Voltage dependence of L-arginine transport by hCAT-2A and hCAT-2B expressed in oocytes from Xenopus laevis

Hermann Nawrath, Jörg W. Wegener, Johanna Rupp, Alice Habermeier, and Ellen I. Closs

Department of Pharmacology, Johannes Gutenberg University, 55101 Mainz, Germany


    ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Membrane potential and currents were investigated with the two-electrode voltage-clamp technique in Xenopus laevis oocytes expressing hCAT-2A or hCAT-2B, the splice variants of the human cationic amino acid transporter hCAT-2. Both hCAT-2A- and hCAT-2B-expressing oocytes exhibited a negative extracellular L-arginine concentration ([L-Arg]o)-sensitive membrane potential, additive to the K+ diffusion potential, when cells were incubated in Leibovitz medium (containing 1.45 mM L-Arg and 0.25 mM L-lysine). The two carrier proteins produced inward and outward currents, which were dependent on the L-Arg gradient and membrane potential. Ion substitution experiments showed that the hCAT-induced currents were independent of external Na+, K+, Ca2+, or Mg2+. The apparent Michaelis-Menten constant values at -60 mV, obtained from plots of L-Arg-induced currents against [L-Arg]o, were 0.97 and 0.13 mM in oocytes expressing hCAT-2A and hCAT-2B, respectively; maximal currents amounted to -194 ± 8 and -84 ± 2 nA, respectively. At saturating [L-Arg]o, the current-voltage relationships of hCAT-2A-expressing oocytes became steeper, yielding an additional conductance up to 2 µS/oocyte, whereas those of hCAT-2B-expressing oocytes were simply shifted to the right, resulting in voltage-independent difference currents. The distinct electrochemical properties of the two isoforms of hCAT-2 are assumed to contribute differentially to the membrane transport and the maintenance of cationic amino acids in various tissues.

amino acid transporter; membrane current; two-electrode voltage clamp


    INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

CATIONIC AMINO ACIDS (CAA) are transported through biological membranes by various distinct transport systems, characterized by differences in structure, substrate specificity, site of expression, and regulation (for a review, see Refs. 12 and 22). The discovery that nitric oxide (NO) plays an important role as a mediator of both regulatory and cytotoxic functions (21) puts L-arginine (L-Arg), the immediate precursor of NO, into a new interesting context. The transport of L-Arg might influence the availability of substrate for NO synthesis in different cell types (8). Five transport systems for CAA have been identified; these are b+, y+, b0,+, y+L , and B0,+. Only system b+, described in preimplantation mouse blastocysts (28), seems to be specific for CAA, whereas the other systems also accept neutral amino acids (NAA). Systems y+L and B0,+ exhibit higher affinities for NAA than for CAA (12, 29). They are preferentially expressed in epithelial cells, in which they play a major role in reabsorption and transepithelial transport of CAA. System y+ is found almost ubiquitously and has been described as selective for CAA (12).

The transport of CAA by system y+ is Na+ and pH independent and sensitive to transstimulation (5). In recent years, several proteins, involved in the transport of CAA, have been identified on the molecular level. At least three related proteins (CAT-1, CAT-2B, and CAT-3, for cationic amino acid transporter) exhibit system y+-like activity when expressed in Xenopus laevis oocytes (6, 14-16, 19, 30). A fourth member of the CAT family, CAT-2A, demonstrates a much lower substrate affinity and less dependence on transstimulation than system y+-like CATs (7, 18). The two isoforms, CAT-2A and CAT-2B, result from alternative splicing of primary transcripts from the same gene. They only differ in a short stretch of 42 amino acids, demonstrated to be responsible for the differences in the transport properties of the CAT proteins (10). CAT-4 has only recently been identified, and its transport activity has not yet been characterized (24). Except for CAT-4, the various CAT isoforms were originally identified from mouse (mCAT) and rat.

The cloning of a cDNA that encodes for the human homologue of CAT-1 (hCAT-1) has been reported by two groups (2, 31). More recently, cDNAs encoding for the human homologues hCAT-2A and hCAT-2B have been cloned, and the function of their protein products has been studied in cRNA-injected oocytes and compared with hCAT-1 (9). The latter study, in which L-Arg fluxes were determined by monitoring either the uptake or the release of radioactively labeled substrate, showed that the transport activities of the various transporters differ in their apparent substrate affinity, sensitivity to transstimulation, and maximal velocity. However, flux studies cannot take into account that the transport of charged amino acids is also determined by the membrane voltage (Em), as shown for mCAT-1 (17).

