In silico models of the macromolecular NaV1.5-KIR2.1 complex

In cardiac cells, the expression of the cardiac voltage-gated Na+ channel (NaV1.5) is reciprocally regulated with the inward rectifying K+ channel (KIR2.1). These channels can form macromolecular complexes that pre-assemble early during forward trafficking (transport to the cell membrane). In this study, we present in silico 3D models of NaV1.5-KIR2.1, generated by rigid-body protein-protein docking programs and deep learning-based AlphaFold-Multimer software. Modeling revealed that the two channels could physically interact with each other along the entire transmembrane region. Structural mapping of disease-associated mutations revealed a hotspot at this interface with several trafficking-deficient variants in close proximity. Thus, examining the role of disease-causing variants is important not only in isolated channels but also in the context of macromolecular complexes. These findings may contribute to a better understanding of the life-threatening cardiovascular diseases underlying KIR2.1 and NaV1.5 malfunctions.

1 Introduction Milstein et al. showed that the expression of the cardiac voltage-gated Na + channel (Na V 1.5, encoded by the SCNA5 gene, I Na current) is reciprocally regulated by the inward rectifying K + channels (K IR 2.1, encoded by the KCNJ2 gene, I K1 current) in cardiac cells (Milstein et al., 2012).Both ion channels play key roles in cardiac excitability.Rapid depolarization of the membrane potential is mediated by Na V 1.5, which allows an influx of positively charged Na + ions, resulting in a rapid upstroke of the cardiac action potential.On the other hand, K IR 2.1 is responsible for shaping the initial depolarization, final repolarization, and resting phases of the ventricular action potential (Ibarra et al., 1991).Consequently, these two channels are the most important ionic currents that control ventricular excitability.The essential role of both ion channels is further emphasized by the fact that dysfunction is associated with a high risk of arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (Abriel, 2007;Cui et al., 2021;Reilly and Eckhardt, 2021;Hager et al., 2022).
The functional interaction between I K1 and I Na is indirectly mediated via voltage dependence; however, increasing evidence suggests a direct interaction between these two channels.Moreover, K IR 2.1 expression has been shown to increase the expression of Na V 1.5 channels and vice versa (Milstein et al., 2012;Utrilla et al., 2017).A study by Ponce-Balbuena et al. (2018) revealed that the macromolecular complex Na V 1.5-K IR 2.1 preassembles early in the forward trafficking pathway, with important implications for the mechanisms of inherited arrhythmias.Using a trafficking-deficient K IR 2.1 mutant that causes the rare channelopathy Andersen-Tawil Syndrome (ATS1), the authors revealed mutual impairment in the forward trafficking of wildtype (WT) Na V 1.5 channels.The potential reduction in I Na due to the reduction in I K1 leads to the breakdown of the macromolecular complex between the two channels and contributes to the susceptibility of patients with ATS1 (Moreno-Manuel et al., 2023).Similarly, the trafficking of defective Na V 1.5 mutants that leads to the rare Brugada syndrome (BrS) can negatively affect I K1 by trapping cardiac K IR 2.1/2.2channels, contributing to the pathogenesis of arrhythmias (Pérez-Hernández et al., 2018).While an increasing number of studies have underscored the physiological importance of the Na V 1.5-K IR 2.1 complex, very little is known about the precise molecular nature of the macromolecular complex.CaMKII inhibition precludes the interaction between Na v 1.5 and K IR 2.1 channels (Pérez-Hernández et al., 2018).Furthermore, inhibition of the 14-3-3 proteins reduces the co-expression of I Na and I K1 currents without abolishing their interaction.Proximity ligation assay studies revealed the close proximity of Na V 1.5 and K IR 2.1 proteins in the membrane of ventricular myocytes (<40 nm apart) (Utrilla et al., 2017).Furthermore, both ion channels have been shown to coimmunoprecipitate in forward and reverse co-immunoprecipitations, emphasizing their direct interaction.However, only a subset of channels is presumed to co-assemble into macromolecular complexes known as channelosomes (Milstein et al., 2012;Ponce-Balbuena et al., 2018).Despite extensive analyses of the physiological importance of macromolecular complexes (for a recent review, see (Reilly and Eckhardt, 2021), structural insights into the Na V 1.5-K IR 2.1 macromolecular complex are still lacking.The 3D structures of isolated human K IR 2.1 (Fernandes et al., 2022) and human Na V 1.5, channels (Jiang et al., 2020;Li et al., 2021) were solved at the atomic level using cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM).Na V 1.5 channels consist of four homologous transmembrane domains (DI-DIV) linked by three intracellular loops containing six segments (S1-S6).Cryo-EM structures provide detailed insights into the voltage-dependent activation, inactivation gates, ion selectivity filters, and drug blocks of several antiarrhythmic drugs (Noreng et al., 2021).Only one cryo-EM structure of the human K IR 2.1 channel has been published in a closed conformation (Fernandes et al., 2022).K IR 2.1, which can form homotetrameric and heterotetrameric pores, consists of a canonical pore-forming transmembrane domain (TMD) with two transmembrane helices (M1 and M2) separated by a K + selectivity filter, and a large cytoplasmic domain (CTD) containing N-and C-termini (Hibino et al., 2010).
These atomic-resolution structures make it possible to use computational methods to investigate the physical interactions between the two channels.In this study, we report in silico 3D models of macromolecular Na V 1.5-K IR 2.1 complexes, generated by rigid-body protein-protein docking programs and a deep learningbased AlphaFold-Multimer.

