Cryo-EM structure of Slo1 with the auxiliary γ1 subunit suggests mechanism of depolarization-independent activation

  1. Milena Redhardt
  2. Stefan Raunser
  3. Tobias Raisch

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Mammalian Ca 2+ -dependent Slo K + channels are expressed with β and γ auxiliary subunits that greatly influence voltage- and Ca 2+ -induced gating, thereby fundamentally altering the behavior of the channel. The four γ subunits reduce the need for voltage-dependent activation, allowing Slo to open in the absence of an action potential. The mechanism of this activation has, however, remained elusive. Here, we present the cryo-EM structure of Slo1 in complex with γ1/LRRC26, revealing how the transmembrane helix of γ1 binds and presumably stabilizes the active conformation of the voltage-sensor domain. This effect is further enhanced by a polybasic stretch on the intracellular side of the membrane which locally changes the charge gradient across the membrane. Sequence differences explain why the four γ subunits possess different activation efficiencies. Simultaneous binding of γ and the unrelated β subunits is structurally possible, as both binding sites do not overlap and the γ1 LRR domains are partially flexible. Thus, our data provide a possible explanation for Slo1 regulation by γ subunits, and furthermore suggest a novel mechanism of activation of voltage-gated ion channels by auxiliary subunits and add to the growing knowledge of their complex regulation.

Article activity feed

  1. Review Commons

    Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Reply to the reviewers

    Reviewer #1 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

    Redhardt and colleagues describe a structure of the voltage and Ca-activated Slo1 channel in complex with an auxiliary subunit, γ1. In complex with γ1, Slo1 adopts an open state that closely resembles previous open state structures. Of γ1, only the single membrane-spanning helix, which binds to the periphery of the Slo1 VSD, is resolved. There, it establishes several interactions with Slo1 that authors propose may favor adoption of the open state, potentially explaining how γ1 can shift I-V profile of Slo1 to be activated at more negative membrane potentials. The interactions described fit well with existing mutagenesis analyses.

    While this report provides a first glimpse of how γ1 can bind to Slo1, its impact will be minimal. It describes a single structural snapshot and there are no functional analyses presented. Additional analyses would be helpful in understanding of how γ1 can regulate Slo1 channels.

    We thank the reviewer for their honest judgment. We agree that validating the structure by biochemical and/or functional data would have significantly strengthened the manuscript. However, we are convinced that our structural data alone already provides significant novel understanding of the assembly of the Slo1-γ1 complex and regulation of Slo1 by γ1. Thus, we feel that publication of this manuscript is justified by the high importance of Slo channels and our data will have an impact in the field.

    __Major comments: __

    1. The authors propose several models for how γ1 regulates Slo1, yet none of them are experimentally evaluated. For example, on page 8, it is written that "we propose that the combination of three different principles, namely shape complementarity, covalent anchoring and lowering the resting state potential by a positively charged intracellular stretch, act in concert to stabilize an active VSD conformation in the Slo1-γ1 complex." This is a testable hypothesis and one that should be experimentally evaluated to better understand regulation by γ1.

    We agree with the reviewer that experimental validation of this hypothesis would have been an asset. Nevertheless, we think that our structural data in context of previous functional data e.g. from Li et al. 2015,2016) and also in comparison with the other two manuscripts on the same topic which have been published while this manuscript was under review, allows us to draw conclusions about the mechanism of γ1-mediated activation of Slo1. We have now, however, toned down some of the earlier statements and changed parts of our interpretations in light of the novel findings by Yamanouchi et al. and Kallure et al.

    The authors analysis of the extracellular domain of γ1 is incomplete. The only presented structure was performed with C4 symmetry imposed, in which extracellular domains were largely lost. The authors propose that these domains are dynamic and that their dynamism would enable simultaneous binding of both γ and b subunits, as occurs in cells. A more thorough analysis of the dynamics and well as potential asymmetric conformations should be performed to better understand how these domains interact with Slo1.

    We completely agree with the reviewer that a thorough analysis of the extracellular domain is important and thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions. We had attempted such analysis already from the beginning, but were not successful. More specifically, we have attempted reconstructions with lower symmetry (C2 and C1) from the beginning or by symmetry relaxation after initial C4 reconstruction. Also, we tested different masking and signal subtraction strategies in combination with different global and local refinements, as well as symmetry expansion and 3D classification. Unfortunately, none of these strategies led to a better resolved LRR module.

