Abstract
Neurotransmitters released at the neural synapse through vesicle exocytosis are spatiotemporally controlled by the action of neurotransmitter transporters. Integral membrane proteins of the solute carrier 6 (SLC6) family are involved in the sodium and chloride coupled uptake of biogenic amine neurotransmitters including dopamine, serotonin, noradrenaline and inhibitory neurotransmitters including glycine and γ-amino butyric acid. This ion-coupled symport works through a well-orchestrated gating of substrate through alternating-access, which is mediated through movements of helices that resemble a rocking-bundle. A large array of commercially prescribed drugs and psychostimulants selectively target neurotransmitter transporters thereby modulating their levels in the synaptic space. Drug-induced changes in the synaptic neurotransmitter levels can be used to treat depression or neuropathic pain whereas in some instances prolonged usage can lead to habituation. Earlier structural studies of bacterial neurotransmitter transporter homolog LeuT and recent structure elucidation of the Drosophila dopamine transporter (dDAT) and human serotonin transporter (hSERT) have yielded a wealth of information in understanding the transport and inhibition mechanism of neurotransmitter transporters. Computational studies based on the structures of dDAT and hSERT have shed light on the dynamics of varied components of these molecular gates in affecting the uphill transport of neurotransmitters. This review seeks to address structural dynamics of neurotransmitter transporters at the extracellular and intracellular gates and the effect of inhibitors on the ligand-binding pocket. We also delve into the effect of additional factors including lipids and cytosolic domains that influence the translocation of neurotransmitters across the membrane.
Introduction
Chemical neurotransmission between neurons involves the exocytic release of neurotransmitters that activate downstream ligand-gated ion channels and metabotropic receptors (Jessell and Kandel, ). The levels of released neurotransmitters are dynamically regulated by the activity of ion-coupled neurotransmitter transporters that couple the Na+/Cl− electrochemical gradients to drive the uphill transport of excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters (Masson et al., ) (Figure 1). A majority of neurotransmitter transporters belong to the SLC6 family (Broer and Gether, ) that includes dopamine (DA), norepinephrine (NE), serotonin (5HT), glycine and γ-amino butyric acid (GABA) transporters (Figure 1). The monoamine neurotransmitters play vital roles in maintaining normal locomotor function, sleep cycle, mood, incentive-driven learning and reward (Hornykiewicz, ; Jacobs and Azmitia, ; Torres et al., ). Compromised levels of neurotransmitters cause shifts in neurophysiology that manifest as disorders including major depressive disorder, epilepsy, Parkinson's disease, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and neuropathic pain (Iversen, , ). For instance, reduced monoamine levels are a well-established, albeit not the only source of depression, popularly referred to as the “monoamine hypothesis” (Schildkraut, ). Drugs that treat these conditions are inhibitors of neurotransmitter transporters and lead to enhanced levels of monoamines in the neural synapse (Torres et al., ).
Figure 1
Incidentally, this is also the mechanism through which psychostimulants act on the dopaminergic pathways of the brain leading to prolonged activation of reward pathways leading to habit formation (Giros and Caron, ; Nutt et al., ).
Neurotransmitter sodium symporters (NSSs) are members of the solute carrier 6 (SLC6) family transporters that comprise around 600–800 amino acids in their primary sequence. The TM regions display significant sequence identities (~50–70%) even amongst NSSs that transport diverse substrates (Figures 2A,B) (Kristensen et al., ). Most of the variations betweensequences lie in the unique termini and extracellular loop regions of the transporters (Figure 2A). NSSs are related to prokaryotic amino acid transporters like LeuT with a sequence identity of ~20% (Yamashita et al., ; Penmatsa et al., ). Within eukaryotic NSS members, sequence identities extend between 50–70% among transporters and the molecular architecture resembles LeuT, a bacterial homolog involved in sodium-coupled amino acid symport (Kristensen et al., ). The structural and mechanistic similarities with LeuT have typified the underlying mechanisms of substrate transport in eukaryotic neurotransmitter transporters (Focke et al., ; Penmatsa and Gouaux, ; Navratna and Gouaux, ). The architecture of Na+/Cl− coupled neurotransmitter transporters reveal 12 TM helices of which helical bundles 1–5 and 6–10 display a pseudo 2-fold symmetry that allows, “alternating-access” within this family of transporters (Figure 3A) (Jardetzky, ; Drew and Boudker, ; Majumder et al., ). Within the symmetric helices, TMs 1 and 6 serve as gating helices with a non-helical junction in the center that allows movement of extracellular and intracellular halves independent of each other to regulate the exposure and closure of the ligand-binding pocket to solvent access. These movements allow SLC6 transporters to sample outward-open (Oo), outward-occluded (Oocc), Inward-occluded (Iocc) and Inward-open (Io) states to establish the transport cycle (Figure 3B) (Yamashita et al., ; Krishnamurthy and Gouaux, ; Penmatsa and Gouaux, ). Recent structural studies of the Drosophila melanogaster dopamine transporter (dDAT) (Penmatsa et al., ) and human serotonin transporter (hSERT) (Coleman et al., ) in complex with multiple transport blockers and altered conformational states have given remarkable insights into the translocation and inhibitory mechanisms in this family. More specifically, the dDAT and hSERT structures reveal the similarities within the gating properties with LeuT and the dissimilarities in the organization of unique structural motifs including the extracellular loop (EL) 2, TM12, and the C-terminal latch (Penmatsa et al., ; Coleman et al., ). The elucidation of high-resolution crystal structures of the two monoamine transporters facilitated extensive computational and experimental studies into the dynamics that drive substrate transport and inhibitor interactions within the SLC6 family (Grouleff et al., ; Cheng and Bahar, ). Substrate gating occurs both at the extracellular and intracellular gates that exhibit a propensity to move in or out to proportionately reduce or enhance solvent access to substrate on either side of the neural membrane.
Figure 2
Figure 3
In this review, we highlight the components within the SLC6 monoamine transporters that serve as gates for biogenic amines to move from the synaptic space into the cytosol of neurons and surrounding glial cells. The review seeks to provide a detailed insight into the structure and dynamics of the extracellular gates, ligand binding site, intracellular gates and intracellular domains of monoamine neurotransmitter transporters and extraneous factors that influence their dynamics and role in substrate translocation (Figure 3C). At each of the sections, the review draws comparison between LeuT, dDAT, and hSERT crystal structures to highlight both the parallels and differences involved in their transport properties.