Results and discussion
2.1 Close physical interactions between Na V 1.5 and K IR 2.1 in the closed conformation The prediction of protein-protein interactions (PPIs) is a challenging process, both experimentally and computationally, and the success rates of these computational methods are still relatively low (Vreven et al., 2015).Considering the limitations and challenges of computational methods (for a recent review, see (Vakser, 2020), we combined rigid-body docking strategies and deep learning-based methods for obtaining the most realistically possible insights into the macromolecular Na V 1.5-K IR 2.1 complex.Three in silico programs were selected based on their ability to handle large proteins.As detailed in the Methods section, two rigid-body docking programs, FRODOCK (Garzon et al., 2009), ClusPro (Kozakov et al., 2017), and the AlphaFold-Multimer (v3) deep learning tool (Evans et al., 2021), trained for PPI, were used to predict 3D interactions between Na V 1.5 and K IR 2.1.
Based on the experimental finding that channels assemble early during forward trafficking (Ponce-Balbuena et al., 2018), the 3D coordinates of the channels in closed conformations were chosen as the starting points for modeling.This is based on the assumption that in order to transiently open, Na V channels require depolarizing conditions, not present during forward trafficking.Further, all experimental 3D structures of eukaryotic K IR channels have been obtained in closed state conformations, unless gating modifying mutations have been introduced, suggesting that this state is energetically favored and might thus represent a plausible trafficking conformation.
The cryo-EM structure of the full-length human Na V 1.5 channel was obtained at 0 mV, with the voltage sensor modules in the "upstate," and the intracellular gate in a constricted, presumably inactivated state, inhibited by quinidine (Li et al., 2021).The cryo-EM structure of the human K IR 2.1 channel represents a fully closed state with the cytoplasmic domain disengaged from the transmembrane domain and the helix bundle-crossing region restricted by two hydrophobic residues (Fernandes et al., 2022).
Both rigid-body docking programs predicted a favorable interface between the two channels over the entire transmembrane region (Figures 1A,B).
Extensive interactions were observed between helices S3 and S4 of VSD-III, helices III-S5, and the outer P-helical segment of domain III (Figures 1A, B; Supplementary Figure S1A).The overall interface area was large, with values of up to 3652.4 Å 2 (see Table 1).Most intermolecular contacts between Na V 1.5 and K IR 2.1 were hydrophobic in nature.This was predictable because the majority of the interface lies in the membrane-spanning region.In addition, 21 hydrophilic contacts (hydrogen bonds and salt bridges) were identified in the best model obtained using ClusPro (Table 1; Supplementary Table S1.Interface residues within 5.5 Å predicted by FRODOCK are listed in Supplementary Table S2.Extensive contacts between Na V 1.5 and K IR 2.1 might also be formed in the cytoplasmic domain.Unfortunately, these regions, particularly in the Na V 1.5 channel, lack a cryo-EM structure and cannot be reliably modeled with AlphaFold (see Supplementary Figure S3), precluding further analysis of putative intracellular contacts.

