7.0 to -66.2±10 mV (n=6, p=0.03). In (D), statistical comparison between groups was performed with a Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Figure 4
Proton photolysis induces a recovery current in CSFcNs.
(A) Schematic of the experiment. Pictures showing the eGFP fluorescence (left), the Alexa 594 fluorescence (middle), and the merging of the two channels (right). The yellow star indicates the recorded cell, and the objective the location of the targeted compartment. The yellow dotted line shows the approximate boundaries of the central canal. (B) Schematic of the photolysis reaction shown for the two caged compounds used: MNI-glutamate (top) and MNI-γLGG (bottom). (C) 2-second-long recordings showing the typical response of a CSFcN (shown in A) to the photolysis of MNI-glutamate on the ApPr (black traces). The photolysis was repeated five times with 10-second intervals. The blue, upper trace shows the spontaneous recording (no photolysis) for comparison. The inset shows sweep #1 in an expanded scale in order to appreciate the fast kinetics of the AMPAR-mediated current. Vertical, magenta arrowhead and dotted line indicate the laser pulse (1 ms, 4.3 mW; which is measured with a photodiode in the laser path). (D) Top: the black trace shows the current evoked by the photolysis of MNI-γLGG with a 0.5 ms, 4.3 mW laser pulse on the ApPr, and the gray trace the spontaneous current recording in the same CSFcN. During the spontaneous recording, the maximum number of channels opened simultaneously (nmax) was 1, and during the 500 ms window after the photolysis nmax was 3. The total open time in a time window of 500 ms was 17 ms during the spontaneous recording and 196 ms after the photolysis. Bottom: membrane charge calculated from the above recordings. The vertical, magenta arrowhead indicates the laser pulse. (E) Normalized (to the 2-second value) membrane charge as a function of time. Black trace shows the average, gray area the ± SD and dotted traces individual experiments (n=13). The magenta continuous line represents the fit of the average curve with the sum of a linear + an exponential function representing the increase evoked by the photolysis and the linear increase due to the spontaneous channel openings, respectively (see ‘Materials and methods’). The τ of the exponential function was 258±2 ms. The x-span of the magenta area represents 500 ms (≈ 2 τs). The vertical, magenta arrowhead indicates the laser pulse. (Fa) Histograms of the nmax values calculated during 500 ms time windows for spontaneous recordings (black curve) and after photolysis (magenta curve). The mean nmax was 1.16±0.37 in spontaneous recordings and 2.8±0.63 after photolysis (n=19, p=4 × 10–6). A two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test also indicated a significant difference between the two distributions (p=1 × 10–6). (Fb) Total open time for a single channel during a 500 ms time window (spontaneous vs photolysis). The mean single-channel open time increased from 30±36 to 207±51 ms (500 ms spontaneous recording vs 500 ms after the photolysis pulse; n=19; p=4 × 10–6). (Ga) Example of laser-evoked currents (left, black traces) and the corresponding idealized events (right, green traces). MNI-γLGG was used in this experiment. The blue arrowheads below each idealized trace indicate the timing of double events (where two channels opened simultaneously). Vertical, magenta arrowheads and dotted lines indicate the laser pulse (1 ms, 4.3 mW). (Gb) Latency distribution of double events (95 photolysis repetitions from 20 neurons) shown with two different time resolutions (the graph on the right corresponds to the time indicated by the dotted rectangle on the graph on the left). The rising phase of the histogram has been fitted with an exponential function (green trace) that has a τ of 30±12 ms. The magenta arrowheads indicate the timing of the laser pulse. (Ha) The black traces show the responses of a CSFcN to the photolysis of MNI-γLGG on the ApPr with a train of five laser pulses (2 mW, 0.5 ms duration) at 180 Hz. The photolysis train was repeated six times (#1 to #6) with 10-second intervals. The brown curve shows the membrane charge calculated from the average of the six sweeps. (b) Sweep #2 and its corresponding membrane charge are shown on an expanded time scale in order to better appreciate the onset of the response, which happens after the end of the train. In (F), statistical comparison between groups was performed with a Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Figure 5
Currents induced by proton photolysis in the ApPr depend on PKD2L1 and not ASIC channels.