    We now think that in comparison with Kallure et al. and Yamanouchi et al., the ice in our sample was thinner, which allowed us to reach higher resolution in the core particle (Slo1 and γ1 TM helix), but at the cost of the γ1 LRRs being denatured or at least distorted by the air-water interface.

    The refinement statistics suggest that the model was incompletely refined. This reviewer was not provided with the map or models, but the validation report lists a clashscore of 9 and 5.7% of the rotamers as being outliers, both of which are high for the reported resolution of the structure. It is also strange that the Q-score varied between different γ1 protomers. Why are the four protomers not identical when the map is 4-fold symmetric? The authors should carefully inspect their model to insure that it is as correct as possible.

    We thank the reviewer for pointing this out, and while the values for clashscores and rotamers were not outside the range of values typically found in many other cryo-EM structures, we agree that there was still some room for improvement. We have worked on this and could lower the values to a clashscore of 7.0 and 1.8 % rotamer outliers.

    The difference in Q-score is also something not too uncommon since, while the map is indeed C4-symmetric, during model refinement the NCS restraints are not completely preventing small deviations between the protomers. We have now also successfully attempted to minimize these differences further.

    Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

    The impact of this report is limited. Functional analyses will be necessary to uncover precisely how gamma subunits regulate Slo1 channels.

    We thank the reviewer for this honest statement, but respectfully disagree. While additional functional analyses would have certainly boosted the impact, we are certain that our structural data and their interpretation will be very valuable for the field, because they provide (as stated by Reviewer 3) new insights into the regulation of Slo channel activity by the γ subunits and suggest (as stated by reviewer 2) a novel mechanism of activation of voltage-gated ion channels..

    Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

    Summary This study presents a high resolution cryo-EM study of a voltage-gated Ca++-dependent K+ channel in the presence of a gamma1 subunit. Analysis of the structure and sequence alignments suggest a novel mechanism of activation of voltage-gated ion channels.

    __Major comments __ The major issue in this paper is that it is only a structural biology paper. There is no structure-function relationship study, no functional studies of mutants that could validate -or not- the inferred underlying mechanism. Even though the authors have identified good candidates for mutations (e.g. p. 6) they have not attempted to validate their importance experimentally. As a result, reading their discussion is somewhat frustrating and full of assumptions, as indicated by sentences (p.7) like

    "a possible mechanism... might be... which would make... more likely".

    "... which might act ... seems important... might indicate... might lower... likely most pronounced... could be responsible..."

    "... might play an important role... does not allow a certain conclusion..."

    We completely agree with the reviewer that the paper would have been much stronger if we would have been able to perform biochemical or functional assays testing mutations in the binding interface. However, this would have unfortunately been beyond the scope of the project. We are nevertheless confident that our structural data will be of value for the field, also in context of the two structure-function papers that have been published since which confirm and validate our data and provide the link to function.

    __Minor comments which could be confidently addressed __ The Introduction contains no description of the state-of-the-art in the field concerning the available structures in the same system or similar ones. Hence, it is difficult to judge for people outside the field if the novelty. is incremental or significant.

    We have adjusted the introduction to explicitly mention previously published structural data on the Slo channels.

    References 10 and 42 (eLife) lacj some details.

    We have adjusted said references accordingly.

    __*Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)): *______

    Significance general assessment As it turns out, at least two papers in exactly the same field just appeared: -one in Molecular Cell by a Japanese group, which is much more developed and contains functional tests and structure-function relationships, in addition to beautiful structures (available on-line early December) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1097276523009218

    -one in biorxiv, deposited yesterday https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2023/12/20/2023.12.20.572542.full.pdf

    Advances wrt known results See above. As a result of these new papers in Mol Cell and biorxiv, I think the authors should reconsider submitting their article elsewhere, perhaps for a more specialized audience.

    We agree with the reviewer that in light of the other two publications which both were published a while after we deposited our preprint on biorxiv and while the manuscript was under review, the uniqueness of our data is somewhat lowered. However, since our data is overall in large agreement with these two other publications, but we report a structure at significantly higher resolution and from a different species (indeed the first Slo1 structure from rabbit, a model organism of BK channel characterization in the last decades), we are confident that our data are still very valuable for the field and qualify for publication in one of the affiliate journals of Review Commons. After all, the fact that three papers reporting very similar data were published within a few weeks (plus another preprint reporting structures of a Slo channel, but unrelated to γ subunits) illustrates the importance for understanding the regulation of this essential ion channel and the impact of all structural data enhancing this understanding, and independent confirmation by three different labs is something very valuable to the community.

    Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

    "This manuscript by Redhardt et al. presents the cryo-EM structure of the Slo K+ channel from rabbits in conjunction with its auxiliary subunit, γ1, and proposes a mechanistic model for regulating channel activation. "This manuscript by Redhardt et al. presents the cryo-EM structure of the Slo K+ channel from rabbits in conjunction with its auxiliary subunit, γ1, and proposes a mechanistic model for regulating channel activation. The Slo channel, also known as the large-conductance calcium-activated potassium channel or BK channel, is an ion channel type found in various cell membranes, including neurons, muscle cells, and other tissue types. Its key features encompass Ca2+ activation, voltage dependence, and regulation by auxiliary subunits. Different auxiliary subunits have been shown to modulate channel functions distinctly; notably, the γ1 subunit enables channel activation at lower voltages compared to the wild-type channel. This manuscript offers a structural-functional framework that enhances our comprehension of how Slo channels are regulated by auxiliary subunits, such as gamma and beta subunits. While the structure of Slo channels in complex with the beta subunit is understood, the binding and interaction of the gamma subunit with the channels remain elusive due to the absence of corresponding structures. Along these lines, the presented structure here indeed provides new insights into the regulation of Slo channel activity by the gamma subunit. However, there are some important questions below that should be addressed."

    In Figure 1D panel, the calcium ions appear to be indistinct, likely due to the figure's low resolution. The authors are recommended to enhance the figure quality and consider a better positioning to effectively illustrate the ions.

    We have adjusted the coloring of calcium ions Fig. 1D to increase their visibility.

    It would be beneficial for the readers if the authors provided detailed methodology explaining how they arrived at the 7% and 11% coexpression, aiding in the complex formation. Additionally, it would be informative to know the observed shift in the size exclusion chromatography (SEC) profile of Slo1-Y1 compared to apo Slo1.

    We have arrived at these concentrations of the respective viruses by empirically testing ranges between 3 % and 15 %. We have now added a sentence to the manuscript to explain this.

    Is there any rationale behind initially purifying using strep affinity followed by His affinity?

    The idea behind using a dual-affinity protocol is to ensure that all purified complexes contain at least one copy of Slo1 and one copy of γ1. Using the Strep tag first allows to remove most contaminants already in the first step, due to its higher specificity compared to the His tag. We have added a sentence to the methods section to explain this.

    Regarding the Slo1 tetramer with gamma subunit binding, are there other classes where one, two, or three gamma subunits are bound to Slo1? Or is there only one class where all protomers of Slo1 are occupied by the gamma subunit? How do these classes appear when refined in C1 symmetry? Are there classes displaying C1 or C2 symmetry, or is the four-fold symmetry preserved across all refined classes?"

    We exclusively observe complexes with four γ1 subunits. This is also in agreement with the other two recent publications reporting Slo1-γ1 complex structures, but could in principle be an artifact of artificial overexpression. Also when we refine the particles in C1, we retain C4 symmetry and do not observe any classes with C2 or C1 symmetry.

    The authors utilized nearly 1.9 million particles to reconstruct the final class, resulting in a high resolution. Is such a large number of particles truly necessary to achieve high resolution in this context?

    The large number of particles is not strictly necessary, i.e. we could obtain similar quality by using fewer particles. In the end, we have now further classified down to ~827k particles, which very slightly improved the resolution and quality of the map.

    Authros mentioned that F273 of γ1 forms pi-stacking interactions, it remains unclear with which components of the channel these interactions occur.

    F273 forms (slightly distorted) T stacking interactions with F164 in S2 and F187 in S3. We now changed the sentence in the manuscript to mention the residues that line the hydrophobic pocket to make it more clear which elements contribute to the interaction with F273.

    The authors propose that the disulfide bond between the γ subunit and Slo1 could play a crucial role in their interaction. Was there any observation of a covalent linkage in SDS page analysis? Furthermore, how would this interaction be affected if either cysteine C253 of gamma1 or C141 on the channel were mutated or neutralized?"