interface
In contrast to rigid docking programs, in which the conformation of the interaction partners can be actively chosen, the conformations modeled by AlphaFold-Multimer cannot be selected a priori.The AlphaFold-Multimer consistently models the K + channel in the open-channel state, with an engaged cytoplasmic domain (Figures 2A, B; Supplementary Figure S1B).Supplementary Figure S1A show the structural superposition of Na V 1.5 and K IR 2.1 channels with their respective cryo-EM structures.
Although the AlphaFold Multimer was run in 'no template mode', it modeled the conformation of K IR 2.1, highly similar to the open, conductive state of K IR 2.2 (Zangerl-Plessl et al., 2019) with an overall RMSD of 1.47 Å between the two structures (see Supplementary Figure S1C).In the modeled structure, both the interfacial and tether helices folded, and the hydrophobic residues I178 and M182 did not restrict ion flux through the HBC gate, as Modeled interactions between Na V 1.5 and K IR 2.1.(A) Surface representation of the best predicted Na V 1.5-K IR 2.1 complex from ClusPro in top view.(B) Surface representation of the best-predicted Na V 1.5-K IR 2.1 complex from FRODOCK in top view.(C) Surface representation of the best-predicted Na V 1.5-K IR 2.1 complex from AlphaFold-Multimer in top view.(D-F) Consensus interface between helices DII-S1 from the VSD of Na V 1.5 is shown as a green drawing with residues containing atoms within 6 Å shown as sticks.The distances between the selected residue pairs are shown.D, predicted interactions from ClusPro; E, predicted interactions from FRODOCK; and F, predicted interactions from AlphaFold-Multimer.Na V 1.5 is shown in green, while two subunits of K IR 2.1 are colored in light orange, and the opposing subunits are colored in violet.seen in the closed cryo-EM state (Figure 2B).This was unexpected given the lack of the main activatory ligand PIP 2 or anionic lipids, which are crucial for channel activation gating (Hibino et al., 2010;Lee et al., 2016).
In this gating state, the predicted interface between Na V 1.5 and K IR 2.1 was much smaller, with a surface area of 457.7 2 Å (Table 1).This suggests that PPI between the two channels is highly sensitive to their gating states.Remarkably, however, a favorable interface between the voltage sensor domains (VSDs) of domain II and the transmembrane helix 1 (TM1) of the K IR 2.1 channel was observed in both the rigid-body closed-state complex and AlphaFoldpredicted open-state models (Figures 1C,F), suggesting stateindependence of this interface, when considering open vs. closed K IR 2.1 states.The movement of TM1 during K IR 2.1 channel gating is negligible, as can be seen, when comparing the closed and open state structure models respectively (Supplementary Figure S1B).The situation is less clear for voltage sensor movement of Na V 1.5.Our knowledge about VSD movement in Na V channels is far from complete, but a cryo-EM-structure of a toxin induced deactivated state of a Na V 1.7 VSD with a resolution of 4.2 Å is available (Xu et al., 2019).This structure suggests that helices S1-S3 undergo rigid body shifts of ~3Å, while the S4 helix translates ~10 Å during gating.Assuming that similar structural arrangements occur during normal electromechanical coupling in Na V 1.5 voltage sensor deactivation would influence KIR2.1 interaction.A more detailed understanding will require extensive further studies, beyond the scope of the current work.
As shown in Figures 1D-F, the interactions at this interface were hydrophobic.The AlphaFold model is colored according to the perresidue model confidence score (pLDDT), which provides a measure of the confidence of the respective residue (see Supplementary Figure S3 for the complete structure).All residues at the interface (DII-S1 helix) had high to very high confidence scores.
While, the region of Na V 1.5 predicted to interact with K IR 2.1 was modelled in a state very similar to The available cryo-EM structure, with an overall RMSD of 1.45 Å between the two structures (Figure 3 A, B).However, deviations at the intracellular side of the transmembrane region (e.g., DII-S4-S5 helix, as shown in Figure 3B) are observed.The voltage sensor of domain II is predicted in the "up-state" in both the cryo-EM structure and the Alphafold model, however R814 is positioned slightly below the hydrophobic constriction site (HCS) in the latter.While the pLDDT score in helix DII-S4 is indicating high model quality (>70), this is not the case for DII-S4-S5, with low pLDDT scores (~65), indicating low reliability.Thus, these deviations should not be interpreted.Of note, the low model quality at the intracellular half of the transmembrane region and in particular of large parts of the intracellular regions do not result from the dimerization 'experiment', but are also seen in the isolated Na V 1.5 model, available from the Alphafold database.The reason for the low pLDDT scores are unclear, but are reflected in the missing cryo-EM densities in these regions.

