Pflügers Archiv

, Volume 398, Issue 4, pp 331–336 | Cite as

Peritubular buffering power and luminal acidification in proximal convoluted tubules of the rat

  • C. Amorena
  • G. Malnic
Transport Processes, Metabolism and Endoorinology; Kidney, Gastrointestinal Tract, and Oxocrine Glands

Abstract

Proximal tubular acidification was studied varying peritubular buffer concentration as well as the nature of the main pertibular buffer system. Two buffer systems were used: phosphate which varied between 1 and 20 mM, and glycodiazine, at 5 and 20 mM. Luminal perfusate was always 20 mM phosphate Ringer's. Acidification half times increased as peritubular buffer concentration decreased, independently of the nature of the buffer. At 1 mM phosphate, net H-ion flux (JH+) was 0.53 nmol·cm−2·s−1; at 5 mM it was 0.73 nmol·cm−2·s−1 and at 20 mM, 0.97 nmol·cm−2·s−1. When the peritubular buffer was glycodiazine, JH+ was 0.77 nmol·cm−2·s−1 at 5 mM peritubular buffer concentration and 0.99 nmol·cm−2·s−1 at 20 mM. Acetazolamide (10−4 M) and DIDS (10−4 M) both abolished the effect of peritubular buffer concentration changes on acidification half times. It was shown that these effects were related to the capacity of the peritubular buffer to attenuate changes in peritubular pH as consequence of base transfer by the peritubular membrane. Peritubular buffering power could act limiting intracellular pH increments consequent to luminal H-ion secretion.

Key words

Glycodiazine Phosphate Peritubular buffer capacity DIDS Acetazolamide Micropuncture Sb microelectrode 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amorena C, Malnic G (1982) Interaction of carbonic anhydrase, capillary pCO2 and pH in proximal tubular acidification. Braz J Med Biol Res 15:190Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burckhardt B Ch, Fromter E (1980) Bicarbonate transport across the peritubular membrane of rat kidney proximal tubule. In: Schulz I, Sachs G, Forte JG, Ullrich K (eds) Hydrogen ion transport in epithelia. Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press, pp 277–285Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cassola AC, Giebisch G, Malnic G (1977) Mechanisms and components of renal tubular acidification. J Physiol 267:601–624Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen LH, Steinmetz PR (1980) Control of active proton transport in turtle urinary bladder by cell pH. J Gen Physiol 76:381–393Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen LH, Mueller A, Steinmetz PR (1978) Inhibition of the bicarbonate exit step in urinary acidification by disulfonic stilbenes. J Clin Invest 61:981–986Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Costa Silva VL, Campiglia SS, de Mello Aires M, Malnic G, Giebisch G (1981) Role of luminal buffers in renal tubular acidification. J Membr Biol 63:13–24Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ehrenspeck G, Brodsky WA (1975) Effects of 4-acetamido-4′ isothiocyano-2-2′ disulfonic stilbene on ion transport in turtle bladders. Biochem Biophys Acta 419:555–558Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fromter E (1980) Significance of carbonic anhydrase for HCO3 absorption and H+ secretion in renal tubules. In: Bauer C, Gros G, Bartels H (eds) Biophysics and Physiology of carbon dioxide. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 419–425Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garcia Filho EM, Malnic G (1976) pH in cortical peritubular capillaries of rat kidney. Pflügers Arch 363:211–217Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garvey MH, Maude DL (1981) Acid excretion by bicarbonate-free perfused rat kidney. Am J Physiol 240:F306-F310Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hogben CAM (1952) Gastric anion exchange: its relation to the immediate mechanism of hydrochloric acid secretion. Proc Natl Acad Sci (Wash.) 38:13–18Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koeppen BM, Helman SI (1982) Acidification of luminal fluid by the rabbit cortical collecting tubule perfused in vitro. Am J Physiol 242:F521-F531Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Malnic G, Vieira FL (1972) The antimony microelectrode in kidney micropuncture. Yale J Biol Med 45:356–367Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maren TH (1967) Carbonic anhydrase: Chemistry, physiology and inhibition. Physiol Rev 47:595–781Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mello Aires M, Malnic G (1975) Peritubular pH and pCO2 in renal tubular acidification. Am J Physiol 228:1766–1774Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rubio CR, de Mello GB, Mangili OC, Malnic G (1982) H-ion secretion in proximal tubule of CO2/HCO3 free perfused isolated rat kidney. Pflügers Arch 393:63–70Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sanders SS, Hayne B van, Rehm WS (1973) Normal H+ rates in frog stomach in absence of exogenous CO2 and a note on pH stat method. Am J Physiol 225:1311–1321Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schwartz GJ (1981) Na-dependent H efflux from proximal tubule: evidence for reversible Na+−H+ exchange. Am J Physiol 241:F380-F385Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Snedecor CW, Cochran WG (1971) In: Statistical methods. Edited by The Iowa State University Press, Aimes, Iowa, USA. p 27Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Steinmetz PR (1967) Characteristics of hydrogen ion transport in urinary bladder of water turtle. J Clin Invest 46:1531–1540Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ullrich KJ, Capasso G, Rumrich G, Papavassiliou F, Kloss S (1977) Coupling between proximal tubular transport processes. Studies with ouabain, SITS and HCO3-free solutions. Pflügers Arch 368:245–252Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ullrich KJ, Rumrich G, Baumann K (1975) Renal proximal buffer (glycodiazine) transport. Inhomogeneity of local transport rate, dependence on sodium effects of inhibitors and chronic adaptation. Pflügers Arch 357:149–163Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vieira FL, Malnic G (1968) Hydrogen ion secretion by rat renal cortical tubules as studied by antimony microelectrode. Am J Physiol 214:710–718Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Amorena
    • 1
  • G. Malnic
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas, Departamento de FisiologiaUniversidade de São Paulo, Cidade UniversitariaSão PauloBrasil

Personalised recommendations