4.6 Article

Bicarbonate-dependent chloride secretion in Calu-3 epithelia in response to 7,8-benzoquinoline

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 551, 期 1, 页码 79-92

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2003.046482

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stimulation of Calu-3 epithelia with 7,8-benzoquinoline, under short circuit current conditions, produced a current increase that was completely accounted for by the net flux of chloride, measured simultaneously with Cl-36(-). Nevertheless the current stimulated by 7,8-benzoquinoline was sensitive to acetazolamide, which caused up to 50 % inhibition of the stimulated current, the remainder being sensitive to the Na+-K+-2Cl(-) cotransport inhibitor bumetanide. The effects of acetazolamide could be mimicked by either amiloride or by the di-sodium salt of 4,4'- dinitrostilbene-2,2disulphonic acid (DNDS) added to the basolateral side of the epithelium, but their actions were not additive. Amiloride was needed in sufficient concentration to inhibit the sodium-proton exchanger NHE1. DNDS blocks both the chloride-bicarbonate exchanger AE2 and the sodium-bicarbonate transporter NBC1. However, since 7,8-benzoquinoline activates basolateral K+ channels, causing hyperpolarisation, it is unlikely NBCl is active after addition of 7,8-benzoquinoline. The effect of DNDS is, therefore, mainly on AE2. It is concluded that chloride enters the basolateral aspect of the cells using the Na+-K+-2Cl(-) cotransporter and a parallel arrangement of NHE1 with AE2, these latter two being sensitive to acetazolamide because of their association with the cytoplasmic form of carbonic anhydrase CAII. The effects of acetazolamide could be mimicked by removal of HCO3-/CO2 from the bathing medium, and furthermore showed that the NHE1-AE2 mechanism is particularly important when the transport rate is high. Thus part of the current stimulated by 7,8-benzoquinoline and inhibited by acetazolamide or HCO3-/CO2 removal can be said to represent bicarbonate-dependent chloride secretion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据