NSS Architecture
Structural similarities between LeuT and eukaryotic NSSs are particularly prominent in the organization of symmetry related helices 1–5 and 6–10 as they share a similar topology (Figure 3A). A large extracellular loop (EL2) is observed between TMs 3 and 4, which is heavily N-glycosylated in dDAT and other vertebrate NSS members (Melikian et al., ; Porzgen et al., ). Most structural studies employ trimming this region to a stretch that allows retention of a functional transporter with the shortest possible region of EL2 (Penmatsa et al., ; Coleman et al., ). The loop decorates the extracellular face of the transporter and closely interacts with EL6 and EL4. Disruption of these interactions by excessive shortening of the loop, as observed in dDAT, leads to a loss of transport activity (Wang et al., ). Presence of a disulfide is a common feature in the EL2 of NSS members. In the case of mammalian DATs, the EL2 (H193, D206) forms a Zn2+ binding site with EL4 (H375, E396) (Norregaard et al., ; Stockner et al., ). Binding of Zn2+ to this site is observed to inhibit substrate translocation, suggesting a metal ion driven regulation of transport activity (Norregaard et al., ). The Zn2+ binding site is unique to mammalian DATs and is not observed in other NSS members.
In particular, the gating helices TM1a, 1b and TM6a, 6b that together form the “rocking-bundle,” have a substantial similarity in their organization amongst LeuT, dDAT and hSERT (Forrest et al., ). The concerted inward movement of TM1b and TM6a affects the solvent-accessibility of the extracellular vestibule that allows the transporter to transit from an outward open (Oo) to an outward occluded state (Oocc) (Figure 3B). While this inward or outward movement of helices occurs by 5.6–7° in dDAT (Figure 4C), 5.5–9° in LeuT and 3–5° in hSERT, the movement occurs in response to substrate interactions in the primary binding site whilst competitive and non-competitive inhibitors prevent this conformational shift and closure of the extracellular vestibule. The gating helices have a disordered region and resemble a pair of “nunchucks” where co-transported ions bind in addition to the substrates and the ligand is ensconced by scaffolding helices, TMs 3, 8 and 10 around them. The binding site has determinants for substrate recognition and inhibitor binding and is subdivided into subsites A, B and C (Sorensen et al., ). Further details of subsites would be discussed in a subsequent section. The substrate-binding site is conjoined to the ion-binding sites that consists of two sodium ions and one chloride ion that are co-transported with the substrate in the transport cycle. Release of the substrate is driven by the opening of the cytosolic gates mediated primarily by TM1a (Krishnamurthy and Gouaux, ) and unwinding of TM5 to facilitate this movement (Malinauskaite et al., ).
Figure 4
The movement of the cytosolic gate is controlled through an electrostatic network that is propagated at the cytosolic face of the transporter with interactions between TM1, IL4, and C-terminal latch (Penmatsa et al., ). The C-terminal latch is an extension of the TM12 that caps the C-terminal face of the transporter through ionic and aromatic interactions in both dDAT and hSERT (Penmatsa et al., ; Coleman et al., ). The W597 (dDAT) forms NH-π interactions with R101 (dDAT) in the intracellular loop 1 (IL1) that in turn forms an electrostatic interaction with the D25 (dDAT) at the N-terminus. Similarly R27 (dDAT), also at the N-terminus, forms electrostatic interactions with D435 (IL3, dDAT) and K441 (IL3, dDAT). The TM12 in eukaryotic NSSs, unlike LeuT, has a kink in the center that prevents it from having dimeric interactions similar to LeuT (Penmatsa et al., ), although recent computational and experimental studies indicate oligomer formation of hSERT in the membrane environment (Laursen et al., ; Periole et al., ).
Extracellular Vestibule
Gating in the Extracellular Vestibule
The extracellular vestibule resembles a funnel lined by helices TM1b, TM6a, TMs 3, 8 and 10 on the periphery and EL4 on the top through close interactions with TM1b and EL6. The vestibule is predominantly negatively charged (Figures 4A,B) to facilitate the movement of the positively charged monoamines and inhibitors into the binding pocket, which is located halfway across the membrane bilayer and remains solvent accessible in the Oo state (Figure 4A). The extracellular vestibule is observed to serve as a binding site in a few of the drug-NSS complexes particularly S-citalopram-hSERT complex, tryptophan-LeuT complexes and desvenlafaxine in complex with LeuBAT (LeuT modified to mimic the binding site of biogenic amine transporters) (Wang et al., ).
The extracellular gates comprise salt bridges between the gating helix TM1b and scaffold helix TM10 in LeuT and NSS structures (Yamashita et al., ; Penmatsa et al., ; Coleman et al., ). In LeuT, this was observed between R30 and D404. The equivalent interactions in dDAT are not apparent between R52 and D475 in both the dopamine bound Oo and DCP bound Oocc conformations. However, the salt bridge formation in hSERT is apparent between R104 (TM1b) and E493 (TM10) in the Oo and Io structures. This interaction disengages in the case of Oocc conformation of hSERT. However, it was observed in simulations with hDAT that salt bridges could form between R85 (TM1b) and D476 (TM10) upon binding to dopamine in the primary substrate binding pocket (Cheng and Bahar, ).
The inward movement of the helices TM1b and TM6a in response to substrate interactions induces the coordinated movement of the EL4 region inwards, to partially reduce the solvent access inside the extracellular vestibule. This is more apparent in comparison with the inward open state of LeuT where EL4 moves into the vestibule by nearly 3–4 Å forming close interactions with EL6. The movement of EL4 is closely coupled to the inward movement of TM1b through aromatic stacking interaction between W103 (hSERT) and P403 (hSERT) in the EL4 turn.
Substrate binding in the primary binding site induces closure of the substrate-binding pocket to solvent access leading to an Oocc state (Figure 4B). This is predominantly induced by the inward movement of the residue F319 (dDAT) that controls solvent access to the substrate-binding pocket (Figure 4C). Among the available structures of NSS members, LeuT bound to leucine predominantly displays an Oocc state and dDAT displays an Oocc conformation in the presence of dichlorophenylethylamine (DCP), a halogenated analog of DA. Residue F319 is part of the ligand-binding site and details of this gating process by F319 are discussed as part of the dynamics of the ligand-binding site.
Allosteric Site
The entrance of the extracellular vestibule is observed in multiple instances in LeuT and hSERT to bind diverse compounds including β-octylglucoside, L-tryptophan, D-maltose, clomipramine and S-citalopram. The clomipramine bound Oocc LeuT structure provided insights into antidepressants acting as potential non-competitive inhibitors by blocking the unbinding of the substrate or inhibitor bound in the primary binding site (Singh et al., ). Biochemical studies have also suggested the role of high affinity substrate binding to a secondary binding site (S2) in the vestibule that is essential for transport activity. Binding of leucine at this position was proposed as a symport effector that would trigger the release of the substrate bound in the primary binding site (Shi et al., ). However, a clear second binding site for the substrate in the vestibule of LeuT was not evident despite extensive crystallographic studies done using LeuT. This was a point of debate in the area with the site being primarily attributed to be non-specific that can bind detergent (Piscitelli et al., ). But, proponents of the second binding site suggest it to be playing an important role in the allosteric control of transport properties (Zhao et al., ).