In this study, we aimed to clarify this point by the application of the two-electrode voltage-clamp method in Xenopus laevis oocytes, which were injected with the cRNAs of either hCAT-2A or hCAT-2B. This study shows that the two related carrier proteins produce inward and outward currents, which are dependent on the concentration gradient and Em. Both hCAT-2A and hCAT-2B generated a negative extracellular L-Arg concentration ([L-Arg]o)-sensitive membrane potential, additive to the K+ diffusion potential, when the oocytes were loaded before with CAA. At saturating [L-Arg]o, hCAT-2A-expressing oocytes showed an additional conductance of up to 2 µS/oocyte, whereas the current-voltage relationships in hCAT-2B-expressing oocytes were simply shifted to the right, resulting in voltage-independent difference currents. The distinct electrochemical properties of the hCAT-2 isoforms may serve to regulate differentially the transport of CAA through biological membranes.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Preparation of cRNA for microinjection. The plasmids phCAT-2A 118 and phCAT-2B 181 were linearized with Sal I and then transcribed in vitro from the SP6 promoter as described previously (9).

Preparation of Xenopus laevis oocytes. Bags of the ovary of the African clawed frog Xenopus laevis (anesthetized with ice and 0.1% 3-aminobenzoic acid ethyl ester) were surgically removed and placed in nominally Ca2+-free saline solution (in mM: 96 NaCl, 2 KCl, 1 MgCl2, and 10 HEPES; pH 7.6). Oocytes were either mechanically singled out, using a platinum loop, or obtained by enzymatic treatment to remove their follicular envelopes (1.9 U/10 ml collagenase A, 30-40 min) and stored in a modified Leibovitz medium at 4°C for up to 7 days. The Leibovitz medium was modified by dilution with H2O (1:2) and the addition of 1 mM L-glutamine, 100 µg/ml gentamicin, and 15 mM HEPES (pH 7.6). The CAA content of the medium amounted to 1.45 mM L-Arg and 0.25 mM L-lysine. cRNA (25 ng/25 nl H2O) was injected into the oocytes under microscopic control using a pneumatic transjector (5246, Eppendorf-Netheler-Hinz, Hamburg, Germany) and a micromanipulator (MMJ, Märzhäuser, Wetzlar, Germany). The cRNA-injected oocytes were then incubated at 18°C for 48-72 h in the modified Leibovitz medium for translation, processing, and embedding of the mature proteins into the cell membrane before the electrophysiological experiments were carried out. H2O-injected or native oocytes were used as controls.

Measurement of membrane potential. Single oocytes were placed on a plastic grid in an organ bath of ~1 ml, which was built into a Perspex block that also contained a main reservoir of 100 ml of modified Ringer solution (in mM: 96 NaCl, 2 KCl, 1 MgCl2, 1.8 CaCl2, and 5 HEPES; pH was adjusted to 7.5 by NaOH), which was cooled to 20°C. Communication between the two compartments was provided by connecting bores through which the fluids were driven by gas pressure (O2). Substances could thus be easily added or removed from the main reservoir by a rapid fluid exchange without mechanically or electrically disturbing the test compartment. The Em of oocytes was recorded intracellularly with conventional micropipettes made from borosilicate glass (Science Products, Frankfurt, Germany) filled with 3 M KCl (resistances between 10 and 20 MOmega ); micropipettes were connected to a unity gain buffer amplifier (current clamp). The oocytes were impaled with the help of a micromanipulator under microscopic control, and the recorded signals were displayed on a Nicolet 310 scope (Nicolet Instruments, Madison, WI) and digitally stored on floppy disks in a DOS-compatible format.

Measurement of membrane currents. In the same experimental setup as described above, two electrodes with tips broken down to larger diameters, yielding resistances between 0.8 and 1.2 MOmega , were inserted into the same oocyte. The two-electrode voltage clamp was performed as described (25). All measurements were carried out in conjunction with a TEC05 two-electrode voltage-clamp amplifier (NPI Electronics, Tamm, Germany). Ion substitution experiments were performed in which replacement of either Na+ with K+ or Cl- with gluconate- was performed in the test solution. Mg2+ was omitted from the solution, or Ca2+ was buffered by EGTA. In some experiments, all cations in the solution were replaced by choline chloride.

