4.1 Article

Organelle pH studies using targeted avidin and fluorescein-biotin

Journal

CHEMISTRY & BIOLOGY
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 197-209

Publisher

CURRENT BIOLOGY LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S1074-5521(00)00088-0

Keywords

Flubi-2; H+ leak; H+ pump; targeted fluorescence

Funding

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM035239] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R37NS027177, R01NS027177] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM35239, GM51799] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NINDS NIH HHS [NS27177] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Mammalian organelles of the secretory pathway are of differing pH. The pH values form a decreasing gradient: the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is nearly neutral, the Golgi is mildly acidic and the secretory granules are more acidic still (similar to pH 5). The mechanisms that regulate pH in these organelles are still unknown. Results: Using a novel method, we tested whether differences in H+ 'leak' and/or counterion conductances contributed to the pH difference between two secretory pathway organelles. A pH-sensitive, membrane-permeable fluorescein-biotin was targeted to endoplasmic-reticulum- and Golgi-localized avidin-chimera proteins in HeLa cells. In live, intact cells, ER pH (pH(ER)) was 7.2 +/- 0.2 and Golgi pH (pH(G)) was 6.4 +/- 0.3 and was dissipated by bafilomycin. Buffer capacities of the cytosol, ER and Golgi were all similar (6-10 mM/pH). ER membranes had an apparent H+ permeability three times greater than that of Golgi membranes. Removal of either K+ or Cl- did not affect ER and Golgi H+ leak rates, or steady-state pH(G) and pH(ER). Conclusions: The Golgi is more acidic than the ER because it has an active H+ pump and fewer or smaller H+ leaks. Neither buffer capacity nor counterion permeabilities were key determinants of pH(G), pH(ER) or ER/Golgi H+ leak rates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available