Piezo1 represents a prototype of the mammalian mechanosensitive cation channel, but its molecular mechanism remains elusive. In a recent study, we showed that C-terminal region, which contains the last two TMs, of 2189-2547 of Piezo1 forms the bona fide pore module, and systematically identified the pore-lining helix and key pore-property-determining residues (Zhao et al., 2016). Furthermore, we have engineered the Piezo1(1-2190)-ASIC1 chimera (fusing the N-terminal region of 1-2190 to the mechano-insensitive ASIC1) that mediated mechanical- and acid-evoked currents in HEK293T cells, indicating the sufficiency of the N-terminal region in mechanotransduction. Now in a Matters Arising, the authors specifically questioned the implication of the chimera data among the many findings shown in our paper. They replicated the chimera-mediated mechanosensitive currents in HEK293T cells that have nearly no detectable expression of endogenous Piezo1, but paradoxically found the chimera to be less effective in Piezo1 knockout HEK293T cells, indicating the involvement of endogenous Piezo1. In this Matters Arising Response, we discuss the chimera results and consider potential interpretations in light of the Matters Arising from Dubin et al. (2017), published concurrently in this issue of Neuron. Please see also the response from Hong et al. (2017), published in this issue.