Letter | Published:

Interpretation of Hexose-dependent Electrical Potential Differences in Small Intestine

Naturevolume 214pages509510 (1967) | Download Citation

Subjects

Abstract

ACTIVELY transported sugars added to the solution bathing the mucosal surface of the small intestine produce an increase in the electrical potential difference (p.d.) and short-circuit current (Isc) across the tissue1–4. Schultz and Zalusky1 have shown that the increase in the IscIsc) across rabbit ileum is a function of both sugar and sodium concentrations in the bathing solution. When sodium was replaced with potassium, the maximum ΔIsc caused by addition of sugars was a linear function of sodium concentration. Recently, Barry et al.5 reported that the increase in the p.d. (Δp.d.) following addition of galactose to the mucosal bathing solution of everted sacs of rat mid-intestine is independent of sodium concentration when mannitol is used to replace sodium chloride, but is approximately a linear function of sodium concentration when potassium is used to replace sodium. They have concluded that the “galactose dependent potential is unaffected by sodium concentration but is reduced by increasing potassium concentration”. Lyon and Crane6 have reported that, in rat jejunum, the maximum Δp.d. resulting from addition of actively transported sugars is independent of sodium concentration when tris [2-amino-2(hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol] is used to replace sodium, but decreases when potassium is used as replacement ion.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1

    Schultz, S. G., and Zalusky, R., J. Gen. Physiol., 47, 1043 (1964).

  2. 2

    Barry, R. J. C., Dikstein, S., Matthews, J., Smyth, D. H., and Wright, E. M., J. Physiol., 171, 316 (1964).

  3. 3

    Barry, R. J. C., Smyth, D. H., and Wright, E. M., J. Physiol., 181, 410 (1965).

  4. 4

    Asano, T., Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. and Med., 119, 189 (1965).

  5. 5

    Barry, R. J. C., Eggenton, J., Smyth, D. H., and Wright, E. M., J. Physiol., 182, 40 P (1966).

  6. 6

    Lyon, I., and Crane, R. K., Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 112, 278 (1966).

  7. 7

    Schultz, S. G., and Zalusky, R., J. Gen. Physiol., 47, 567 (1964).

  8. 8

    Asano, T., Amer. J. Physiol., 207, 415 (1964).

  9. 9

    Schultz, S. G., Zalusky, R., and Gass, jun., A. E., J. Gen. Physiol., 48, 375 (1964).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Biophysical Laboratory, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

    • STANLEY G. SCHULTZ
    • , PETER F. CURRAN
    •  & ERNEST M. WRIGHT

Authors

  1. Search for STANLEY G. SCHULTZ in:

  2. Search for PETER F. CURRAN in:

  3. Search for ERNEST M. WRIGHT in:

About this article

Publication history

Issue Date

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/214509a0

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.