    We have run all our SDS-PAGE experiments under reducing conditions, thus destroying any disulfide bridges that might have been present in the complex. We have now, however obtained a slightly better defined reconstruction (as pointed out in our answer to point 5 raised by this reviewer) where we do not see as clear continuous density anymore between the two cysteine side chains. Thus, we have removed the cystine bond from the final model and have adjusted text and figures accordingly. We still think that it might be more than coincidence that those two side chains come into such close proximity, though, and still discuss the possibility of a cystine bridge in the manuscript.

    Author's state that "The presence of several immobile positive charges on the intracellular side in close proximity to the VSD as in the case of the Slo1-γ1 complex is likely to locally lower the resting state potential and repulse the gating charges, thereby reducing the energy to overcome for the VSD to transition to the active conformation." Authors need to be little more elaborative here as it is not clear what authors mean repulse of gating charges.

    We have expanded our description of the proposed repulsive effect of the positive charges in the manuscript and in addition also discuss the additional role of the charges in stabilizing the Ca2+-bound conformation of the gating ring as proposed by Yamanouchi et al.

    Probably beyond this study but I was wondering whether it is possible that Beta and gamma subunit can together assemble as heteromers to form a cage-like structure with contribution from both.

    We agree with the reviewer that this is an interesting question which we have also thought about and one which should be tested, but as the reviewer already mentioned, this would go beyond the present study and should be subject to an independent follow-up investigation.

    Are there any specific lipids observed within the structure that could potentially contribute to the functional conformation or stability of the complex?"

    Given the high resolution of our structure, we observe a number of ordered lipid and detergent molecules, most of which were located at similar positions as in previous structures of Slo channels. Besides those molecules clustering in the deep cleft between neighboring voltage-sensor domains, we also observe lipid densities close to the binding site of γ1 on the distal side of the VSD. However, as their relevance for γ1 binding is unclear, we don’t discuss them in the manuscript. In general, of course, we agree with the reviewer that lipids can have a large impact on the function of membrane proteins.

    It would be interesting to see if the kink in the gamma subunit is entirely neutralized through mutations of proline and glycine, how these alteration might impact the assembly of the mutated gamma subunit with the channel. The authors should provide insights into whether this mutated form of the gamma subunit assembles effectively with the channel and whether there are functional consequences associated with this alteration.

    As shown by Kallure et al., substituting P270 in the kink by serine (the native residue at this position in γ3) strongly diminished the ability of γ1 to associate with Slo1 in vitro, demonstrating the importance of the kink and providing a rationale for the observed differences in the potency of the TM helices of γ1 and γ3 in Slo1 activation.

    It would be generally beneficial for the authors to provide functional insights that can support the physiological relevance of this kink in the gamma subunit. Understanding the potential consequences of this mutation and its implications for the assembly and function of the channel complex will offer valuable insights into the physiological role of the kink.

    We absolutely agree with the reviewer that functional insights on the relevance of the kink would be very valuable, but we think that the available experimental data together with the natural sequence differences in γ1-γ4 and the correlation with their physiological activity are very clear indications that the kink is relevant. However, future follow-up studies that prove this beyond any doubt would be valuable.

    Is it known that binding of beta or gamma subunit can impact the subsequent binding of beta and gamma to channels. If it is, it need to be discussed briefly in the discussion part.

    This is, to the best of our knowledge, not known. The only existing data that suggests co-presence of beta and gamma subunits on Slo1, reported in Gonzalez-Perez et al., 2015, stems from electrophysiological experiments and does not reveal anything about hierarchy and temporal order of binding events.

    Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

    The Slo channel, also known as the large-conductance calcium-activated potassium channel or BK channel, is an ion channel type found in various cell membranes, including neurons, muscle cells, and other tissue types. Its key features encompass Ca2+ activation, voltage dependence, and regulation by auxiliary subunits. Different auxiliary subunits have been shown to modulate channel functions distinctly; notably, the γ1 subunit enables channel activation at lower voltages compared to the wild-type channel. This manuscript offers a structural-functional framework that enhances our comprehension of how Slo channels are regulated by auxiliary subunits, such as gamma and beta subunits. While the structure of Slo channels in complex with the beta subunit is understood, the binding and interaction of the gamma subunit with the channels remain elusive due to the absence of corresponding structures. Along these lines, the presented structure here indeed provides new insights into the regulation of Slo channel activity by the gamma subunit.

    We thank the reviewer for this positive assessment of the data and agree that our structural data, also when regarded together with the complementary manuscripts by Kallure et al. and Yamanouchi et al., provides significant new insight into the assembly and activity of γ subunits.

