Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journal of Physiology logoLink to The Journal of Physiology
. 1992 Apr;449:1–20. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1992.sp019071

Flows of liquid and electrical current through monolayers of cultured bovine arterial endothelium.

M R Turner 1
PMCID: PMC1176064  PMID: 1522505

Abstract

1. Monolayers of arterial endothelium on porous membranes were exposed to a constant pressure between 15 and 35 cmH2O. The rates of liquid flow per unit area (Jv/A) through the monolayers were monitored, together with the electrical resistance (Rm) of the endothelium. 2. At constant pressure, Jv/A decreased with an approximately exponential time course, towards a stable baseline value. This behaviour resembles the sealing previously described for cultured vascular endothelium. At 30-35 cmH2O and 37 degrees C, the mean (+/- S.E.M.) half-time (t1/2) of the decrease in Jv/A (the sealing t1/2) was 548 +/- 141 S (n = 5). The difference between the initial and baseline values of Jv/A was expressed as a fraction of the initial value. The mean (+/- S.E.M.) of this sealing fraction was 0.64 +/- 0.03 (n = 5). Mean (+/- S.E.M.) hydraulic permeability (Lp) was 23.9 +/- 6.4 x 10(-7) cm S-1 cmH2O-1 (n = 9), when measured after sealing. Endothelium appeared damaged after sealing at 30-35 cmH2O and 37 degrees C. 3. Sealing was also observed using glutaraldehyde-fixed endothelium at 30-33 cmH2O and 26-28 degrees C. There was no significant difference between the mean sealing t1/2 of these fixed monolayers, and that of unfixed endothelium at 30-35 cmH2O and 37 degrees C. However, mean sealing fraction was significantly larger for the fixed monolayers than for unfixed endothelium at 30-35 cmH2O and 37 degrees C. There were no significant difference between the post-sealing Lps of these fixed and unfixed monolayers, although the fixed monolayers appeared undamaged after sealing. 4. For unfixed endothelium, Rm was lower after sealing at 30-35 cmH2O and 37 degrees C than before pressure application. There was no significant difference between endothelial Rm before and after sealing, for glutaraldehyde-fixed monolayers. 5. Sealing was also observed at 0 degree C, using unfixed endothelium at 30 cmH2O. Mean sealing t1/2 was not significantly different from that of unfixed endothelium at 30 cmH2O and 37 degrees C. However, mean sealing fraction was significantly smaller at 0 degree C than at 37 degrees C. Unfixed endothelium appeared undamaged after sealing at 30 cmH2O and 0 degree C. Despite this, the post-sealing Lp was not significantly different from that of unfixed endothelium sealed at 30 cmH2O and 37 degrees C, after allowance was made for the effect of temperature on Lp. Rm was not measured in these experiments. 6. It is proposed that sealing is due to pressure-induced deformation of monolayers.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Full text

PDF
1

Images in this article

7Fig. 3
on p.7

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Albelda S. M., Sampson P. M., Haselton F. R., McNiff J. M., Mueller S. N., Williams S. K., Fishman A. P., Levine E. M. Permeability characteristics of cultured endothelial cell monolayers. J Appl Physiol (1985) 1988 Jan;64(1):308–322. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1988.64.1.308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baetscher M., Brune K. An in vitro system for measuring endothelial permeability under hydrostatic pressure. Exp Cell Res. 1983 Oct 15;148(2):541–547. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(83)90178-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Clough G., Michel C. C. The ultrastructure of frog microvessels following perfusion with the ionophore A23187. Q J Exp Physiol. 1988 Jan;73(1):123–125. doi: 10.1113/expphysiol.1988.sp003109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Del Vecchio P. J., Smith J. R. Expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme activity in cultured pulmonary artery endothelial cells. J Cell Physiol. 1981 Sep;108(3):337–345. doi: 10.1002/jcp.1041080307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Dull R. O., Jo H., Sill H., Hollis T. M., Tarbell J. M. The effect of varying albumin concentration and hydrostatic pressure on hydraulic conductivity and albumin permeability of cultured endothelial monolayers. Microvasc Res. 1991 May;41(3):390–407. doi: 10.1016/0026-2862(91)90037-c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Furie M. B., Cramer E. B., Naprstek B. L., Silverstein S. C. Cultured endothelial cell monolayers that restrict the transendothelial passage of macromolecules and electrical current. J Cell Biol. 1984 Mar;98(3):1033–1041. doi: 10.1083/jcb.98.3.1033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Langeler E. G., van Hinsbergh V. W. Characterization of an in vitro model to study the permeability of human arterial endothelial cell monolayers. Thromb Haemost. 1988 Oct 31;60(2):240–246. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Luckett P. M., Fischbarg J., Bhattacharya J., Silverstein S. C. Hydraulic conductivity of endothelial cell monolayers cultured on human amnion. Am J Physiol. 1989 Jun;256(6 Pt 2):H1675–H1683. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.1989.256.6.H1675. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Olson J. J., Poor M. M., Jr, Beck D. W. Methylprednisolone reduces the bulk flow of water across an in vitro blood-brain barrier. Brain Res. 1988 Jan 26;439(1-2):259–265. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(88)91482-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. PAPPENHEIMER J. R. Passage of molecules through capillary wals. Physiol Rev. 1953 Jul;33(3):387–423. doi: 10.1152/physrev.1953.33.3.387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Powers M. R., Blumenstock F. A., Cooper J. A., Malik A. B. Role of albumin arginyl sites in albumin-induced reduction of endothelial hydraulic conductivity. J Cell Physiol. 1989 Dec;141(3):558–564. doi: 10.1002/jcp.1041410314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Shasby D. M., Peterson M. W. Effects of albumin concentration on endothelial albumin transport in vitro. Am J Physiol. 1987 Sep;253(3 Pt 2):H654–H661. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.1987.253.3.H654. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Suttorp N., Fuchs T., Seeger W., Wilke A., Drenckhahn D. Role of Ca2+ and Mg2+ for endothelial permeability of water and albumin in vitro. Lab Invest. 1989 Aug;61(2):183–191. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Suttorp N., Hessz T., Seeger W., Wilke A., Koob R., Lutz F., Drenckhahn D. Bacterial exotoxins and endothelial permeability for water and albumin in vitro. Am J Physiol. 1988 Sep;255(3 Pt 1):C368–C376. doi: 10.1152/ajpcell.1988.255.3.C368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Tarbell J. M., Lever M. J., Caro C. G. The effect of varying albumin concentration of the hydraulic conductivity of the rabbit common carotid artery. Microvasc Res. 1988 Mar;35(2):204–220. doi: 10.1016/0026-2862(88)90063-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Tedgui A., Lever M. J. Filtration through damaged and undamaged rabbit thoracic aorta. Am J Physiol. 1984 Nov;247(5 Pt 2):H784–H791. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.1984.247.5.H784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Vargas C. B., Vargas F. F., Pribyl J. G., Blackshear P. L. Hydraulic conductivity of the endothelial and outer layers of the rabbit aorta. Am J Physiol. 1979 Jan;236(1):H53–H60. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.1979.236.1.H53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. de Groat W. C., Kawatani M. Enkephalinergic inhibition in parasympathetic ganglia of the urinary bladder of the cat. J Physiol. 1989 Jun;413:13–29. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1989.sp017639. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. van Os C. H., Wiedner G., Wright E. M. Volume flows across gallbladder epithelium induced by small hydrostatic and osmotic gradients. J Membr Biol. 1979 Aug;49(1):1–20. doi: 10.1007/BF01871037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Physiology are provided here courtesy of The Physiological Society

RESOURCES