(A) Top: example of laser-evoked currents in control conditions (black trace) and in the presence of 100 µm dibucaine (gray trace). Bottom: membrane charge calculated from the recordings shown above. The vertical, magenta arrowhead indicates the laser pulse (1 ms, 4.3 mW). (B) Average, normalized membrane charge calculated from recordings in control conditions (same data as in Figure 4E) and in the presence of dibucaine. The vertical, magenta arrowhead indicates the laser pulse. (C) Single-channel current calculated from spontaneous current recordings (spont) and during a 500 ms time window after the photolysis. Gray symbols correspond to individual neurons. Mean ± SD (black symbols): –16.7±2.0 (spont) to 17.0±2.0 (phot) pA, n=21 neurons, p=0.56. Wilcoxon signed-rank test. (D) Top: example of laser-evoked currents induced by the photolysis of MNI-glutamate without NBQX (black trace) and without NBQX +dibucaine (gray trace). The inset shows the current traces in expanded scales to better illustrate the AMPA-mediated current (yellow arrowheads). Bottom: membrane charge calculated from the above recordings. The vertical, magenta arrowhead indicates the laser pulse (1 ms, 5.2 mW). (E) Top: example of laser-evoked currents induced by the photolysis of MNI-glutamate without (black trace) and with ASIC channel blockers (magenta traces). Middle: membrane charge calculated from sweeps number 1 (control) and 4 (ASIC blockers). Bottom: normalized (to the 2-second value) membrane charge as a function of time in control conditions (black trace, n=13; same data as in Figure 4E) and in the presence of ASIC blockers (magenta trace, n=7). The dotted red line represents the fit to the data with the same function as in Figure 4E. The τ value in the presence of ASIC blockers was 190 ms, close to the 258 ms value for the control curve. Shaded areas represent ± SDs. The vertical, magenta arrowhead indicates the laser pulse (500 µs, 5.8 mW). In (C), statistical comparison between groups was performed with a Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Figure 6
PKD2L1 channels are segregated to the ApPr.
(Aa) Top: schematic drawing showing the different photolysis locations. Bottom: superimposition of pictures showing the eGFP (green) and the Alexa 594 (red), which corresponds to the recorded cell fluorescence. (Ab) Representative sweeps showing the membrane currents recorded when the photolysis of MNI-γLGG was performed either on the ApPr (black traces) or on the soma (magenta traces; laser pulse duration = 700 µs; power 5.3 mW). Scale bars are the same for black and magenta traces. (Ac) Average membrane charge calculated from recordings corresponding to the photolysis of MNI-γLGG or MNI-glutamate in different locations. Shaded areas correspond to ± SDs. Bottom graph shows the same traces but in a different amplitude scale. The fact that no PKD2L1-mediated activity can be triggered when the photolysis is done a few microns away from the ApPr (5–7 µm) is compatible with the high spatial resolution of the photolysis technique and the restricted proton diffusion. (Ba) Top: schematic drawing of experimental design. Whole-cell recordings were performed from iApPrs. Bottom: pictures showing the different recording configurations: left in cell-attached, where the eGFP green signal can be seen inside the recording pipette as the ApPr membrane goes into the pipette when the positive pressure used for patching is released; middle in whole-cell a few seconds after break-in, where it can be seen that the green eGFP fluorescence has already washed-out; right in whole-cell, where the morphology of the isolated ApPr can be appreciated by the red Alexa 594 fluorescence. (Bb) Whole-cell recordings from the isolated ApPr shown in (a) at two different holding potentials, –50 and –90 mV. A clear PKD2L1-dependent spontaneous activity can be seen. HP: holding potential. Scale bars are the same for the currents recorded at the two holding potentials. (Ca) Top: schematic drawing of experimental design. The photolysis was produced on an isolated ApPr. Bottom: pictures showing the different recording configurations. Same as (Ba). (Cb) Whole-cell recordings from the isolated ApPr shown in (a) and its response to photolysis. The black traces are in control conditions and the bottom, blue trace in the presence of 100 µM dibucaine (laser pulse duration = 1 ms; power 5.1 mW). (Cc) Average membrane charge calculated from four individual sweeps in control and four individual sweeps in dibucaine. (D) Recordings from an ApPr in the whole-cell configuration (a) and in the outside-out configuration (b). The traces on the left show the current responses to a 50 ms depolarization to –10 mV from a –60 mV holding potential. This voltage pulse induces an unclamped sodium spike in whole-cell but no response in outside-out, confirming that the outside-out patch has completely detached from the ApPr (as isolated ApPr do not have sodium currents). PKD2L1 activity is still present in the outside-out recording. (Ea) Maximum intensity projection of 41 deconvolved optical sections spaced by 130 nm. CSFcNs expressing eGFP (green, left panel), which also express PKD2L1 receptors (magenta, middle panel). The overlay of the two channels is shown on the right panel. The dotted white line in the left, GFP panel, indicates the distance along which the density plots shown in (b) were constructed. (Eb) Density plots depicting anti-PKD2L1 mean fluorescence intensity (trace) ± SDs (shade) measured at the soma (green) and in the ApPr (black). n=6 for each compartment. The fluorescence was measured along the dotted green and black lines shown in the scheme. The maximal mean intensity is 84 for the ApPr and 12.5 for the soma. Brightness and contrast were adjusted for display purposes. Unsaturated images were used for quantification. In (A) and (C), the vertical dotted lines and magenta arrowheads correspond to the timing of the photolysis pulse.