In multiple studies involving simulations, substrates and drugs like cocaine were observed to transiently interact at the S2 site prior to binding to the primary binding site (Cheng et al., ). Several biochemical studies hinted at the potential for S-citalopram to bind at an allosteric site and inhibit hSERT activity (Chen et al., ; Matthaus et al., ). This was conclusively proven in the crystal structure of hSERT in complex with S-citalopram (Coleman et al., ), wherein a clear density for the drug was observed in the vestibule coordinated by residues from TMs 1b, 6a, 10 and 11 (Figure 5). Allosteric inhibitors prevent the binding or unbinding of fresh substrate by blocking vestibular entry to the primary binding site, thereby preventing further conformational transitions in the transporter. In S-citalopram, the fluorophenyl group is stacked in a hydrophobic pocket created by TM10 and 11 amidst residues F556, L502, P499 and I553 (Figure 5). The dimethyl propylamine group is observed to face the entrance of the vestibule and is accessible to solvent. While the hSERT crystal structure does not indicate a direct interaction, the tertiary amine could have interactions with E494 in the vicinity. The larger benzofurancarbonitrile group of the drug is stacked in between R104 (TM1b) and F335 (TM6a) that serve as the primary gating residues in the vestibule. R104 forms a salt bridge with E493 and F335 is known to undergo movements to open or close the primary substrate-binding site to solvent access through the extracellular vestibule to form the occluded state. S-citalopram was also observed to stabilize TM1b region in HDX mass spectroscopy, likely due to its ability to interact at the allosteric site, in comparison with cocaine, which only binds in the primary binding site (Wang et al., ; Moller et al., ). It was also observed that bivalent substrates containing two covalently linked dopamine or serotonin units had significantly higher affinities toward hDAT and hSERT suggesting that the vestibule could harbor an additional interaction site in mammalian NSSs (Andersen et al., ). However, X-ray structures of dDAT or other drug complexes with hSERT do not reveal substrate binding to the extracellular vestibule suggesting that this phenomenon might be specific to citalopram-SERT interactions. In fact, the binding site comparisons between dDAT and hSERT at the allosteric site reveal differences in the interactions between EL6, TM11 and TM10 that could explain the absence of a secondary antidepressant binding site in dDAT (Figure 4A). In the absence of drug bound in the allosteric site, a molecule of D-maltose was observed suggesting the potential non-specific interactions in this region of the vestibule. At higher ligand concentrations (20 mM) an allosterically bound desvenlafaxine was observed in LeuBAT (Wang et al., ), a LeuT construct with residues engineered to resemble a biogenic amine transporter. However, biochemical analysis of this SNRI clearly reveals the competitive nature of its inhibition (Deecher et al., ).
Figure 5
Recent studies have also identified that adenine nucleoside derivatives that are traditionally A3 adenosine receptor agonists can interact specifically with hDAT and hNET to cause transport inhibition, albeit not as competitive inhibitors at the primary binding site. These drugs presumably interact with hDAT in the vestibule that allows increased affinity for competitive inhibitors of DAT like RTI-55 and mazindol (Janowsky et al., ; Navratna et al., ).
Substrate or Inhibitor Binding Site
The substrate-binding pocket of eukaryotic NSSs is the primary region of interactions for all the monoamine and inhibitory neurotransmitters. Substrate selectivity toward monoamines, glycine and GABA is enforced in this binding site. The funnel like extracellular vestibule opens into a cavernous and flexible binding pocket that is capable of binding not just neurotransmitters, but also antidepressants and psychostimulants (Wang et al., , ; Penmatsa et al., ). Competitive inhibitors bind with high affinity to the primary substrate binding pocket effectively preventing neurotransmitters from accessing the binding pocket. The steric bulk of the inhibitors also prevent closure of extracellular gates during the transport cycle thereby disallowing formation of the occluded intermediate (Apparsundaram et al., ; Penmatsa et al., ). In the Oo state, the binding pocket is accessible to water molecules, sodium and chloride ions that bind in the immediate vicinity of the substrate or inhibitor. Two sodium ions are bound to the Na1 and Na2 sites in all three experimental structures of LeuT, dDAT and hSERT. Na1 site is ensconced between TM1, 6 and 7 and is coordinated in part by the main chain carbonyl groups of S320, A44 and side chains of S320 (TM6), N49 (TM1), N352 (TM7) in dDAT. The Na2 site is coordinated by residues from TM1 and TM8 through main chain carbonyl groups of D46 (TM1a), F43 (TM1a), L417 (TM8) and side chain of S421 (TM8) and D420 (TM8) in dDAT. In the eukaryotic NSS members an additional chloride ion is bound in the vicinity of Na1 site. The Cl− is held through tetrahedral coordination between Y69 (TM2), Q316 (TM6), S320 (TM6), and S356 (TM7) in dDAT. In LeuT, the negatively charged chloride is substituted through E290 in TM7 (Kantcheva et al., ) (Figure 6A). It was observed in LeuT that binding of sodium ions could induce Oo state prepped for binding to a substrate molecule. These observations are also confirmed through DEER measurements where substrate free LeuT bound to Na+ stays in an outward-open conformation (Claxton et al., ). Simulations with hDAT have revealed the existence of a channel-like state in the transporter particularly in the substrate free form where the closure of extracellular gates and intracellular gates is not tight in comparison to substrate bound form (Cheng et al., ).
Figure 6
Substrate binding induces an occluded conformation in the transporter, which involves closure of the extracellular gates. The substrate-binding pocket is further divided into three subsites A, B and C based on the regions of inhibitor-protein interactions (Figure 6A) (Wang et al.,
At this juncture, dDAT structures in complex with dopamine, dopamine analog 3,4 dichlorophenylethyl amine (DCP) and D-amphetamine are the only structures available for interpretation of substrate-induced changes within the binding sites (Figures 4A–C). The hSERT structures are predominantly inhibitor bound outward-open or ibogaine bound inward-open structures. The recognition of the positively charged amine group occurs at the negatively charged D46 (dDAT) (D98 in hSERT) of subsite A. This Asp side chain along with the main chain carbonyl of the F319 (F335 in hSERT) form a local negatively charged area that strongly attracts monoamines and the secondary and tertiary amines of antidepressants and psychostimulants. The binding of dopamine is observed to induce a χ1 torsional angle shift of nearly 120° in D46 of dDAT (Figure 4C). In this process, the aspartate disengages from its coordination with the Na1 site and coordinates with amine group of dopamine. The equivalent residue in case of other NSS members, whose substrates are amino acid neurotransmitters like glycine and GABA, have a substitution at the aspartate residue to glycine to better accommodate the carboxyl group of the amino acid, akin to LeuT. The disordered stretch of TM1 continues to form the floor of the binding pocket F43, which in case of the hSERT is a tyrosine (Y95) that undergoes a massive shift of 6 Å in the Cα position and 12.5 Å in the position of the phenyl group during the conformation change leading to the inward-open (Io) state. This movement facilitates solvent access to the binding site and these changes are discussed in detail in the subsequent section dealing with the intracellular gate dynamics.