Data were stored on a hard disk of a pentium processor-based, DOS-compatible microcomputer running pCLAMP 5.7 software (Axon Instruments, Foster City, CA) in conjunction with an analog-to-digital converter (DigiData 1200, Axon Instruments), which was also used for the generation of voltage commands and data analysis. Experiments were excluded from analysis when leak currents increased more than 10%, indicating membrane damage at the sites of impalements. Because of the lack of fast changes in membrane ion conductances, in response to any voltage-clamp jumps, the currents were not electronically compensated for membrane capacity or resistance.

Chemicals. Collagenase A was obtained from Boehringer (Mannheim, Germany). All other chemicals used were at least of reagent grade and purchased from Sigma Chemical (Deisenhofen, Germany).

Evaluation of results. All data were stored and edited on Intel microprocessor-based desk computers using either DOS or Windows as the operating system. Data are shown as original recordings or means ± SE. Concentration-response curves for [L-Arg]o were fitted to rectangular hyperbolas with the use of GraphPad prism 3.0 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA), yielding maximal current (Imax) and apparent Michaelis-Menten constant (Km), under the assumption that the L-Arg-induced transporter currents obey Michaelis- Menten kinetics. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA followed by modified t-statistics according to Bonferroni. P values <0.05, <0.01, and <0.001 were considered as significant. Absence of significance was also reported [designated by NS (not significant)].


    RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Em of both untreated and H2O-injected oocytes was around -50 mV, indicating that the injection procedure did not significantly alter the membrane properties of native oocytes. In contrast, oocytes injected with cRNA coding for hCAT-2A or hCAT-2B were found to develop more negative membrane potentials in L-Arg-free solution when the cells were loaded before with CAA. This difference was more pronounced with hCAT-2A than with hCAT-2B (Fig. 1). When control oocytes were exposed to [L-Arg]o of 1 mM, Em remained more or less unchanged (Fig. 2A), although minor depolarizations of 1-2 mV were occasionally observed. In contrast, oocytes expressing hCAT-2B were drastically depolarized in the presence of 1 mM [L-Arg]o (Fig. 2B). The L-Argo-induced depolarization was concentration dependent (not shown) and completely reversible after washout of the amino acid by repeated exchange of the bath solution (Fig. 2B).


View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   Membrane voltage (Em; means ± SE) in Xenopus oocytes. Em amounted to -53 ± 2.5 mV in untreated oocytes (n = 47), -52 ± 2.3 mV in oocytes injected with H2O (n = 22), -75 ± 4 mV in oocytes expressing the human cationic amino acid transporter (hCAT)-2A (n = 12), and -65 ± 2.8 mV in oocytes expressing hCAT-2B (n = 51). Oocytes with Em less negative than -40 mV were excluded from further analysis in all groups. Statistically significant differences: ** P < 0.01 and *** P < 0.001. Absence of significance is marked by NS (not significant).



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   Effect of extracellular L-arginine concentration ([L-Argo]) on Em in Xenopus oocytes. Original recordings are shown. Bars indicate the presence of [L-Arg]o (1 mM). A: data from a control oocyte, injected with H2O. B: data from an oocyte expressing hCAT-2B. Repeated washouts of L-Argo are indicated by arrowheads.

A more detailed analysis of oocytes expressing hCAT-2B revealed that Em was determined by two major components. First, when NaCl (96 mM) was replaced by KCl in the extracellular solution, the membrane was depolarized to about -50 mV. Second, the addition of 1 mM L-Arg further depolarized the membrane near to 0 mV (Fig. 3, C and D). The corresponding changes in Em were also observed in the reverse order of solution changes and again completely reversible. In control oocytes, the [L-Arg]o-sensitive component of Em was absent (Fig. 3, A and B). Similar results, as described for hCAT-2B, were also obtained in hCAT-2A-injected oocytes (not shown).


View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3.   Effects of extracellular K+ concentration ([K+]o) and [L-Arg]o on Em in Xenopus oocytes. A and C: original recordings in a control oocyte (A) and an oocyte expressing hCAT-2B (C). Bars indicate the change of [K+]o to 96 mM and the presence of 1 mM [L-Arg]o. B and D: mean values ± SE. In control oocytes (B), Em was -50 ± 6 mV under control conditions, -6 ± 1 mV at 96 mM [K+]o, and -5 ± 1 mV after the addition of 1 mM L-Arg (n = 5). In oocytes expressing hCAT-2B (D), Em was -87 ± 7 mV under control conditions, -50 ± 7 mV at 96 mM [K+]o, and -6 ± 2 mV after the addition of 1 mM L-Arg (n = 7). Statistically significant differences: **P < 0.01 and ***P < 0.001.

