4.4 Article

Na+, K+-ATPase activity in gill microsomes from the blue crab, Callinectes danae, acclimated to low salinity: Novel perspectives on ammonia excretion

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2009.01.020

关键词

Acclimation; Ammonium excretion; Callinectes danae; Euryhaline crab; (Na+,K+)-ATPase; Potassium ion

资金

  1. Funda Ao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado cle S o Paulo (FAPESP)
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This investigation provides an extensive characterization of the modulation by ATP, Mg2+, Na+, K+ and NH4+ of a gill microsomal (Na+,K+)-ATPase from Callinectes danae acclimated to 15 parts per thousand salinity. Novel findings are the lack of high-affinity ATP-binding sites and a 10-fold increase in enzyme affinity for K+ modulated by NH4+, discussed regarding NH4+ excretion in benthic marine crabs. The (Na+,K+)-ATPase hydrolyzed ATP at a maximum rate of 298.7 +/- 16.7 nmol Pi min(-1) mg(-1) and K-0.5 = 174.2 +/- 9.8 mmol L-1 obeying cooperative kinetics (n(H) = 1.2). Stimulation by sodium (V = 308.9 +/- 15.7 nmol Pi min(-1) mg(-1), K-0.5 = 7.8 +/- 0.4 mmol L-1), magnesium (299.2 +/- 14.1 nmol Pi min(-1) mg(-1), K-0.5 = 767.3 +/- 36.1 mmol L-1), potassium (300.6 +/- 153 nmol Pi min(-1) mg(-1), K-0.5 = 1.6 +/- 0.08 mmol L-1) and ammonium (V = 345.1 +/- 19.0 nmol Pi min(-1) mg(-1), K-0.5 = 6.0 +/- 0.3 mmol L-1) ions showed site-site interactions. Ouabain inhibited (Na+,K+)-ATPase activity with K-1 = 45.1 +/- 2.5 mu mol L-1, although affinity for the inhibitor increased (K-1 = 22.7 +/- 1.1 mu mol L-1) in 50 mmol L-1 NH4+. Inhibition assays using ouabain plus oligomycin or ethacrynic acid suggest mitochondrial F0F1- and K+-ATPase activities, respectively. Ammonium and potassium ions synergistically stimulated specific activity up to 72%, inferring that these ions bind to different sites on the enzyme molecule, each modulating stimulation by the other. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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