Figure 7
The coupling between the ApPr and the soma measured with paired recordings.
(A) Paired current-clamp recordings between the ApPr and the soma. The cartoons on top of the traces show the recording configurations. (Aa) The current pulses are applied to the soma, and voltage measured both in the soma and the ApPr (left). The CC (0.94) is calculated by plotting the membrane voltage responses in the ApPr vs the membrane voltage responses in the soma (right). (Ab) Same as in (a), but now the current pulses are applied to the ApPr. The CC is 0.96. (Ac) Spontaneous events recorded simultaneously in the ApPr and the soma. Resting membrane potential was –60 mV in both compartments. (Ad) Coupling coefficient measured in three conditions: somatic current injection (0.9±0.09), ApPr current injection (0.92±0.09), and for spontaneous activity (soma/ApPr: 0.88±0.05). (B) Paired voltage-clamp recordings between the ApPr and the soma. (Ba) Voltage pulses (−110 to –20 mV in 10 mV steps) are applied either to the soma (left) or to the ApPr (right). (Bb) Currents recovered in the non-pulsed compartments. (Bc) The currents shown in (b) as a function of the voltage steps. The slope of each curve represents the coupling conductance between the two compartments (12.85 and 12.4 nS in this example). The average coupling conductance was 13.7±0.62 (pulses applied to the ApPr) and 13.6±0.62 nS (n=7). All the recordings shown in this figure correspond to the same CSFcN.
Tables
Key resources table
| Reagent type (species) or resource | Designation | Source or reference | Identifiers | Additional information |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strain, strain background (Mus musculus, either sex) | Gata3-eGFP mice | Panayi et al., 2010; IIBCE animal facility | ||
| Chemical compound, drug | MNI-caged-L-glutamate | Hello Bio | HB0423 | |
| Chemical compound, drug | MNI-caged-γ-LGG | Palma-Cerda et al., 2018 | Gift from Céline Auger, SPPIN CNRS 8003; https://www.sppin.fr | |
| Chemical compound, drug | Alexa Fluor 594 Hydrazide | Thermo Fisher | Thermo Fisher: A10438 | |
| Chemical compound, drug | Dibucaine hydrochloride | Sigma-Aldrich | D-0638 | 100–200 µM |
| Chemical compound, drug | calmidazolium chloride | Sigma-Aldrich | C-3930 | 20 µM |
| Chemical compound, drug | Psalmotoxin 1 | Alomone | STP-200 | 100 nM |
| Chemical compound, drug | APETx2 | Alomone | STA-160 | 100 nM |
| Chemical compound, drug | Tetrodotoxin Citrate | Tocris | 1069 | 0.4 µM |
| Chemical compound, drug | Tetraethylammonium chloride | Tocris | 3068 | 1.5 mM |
| Chemical compound, drug | 4 aminopyridine | Tocris | 0940 | 1 mM |
| Chemical compound, drug | NBQX (2,3-Dihydroxy-6-nitro-7-sulfamoyl-benzo[f]quinoxaline) disodium salt | Tocris | 1044 | 10 µM |
| Chemical compound, drug | D-APV (2-Amino-5-phosphonovaleric acid) | Tocris | 0106 | 50 µM |
| Chemical compound, drug | SR 95531 hydrobromide | Tocris | 1262 | 10 µM |
| Chemical compound, drug | Hoechst 33342 | Thermo Fisher | 62249 | |
| Antibody | Alexa-647 (donkey anti-mouse secondary antibody) | Thermo Fisher | A-21235 | 1:1000 |
| Antibody | anti-PKD2L1 (Rabbit polyclonal) | MilliporeSigma | AB9084 | 1:500 |
| Software, algorithm | Fiji | Schindelin et al., 2012 | RRID:SCR_002285 | https://fiji.sc/ |
| Software, algorithm | Igor Pro | WaveMetrics | RRID:SCR_000325 | https://www.wavemetrics.com/ |
| Software, algorithm | Taro Tools | Labrigger, developed by Dr. Taro Ishikawa | https://sites.google.com/site/tarotoolsregister/; https://labrigger.com/blog/2011/07/21/taro-tools-and-ppt-for-igor-pro/ | |
| Software, algorithm | Neuromatic | Neuromatic, developed by Dr. Jason Rothman | RRID:SCR_004186 | http://www.neuromatic.thinkrandom.com/ |
| Software, algorithm | Nest-o-Patch | Nest-O-Patch, developed by Dr. Viatcheslav Nesterov | https://sourceforge.net/projects/nestopatch/ | |
| Software, algorithm | Huygens Essential 4.5 | Scientific Volume Imaging | RRID:SCR_014237 | https://svi.nl/Huygens-Essential |
Additional files
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
PKD2L1 channels segregated to the apical compartment are the dual-mode pH sensor in cerebrospinal fluid-contacting neurons
eLife 15:RP109372.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.109372.4
