Skip to main content
The Journal of General Physiology logoLink to The Journal of General Physiology
. 1965 Jan 1;48(3):527–540. doi: 10.1085/jgp.48.3.527

Effects of Alkali Metal Gations on the Potential across Toad and Bullfrog Urinary Bladder

Daniel E Leb 1, T Hoshiko 1; Barry D. Lindley with the technical assistance of James A. Dugan1
PMCID: PMC2195420  PMID: 14284782

Abstract

Isolated urinary bladders of the bullfrog (R. catesbeiana) and the toad (B. marinus) were mounted in an Ussing chamber. Potential differences up to 114 mv were observed in bullfrog bladder when the mucosal surface was bathed in dilute Na2SO4 and the serosal surface in sulfate Ringer's. In experiments with bullfrogs, K was used to replace Na in the mucosal solution and Na was used for K in the serosal solutions. The selectivity was judged in terms of the relative effectiveness of the replacement cation in maintaining the bladder potential. In experiments with toads, K and Rb were equally poor replacements for Na at the mucosal border, while Rb was a good replacement for K at the serosal border. Li in the mucosal solution appeared to depress the potential in part irreversibly. At the serosal border, Li was a partially effective substitute for K, more so than was Na. However, both were poor replacements compared to Rb. The mucosal surface of the urinary bladder of both frog and toad appears to be Na-selective and the serosal surface appears to be K-selective, consistent with the Koefoed-Johnsen-Ussing model for frog skin.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (821.1 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. BENTLEY P. J. The effects of contraction of the frog bladder on sodium transport and the responses to oxytocin. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 1963 Jun;3:281–285. doi: 10.1016/0016-6480(63)90023-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. FRAZIER H. S., LEAF A. The electrical characteristics of active sodium transport in the toad bladder. J Gen Physiol. 1963 Jan;46:491–503. doi: 10.1085/jgp.46.3.491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. HOSHIKO T., LINDLEY B. D., EDWARDS C. DIFFUSION DELAY IN FROG SKIN CONNECTIVE TISSUE: A SOURCE OF ERROR IN TRACER INVESTIGATIONS. Nature. 1964 Feb 29;201:932–933. doi: 10.1038/201932a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. KOEFOED-JOHNSEN V., USSING H. H. The nature of the frog skin potential. Acta Physiol Scand. 1958 Jun 2;42(3-4):298–308. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1716.1958.tb01563.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. LINDLEY B. D., HOSHIKO T. THE EFFECTS OF ALKALI METAL CATIONS AND COMMON ANIONS ON THE FROG SKIN POTENTIAL. J Gen Physiol. 1964 Mar;47:749–771. doi: 10.1085/jgp.47.4.749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. USSING H. H., ZERAHN K. Active transport of sodium as the source of electric current in the short-circuited isolated frog skin. Acta Physiol Scand. 1951 Aug 25;23(2-3):110–127. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1716.1951.tb00800.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of General Physiology are provided here courtesy of The Rockefeller University Press

RESOURCES