Subsite B in dDAT is the region of the binding pocket that faces the scaffolding helices TM3 (V120, D121, Y124) and TM8 (S426, S422). The aromatic groups of numerous drugs wedge into this pocket and display strong inhibitory effects on the transport process. Interestingly, subsite B is also the site where some variations are observed between dDAT and other mammalian NSS members. The dDAT subsite B is a relatively polar region that has D121 and S426 residues that interact with the catechol ring of dopamine and presumably noradrenaline. In a multiple sequence alignment, the two residues are a cavity forming, side chain lacking glycine instead of D121 in both hDAT and hNET or a neutral side chain containing alanine (A173) in case of hSERT. S426 is usually a methionine in case of both hDAT and hNET and a leucine (L443) in case of hSERT (Figures 2A, 6B). While the affinity of dDAT is not hampered toward transport inhibitors due to a polar subsite B, the substitution of D121 to glycine or S426 to methionine to mimic hDAT subsite B leads to a significant enhancement of affinity toward drugs like nisoxetine, cocaine and other antidepressants to varying extents (Wang et al.,
The subsite C consists of the non-helical junction between TM6a and 6b that exhibits substantial plasticity to accommodate drugs and substrates of varying sizes and affect the conformational changes within the transporter to translocate the neurotransmitter. The residue F319 (dDAT) (F253 in LeuT; F335 in hSERT) serves as a gating residue to occlude the binding pocket from solvent access upon substrate binding. The inward movement of the F319 side chain by about 100°, closes the solvent access of the extracellular vestibule to the substrate-binding pocket (Figure 4). While this movement is consistently observed within LeuT and the substrate analog bound structure of dDAT, the ibogaine bound outward occluded (Oocc) structure of hSERT does not exhibit any such movement of the side chain, F335. However, the inward open state of hSERT does display this conformational change with the F335 side chain shifting inward to occlude the extracellular vestibule (Figure 7A). The residue that prominently interacts with the drugs through aromatic edge-to-face interactions is F325 (dDAT) and F341 (hSERT). The interactions of this residue with the aromatic groups of the substrate and inhibitor allow the control of the size of the binding pocket, which can accommodate drugs with a small surface area (D-amphetamine, 314.6 Å2) to large inhibitors including tricyclic antidepressants (476 Å2) (Figure 7B). These movements suggest that the binding site retains plasticity to accommodate substrates and drugs of varying sizes.
Figure 7

(A) Structural changes in the binding site caused by a transition from Oo (PDB ID: 6DZY) state to Io (PDB ID: 6DZZ) state in hSERT. The F335 moves in to occlude the binding pocket and lowering of the drug-binding pocket to sense the altered position of ibogaine. (B) Plasticity of the binding pocket dictated by movements of subsite C with the F325 sensing the size of the bound ligand through aromatic interactions. Structural differences in the binding pocket with nortriptyline (pink) (PDB ID: 4M48), cocaine (yellow) (PDB ID: 4XP4) and D-amphetamine (blue) (PDB ID: 4XP9).
Dynamics of the Intracellular Gates
Unlike the major facilitator superfamily transporters that function as rocking switches to allow vectorial movement of substrate, the LeuT family transporters employ a rocking bundle of two helices (Drew and Boudker,
Figure 8

(A,B) Extracellular and Cytosolic gating of the substrate in hSERT (PDB ID: 6DZV, 6DZZ) and LeuT (PDB ID: 3TT1, 3TT3) respectively. Oo state of the structure is represented in cyan whilst Io state in magenta. Structures display the difference in the conformation as a consequence of TM1b, TM6a closing on the top and TM1a open to release neurotransmitter into the intracellular milieu. Intracellular network of H-bonds and hydrophobic interactions represented in the bottom panel for each molecule.
Another major factor that influences the ability to open or close is the interaction of TM1a with cholesterol (Figure 9). In fact, the presence of cholesterol in the ibogaine bound structure of hSERT retains it in an outward-open state (Coleman et al.,
Figure 9

(A) Cholesterol interactions observed in the NSS structures hSERT and dDAT. Cholesterol sites 1 and 2 are observed in dDAT (PDB ID: 4XP1) in the inner leaflet while site 3 is observed at TM12 region in hSERT structure (PDB ID: 5I73). (B) Site 1 is anchored in the junction between TM1, 7, and 5 and the figure displays similarities in the binding sites of both dDAT and hSERT. (C) Movement of the TM1a in hSERT structure is facilitated by absence of cholesterol. The cholesteryl hemisuccinate (CHS) was observed in the Oocc structure of hSERT (PDB ID: 6DZV).
Role of Lipids in Transport Function
It is well known that transport activity and inhibitor binding in neurotransmitter transporters are significantly influenced by membrane cholesterol (Scanlon et al.,
Given the understanding of the transport process gained from LeuT in multiple conformations, it is evident that TM1a is the primary motif that swings out by 45° to create solvent accessibility to the substrate binding pocket. In the presence of cholesterol at site 1, this outward movement of TM1a would be sterically blocked (Figure 9C). In the recent past, this premise was tested by in silico and biochemical studies wherein mutations in the cholesterol-binding site 1 resulted in the enrichment of the inward-facing conformation (Laursen et al.,
In addition to cholesterol, a few other studies have shown the ability and importance of PIP2 in mediating some aspects of hDAT function, particularly its ability to display amphetamine induced dopamine efflux and in oligomerization. PIP2 is suggested to interact with the hDAT N-terminus that has substantial numbers of positively charged residues for the anionic PIP2 head group to interact with (Khelashvili et al.,
Roles and Dynamics of Cytosolic Domains
In the recent past, multiple regulatory roles and cellular functions were attributed to the N and C terminal domains of neurotransmitter transporters. The hSERT and hDAT N and C termini were modeled and were found to have large stretches of disorder interspersed with α-helices and β-strands (Fenollar-Ferrer et al.,
Table 1
| S. no | Transporter | Terminus | Interacting partner | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dopamine transporter (DAT) | N-Terminus | Syntaxin-1A (Binda et al., | Increased efflux |
| PIP2 (Hamilton et al., | Increased efflux | |||
| C-terminus | PICK-1 (Bjerggaard et al., | Improved surface expression | ||
| α-synuclein (Lee et al., | Reduced uptake | |||
| Hic-5 (Carneiro et al., | Reduced surface expression | |||
| CamKII (Fog et al., | Phosphorylation of N-terminus. | |||
| ILs | DJ-1 (Luk et al., | Increased influx | ||
| 2 | Serotonin transporter (SERT) | N-terminus | Syntaxin-1A (Quick, | Reduced uptake |
| Nitric oxide synthase (Chanrion et al., | Uptake inhibition | |||
| SCAMP-2 (Muller et al., | Reduced surface expression | |||
| C-terminus | MacMARCKS (Jess et al., | Reduced transport | ||
| Hic-5 (Carneiro and Blakely, | Reduced surface expression | |||
| 3 | GABA transporter (GAT) | N-terminus | Syntaxin-1A (Fan et al., | Reduced transport rate |
| C-terminus | Pals-1 (McHugh et al., | Improved stability Better transport rate | ||
| Ezrin (Imoukhuede et al., | GAT1-Actin tether | |||
| 4 | Glycine transporter (GlyT) | N-terminus | Syntaxin-1A (Geerlings et al., | Reduced rates |
Intracellular interacting partners of neurotransmitter transporters.
