We examined cell-attached patches on principal cells of primary cultured, rabbit cortical collecting tubules. Under basal conditions, apical 9-pS Cl(-)-selective channels were observed in 9% of patches (11/126), and number of channels times open probability (NP0) was 0.56 +/- 0.21. The channel had a linear current-voltage relationship, reversal potential (Erev) near resting membrane potential, a P0 (0.30-0.70) that was independent of voltage, and complicated kinetics (i.e., bursting) at hyperpolarized potentials. NP0 and channel frequency were increased after 30 min of basolateral exposure to 0.5 microM PGE2 (18/56), 10 microM forskolin (23/36), or 0.5 mM dibutyryl cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) (25/41). Increases in NP0 appeared to be mediated primarily through an increase in the number of observed channels per patch (N), not changes in P0. After these cAMP-increasing maneuvers, N was inconsistent with a uniform distribution of channels in the apical membrane (P < 0.001), but rather the channels appeared to be clustered in pairs. Apical 0.5 microM PGE2 (12/91), apical or basolateral 0.5 microM PGF2 alpha (8/110), or 0.25 microM thapsigargin (releaser of intracellular Ca2+ stores) (7/73) did not increase NP0 or channel frequency. Conclusions: (a) 9-pS Cl- channels provide a conductive pathway for apical membrane Cl- transport across principal cells. (b) Channel activation by basolateral PGE2 is mediated via a cAMP-, but not a Ca(2+)-dependent mechanism. (c) Apical channels are clustered in pairs. (d) With its low baseline frequency and Erev near resting membrane potential, this channel would not contribute significantly to transcellular Cl- flux under basal conditions. (e) However, cAMP-producing agonists (i.e., PGE2, arginine vasopressin) would increase apical Cl- transport with the direction determined by the apical membrane potential.
B N Ling, K E Kokko, D C Eaton
The Editorial Board will only consider comments that are deemed relevant and of interest to readers. The Journal will not post data that have not been subjected to peer review; or a comment that is essentially a reiteration of another comment.