  2. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #3

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    "This manuscript by Redhardt et al. presents the cryo-EM structure of the Slo K+ channel from rabbits in conjunction with its auxiliary subunit, γ1, and proposes a mechanistic model for regulating channel activation.

    "This manuscript by Redhardt et al. presents the cryo-EM structure of the Slo K+ channel from rabbits in conjunction with its auxiliary subunit, γ1, and proposes a mechanistic model for regulating channel activation.

    The Slo channel, also known as the large-conductance calcium-activated potassium channel or BK channel, is an ion channel type found in various cell membranes, including neurons, muscle cells, and other tissue types. Its key features encompass Ca2+ activation, voltage dependence, and regulation by auxiliary subunits. Different auxiliary subunits have been shown to modulate channel functions distinctly; notably, the γ1 subunit enables channel activation at lower voltages compared to the wild-type channel. This manuscript offers a structural-functional framework that enhances our comprehension of how Slo channels are regulated by auxiliary subunits, such as gamma and beta subunits. While the structure of Slo channels in complex with the beta subunit is understood, the binding and interaction of the gamma subunit with the channels remain elusive due to the absence of corresponding structures. Along these lines, the presented structure here indeed provides new insights into the regulation of Slo channel activity by the gamma subunit. However, there are some important questions below that should be addressed."

    1. In Figure 1D panel, the calcium ions appear to be indistinct, likely due to the figure's low resolution. The authors are recommended to enhance the figure quality and consider a better positioning to effectively illustrate the ions.
    2. It would be beneficial for the readers if the authors provided detailed methodology explaining how they arrived at the 7% and 11% coexpression, aiding in the complex formation. Additionally, it would be informative to know the observed shift in the size exclusion chromatography (SEC) profile of Slo1-Y1 compared to apo Slo1.
    3. Is there any rationale behind initially purifying using strep affinity followed by His affinity?
    4. Regarding the Slo1 tetramer with gamma subunit binding, are there other classes where one, two, or three gamma subunits are bound to Slo1? Or is there only one class where all protomers of Slo1 are occupied by the gamma subunit? How do these classes appear when refined in C1 symmetry? Are there classes displaying C1 or C2 symmetry, or is the four-fold symmetry preserved across all refined classes?"
    5. The authors utilized nearly 1.9 million particles to reconstruct the final class, resulting in a high resolution. Is such a large number of particles truly necessary to achieve high resolution in this context?
    6. Authros mentioned that F273 of Y1 forms pi-stacking interactions, it remains unclear with which components of the channel these interactions occur.
    7. The authors propose that the disulfide bond between the Y subunit and Slo1 could play a crucial role in their interaction. Was there any observation of a covalent linkage in SDS page analysis? Furthermore, how would this interaction be affected if either cysteine C253 of gamma1 or C141 on the channel were mutated or neutralized?"
    8. Author's state that "The presence of several immobile positive charges on the intracellular side in close proximity to the VSD as in the case of the Slo1-γ1 complex is likely to locally lower the resting state potential and repulse the gating charges, thereby reducing the energy to overcome for the VSD to transition to the active conformation." Authors need to be little more elaborative here as it is not clear what authors mean repulse of gating charges.
    9. Probably beyond this study but I was wondering whether it is possible that Beta and gamma subunit can together assemble as heteromers to form a cage-like structure with contribution from both.
    10. Are there any specific lipids observed within the structure that could potentially contribute to the functional conformation or stability of the complex?"
    11. It would be interesting to see if the kink in the gamma subunit is entirely neutralized through mutations of proline and glycine, how these alteration might impact the assembly of the mutated gamma subunit with the channel. The authors should provide insights into whether this mutated form of the gamma subunit assembles effectively with the channel and whether there are functional consequences associated with this alteration.
    12. It would be generally beneficial for the authors to provide functional insights that can support the physiological relevance of this kink in the gamma subunit. Understanding the potential consequences of this mutation and its implications for the assembly and function of the channel complex will offer valuable insights into the physiological role of the kink.
    13. Is it known that binding of beta or gamma subunit can impact the subsequent binding of beta and gamma to channels. If it is, it need to be discussed briefly in the discussion part.

