First published online November 17, 2005
Journal of Experimental Biology 208, 4363-4376 (2005)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2005
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01911
Transepithelial transport of fluorescent p-glycoprotein and MRP2 substrates by insect Malpighian tubules: confocal microscopic analysis of secreted fluid droplets
J. P. Leader and
M. J. O'Donnell*
Department of Physiology, University of Otago, New Zealand

View larger version (99K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1. CLSM images showing accumulation of Texas Red in the lumen and/or cells of
Malpighian tubules isolated from crickets (AD), adult
Drosophila (E) or larval Drosophila (F). The bathing saline
(B), lumen (L) and cells (C) are indicated in
each image. Tubules were bathed in 10 µmol l1 Texas Red
for 1530 min before each image was recorded. Tubule diameter is 60
µm in AC and 35 µm in D,E. Panel B shows the fluorescence
intensity profile from the base to the tip of the 110 µm-long arrow in A.
Note the presence of large (C) or small (D) spherical concretions in the lumen
of the cricket tubules. Some of the concretions in D appear to accumulate high
concentrations of Texas Red and appear white whereas others are dark or
opaque. The presence of large numbers of small intracellular concretions
prevents clear distinction of luminal from cellular compartments in
Drosophila tubules (E,F).
|
|

View larger version (14K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2. Fluorescence intensity (FI) ratios for cells versus bath
(circles) and lumen versus bath (triangles) as functions of the
concentration of Texas Red in the saline bathing isolated cricket Malpighian
tubules. An FI ratio for each site was calculated from the mean of
five FI measurements in the bathing saline, cells and lumen. Each
data point is the mean (± S.E.M.)
ratio for 56 widely separated regions in three tubules.
|
|

View larger version (19K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4. Secreted fluid Texas Red concentration ([Texas Red]sf) as a
function of bathing saline Texas Red concentration for cricket tubules set up
in Ramsay assays. Each point shows the mean ±
S.E.M. for N=613 tubules. The
solid line represents the fit to the MichaelisMenten equation by
non-linear regression analysis. As discussed in the text, the point at 50
µmol l1 Texas Red was excluded from the curve-fitting
procedure. The inset shows the ratio of the concentration of Texas Red in the
secreted fluid to that in the bathing medium (S/M) as a function of bathing
medium Texas Red concentration.
|
|

View larger version (20K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5. Transepithelial flux of Texas Red as a function of bathing saline Texas Red
concentration for Drosophila tubules set up in Ramsay assays. Each
point shows the mean ± S.E.M. for
N=730 tubules. The solid line represents the fit to the
MichaelisMenten equation by non-linear regression analysis. The inset
shows the ratio of the concentration of Texas Red in the secreted fluid to
that in the bathing medium (S/M) as a function of bathing medium Texas Red
concentration. As discussed in the text, the point at 50 µmol
l1 Texas Red was excluded from the curve-fitting
procedure.
|
|

View larger version (22K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6. Secreted fluid rhodamine 123 concentration as a function of bathing saline
rhodamine 123 concentration for cricket tubules set up in Ramsay assays. Each
point shows the mean ± S.E.M. for
N=628 tubules. The solid line represents the fit to the
MichaelisMenten equation by non-linear regression analysis. The inset
shows the ratio of the concentration of rhodamine 123 in the secreted fluid to
that in the bathing medium (S/M) as a function of bathing medium rhodamine 123
concentration.
|
|

View larger version (20K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7. Secreted fluid daunorubicin concentration as a function of bathing saline
daunorubicin concentration for cricket tubules set up in Ramsay assays. Each
point shows the mean ± S.E.M. for
N=58 tubules. The solid line represents the fit to the
MichaelisMenten equation by non-linear regression analysis. The inset
shows the ratio of the concentration of daunorubicin in the secreted fluid to
that in the bathing medium (S/M) as a function of bathing medium daunorubicin
concentration.
|
|

View larger version (21K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 8. Transepithelial flux of daunorubicin as a function of bathing saline
daunorubicin concentration for Drosophila tubules set up in Ramsay
assays. Each point shows the mean ±
S.E.M. for N=5 tubules. The solid
line represents the fit to the MichaelisMenten equation by non-linear
regression analysis. The inset shows the ratio of the concentration of
daunorubicin in the secreted fluid to that in the bathing medium (S/M) as a
function of bathing medium daunorubicin concentration.
|
|

View larger version (20K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 9. Transepithelial flux of fluorescein as a function of bathing saline
fluorescein concentration for isolated Drosophila tubules set up in
Ramsay assays. Each point shows the mean ±
S.E.M. for N=5 tubules. The solid
line represents the fit to the MichaelisMenten equation by non-linear
regression analysis. The inset shows the ratio of the concentration of
fluorescein in the secreted fluid to that in the bathing medium (S/M) as a
function of bathing medium fluorescein concentration.
|
|

View larger version (12K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 10. Effects of the MRP2 inhibitors MK-571 and probenecid (PROB) on
transepithelial flux of Texas Red across isolated Drosophila tubules
set up in Ramsay assays. Each bar shows the flux (mean +
S.E.M.) for 79 tubules (MK-571) or 10
tubules (probenecid) bathed in saline containing the indicated concentration
(µmol l1) of Texas Red in the absence (filled bars) or
presence (open bars) of the indicated inhibitor. Asterisks indicate
significant (P<0.05) decreases in flux in the presence of each
drug, relative to the corresponding controls.
|
|

View larger version (18K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 11. Transepithelial flux of quinacrine as a function of bathing saline
quinacrine concentration for isolated Drosophila tubules set up in
Ramsay assays. Each point shows the mean ±
S.E.M. for N=5 tubules. The solid
line represents the fit to the MichaelisMenten equation by non-linear
regression analysis. The inset shows the ratio of the concentration of
quinacrine in the secreted fluid to that in the bathing medium (S/M) as a
function of bathing medium quinacrine concentration.
|
|

View larger version (16K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 12. Effects of p-glycoprotein (P-gp) inhibitors on secreted fluid concentration
of daunorubicin (A,B) or rhodamine 123 (C,D) for cricket tubules set up in
Ramsay assays. Each panel shows the flux (mean +
S.E.M.) for control tubules (filled bars)
exposed to the dye alone at the indicated concentration (µmol
l1) and those treated with the same dye concentration and a
P-gp inhibitor at the concentration (µmol l1) indicated
(open bars). Abbreviations: daunorubicin (DNR), verapamil (VRP), rhodamine 123
(R123); tetraethylammonium (TEA). Significant differences (P<0.05)
between control and experimental groups indicated by asterisks.
N=710 tubules for each bar.
|
|

View larger version (28K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 13. Effects of p-glycoprotein (P-gp) inhibitors on transepithelial flux of
daunorubicin (AF) or rhodamine 123 (G,H) across Drosophila
tubules set up in Ramsay assays. Each panel shows the flux (mean +
S.E.M.) for control tubules (filled bars)
exposed to the dye alone at the indicated concentration (µmol
l1) and those treated with the same dye concentration and a
P-gp inhibitor at the concentration (µmol l1) indicated
(open bars). Abbreviations: daunorubicin (DNR), verapamil (VRP), quinacrine
(QUIN), rhodamine 123 (R123); tetraethylammonium (TEA). Significant
differences (P<0.05) between control and experimental groups
indicated by asterisks. N=710 tubules for each bar.
|
|

CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter What's this?
© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2005