Conclusions
The studies in the recent past based on the dDAT and hSERT structures have yielded rich information on the transport and inhibitory mechanisms involved in neurotransmitter transport. With the rather remarkable insight into the inward-open state using cryoEM structure of hSERT, it is now possible to reconstruct the transport cycle of eukaryotic NSS members (Figure 10). The conservation of the features that drive transport in the LeuT, dDAT, and hSERT is extensive with the transport occurring through an asymmetric opening and closure of gating helices TM1 and 6 resulting in the alternate-access of neurotransmitter transport. This “asymmetric rocking-bundle” in all likelihood, constitutes the primary mechanism of transport for the other plasma membrane neurotransmitter transporters, whose structures are yet to be elucidated. Newer roles of the N and C-terminal domains of neurotransmitter transporters are being explored. Recent studies have also indicated evidence for dimerization of eukaryotic NSS transporters particularly through lipid-mediated interactions. Future forays into the structure-function studies of the NSS members would involve extensive computational and biophysical analyses of the cytosolic domains and their roles in regulating transport function.
Figure 10

Transport cycle involving a combination of different conformations of the X-ray/cryoEM structures of eukaryotic NSS members dDAT (pink ribbon) and hSERT (blue ribbon) indicating the progression of neurotransmitter transport cycle and conformations stabilized by binding of competitive inhibitors at the primary site and non-competitive inhibition at the allosteric site. Substrate bound Oo state can undergo conformational shift to form Oocc conformation followed by Io state to establish the transport cycle. Competitive and non-competitive inhibitors lock the transporter and prevent the formation of other conformational states.
Statements
Author contributions
DJ and SP contributed to preparing figures and editing the manuscript. AP wrote the manuscript with inputs from DJ, AM, and SP.
Funding
DJ was funded through the DST-INSPIRE fellowship (IF160278). SP was funded through the Department of Biotechnology, India (DBT)-RA fellowship program. AP is an intermediate fellow of the DBT-Wellcome Trust India Alliance (IA/1/15/2/502063) and a recipient of the Innovative Young Biotechnologist Award (IYBA) (BT/09/IYBA/2015/13) from the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), India. The authors would like to acknowledge DBT-IISc partnership program Phase-I and Phase-II for research support.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Penmatsa lab members for their comments on the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
- ADHD
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
- CamKII
Calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II
- CHS
Cholesterylhemisuccinate
- DCP
Dichlorophenylethylamine
- dDAT
Drosophila dopamine transporter
- EL
Extracellular loop
- HDX
Hydrogen deuterium exchange
- hGAT
Human GABA transporter
- hNET
Human norepinephrine transporter
- hSERT
Human serotonin transporter
- IL
Intracellular loop
- Io
Inward-open conformation
- Iocc
Inward-occluded conformation
- LeuT
Leucine transporter
- NSS
Neurotransmitter sodium symporters
- Oo
Outward-open conformation
- Oocc
Outwardoccluded conformation
- PICK1
Protein interacting with C-kinase 1
- PIP2, Phosphatidyl inositol 4
5 bisphosphate
- PKC
Protein kinase C
- SLC6
Solute carrier 6
- SNRIs
Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors
- TM
Transmembrane
- Tyt1
Tyrosine transporter.
Abbreviations
References
1
AnderluhA.HofmaierT.KlotzschE.KudlacekO.StocknerT.SitteH. H.et al. (2017). Direct PIP2 binding mediates stable oligomer formation of the serotonin transporter. Nat. Commun.8:14089. 10.1038/ncomms14089
2
AndersenJ.LadefogedL. K.KristensenT. N.MunroL.GrouleffJ.Stuhr-HansenN.et al. (2016). Interrogating the molecular basis for substrate recognition in serotonin and dopamine transporters with high-affinity substrate-based bivalent ligands. ACS Chem. Neurosci.7, 1406–1417. 10.1021/acschemneuro.6b00164
3
AndersenJ.Stuhr-HansenN.ZachariassenL.ToubroS.HansenS. M.EildalJ. N.et al. (2011). Molecular determinants for selective recognition of antidepressants in the human serotonin and norepinephrine transporters. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.108, 12137–12142. 10.1073/pnas.1103060108
4
ApparsundaramS.StockdaleD. J.HenningsenR. A.MillaM. E.MartinR. S. (2008). Antidepressants targeting the serotonin reuptake transporter act via a competitive mechanism. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.327, 982–990. 10.1124/jpet.108.142315
5
BindaF.DipaceC.BowtonE.RobertsonS. D.LuteB. J.FogJ. U.et al. (2008). Syntaxin 1A interaction with the dopamine transporter promotes amphetamine-induced dopamine efflux. Mol. Pharmacol.74, 1101–1108. 10.1124/mol.108.048447
6
BjerggaardC.FogJ. U.HastrupH.MadsenK.LolandC. J.JavitchJ. A.et al. (2004). Surface targeting of the dopamine transporter involves discrete epitopes in the distal C terminus but does not require canonical PDZ domain interactions. J. Neurosci.24, 7024–7036. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1863-04.2004
7
BroerS.GetherU. (2012). The solute carrier 6 family of transporters. Br. J. Pharmacol.167, 256–278. 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2012.01975.x
8
CampbellN. G.ShekarA.AguilarJ. I.PengD.NavratnaV.YangD.et al. (2019). Structural, functional, and behavioral insights of dopamine dysfunction revealed by a deletion in SLC6A3. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.116, 3853–3862. 10.1073/pnas.1816247116
9
CarneiroA. M.BlakelyR. D. (2006). Serotonin-, protein kinase C-, and Hic-5-associated redistribution of the platelet serotonin transporter. J. Biol. Chem.281, 24769–24780. 10.1074/jbc.M603877200
10
CarneiroA. M.IngramS. L.BeaulieuJ. M.SweeneyA.AmaraS. G.ThomasS. M.et al. (2002). The multiple LIM domain-containing adaptor protein Hic-5 synaptically colocalizes and interacts with the dopamine transporter. J. Neurosci.22, 7045–7054. 10.1523/jneurosci.22-16-07045.2002