interface
Given the experimentally documented relevance of diseaselinked mutations to the function of the macromolecular complex (Ponce-Balbuena et al., 2018), structural mapping of diseaseassociated missense and deletion mutations was performed.Table 2 provides an overview of all missense variations identified in the DII-S1-TM1 interface.As shown in Figure 3, six missense mutations (A735 V/E and T731I in Nav1.5;C101R, V93I, L94P, and R82W/Q) and one deletion (del S95-F98) were positioned in the predicted binding interface.In particular, the C101R mutation led to   trafficking defects (Ballester et al., 2006).Clinically, this mutation presents with a phenotype of life-threatening events associated with polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (Chun et al., 2004), which requires treatment with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.Since previous work by the Jalife lab (Ponce-Balbuena et al., 2018) revealed that K IR 2.1 mutants could negatively influence Na V 1.5, experimentally testing this effect for C101R is essential.Structurally, arginine side chains possibly play a disruptive role at the proteinprotein interface.Similarly, L94P has been shown to negatively affect plasma membrane trafficking, leading to a reduction in the number of functional channels on the cell surface (Takeda et al., 2013).Coexpression with wild-type subunits rescued channel trafficking, suggesting a non-dominant effect of this mutation.Similarly, an in-frame deletion, del S95-F98, has been shown to negatively impact K IR 2.1 trafficking; however, it remains trapped in the cytoplasmic domain, even when co-expressed with the wild-type (Plaster et al., 2001).The deletion of four helical residues in TM1 clearly poses farreaching effects on the secondary structure and consequently on the putative channel-channel interface.Mutation V93I is associated with familial atrial fibrillation and can lead to increased channel activity (Xia et al., 2005).In vitro analysis of channel function revealed a gain-of-function for this variant (Xia et al., 2005;Zaklyazminskaya et al., 2022).A study of Russian patients with this variant revealed a surprising phenotype without any signs of ATS1 or mild but evident QTc prolongation (Zaklyazminskaya et al., 2022).Thus, the clinical significance of this variant remains unclear; however, it is classified as a potential proarrhythmogenic risk factor.A structural interpretation based on the putative Na V 1.5-K IR 2.1 complex suggests increased stability of the interface due to V93I, which fits the experimentally observed increase in channel activity.Explaining the reason behind the alterations in channel function following replacement of the valine side chain with the bulkier isoleucine side chain, based on the isolated K IR 2.1 structure, remains challenging.In the non-complexed state, this residue faces toward the lipid membrane, and unless currently unknown specific lipid interactions occur at this site, the impact of isoleucine should be negligible.Further, position V93 is not a highly conserved residue, and several species possess isoleucine at that position (Houtman et al., 2014).Further studies on the importance of this putative disease variant are required to clarify its role.
The missense variants of R82W/Q have been implicated in PIP 2dependent gating regulation (Eckhardt et al., 2007).Thus, mechanical dissection of mutant effects requires structural determination of the channel complex in multiple functional states.This requires thorough experimental validation of the predicted complex, which is beyond the scope of the current study.
The missense variant A735V in Na V 1.5 has been reported to shift the activation curve to the right and possibly decelerate recovery from inactivation.No obvious changes in channel expression or membrane insertion were observed.Furthermore, this mutant has been shown to reduce the upstroke velocity of action potentials in hiPSC-CMs (De La Roche et al., 2019).Phenotypically, the A735V mutation is associated with Brugada syndrome and can cause malignant arrhythmias and ventricular fibrillation, leading to sudden cardiac death (Vatta, 2002).On the contrary, the phenotypic manifestation of the A735E mutant is very complex, poorly understood, and difficult to explain, when considering only the effects of Na V 1.5 (Sasaki et al., 2021).Thus, Sasaki et al. (2021) suggested that this mutation might affect other functionally or structurally associated proteins.Na V 1.5 interacts with a multitude of different auxiliary proteins, associated proteins, anchoring proteins, β-subunits, scaffolding proteins, adapter proteins, and regulatory proteins, a group of which harbor disease-causing mutations that have been shown to affect I Na (Kyle and Makielski, 2014).Thus, the K IR 2.1 interaction may be speculated to play a crucial role here.However, functional studies in this area are lacking.Therefore, testing for disease mutations may be informative in the context of the macromolecular Na V 1.5-K IR 2.1 complex.An interesting hypothesis derived from the modeled complex suggests that the formation of a salt bridge between disease variants A735E and C101R might be possible.This could potentially stabilize the trafficking of C101R and positively influence the missense variant A735E.Such analyses would not only help to test and validate the predicted interface, but also provide crucial information on the complex mechanism of inherited cardiac diseases resulting from defects in Na V 1.5 and K IR 2.1.Mutation T731I is associated with Long QT3 syndrome and an increased risk of arrhythmias (Pan et al., 2021).However, no further details regarding this mutation are available in the literature.
In summary, three of four ATS1 mutations predicted interfaceinduced trafficking defects.This is interesting because experimental studies have revealed the importance of the macromolecular complex for trafficking (Ponce-Balbuena et al., 2018).Since the impairment of K IR 2.1 trafficking in cardiomyocytes affects Na V 1.5 trafficking and vice versa, studying the mechanisms of these inheritable disease mutants is crucial in the context of both interaction partners.