It was now of interest to relate the [L-Arg]o-induced changes in Em to charge movements across the cell membrane. In a first series of experiments, Em was held constant at -60 mV, and the membrane current was observed at cumulatively increasing [L-Arg]o. [L-Arg]o induced concentration-dependent inward currents in oocytes expressing either hCAT-2A (Fig. 4A) or hCAT-2B (Fig. 4B). Note the relaxation of effects at higher concentrations, which was mainly observed in oocytes expressing hCAT-2A. The effects of L-Argo were completely reversed after washout, followed by a slight increase in outward current, which probably resulted from further loading of the oocyte with L-Arg during the experiment. In H2O-injected oocytes, inward currents of <2 nA were observed in response to 10 mM [L-Arg]o (not shown). A plot of L-Arg-induced effects against [L-Arg]o was fitted to rectangular hyperbolas (Fig. 4C) using nonlinear regression analysis (R2 > 0.99). The original recordings and the analysis of data show that hCAT-2B is saturated at lower concentrations of L-Argo than hCAT-2A, whereas the maximal effects of [L-Arg]o are smaller with hCAT-2B (-84 ± 11 nA) than with hCAT-2A (-194 ± 18 nA). The apparent Km values amounted to 0.13 and 0.97 mM, respectively (Fig. 4C). There were no significant differences in the results, when either one [L-Arg]o or cumulatively increasing amounts of [L-Arg]o were tested in each experiment. A significant distortion of the concentration-response curves, due to the intracellular accumulation of L-Arg when increased stepwise in the bath fluid, is therefore excluded.


View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4.   Concentration-dependent effects of [L-Arg]o on membrane currents in Xenopus oocytes expressing hCAT-2A or hCAT-2B. A and B: original recordings of oocytes expressing hCAT-2A (A) and hCAT-2B (B). Holding potential was -60 mV. black-down-triangle , Application of L-Arg (numbers indicate [L-Arg]o in mM). black-triangle, Repeated washouts of L-Arg. C: concentration-response curves of L-Argo. Data sets were fitted to Michaelis-Menten kinetics. The apparent Michaelis-Menten constant amounted to 0.97 mM in hCAT-2A- and to 0.13 mM in hCAT-2B-expressing oocytes. Values are means ± SE (n = 4-5).

In another series of experiments, current-voltage relationships were obtained by the application of voltage-clamp steps to various potentials between -140 and +60 mV, starting at a holding potential of -60 mV (10-mV voltage increment, 3-s pulse duration, 5-s pulse interval). Figure 5 shows the original current traces in H2O-injected, hCAT-2A- and hCAT-2B-expressing oocytes in L-Arg-free solution. Inward and outward currents were much larger in hCAT-2A- and hCAT-2B-expressing than in H2O-injected oocytes. Figure 5D shows the current-voltage relationships of the H2O-injected oocytes and those of the cRNA-injected oocytes obtained from the current values at the end of each voltage-clamp pulse. The subtraction of the control values (obtained from H2O-injected oocytes) from the currents obtained from the oocytes expressing hCAT-2A or hCAT-2B eliminates the background currents, therefore reflecting the pure transporter currents (Fig. 5E) in L-Arg-free solution. The currents in Fig. 5E were either inward or outward, dependent on Em, and reversed at -71 and -85 mV in oocytes expressing hCAT-2A and hCAT-2B, respectively. From the nearly linear relationship between current and voltage, in the range from -100 to 0 mV, similar conductances were calculated (1.5 and 1.1 µS/oocyte, respectively) for the two transporters in either direction, according to G = delta I/delta E, where G is conductance.


View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5.   Current-voltage relationships of Xenopus oocytes in [L-Arg]o-free solution. A-C: original recordings of an oocyte injected with H2O (A), expressing hCAT-2A (B), and expressing hCAT-2B (C). Holding potential was -60 mV. Current traces obtained at 3-s test potentials from -140 to +60 mV were superimposed. D: current-voltage relationships in H2O-injected, hCAT-2A-expressing, and hCAT-2B-expressing oocytes. Data sets were fitted by linear regression between -100 and 0 mV; the resulting slope conductances amounted to 1 µS in oocytes injected with H2O, 2.6 µS in oocytes expressing hCAT-2A, and 2.1 µS in oocytes expressing hCAT-2B. The reversal potentials were -40, -59, and -63 mV, respectively. Values are means ± SE (n = 22 for H2O, n = 9 for hCAT-2A, and n = 30 for hCAT-2B). E: differences (Delta ) of the membrane currents shown in D. Data points were obtained by subtraction of the respective mean current values obtained in oocytes injected with H2O from those obtained in oocytes expressing hCAT-2A or hCAT-2B. Data were fitted by linear regression between -100 and 0 mV; the slope conductance was 1.5 µS for hCAT-2A and 1.1 µS for hCAT-2B. The reversal potential of the current differences was -71 and -85 mV, respectively.

