May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
Putative components of phototransduction and chromatic antagonism in lizard parietal–eye photoreceptor
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • C.–Y. Su
    Neuroscience, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  C. Su, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH Grant EY06837
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 1277. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      C.–Y. Su; Putative components of phototransduction and chromatic antagonism in lizard parietal–eye photoreceptor . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):1277.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose:Lizard parietal eyes do not mediate image–forming vision but may detect dawn/dusk transitions. Unlike rods and cones, which give hyperpolarizing light responses, parietal–eye photoreceptors depolarize to light under dark–adapted conditions. In a green–light background, however, these photoreceptors hyperpolarize to superimposed blue light (Solessio & Engbretson, 1993). Thus, there are two chromatically antagonistic phototransduction pathways in the same cell, giving depolarizing and hyperpolarizing responses, respectively. Mechanistically, the two pathways appear to converge at a cGMP–phosphodiesterase, inhibiting and activating it, respectively (Xiong, et al., 1998). Our goal is to identify the components of these two antagonistic pathways and to understand the underlying mechanism. Methods: We generated a cDNA library from parietal eyes of side–blotched lizards, Uta stansburiana, and used homology–cloning to identify the putative phototransduction proteins. Subcellular localization of these proteins was examined by immunostaining with specific antibodies. Putative opsins were heterologously expressed and regenerated with 11–cis–retinal for spectral analysis. Results: We identified two opsins, one most similar to pinopsin and the other appears to be novel. Spectral analysis of the pinopsin–like protein remains to be done, although the published λmax for American chameleon pinopsin is ∼482 nm (Kawamura & Yokoyama, 1997). The novel opsin, when heterologously expressed, showed a λmax around 500 nm at pH 6.5, and converted to 380 nm upon photobleaching. Interestingly, this opsin contains a Gln instead of a Glu at its counterion position (corresponding to Glu–113 in bovine rhodopsin) – the only exception among all known vertebrate opsins. We also found two G–protein α subunits, Gαgust and Gαo, a cone–type phosphodiesterase and a rod–type cyclic–nucleotide–gated channel subunit (CNGA1). Immunostaining showed that these proteins were all expressed in the outer segment of the parietal–eye photoreceptor. Conclusions: The two opsins and the two G–protein α subunits may mediate the antagonistic phototransduction pathways in the parietal–eye photoreceptor. It remains to be examined which Gα activates, and which Gα inhibits, the phosphodiesterase, as well as the underlying mechanisms.

Keywords: signal transduction • opsins • photoreceptors 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×