model
Modeling predictions suggest that the main role of the macromolecular Na V 1.5-K IR 2.1 complex is to stabilize during forward trafficking, interacting with a large interface as the complex pre-assembles early (Ponce-Balbuena et al., 2018).In line with this, the disruption of trafficking by one partner has been shown to affect trafficking by the other.However, both channels interact through common partners, such as scaffolding, anchoring, adaptor, and regulatory proteins (Park et al., 2020), whose atomic interactions cannot be reliably modeled with current programs.
Evidence from experimental studies suggest that a subpopulation of Na V 1.5-K IR 2.1 channels can physically interact when bound to the plasma membrane.First, both channels travel through similar retrograde trafficking (endosome-to-Golgi transport) routes.Additionally, co-expression of the two channels resulted in an increase in Na V 1.5 density.Moreover, both channels have been shown to co-immunoprecipitate in both the forward and reverse coimmunoprecipitation reactions (Ponce-Balbuena et al., 2018).Independent studies by Eckhardt and Jalife have demonstrated that K IR 2.1 and Na V 1.5, colocalize in ventricular myocytes in humans, rats, and mice (Milstein et al., 2012;Vaidyanathan et al., 2018).
Based on the predicted physical interaction models presented here, the gating dynamics of both channels clearly influence physical interactions.Relevant interface changes need to be addressed in future experimental studies, such as crosslinking, to confirm the predicted tight physical interaction of the macromolecular Na V 1.5-K IR 2.1 complex at the plasma membrane.
Tighter control of the resting membrane potential and excitability in the ventricles may be possible through strictly and simultaneously regulating the expression of these two channels and their physical contact.This is beneficial in preventing fibrillating arrhythmias (Utrilla et al., 2017).Given the close contact between the voltage domains of Na V 1.5 and TM1 of K IR 2.1 (Figures 1D-F), voltage-dependent structural changes from the VSD of Na V 1.5 might also be transmitted to the K IR 2.1 pore.Sigg, Chang, and Shieh (Sigg et al., 2018) suggested the presence of an unknown voltage sensor in K IR 2.1, when studied in the absence of native intracellular blockers, such as Mg 2+ and polyamines.Their study suggested that an unknown voltage sensor communicating allosterically with the pore gate best explains the weak inward rectification in the K IR 2.1 channels observed.Furthermore, the authors propose that this voltage sensor stabilizes the closure of the pore gate with a coupling factor of ~31.Based on the current modeling predictions, it is tempting to speculate that the unknown voltage sensor might actually be located on Na V 1.5.This hypothesis would require Xenopus laevis oocytes, which were used as the measuring system, to contain native sodium currents, similar enough to form macromolecular complexes with the injected K IR 2.1 channels.A BLAST search of the human Na V 1.5 channel identified a protein sequence in Xenopus laevis with approximately 70% sequence identity and almost 80% sequence similarity.However, further studies are required to test this hypothesis.
A recent high-speed atomic force microscopy study of the bacterial voltage-dependent Na v Ab channel revealed that VSDs can dissociate from the pore in the resting state and dimerize to form cross-links between channels (Sumino et al., 2023).In the proposed tight interaction model between Na V 1.5 and K IR 2.1, the dissociation of the VSDs is unlikely.It can be expected, that the dynamics of the predicted Na V 1.5-K IR 2.1 complex are different from those of the individual isolated channels.
While most experimentally resolved structures of Na V channels display voltage sensors in the "up-state" (activated), a recent 2.7-Å resolution Na V 1.7 structure was captured with one VSD in a completely deactivated (down) state.Voltage-dependent structural changes involve a combination of helix unwinding and spiral sliding of helix S4, and a rotation of the entire VSD domain of approximately 20 ° (Huang et al., 2022).Although S4, is not involved in the PPI, and movements of S4 are unlikely to influence the Na V 1.5-K IR 2.1 interface (Figure 1), rotation of the whole VSD could have a significant impact.
Nature must have designed this subpopulation of Na V 1.5-K IR 2.1 channelosomes for some unique biological advantage(s); however, much research is needed to fully understand their specific biological roles and differences to potentially oligomerized Na V 1.5 channels (reviewed in (Iamshanova et al., 2023).
Interestingly, sodium ions directly affect K IR 2.1 function.External Na + acts as a competitive inhibitor of K + conductance through K IR 2.1, which is physiologically relevant under certain pathological conditions.Specifically, this may increase outward K + efflux through K IR 2 channels under medical conditions, concomitant with severe hyponatremia (Ishihara, 2018).
In summary, the current study revealed that tight physical interactions are likely.In fact, modeling predictions suggest a large interface area (>3600 Å 2 ) with a favorable "binding energy," consistent with other PPIs.More importantly, the interface was independently predicted using three different programs, supporting the validity of the prediction.Finally, atomic insights into the Na V 1.5-K IR 2.1 complex enable interesting structural interpretations of disease-causing missense variants in both channels.In fact, mutations, such as V93I (K IR 2.1, Figure 3), are difficult to rationalize in the absence of a tightly bound Na V 1.5 channel.

