What Do Aquaporin Knockout Studies Tell Us about Fluid Transport in Epithelia?

Oliver J. Maclaren; James Sneyd; Edmund J. Crampin

doi:10.1007/s00232-013-9530-2

The Journal of Membrane Biology

April 2013, Volume 246, Issue 4, pp 297–305 | Cite as

What Do Aquaporin Knockout Studies Tell Us about Fluid Transport in Epithelia?

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Oliver J. Maclaren
James Sneyd
Edmund J. Crampin

Article

First Online: 22 February 2013

2 Shares
427 Downloads
11 Citations

Abstract

The investigation of near-isosmotic water transport in epithelia goes back over 100 years; however, debates over mechanism and pathway remain. Aquaporin (AQP) knockouts have been used by various research groups to test the hypothesis of an osmotic mechanism as well as to explore the paracellular versus transcellular pathway debate. Nonproportional reductions in the water permeability of a water-transporting epithelial cell (e.g., a reduction of around 80–90 %) compared to the reduction in overall water transport rate in the knockout animal (e.g., a reduction of 50–60 %) are commonly found. This nonproportionality has led to controversy over whether AQP knockout studies support or contradict the osmotic mechanism. Arguments raised for and against an interpretation supporting the osmotic mechanism typically have partially specified, implicit, or incorrect assumptions. We present a simple mathematical model of the osmotic mechanism with clear assumptions and, for models based on this mechanism, establish a baseline prediction of AQP knockout studies. We allow for deviations from isotonic/isosmotic conditions and utilize dimensional analysis to reduce the number of parameters that must be considered independently. This enables a single prediction curve to be used for multiple epithelial systems. We find that a simple, transcellular-only osmotic mechanism sufficiently predicts the results of knockout studies and find criticisms of this mechanism to be overstated. We note, however, that AQP knockout studies do not give sufficient information to definitively rule out an additional paracellular pathway.

Keywords

Aquaporin knockout Epithelial transport Osmosis Aquaporins Water transport Osmotic mechanism

This is a preview of subscription content, to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

O. J. M. was supported by the New Zealand Tertiary Education Commission’s Top Achiever Doctoral Scholarship. This work was supported by NIH Grant R01 DE19245-01.

Appendix: Wild-Type and AQP Knockout Data

The wild-type renal proximal tubule water flux we used is similar to that given by Whittembury and Reuss (1992) and that used by Mathias and Wang (2005). We took the water flux to be five times bigger than that in the proximal tubule in the case of the salivary glands and 100 times smaller than that in the proximal tubule in the case of the lung alveolus, similar to the rough estimates given by Ma et al. (1999, 2000) and Schnermann et al. (1998) [though Ma et al.(1999) gave an estimate of the maximum rate of saliva secretion of up to 20 times the rate of absorption in the proximal tubule, we used a more conservative estimate]. We assumed that the salivary glands and proximal tubule systems transport under near-isosmolar conditions, 5–10 % from isosmotic. The assumptions for water flux and osmolarity of transport are our main wild-type parameter assumptions, and the wild-type renal proximal tubule transport quantities derived from these assumptions—water permeability and salt transport—are also similar to those given by Whittembury and Reuss (1992) and those used by Mathias and Wang (2005). Because the lung alveolus has a high water permeability but low water transport and negligible measurable changes in transport rates and osmolarity in knockouts (Ma et al. 2000), we instead assumed a value of water permeability between the lower and upper values of salivary gland and renal proximal tubule water permeabilities and calculated the osmolarity of transport from this; the deviation from isosmotic transport was significantly lower than that assumed in the salivary glands and renal proximal tubule, as would be expected (Table 1).

Given the assumption on the degree of wild-type osmolarity, the solute transport rates were calculated assuming the validity of the collection boundary condition (Eq. 6). This condition was also used to estimate the measured solute transport rate given the measured osmolarity in knockouts as it is assumed to be valid independently of the osmotic mechanism (the osmotic mechanism predicts a possibly different osmolarity from that measured).

The knockout effects were based primarily on those given by Schnermann et al. (1998) and Ma et al. (1999, 2000) for the renal proximal tubule, salivary gland acini, and lung alveolus. There were no measured changes in transport in the lung alveolus. The estimate of the reduction in permeability for the proximal tubule was taken to be 90 %, as an upper-limit case, higher than the 78 % reduction found by Schnermann et al. (1998) but in line with the 89 % reduction in permeability found in proximal tubule vesicles by Ma et al. (1998) in another AQP1 knockout study. The reduction in permeability for the salivary glands was not measured by Ma et al. (1999), but the reduction was found to be 65 and 77 % for cells isolated from the parotid and sublingual glands, respectively, by Krane et al. (2001); we took the reduction to be 80 % as a representative upper value (Table 2).

Importantly, because the studies of Ma et al. (1998) and Krane et al. (2001) measured the reductions in isolated cells and vesicles, we have some confidence that these reductions are directly representative of the changes in the permeability of the transcellular-only pathway. We could not find measurements of the changes in permeability of single cells or vesicles for AQP5-deficient alveolar cells but made the assumption of a similar effect to that in salivary cells and proximal tubule vesicles.