In the next set of experiments, current-voltage relationships were obtained under control conditions and in the presence of 10 and 1 mM L-Argo in oocytes expressing hCAT-2A (Fig. 6A) and hCAT-2B (Fig. 6B), respectively. The difference between the currents in the presence and absence of L-Argo reveals the [L-Arg]o induced current changes (Fig. 6C). [L-Arg]o shifted the reversal potential of the current-voltage curves of both transporters to more positive values (Fig. 6, A and B). However, the current-voltage curves in hCAT-2A-expressing oocytes became steeper in the presence of [L-Arg]o (Fig. 6A), whereas those of hCAT-2B-expressing oocytes were simply shifted to the right (Fig. 6B). From the nearly linear relationship between the change in membrane current and voltage (in the range from -100 to 0 mV), an additional ohmic conductance of 1.2 µS was calculated for hCAT-2A, which was induced by [L-Arg]o (Fig. 6C). In contrast, the change in membrane currents of hCAT-2B-expressing oocytes was nearly independent of Em. Therefore, the L-Arg-induced current changes in hCAT-2B-expressing oocytes were not accompanied by a change in conductance of the transporter. A further examination of the voltage dependence of hCAT-2A at different [L-Arg]o revealed different conductance increments of the transporter (Fig. 7A), which were plotted against [L-Arg]o (Fig. 7B). The L-Arg-induced conductance changes increased steeply toward 2 µS with increasing [L-Arg]o; saturation was observed at ~3 mM.


View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6.   Influence of [L-Arg]o on the current-voltage relationships in Xenopus oocytes expressing hCAT-2A (n = 9) and hCAT-2B (n = 30). Values are means ± SE. A and B: data under control conditions and in the presence of saturating concentrations of L-Argo in oocytes expressing hCAT-2A (A) and hCAT-2B (B). Data sets were fitted by linear regression between -100 and 0 mV. In the oocytes expressing hCAT-2A, the resulting slope conductances was 3 µS under control conditions and 4.3 µS in the presence of L-Argo (10 mM). Reversal potentials were -52 and -13 mV, respectively. In the oocytes expressing hCAT-2B, the slope conductances were identical (2.2 µS) under control conditions and in the presence of L-Argo (1 mM). Reversal potentials were -57 and -24 mV, respectively. C: difference currents in oocytes expressing hCAT-2A or hCAT-2B. The currents were obtained by subtraction of the values under control conditions from those in the presence of [L-Arg]o. Resulting data were fitted by linear regression in the range from -100 mV to 0 mV. For oocytes expressing hCAT-2A, the slope conductance was 1.2 µS and the calculated x-intercept was at +82 mV. For oocytes expressing hCAT-2B, the slope was ~0.



View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7.   Concentration dependence of [L-Arg]o-induced current changes in Xenopus oocytes expressing hCAT-2A. A: current values were obtained by subtracting control values from those in the presence of [L-Arg]o. Data sets were fitted by linear regression between -100 and 0 mV. Slope conductances were 0.28 µS at 0.1 mM [L-Arg]o, 0.67 µS at 0.3 mM [L-Arg]o, 1.50 µS at 1 mM [L-Arg]o, 1.80 µS at 3 mM [L-Arg]o, and 1.83 µS at 10 mM [L-Arg]o. Corresponding reversal potentials were -31, -7, -1, +18, and +82 mV, respectively. Values are means ± SE (n = 7-11). B: relation of the L-Arg-dependent membrane conductance to [L-Arg]o. Data points were fitted to a rectangular hyperbola; maximal conductance was 2 µS, and the concentration required for half-maximal effects was 0.7 mM.