11
ChanrionB.Mannoury la CourC.BertasoF.Lerner-NatoliM.FreissmuthM.MillanM. J.et al. (2007). Physical interaction between the serotonin transporter and neuronal nitric oxide synthase underlies reciprocal modulation of their activity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.104, 8119–8124. 10.1073/pnas.0610964104
12
ChenF.LarsenM. B.NeubauerH. A.SanchezC.PlengeP.WiborgO. (2005). Characterization of an allosteric citalopram-binding site at the serotonin transporter. J. Neurochem.92, 21–28. 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2004.02835.x
13
ChengM. H.BaharI. (2015). Molecular mechanism of dopamine transport by human dopamine transporter. Structure23, 2171–2181. 10.1016/j.str.2015.09.001
14
ChengM. H.BaharI. (2019). Monoamine transporters: structure, intrinsic dynamics and allosteric regulation. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.26, 545–556. 10.1038/s41594-019-0253-7
15
ChengM. H.BlockE.HuF.CobanogluM. C.SorkinA.BaharI. (2015). Insights into the modulation of dopamine transporter function by amphetamine, orphenadrine, and cocaine binding. Front. Neurol.6, 134. 10.3389/fneur.2015.00134
16
ChengM. H.KayaC.BaharI. (2018). Quantitative assessment of the energetics of dopamine translocation by human dopamine transporter. J. Phys. Chem. B122, 5336–5346. 10.1021/acs.jpcb.7b10340
17
ClaxtonD. P.QuickM.ShiL.de CarvalhoF. D.WeinsteinH.JavitchJ. A.et al. (2010). Ion/substrate-dependent conformational dynamics of a bacterial homolog of neurotransmitter:sodium symporters. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.17, 822–829. 10.1038/nsmb.1854
18
ColemanJ. A.GreenE. M.GouauxE. (2016). X-ray structures and mechanism of the human serotonin transporter. Nature532, 334–339. 10.1038/nature17629
19
ColemanJ. A.YangD.ZhaoZ.WenP. C.YoshiokaC.TajkhorshidE.et al. (2019). Serotonin transporter-ibogaine complexes illuminate mechanisms of inhibition and transport. Nature569, 141–145. 10.1038/s41586-019-1135-1
20
DasA. K.KudlacekO.BaumgartF.JaentschK.StocknerT.SitteH. H.et al. (2019). Dopamine transporter forms stable dimers in the live cell plasma membrane in a phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate-independent manner. J. Biol. Chem.294, 5632–5642. 10.1074/jbc.RA118.006178
21
DeecherD. C.BeyerC. E.JohnstonG.BrayJ.ShahS.Abou-GharbiaM.et al. (2006). Desvenlafaxine succinate: a new serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.318, 657–665. 10.1124/jpet.106.103382
22
DrewD.BoudkerO. (2016). Shared molecular mechanisms of membrane transporters. Annu. Rev. Biochem.85, 543–572. 10.1146/annurev-biochem-060815-014520
23
FanH. P.FanF. J.BaoL.PeiG. (2006). SNAP-25/syntaxin 1A complex functionally modulates neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid reuptake. J. Biol. Chem.281, 28174–28184. 10.1074/jbc.M601382200
24
Fenollar-FerrerC.StocknerT.SchwarzT. C.PalA.GotovinaJ.HofmaierT.et al. (2014). Structure and regulatory interactions of the cytoplasmic terminal domains of serotonin transporter. Biochemistry53, 5444–5460. 10.1021/bi500637f
25
FockeP. J.WangX.LarssonH. P. (2013). Neurotransmitter transporters: structure meets function. Structure21, 694–705. 10.1016/j.str.2013.03.002
26
FogJ. U.KhoshboueiH.HolyM.OwensW. A.VaegterC. B.SenN.et al. (2006). Calmodulin kinase II interacts with the dopamine transporter C terminus to regulate amphetamine-induced reverse transport. Neuron51, 417–429. 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.06.028
27
ForrestL. R.ZhangY. W.JacobsM. T.GesmondeJ.XieL.HonigB. H.et al. (2008). Mechanism for alternating access in neurotransmitter transporters. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.105, 10338–10343. 10.1073/pnas.0804659105
28
GeerlingsA.Lopez-CorcueraB.AragonC. (2000). Characterization of the interactions between the glycine transporters GLYT1 and GLYT2 and the SNARE protein syntaxin 1A. FEBS Lett.470, 51–54. 10.1016/s0014-5793(00)01297-7
29
GirosB.CaronM. G. (1993). Molecular characterization of the dopamine transporter. Trends Pharmacol. Sci.14, 43–49.
30
GrouleffJ.LadefogedL. K.KoldsoH.SchiottB. (2015). Monoamine transporters: insights from molecular dynamics simulations. Front. Pharmacol.6, 235. 10.3389/fphar.2015.00235
31
GuptaK.DonlanJ. A. C.HopperJ. T. S.UzdavinysP.LandrehM.StruweW. B.et al. (2017). The role of interfacial lipids in stabilizing membrane protein oligomers. Nature541, 421–424. 10.1038/nature20820
32
HamiltonP. J.BelovichA. N.KhelashviliG.SaundersC.ErregerK.JavitchJ. A.et al. (2014). PIP2 regulates psychostimulant behaviors through its interaction with a membrane protein. Nat. Chem. Biol.10, 582–589. 10.1038/nchembio.1545
33
HongW. C.AmaraS. G. (2010). Membrane cholesterol modulates the outward facing conformation of the dopamine transporter and alters cocaine binding. J. Biol. Chem.285, 32616–32626. 10.1074/jbc.M110.150565
34
HornykiewiczO. (1966). Dopamine (3-hydroxytyramine) and brain function. Pharmacol. Rev.18, 925–964.
35
ImoukhuedeP. I.MossF. J.MichaelD. J.ChowR. H.LesterH. A. (2009). Ezrin mediates tethering of the gamma-aminobutyric acid transporter GAT1 to actin filaments via a C-terminal PDZ-interacting domain. Biophys. J.96, 2949–2960. 10.1016/j.bpj.2008.11.070
36
IversenL. (2000). Neurotransmitter transporters: fruitful targets for CNS drug discovery. Mol. Psychiatry5, 357–362. 10.1038/sj.mp.4000728
37
IversenL. (2006). Neurotransmitter transporters and their impact on the development of psychopharmacology. Br. J. Pharmacol.147 (Suppl. 1), S82–S88. 10.1038/sj.bjp.0706428
38
JacobsB. L.AzmitiaE. C. (1992). Structure and function of the brain serotonin system. Physiol. Rev.72, 165–229. 10.1152/physrev.1992.72.1.165
39
JanowskyA.ToshD. K.EshlemanA. J.JacobsonK. A. (2016). Rigid adenine nucleoside derivatives as novel modulators of the human sodium symporters for dopamine and norepinephrine. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.357, 24–35. 10.1124/jpet.115.229666
40
JardetzkyO. (1966). Simple allosteric model for membrane pumps. Nature211, 969–970.
