Independent education resourceInformation here does not replace care from a qualified health professional.
Peptide Therapy GuideClear peptide education

Educational guide

Molecular, Cellular Secrets of Soft Touch Revealed

While the chemical and mechanical details of vision, hearing, taste, and smell are fairly well understood—most people are passingly familiar with rods and cones, cochlear hair cells, and taste bud receptors—the details of touch have eluded our grasp. That may

Written by Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team
For education only

This guide cannot diagnose a condition or recommend a personal treatment plan. Discuss medical questions with a qualified professional.

While the chemical and mechanical details of vision, hearing, taste, and smell are fairly well understood—most people are passingly familiar with rods and cones, cochlear hair cells, and taste bud receptors—the details of touch have eluded our grasp. That may soon change, thanks in part to a pair of studies presented April 6 in Nature. According to these studies, a kind of dual-sensor system is responsible for touch. While the ends of nerve cells respond to cells, so do Merkel cells, which are found adjacent to nerve cells. Also, both nerve cells and Merkel cells seem to depend on a particular kind of protein, called Piezo2, to convey signals that are interpreted as gentle sensations.

In an article entitled “Epidermal Merkel cells are mechanosensory cells that tune mammalian touch receptors,” a research team led by Ellen Lumpkin, Ph.D., associate professor of somatosensory biology at Columbia University Medical Center, showed that Merkel cells actively participate in touch reception in mice. In particularly, the researchers showed that Merkel cells display fast, touch-evoked mechanotransduction currents.

The Columbia team used optogenetics, a technique that uses light to control neurons that have been genetically sensitized to light, to demonstrate that in intact skin, “Merkel cells are both necessary and sufficient for sustained action-potential firing in tactile afferents.” In addition, the team used mice engineered to lack Merkel cells to reveal touch-sensing deficits.

“These findings,” wrote the authors, “indicate that Merkel cells actively tune mechanosensory responses to facilitate high spatio-temporal acuity.” The authors also described a division of labor in the Merkel cell–neurite complex: “Merkel cells signal static stimuli, such as pressure, whereas sensory afferents transduce dynamic stimuli, such as moving gratings.”

The companion study led by the Scripps team was described in an article entitled “Piezo2 is required for Merkel-cell mechanotransduction.” These researchers engineered mice deficient in Piezo2 in the skin, but not in sensory neurons, and showed that Merkel-cell mechanosensitivity completely depends on Piezo2.

The discovery comes four years after the laboratory of Aredem Patapoutian, Ph.D., identified Piezo2 as a mechanically activated “ion channel” protein with a likely role in touch sensation. Piezo2 ion channels have been thought to respond to the stretching of the nerve membrane where they are embedded—a stretching caused by something that presses against the skin, for example. When activated in this way, the ion channels open to allow an inflow of sodium or other positively charged ions. Such a surge of electrical charge into a nerve can initiate a signal that travels up the nerve and to the brain via a relay of neurons along the spine.

In the earlier study, Dr. Patapoutian's team found evidence that Piezo2 proteins are made within touch-sensing neurons, including gentle-touch neurons that extend their nerves into the skin and against the mysterious Merkel cells. The team's current study, besides uncovering additional details about the mammalian sense of touch, could have relevance for certain pain syndromes in which touch sensations trigger pain.

“Touch and pain are very closely related,” said Dr. Patapoutian, “and thus the characterization of these mechanisms of touch should help us to understand pain better, too.”

Connected reading

Helpful context for this guide

Source-derived material selected through this article’s indexed topics.

Related questions

01How stable is the antibody?

A crucial question often addressed during preclinical development focuses on the in vivo stability of therapeutic antibodies. Increasing the half-life of a therapeutic antibody has several benefits ranging from higher treatment efficacy to increased advantages for the patients who will have a fewer number of therapy sessions and a reduced cost. Given these compelling benefits, following the identification of therapeutic antibodies with the desired specificity, developers usually subject them to a refinement step to increase their stability. This process is often hindered by the lack of reliable experimental tools to predict the half-life of antibodies in patients. The major hurdle of using mouse models to predict antibody stability in the serum lies in the way immunoglobulin proteins are processed by the organism. In mammals, most proteins circulating in the serum undergo constant uptake by endothelial cells and are routed through the endosomes to the lysosomal compartment for degradation. In the endosomes, immunoglobulin G (IgG) proteins are recognized and bound by a transmembrane protein, called the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which mediates their recycling to the plasma membrane and subsequent release back into the serum. As a result, the half-life of IgGs are significantly extended by this mechanism. Since most therapeutic antibodies belong to the IgG class, this recycling system is very relevant for their relative stability in the body. Remarkably, the relative affinity between IgGs and FcRn is extremely disparate between different species, with the mouse receptor showing a much higher affinity than its human counterpart.

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
02Undruggable or unscreenable?

Another obstacle to discovering new PPI inhibitors is the lack of libraries designed to hunt for them, points out Philippe Roche, PhD, senior scientist at the Integrative Structural and Chemical Biology team at the Cancer Research Center of Marseilles, France. “If you screen PPIs using libraries that were designed for kinases or GPCRs, that’s why you don’t get a lot of good results,” he says. To that end, his group began assembling a library focused on orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs. The result was 2P2Idb, a hand-curated, structural database cataloguing orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs for which the interface had been 3D characterized. From analyzing these known PPI inhibitors, and what structures they had in common, Roche and his colleagues developed a model to predict whether compounds would likely inhibit PPIs. Using this method, 2P2Idb creates an enriched screening library that dramatically increases the hit rate compared to standard libraries. Having proven their success with a small library of 1600 compounds, they are in the process of expanding the library to 10,000 compounds. Once that’s published, “the idea is to make this library available to labs around the world,” Roche says. “We will provide the library free of charge for people to be able to screen PPI targets.”

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
P

About the author

Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team

Editorial team for Peptide Therapy Guide.

View all articles →