In the last series of experiments, the effects of ion substitutions on the current-voltage relationships of oocytes expressing hCAT-2A or hCAT-2B were investigated in the absence and presence of L-Arg. Qualitatively, the same changes in currents were observed with both transporters in Na+-free (Fig. 8, A and C) and Cl--free (Fig. 8, B and D) solutions and also when Mg2+ was omitted from the solution or when Ca2+ was buffered by EGTA (not shown). Finally, to exclude any relatively nonselective cation conductance except for CAA, all cations in the test solution were replaced by choline. In this set of experiments, hCAT-2A- and hCAT-2B-expressing oocytes were first exposed to 10 and 1 mM L-Arg, respectively, in Ringer solution. After washout, the preparations were again exposed to the same concentrations of L-Arg in choline solution. The effects of L-Arg on membrane currents in Ringer solution were almost identical to those in choline solution (Fig. 9), which is further evidence for the assumption that the L-Arg-induced currents are unrelated to any other ion conductances.


View larger version (47K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 8.   Influence of [L-Arg]o on the current-voltage relationships in Xenopus oocytes expressing hCAT-2A (A and B) and hCAT-2B (C and D) in Na+-free (A and C) and Cl--free (B and D) solutions. Data sets are means ± SE; n = 3 in each condition. Difference currents (black-lozenge ) were obtained by the subtraction of the control values (open circle , ) from those in the presence of [L-Arg]o (, ).



View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 9.   Influence of [L-Arg]o on membrane currents in Xenopus oocytes expressing hCAT-2A (A and B) and hCAT-2B (C and D) in Ringer and in choline solution (free of permeant cations). Membrane potential was held at -60 mV. The results in Ringer solution and in choline solution were each obtained from the same preparations. In each experiment, the oocytes were first exposed to L-Arg (10 and 1 mM, respectively) in Ringer solution and then, after a wash, to the same concentrations of L-Arg in choline solution. Bars indicate the presence of L-Arg. Data are shown as original records (A and C) and are means ± SE; n = 3 each (B and D). Absence of significance is marked by NS.


    DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

The intracellularly recorded Em of native and H2O-injected oocytes from Xenopus laevis was about -50 mV in normal Ringer solution. Em was nearly abolished at an extracellular K+ concentration of 96 mM, which indicates that Em in oocytes, as in most living cells, is mainly determined by the diffusion of K+. Em was more negative in hCAT-2A-expressing or hCAT-2B-expressing oocytes that were previously loaded with CAA. A negative Em of more than -100 mV was frequently recorded. The addition of L-Arg to the test fluid and/or changing the extracellular K+ concentration revealed that Em in these oocytes resulted from two major components: a K+ as well as a CAA diffusion potential. In CAA-free solution, hCAT-2A and hCAT-2B are likely to extrude CAA from intracellular pools when they are loaded first in Leibovitz medium, thereby driving Em of the oocytes to more negative values.

There is no wonder that the diffusion of CAA can alter Em because the transport of charge is not matched by a cotransport of another ion species. Whether this is just a consequence of electrogenic transport or may also have a biological function has not been determined. Läuger (20) already raised this general question and pointed out that electrogenicity of ion transport may be more than only an epiphenomenon or an unavoidable by-product. For hCAT-2A- and hCAT-2B-mediated transport, two aspects can be discussed. First, the efflux of CAA drives Em to the reversal potential of the transporter currents, depending on the ratio of loaded transporters on either side of the membrane, thereby minimizing the loss of intracellular CAA when the extracellular CAA concentration is low. The K+ diffusion potential helps to trap intracellular CAA in a similar way due to the additive effect on Em. The electrochemical gradient for CAA predicts that CAA are concentrated intracellularly in physiological conditions due to the negative Em, which has been shown earlier by HPLC analysis in Xenopus oocytes (9). Second, if Em could be either decreased or increased by the activity of CAT in native cells, many other physiological functions that depend on Em could also theoretically be influenced. Indeed, a significant contribution of CAA to the Em has been demonstrated in mouse pancreatic beta -cells in which depolarization in response to [L-Arg]o stimulated insulin secretion (23).