41
JessU.El FarO.KirschJ.BetzH. (2002). Interaction of the C-terminal region of the rat serotonin transporter with MacMARCKS modulates 5-HT uptake regulation by protein kinase C. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.294, 272–279. 10.1016/S0006-291X(02)00460-6
42
JessellT. M.KandelE. R. (1993). Synaptic transmission: a bidirectional and self-modifiable form of cell-cell communication. Cell72 (Suppl. 1), 1–30.
43
KantchevaA. K.QuickM.ShiL.WintherA. M.StolzenbergS.WeinsteinH.et al. (2013). Chloride binding site of neurotransmitter sodium symporters. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.110, 8489–8494. 10.1073/pnas.1221279110
44
KhelashviliG.DoktorovaM.SahaiM. A.JohnerN.ShiL.WeinsteinH. (2015). Computational modeling of the N-terminus of the human dopamine transporter and its interaction with PIP2 -containing membranes. Proteins83, 952–969. 10.1002/prot.24792
45
KrishnamurthyH.GouauxE. (2012). X-ray structures of LeuT in substrate-free outward-open and apo inward-open states. Nature481, 469–474. 10.1038/nature10737
46
KristensenA. S.AndersenJ.JorgensenT. N.SorensenL.EriksenJ.LolandC. J.et al. (2011). SLC6 neurotransmitter transporters: structure, function, and regulation. Pharmacol. Rev.63, 585–640. 10.1124/pr.108.000869
47
LaursenL.SeverinsenK.KristensenK. B.PerioleX.OverbyM.MullerH. K.et al. (2018). Cholesterol binding to a conserved site modulates the conformation, pharmacology, and transport kinetics of the human serotonin transporter. J. Biol. Chem.293, 3510–3523. 10.1074/jbc.M117.809046
48
LeeF. J.LiuF.PristupaZ. B.NiznikH. B. (2001). Direct binding and functional coupling of alpha-synuclein to the dopamine transporters accelerate dopamine-induced apoptosis. FASEB J.15, 916–926. 10.1096/fj.00-0334com
49
LukB.MohammedM.LiuF.LeeF. J. (2015). A physical interaction between the dopamine transporter and DJ-1 facilitates increased dopamine reuptake. PLoS ONE10, e0136641. 10.1371/journal.pone.0136641
50
MajumderP.MallelaA. K.PenmatsaA. (2018). Transporters through the looking glass. An insight into the mechanisms of ion-coupled transport and methods that help reveal them. J. Indian Inst. Sci.98, 283–300. 10.1007/s41745-018-0081-5
51
MalinauskaiteL.QuickM.ReinhardL.LyonsJ. A.YanoH.JavitchJ. A.et al. (2014). A mechanism for intracellular release of Na+ by neurotransmitter/sodium symporters. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.21, 1006–1012. 10.1038/nsmb.2894
52
MassonJ.SagneC.HamonM.El MestikawyS. (1999). Neurotransmitter transporters in the central nervous system. Pharmacol. Rev.51, 439–464.
53
MatthausF.HaddjeriN.SanchezC.MartiY.BahriS.RoveraR.et al. (2016). The allosteric citalopram binding site differentially interferes with neuronal firing rate and SERT trafficking in serotonergic neurons. Eur. Neuropsychopharmacol.26, 1806–1817. 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2016.09.001
54
McHughE. M.ZhuW.MilgramS.MagerS. (2004). The GABA transporter GAT1 and the MAGUK protein Pals1: interaction, uptake modulation, and coexpression in the brain. Mol. Cell Neurosci.26, 406–417. 10.1016/j.mcn.2004.03.006
55
MelikianH. E. (2004). Neurotransmitter transporter trafficking: endocytosis, recycling, and regulation. Pharmacol. Ther.104, 17–27. 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2004.07.006
56
MelikianH. E.RamamoorthyS.TateC. G.BlakelyR. D. (1996). Inability to N-glycosylate the human norepinephrine transporter reduces protein stability, surface trafficking, and transport activity but not ligand recognition. Mol. Pharmacol.50, 266–276.
57
MerkleP. S.GotfrydK.CuendetM. A.Leth-EspensenK. Z.GetherU.LolandC. J.et al. (2018). Substrate-modulated unwinding of transmembrane helices in the NSS transporter LeuT. Sci. Adv.4:eaar6179. 10.1126/sciadv.aar6179
58
MollerI. R.SlivackaM.NielsenA. K.RasmussenS. G. F.GetherU.LolandC. J.et al. (2019). Conformational dynamics of the human serotonin transporter during substrate and drug binding. Nat. Commun.10:1687. 10.1038/s41467-019-09675-z
59
MullerH. K.WiborgO.HaaseJ. (2006). Subcellular redistribution of the serotonin transporter by secretory carrier membrane protein 2. J. Biol. Chem.281, 28901–28909. 10.1074/jbc.M602848200
60
NavratnaV.GouauxE. (2019). Insights into the mechanism and pharmacology of neurotransmitter sodium symporters. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.54, 161–170. 10.1016/j.sbi.2019.03.011
61
NavratnaV.ToshD. K.JacobsonK. A.GouauxE. (2018). Thermostabilization and purification of the human dopamine transporter (hDAT) in an inhibitor and allosteric ligand bound conformation. PLoS ONE13:e0200085. 10.1371/journal.pone.0200085
62
NorregaardL.FrederiksenD.NielsenE. O.GetherU. (1998). Delineation of an endogenous zinc-binding site in the human dopamine transporter. EMBO J.17, 4266–4273. 10.1093/emboj/17.15.4266
63
NuttD. J.Lingford-HughesA.ErritzoeD.StokesP. R. (2015). The dopamine theory of addiction: 40 years of highs and lows. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.16, 305–312. 10.1038/nrn3939
64
PenmatsaA.GouauxE. (2014). How LeuT shapes our understanding of the mechanisms of sodium-coupled neurotransmitter transporters. J. Physiol.592, 863–869. 10.1113/jphysiol.2013.259051
65
PenmatsaA.WangK. H.GouauxE. (2013). X-ray structure of dopamine transporter elucidates antidepressant mechanism. Nature503, 85–90. 10.1038/nature12533
66
PenmatsaA.WangK. H.GouauxE. (2015). X-ray structures of Drosophila dopamine transporter in complex with nisoxetine and reboxetine. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.22, 506–508. 10.1038/nsmb.3029
67
PerioleX.ZeppelinT.SchiottB. (2018). Dimer interface of the human serotonin transporter and effect of the membrane composition. Sci. Rep.8:5080. 10.1038/s41598-018-22912-7
68
