Ligand-Activated Ca2+ Channels in the Nuclear Envelope of Starfish Oocytes

  • Luigia Santella
  • Keiichiro Kyozuka


The regulation of the calcium pool in the cell nucleus is a controversial issue. The presence in the envelope of large pores has often been taken as an indication for the free and unhindered traffic of Ca2+ between the cytoplasm and the nucles. Accordingly, experiments in a number of Laboratories, especially with nuclear targeted fluorescent indicators (Brini et al., 1993; Allbritton et al., 1994) have detected insignificant delays in the transmission of cytosolic Ca2+ waves to the cytoplasm. Others, however, have measured significant delays even using essentially the same methods (Badminton et al., 1995). In addition, patch-clamp work on nuclear envelopes have shown giga-ohm resistance, and single channel activity, despite the presence of dozens of pores in the patch (Mazzanti et al., 1990; Dale et al., 1994; Santella & Kyozuka, 1994; Santella, 1996). Very likely, then, the nuclear pores exist in both Ca2+ impermeant and Ca2+ permeant states: a mechanism for the gating on the pores based on the state of depletion of the envelope Ca2+ store has been recently proposed (Greber & Gerace, 1995; Stehno-Bittel et al., 1995).


Nuclear Envelope Calcium Pool Single Channel Activity 2Marine Biological Station Emission Band Pass 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allbritton, N., E. Oancea, M. A. Kuhn, and T. Meyer. 1994, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91: 12458–12462.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Badminton, M. N, J. M. Kendall, G. Sala-Newby, and A. K. Campbell. 1995, Exp Cell Res. 216: 236–243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brini, M., M. Murgia, L. Pasti, D. Picard, T. Pozzan, and R. Rizzuro. 1993, Embo J. 12: 4813–4819.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dale, B, L. J. DeFelice, K. Kyozuka, L. Santella, and E. Tosti. 1994, Proc. Soc London (B), 255: 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Divecha, N., H. Banfic, and R. F. Irvine. 1991, Cell 1991, 74: 405–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gerasimenko, O. V., J. V. Gerasimenko, A. V. Tepikin, and O. H. Petersen. 1995, Cell 80: 439–444.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Greber, U. F., and L. Gerace. 1995, J Cell Biol. 128: 5–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lanini, L., O. Bachs, and E. Carafoli. 1992, J Biol Chem. 267: 11548–11552.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Mazzanti, M., L. J. DeFelice, J. Cohen J, and H. Malter. H. 1990, Nature 343: 764–767.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nicotera, R, D.J. McConkey, D. R. Jones, and S. Orrenius. 1989, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86: 453–457.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nicotera, R, S. Orrenius, T. Nilsson, and R. O. Berggren. 1990, Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 87: 6858–6862.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Santella, L., and K. Kyozuka. 1994, Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 203: 674–680.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Santella, L. 1996, J Membr Biol. 153: 83–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Santella, L. and C. Carafoli. 1997, FASEB J. 11: 1091–1109.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Stehno-Bittel, L., C. Perez-Terzic, and D. E. Clapham. 1995, Science 270: 1835–1838.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luigia Santella
    • 1
  • Keiichiro Kyozuka
    • 2
  1. 1.Stazione Zoologica “A. Dohrn”Laboratory of Cell BiologyNaplesItaly
  2. 2.Marine Biological Station of AsamushiTohoku UniversityAomoriJapan

Personalised recommendations