In oocytes expressing hCAT-2A or hCAT-2B, large inward and outward currents in CAA-free solution were detected that were dependent on Em. From the analysis of current-voltage relationships in CAA-free solution, it became clear that both transporters, hCAT-2A and hCAT-2B, have similar ohmic conductances and therefore may pass symmetrically CAA in either direction, depending on Em and the concentration gradient. The corresponding reversal potentials were negative to the K+ reversal in H2O-injected oocytes. Because oocytes were generally incubated in CAA-containing solution and then first examined in CAA-free solution, the outward currents are obviously due to the efflux of CAA, which also explains the hyperpolarization observed in the current-clamp mode. It is not quite clear why, at more negative potentials, substantial inward currents were also observed in CAA-free solution. One explanation could be the existence of an extracellular pool of CAA located in the space between the plasma membrane and the vitelline envelope of the oocytes. Alternatively, hCAT-2A and hCAT-2B could also transport charged particles other than CAA. In this context, the observation that the expression of different heterologous membrane proteins in Xenopus laevis oocytes induced the expression of endogenous hyperpolarization-activated cation channels is also of interest (27). Our ion substitution experiments, however, indicate that the observed transporter currents are solely dependent on CAA and not dependent on Na+, Cl-, Ca2+, or Mg2+.

When L-Arg was added to the bath fluid, substantial current changes were observed in hCAT-2A-expressing and hCAT-2B-expressing oocytes that were dependent on concentration. It is noteworthy that, especially with hCAT-2A at saturating [L-Arg]o, a relaxation of peak transporter currents was observed. Such an inactivation process is similar to that seen with many ionic channels (11, 13), which points to an interesting similarity of currents arising from either channel or transporter activity. The time-dependent reduction in the transporter-induced current flow might also result from a local intracellular accumulation of L-Arg near the membrane rather than from a change in the overall L-Arg concentration gradient. This becomes clear from a simple calculation. Given a peak L-Arg current of -96 nA, 6 × 1011 charged particles would pass the oocyte membrane per second, corresponding to 1 pmol L-Arg. At 10 mM [L-Arg]o, assuming an oocyte volume of 0.5 µl (26) and an intracellular L-Arg concentration of ~2 mM in hCAT-expressing oocytes (1 nmol/oocyte, Ref. 9), it would take at least 1 h to align the intracellular to the extracellular concentration of L-Arg. This corresponds roughly to uptake measurements of radiolabeled L-Arg (9). The situation may be different in smaller cells. In mouse pancreatic beta -cells (cell volume of ~1 pl) clamped at -70 mV, it has been shown that 10 mM [L-Arg]o induced an inward current of ~3 pA (23). The intracellular concentration would reach 10 mM within 6 min, which is in line with uptake studies in intact islets (3).

At -60 mV, the Km values were 0.97 mM for hCAT-2A and 0.13 mM for hCAT-2B. These findings confirm that hCAT-2A is a transporter with lower substrate affinity compared with hCAT-2B, as shown by Closs et al. (9) with radiolabeled L-Arg. The L-Arg-induced currents were generally larger in hCAT-2A- than those in hCAT-2B-expressing oocytes. Whether this is due to differences in the transport capacity of the transporters or reflects different quantities of expressed or functional proteins has yet to be determined. This question may be adequately resolved when researchers are able to analyze transporter currents on a microscopic level, as currently possible with ion channels by patch-clamp or noise analysis (13). There are other methods available that can count the number of transport proteins, like antibody binding or freeze fracture; however, these methods cannot determine the number of functional transporters.

Another difference between hCAT-2A and hCAT-2B, seen in our experiments, seems to be substantial. The slopes of the current-voltage relationships of oocytes expressing hCAT-2A were dependent on [L-Arg]o, revealing increases in ohmic conductances between 0 and 2 µS/oocyte. In contrast, the current-voltage curves in oocytes expressing hCAT-2B were simply shifted to the right at 1 mM [L-Arg]o, resulting into a negative change in current, which was independent of Em. This does not imply that the transporter current is inward at all voltages. At potentials negative to the reversal, the observed current changes probably reflect an increase in inward current; at potentials positive to the reversal, the observed current changes probably reflect a decrease in outward current. Because of the shift by [L-Arg]o in the reversal potential, there is a middle portion along the voltage axis in which both an increase in inward and a decrease in outward current can be observed.

The conductance of hCAT-2B is therefore obviously unchanged by [L-Arg]o. One possible explanation for the difference may be that the occupancy by CAA of the transporters inside and/or outside the cell membrane is a determining factor. If the substrate affinity of hCAT-2B is larger than that of hCAT-2A at the cytoplasmic sites of the transporters (which is unknown at present), hCAT-2B may also be saturated inside the cell membrane (when the cells are previously loaded with CAA), in contrast to hCAT-2A, which may need higher concentrations. In the case of saturation, no further increase in transporter conductance may be expected with the addition of L-Arg, as seen with hCAT-2B. Further experiments in which both the intracellular and the extracellular concentrations will be controlled, either with the use of the cut-open method or by studying the transport activity in giant patches, may resolve this question.