Limitations of the study
Further studies are required in this exciting area of research.The validity of the in silico model needs to be thoroughly tested.The PPI models presented herein have not been refined, which would optimally require extensive molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, which will be done in future studies.Further, Figure 4 highlights a disease hotspot, but the mutants have not been modeled and their interactions investigated.This also would require MD refinement of the PPIs and preferably extensive side-chain resampling by simulations, which is beyond the scope of the current study.Further, experiment validation is necessary, for example, via cross-linking studies, for which the current study provides crucial starting points.The current stateof-the-art computational protein-protein interaction methods still perform rather poorly in predicting large macromolecular protein complexes.One particular limitation is the lack of 3D coordinates for large intracellular domains and interaction partners.This prevented us from modeling further interaction partners of much larger macromolecular complexes (Ponce-Balbuena et al., 2018).Unfortunately, current ab initio prediction methods, such as AlphaFold, while performing remarkably well on core regions of proteins, are not yet able to reliably predict intrinsically disordered regions or those that fold into transient 3D structures upon interaction with other binding partners.

Protein-protein docking
Interactions between Na V 1.5 (pdb: 6LQA) and K IR 2.1 (pdb: 7ZDZ) were probed using the Fast Rotational Docking Program (FRODOCK) (Garzon et al., 2009), ClusPro2.0(Kozakov et al., 2017), and AlpaFold-Multimer v3 (Evans et al., 2021).FRODOCK uses the rigid-body orientational sampling of a ligand molecule with respect to a fixed receptor molecule.It combines the projection of the interaction terms into 3D grid-based potentials and binding energies during complex formation.The binding energy was approximated as a correlation function consisting of van der Waals, electrostatic, and desolvation potential terms.Interaction energy minima were obtained through a fast and exhaustive rotational docking search combined with translational scanning.The program was obtained from https://chaconlab.org/modeling/ frodock/.The poses were visually filtered based on their relative orientations towards each other.The relative orientation of the membrane proteins in the membrane enabled a good discrimination between plausible and implausible poses.Positions with flipped membrane orientations of the two channels with respect to each other, or with one channel interacting with the cytoplasmic or extracellular regions with the transmembrane core of the other channel, were excluded from further analysis.
With FRODOCK 5 poses fulfilled the proper membrane orientation criterion and were further inspected.From these, 3 poses where at the same interface (between DII and III), with ~2-3 Å shifts in their relative orientation (see Supplementary Figure S4A).The pose with the largest number of contacts (as assessed with Prodigy) was chosen and shown in Figure 1.
The second rigid-body docking program was ClusPro v2.0 (Kozakov et al., 2017).It uses Piper, which is a fast Fourier transform program developed by the Vajda lab for a rigid-body global search, and employs pairwise interaction potentials.The program provides 1,000 low-energy results to the clustering program ClusPro, which then attempts to find the native site based on the underlying assumption that it will have a wide freeenergy attractor with the largest number of results.The program was accessed through its web server https://cluspro.org/login.php.Similar visual filtering of poses as above was performed, and the resulting five best poses were analyzed in detail.Two poses were found at the same interface (between DII and III), while at all other interfaces only one pose was found (see Supplementary Figure S4B).The pose with the larger number of contacts (as assessed with Prodigy) was chosen and shown in Figure 1.