PiscitelliC. L.KrishnamurthyH.GouauxE. (2010). Neurotransmitter/sodium symporter orthologue LeuT has a single high-affinity substrate site. Nature468, 1129–1132. 10.1038/nature09581
69
PorzgenP.ParkS. K.HirshJ.SondersM. S.AmaraS. G. (2001). The antidepressant-sensitive dopamine transporter in Drosophila melanogaster: a primordial carrier for catecholamines. Mol. Pharmacol.59, 83–95. 10.1124/mol.59.1.83
70
QuickM.YanoH.GoldbergN. R.DuanL.BeumingT.ShiL.et al. (2006). State-dependent conformations of the translocation pathway in the tyrosine transporter Tyt1, a novel neurotransmitter:sodium symporter from Fusobacterium nucleatum. J. Biol. Chem.281, 26444–26454. 10.1074/jbc.M602438200
71
QuickM. W. (2002). Role of syntaxin 1A on serotonin transporter expression in developing thalamocortical neurons. Int. J. Dev. Neurosci.20, 219–224. 10.1016/s0736-5748(02)00021-7
72
QuickM. W. (2006). The role of SNARE proteins in trafficking and function of neurotransmitter transporters. Handb. Exp. Pharmacol.175, 181–196. 10.1007/3-540-29784-7_9
73
RazaviA. M.KhelashviliG.WeinsteinH. (2018). How structural elements evolving from bacterial to human SLC6 transporters enabled new functional properties. BMC Biol.16:31. 10.1186/s12915-018-0495-6
74
ScanlonS. M.WilliamsD. C.SchlossP. (2001). Membrane cholesterol modulates serotonin transporter activity. Biochemistry40, 10507–10513. 10.1021/bi010730z
75
SchildkrautJ. J. (1965). The catecholamine hypothesis of affective disorders: a review of supporting evidence. Am. J. Psychiatry122, 509–522. 10.1176/ajp.122.5.509
76
Schumann-GillettA.BlythM. T.O'MaraM. L. (2019). Is protein structure enough? A review of the role of lipids in SLC6 transporter function. Neurosci. Lett.700, 64–69. 10.1016/j.neulet.2018.05.020
77
ShiL.QuickM.ZhaoY.WeinsteinH.JavitchJ. A. (2008). The mechanism of a neurotransmitter:sodium symporter–inward release of Na+ and substrate is triggered by substrate in a second binding site. Mol. Cell30, 667–677. 10.1016/j.molcel.2008.05.008
78
SinghS. K.YamashitaA.GouauxE. (2007). Antidepressant binding site in a bacterial homologue of neurotransmitter transporters. Nature448, 952–956. 10.1038/nature06038
79
SorensenL.AndersenJ.ThomsenM.HansenS. M.ZhaoX.SandelinA.et al. (2012). Interaction of antidepressants with the serotonin and norepinephrine transporters: mutational studies of the S1 substrate binding pocket. J. Biol. Chem.287, 43694–43707. 10.1074/jbc.M112.342212
80
StocknerT.MontgomeryT. R.KudlacekO.WeissensteinerR.EckerG. F.FreissmuthM.et al. (2013). Mutational analysis of the high-affinity zinc binding site validates a refined human dopamine transporter homology model. PLoS Comput. Biol.9:e1002909. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002909
81
TorresG. E.GainetdinovR. R.CaronM. G. (2003). Plasma membrane monoamine transporters: structure, regulation and function. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.4, 13–25. 10.1038/nrn1008
82
TorresG. E.YaoW. D.MohnA. R.QuanH.KimK. M.LeveyA. I.et al. (2001). Functional interaction between monoamine plasma membrane transporters and the synaptic PDZ domain-containing protein PICK1. Neuron30, 121–134. 10.1016/s0896-6273(01)00267-7
83
VaughanR. A. (2004). Phosphorylation and regulation of psychostimulant-sensitive neurotransmitter transporters. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.310, 1–7. 10.1124/jpet.103.052423
84
WangH.GoehringA.WangK. H.PenmatsaA.ResslerR.GouauxE. (2013). Structural basis for action by diverse antidepressants on biogenic amine transporters. Nature503, 141–145. 10.1038/nature12648
85
WangK. H.PenmatsaA.GouauxE. (2015). Neurotransmitter and psychostimulant recognition by the dopamine transporter. Nature521, 322–327. 10.1038/nature14431
86
WatanabeA.ChoeS.ChaptalV.RosenbergJ. M.WrightE. M.GrabeM.et al. (2010). The mechanism of sodium and substrate release from the binding pocket of vSGLT. Nature468, 988–991. 10.1038/nature09580
87
YamashitaA.SinghS. K.KawateT.JinY.GouauxE. (2005). Crystal structure of a bacterial homologue of Na+/Cl−-dependent neurotransmitter transporters. Nature437, 215–223. 10.1038/nature03978
88
ZeppelinT.LadefogedL. K.SinningS.PerioleX.SchiottB. (2018). A direct interaction of cholesterol with the dopamine transporter prevents its out-to-inward transition. PLoS Comput. Biol.14:e1005907. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005907
89
ZhangY. W.TavoulariS.SinningS.AleksandrovaA. A.ForrestL. R.RudnickG. (2018). Structural elements required for coupling ion and substrate transport in the neurotransmitter transporter homolog LeuT. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.115, E8854–E8862. 10.1073/pnas.1716870115
90
ZhaoY.TerryD. S.ShiL.QuickM.WeinsteinH.BlanchardS. C.et al. (2011). Substrate-modulated gating dynamics in a Na+-coupled neurotransmitter transporter homologue. Nature474, 109–113. 10.1038/nature09971
Summary
Keywords
solute carrier 6 (SLC6), neurotransmitter sodium symporters (NSSs), alternating-access, antidepressants, psychostimulants, secondary active transport
Citation
Joseph D, Pidathala S, Mallela AK and Penmatsa A (2019) Structure and Gating Dynamics of Na+/Cl– Coupled Neurotransmitter Transporters. Front. Mol. Biosci. 6:80. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2019.00080
Received
27 June 2019
Accepted
21 August 2019
Published
06 September 2019
Volume
6 - 2019
Edited by
H. Raghuraman, Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics (SINP), India
Reviewed by
Henriette Molinari, Istituto per lo Studio delle Macromolecole (ISMAC), Italy; Elena Rosini, University of Insubria, Italy
Updates

Check for updates
Copyright
© 2019 Joseph, Pidathala, Mallela and Penmatsa.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Aravind Penmatsa penmatsa@iisc.ac.in
This article was submitted to Structural Biology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.