    Significance

    The Slo channel, also known as the large-conductance calcium-activated potassium channel or BK channel, is an ion channel type found in various cell membranes, including neurons, muscle cells, and other tissue types. Its key features encompass Ca2+ activation, voltage dependence, and regulation by auxiliary subunits. Different auxiliary subunits have been shown to modulate channel functions distinctly; notably, the γ1 subunit enables channel activation at lower voltages compared to the wild-type channel. This manuscript offers a structural-functional framework that enhances our comprehension of how Slo channels are regulated by auxiliary subunits, such as gamma and beta subunits. While the structure of Slo channels in complex with the beta subunit is understood, the binding and interaction of the gamma subunit with the channels remain elusive due to the absence of corresponding structures. Along these lines, the presented structure here indeed provides new insights into the regulation of Slo channel activity by the gamma subunit.

  3. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #2

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    Summary

    This study presents a high resolution cryo-EM study of a voltage-gated Ca++-dependent K+ channel in the presence of a gamma1 subunit.

    Analysis of the structure and sequence alignments suggest a novel mechanism of activation of voltage-gated ion channels.

    Major comments

    The major issue in this paper is that it is only a structural biology paper. There is no structure-function relationship study, no functional studies of mutants that could validate -or not- the inferred underlying mechanism. Even though the authors have identified good candidates for mutations (e.g. p. 6) they have not attempted to validate their importance experimentally. As a result, reading their discussion is somewhat frustrating and full of assumptions, as indicated by sentences (p.7) like "a possible mechanism... might be... which would make... more likely". "... which might act ... seems important... might indicate... might lower... likely most pronounced... could be responsible..." "... might play an important role... does not allow a certain conclusion..."

    Minor comments which could be confidently addressed

    The Introduction contains no description of the state-of-the-art in the field concerning the available structures in the same system or similar ones. Hence, it is difficult to judge for people outside the field if the novelty is incremental or significant.

    References 10 and 42 (eLife) lack some details.

    Significance

    Significance general assessment

    As it turns out, at least two papers in exactly the same field just appeared:

    Advances

    wrt known results

    See above.

    As a result of these new papers in Mol Cell and biorxiv, I think the authors should reconsider submitting their article elsewhere, perhaps for a more specialized audience.

  4. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #1

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    Redhardt and colleagues describe a structure of the voltage and Ca-activated Slo1 channel in complex with an auxiliary subunit, 1. In complex with 1, Slo1 adopts an open state that closely resembles previous open state structures. Of 1, only the single membrane-spanning helix, which binds to the periphery of the Slo1 VSD, is resolved. There, it establishes several interactions with Slo1 that authors propose may favor adoption of the open state, potentially explaining how 1 can shift I-V profile of Slo1 to be activated at more negative membrane potentials. The interactions described fit well with existing mutagenesis analyses. While this report provides a first glimpse of how 1 can bind to Slo1, its impact will be minimal. It describes a single structural snapshot and there are no functional analyses presented. Additional analyses would be helpful in understanding of how 1 can regulate Slo1 channels.

    Major comments:

    1. The authors propose several models for how 1 regulates Slo1, yet none of them are experimentally evaluated. For example, on page 8, it is written that "we propose that the combination of three different principles, namely shape complementarity, covalent anchoring and lowering the resting state potential by a positively charged intracellular stretch, act in concert to stabilize an active VSD conformation in the Slo1-γ1 complex." This is a testable hypothesis and one that should be experimentally evaluated to better understand regulation by 1.
    2. The authors analysis of the extracellular domain of 1 is incomplete. The only presented structure was performed with C4 symmetry imposed, in which extracellular domains were largely lost. The authors propose that these domains are dynamic and that their dynamism would enable simultaneous binding of both  and  subunits, as occurs in cells. A more thorough analysis of the dynamics and well as potential asymmetric conformations should be performed to better understand how these domains interact with Slo1.
    3. The refinement statistics suggest that the model was incompletely refined. This reviewer was not provided with the map or models, but the validation report lists a clashscore of 9 and 5.7% of the rotamers as being outliers, both of which are high for the reported resolution of the structure. It is also strange that the Q-score varied between different 1 protomers. Why are the four protomers not identical when the map is 4-fold symmetric? The authors should carefully inspect their model to insure that it is as correct as possible.

    Significance

    The impact of this report is limited. Functional analyses will be necessary to uncover precisely how gamma subunits regulate Slo1 channels.

  5. Version published to 10.1101/2023.11.01.565197v1 on bioRxiv