AlpaFold-Multimer v3 uses multiple sequence alignments (MSA) as inputs to predict the structure of protein complexes.For heteromultimers, as is the case for the Na V 1.5-K IR 2.1 (five independent subunits), it leverages both MSAunpaired and MSApaired as inputs.Different parameters were tested and the best results were obtained using the following parameters: mmsequs2_uniref_env, no-template mode; number of ensembles: three; number of recycles: ten; pair mode: paired; recycling early stop tolerance: 0.5; and training mode: no.Only the best of the five models obtained using these parameters was further analyzed.The model-predicted pLDDT (predicted local distance difference test) score per residue is shown in Supplementary Figure S2.The mean pLDDT score was 78.29 with an iPTM (average quality of the all interfaces of the complex) score of 0.89.
Table 3 provides an overview of the different parameters used for PPI docking by ClusPro, FRODOCK and AlphaFold multimer.

ClusPro FRODOCK AlphaFold_multimer_v3
All heteroatoms including small molecule ligands, lipids and ions were removed from the protein structures before docking.Receptor definition: Na V 1.5 α-subunit (pdb: 6LQA); Ligand definition: K IR 2.1 (pdb: 7ZDZ), no advanced options nor restraints were used to bias docking All heteroatoms including small molecule ligands, lipids and ions were removed from the protein structures before docking.Receptor definition: Na V 1.5 α-subunit (pdb: 6LQA), all heteroatoms (small molecule ligand and lipids) were removed; Ligand definition: K IR 2.1 (pdb: 7ZDZ), no advanced options nor restraints were used to bias docking The target sequences were obtained from Uniprot, codes: Q14524-1 (SCN5A_HUMAN) including residues 1,187-1928 and P63252

Interface analysis
Interface analysis was performed using the PISA-PDBe web server (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/msd-srv/prot_int/cgi-bin/piserver) and Prodigy (Xue et al., 2016) (https://bianca.science.uu.nl/ prodigy/).Both web servers enable a quick analysis of proteinprotein interfaces, including the number of contacts within a certain cutoff, and simplified binding affinity predictions, which do not reflect the true energies of the complexes but are useful in quickly ranking model poses obtained from different docking programs.

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 putative open-state model of K IR 2.1.(A) Representation of the open-state K IR 2.1 model from AlphaFold in side view; (B), magnification of the HBC gate, viewed from the bottom, with closed-state constricting residues I178 and M182 shown as sticks.

FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3 Comparison of Nav1.5 cryo-EM and Alphafold structures.Identification of putative disease hotspots at the DII_S1-TM1 interface.(A) Representation of domains II and III of the Na V 1.5 AlphaFold model in side view; (B), isolated voltage sensor of domain II, with the charge carrying residues in S4, conserved acidic residues and the hydrophobic constriction site (HCS) are shown as sticks.

FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4Representation of the consensus interface between DII-S1 (Na V 1.5) and TM1 (K IR 2.1) of the ClusPro model.All residues with atoms within 6 Å of the interface are shown as sticks.Disease-linked missense variants are shown as spheres, colored in green for Na V 1.5 and in wheat for K IR 2.1.The disease-linked deletion delS95-F98 in Kir2.1 is colored in red.

TABLE 2 details
of disease associated hotspot mutations.

TABLE 3
Overview of parameters used for PPI docking.