References

Agre P (2004) Aquaporin water channels (Nobel lecture). Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 43(33):4278–4290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckingham E (1914) On physically similar systems; illustrations of the use of dimensional equations. Phys Rev 4(4):345–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curran PF (1960) Na, Cl, and water transport by rat ileum in vitro. J Gen Physiol 43:1137–1148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond J, Bossert W (1967) Standing-gradient osmotic flow a mechanism for coupling of water and solute transport in epithelia. J Gen Physiol 50(8):2061–2083PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein A (1987) Water movement through lipid bilayers, pores, and plasma membranes: theory and reality, vol 4. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Fischbarg J (2010) Fluid transport across leaky epithelia: central role of the tight junction and supporting role of aquaporins. Physiol Rev 90:1271–1290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman M (2008) Principles and models of biological transport. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gin E, Crampin EJ, Brown DA, Shuttleworth TJ, Yule DI, Sneyd J (2007) A mathematical model of fluid secretion from a parotid acinar cells. J Theor Biol 248:64–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill AE (2008) Fluid transport: a guide for the perplexed. J Membr Biol 223(1):1–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill AE, Shachar-Hill B, Shachar-Hill Y (2004) What are aquaporins for? J Membr Biol 197:1–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kedem O, Katchalsky A (1958) Thermodynamic analysis of the permeability of biological membranes to non-electrolytes. Biochim Biophys Acta 27:229–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krane CM, Melvin JE, Nguyen HV, Richardson L, Towne JE, Doetschman T, Menon AG (2001) Salivary acinar cells from aquaporin 5–deficient mice have decreased membrane water permeability and altered cell volume regulation. J Biol Chem 276:23413–23420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan D (1997) Applied mathematics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Ma T, Yang B, Gillespie A, Carlson EJ, Epstein CJ, Verkman AS (1998) Severely impaired urinary concentrating ability in transgenic mice lacking aquaporin-1 water channels. J Biol Chem 273(8):4296–4299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma T, Song Y, Gillespie A, Carlson EJ, Epstein CJ, Verkman AS (1999) Defective secretion of saliva in transgenic mice lacking aquaporin-5 water channels. J Biol Chem 274(29):20071–20074PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma T, Fukuda N, Song Y, Matthay MA, Verkman AS (2000) Lung fluid transport in aquaporin-5 knockout mice. J Clin Invest 105(1):93–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maclaren OJ, Sneyd J, Crampin EJ (2012) Efficiency of primary saliva secretion: an analysis of parameter dependence in dynamic single-cell and acinus models, with application to aquaporin knockout studies. J Membr Biol 245:29–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathias RT, Wang H (2005) Local osmosis and isotonic transport. J Membr Biol 208:39–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien S (2011) Lin & Segel’s standing gradient problem revisited: a lesson in mathematical modeling and asymptotics. SIAM Rev 53(4):775–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palk L, Sneyd J, Shuttleworth TJ, Yule DI, Crampin EJ (2010) A dynamic model of saliva secretion. J Theor Biol 266(4):625–640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuss L (2009) Water transport by epithelia. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
Reuss L (2010) Epithelial transport. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
Schnermann J, Chou CL, Ma T, Traynor T, Knepper MA, Verkman AS (1998) Defective proximal tubular fluid reabsorption in transgenic aquaporin-1 null mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95(16):9660–9664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segel L (1970) Standing-gradient flows driven by active solute transport. J Theor Biol 29(2):233–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spring KR (1998) Routes and mechanism of fluid transport by epithelia. Annu Rev Physiol 60:105–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spring KR (1999) Epithelial fluid transport—a century of investigation. News Physiol Sci 14(3):92–98PubMedGoogle Scholar
Vallon V, Verkman AS, Schnermann J (2000) Luminal hypotonicity in proximal tubules of aquaporin-1-knockout mice. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 278(6):F1030–F1033PubMedGoogle Scholar
Verkman AS (2011) Aquaporins at a glance. J Cell Sci 124(Pt 13):2107–2112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinstein AM (1994) Mathematical models of tubular transport. Annu Rev Physiol 56:691–709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinstein AM (2003) Mathematical models of renal fluid and electrolyte transport: acknowledging our uncertainty. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 284(5):F871–F884PubMedGoogle Scholar
Weinstein A, Stephenson J (1981) Models of coupled salt and water transport across leaky epithelia. J Membr Biol 60(1):1–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinstein A, Stephenson J, Spring K (1981) The coupled transport of water. In: Bonting SL, de Pont JJHHM (eds) New comprehensive biochemistry. Membrane transport. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 311–351Google Scholar
Whittembury G, Reuss L (1992) Mechanisms of coupling of solute and solvent transport in epithelia. Raven Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Zeuthen T (2010) Water-transporting proteins. J Membr Biol 234:57–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Oliver J. Maclaren
- 1
Email author
James Sneyd
- 2
Edmund J. Crampin
- 1
- 3

1.Auckland Bioengineering InstituteThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
2.Department of MathematicsThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
3.Department of Engineering ScienceThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

What Do Aquaporin Knockout Studies Tell Us about Fluid Transport in Epithelia?

Abstract

Keywords

Notes

Acknowledgments

References

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cite article