L-Arg-induced currents have been described previously for mCAT-1, expressed in Xenopus oocytes (17), with Km and Imax values similar to those determined for hCAT-2B (about 0.1 mM and 100 nA, respectively); however, the voltage dependence of mCAT-1 was more comparable to that of hCAT-2A. In addition, voltage-dependent L-Arg-induced currents have also been described in oocytes expressing proteins related to b0,+ amino acid transporter (1, 4), probably by activating endogenous transporters in the oocytes. The diversity of transport systems, with distinct electrochemical properties, for the same substrate may help to regulate precisely the concentration of intracellular L-Arg at varying extracellular concentrations of CAA in various tissues.


    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was supported by grants from the Umweltministerium Rheinland-Pfalz (to H. Nawrath) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Cl100/3-2 and the Collaboration Research Center SFB553,B4 to E. I. Closs).


    FOOTNOTES

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: H. Nawrath (Electrophysiology) or E. I. Closs (Molecular Biology), Pharmakologisches Institut der Universität Mainz, Obere Zahlbacher Str. 67, D-55101 Mainz, Germany (E-mail: nawrath{at}mail.uni-mainz.de or closs{at}mail.uni-mainz.de).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Received 3 December 1999; accepted in final form 1 June 2000.


    REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

1.   Ahmed, A, Peter GJ, Taylor PM, Harper AA, and Rennie MJ. Sodium-independent currents of opposite polarity evoked by neutral and cationic amino acids in neutral and basic amino acid transporter cRNA-injected oocytes. J Biol Chem 270: 8482-8486, 1995[Abstract/Free Full Text].

2.   Albritton, LM, Bowcock AM, Eddy RL, Morton CC, Tseng L, Farrer LA, Cavalli-Sforza LL, Shows TB, and Cunningham JM. The human cationic amino acid transporter (ATRC1): physical and genetic mapping to 13q12-q14. Genomics 12: 430-434, 1992[ISI][Medline].

3.   Blachier, F, Mourtada A, Senerand A, and Malaisse WJ. Stimulus-secretion coupling of arginine-induced insulin release. Uptake of metabolized and nonmetabolized cationic amino acids by pancreatic islets. Endocrinology 124: 134-141, 1989[Abstract].

4.   Busch, AE, Herzer T, Waldegger S, Schmidt F, Palacin M, Biber J, Markovich D, Murer H, and Lang F. Opposite directed currents induced by the transport of dibasic and neutral amino acids in Xenopus oocytes expressing the protein rBAT. J Biol Chem 269: 25581-25586, 1994[Abstract/Free Full Text].

5.   Christensen, HN. A transport system serving for mono- and diamino acids. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 51: 337-344, 1964[ISI][Medline].

6.   Closs, EI. CATs, a family of three distinct mammalian cationic amino acid transporters. Amino Acids (Vienna) 11: 193-208, 1996.

7.   Closs, EI, Albritton LM, Kim JW, and Cunningham JM. Identification of a low affinity, high capacity transporter of cationic amino acids in mouse liver. J Biol Chem 268: 7538-7544, 1993[Abstract/Free Full Text].

8.   Closs, EI, and Gräf P. Cationic amino acid transporters (CATs)-targets for the manipulation of NO synthase activity? In: Membrane Transporters as Drug Targets, edited by Amidon GL, and Sadee W.. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 1999, p. 229-249.

9.   Closs, EI, Gräf P, Habermeier A, Cunningham JM, and Förstermann U. Human cationic amino acid transporters hCAT-1, hCAT-2A, and hCAT-2B: three related carriers with distinct transport properties. Biochemistry 36: 6462-6468, 1997[ISI][Medline].

10.   Closs, EI, Lyons CR, Kelly C, and Cunningham JM. Characterization of the third member of the MCAT family of cationic amino acid transporters. Identification of a domain that determines the transport properties of the MCAT proteins. J Biol Chem 268: 20796-20800, 1993[Abstract/Free Full Text].

11.   DeFelice, LJ. Electrical Properties of Cells. New York: Plenum, 1997.

12.   Devés, R, and Boyd CA. Transporters for cationic amino acids in animal cells: discovery, structure, and function. Physiol Rev 78: 487-545, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text].

13.   Hille, B. Ionic Channels of Excitable Membranes. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer, 1992.

14.   Hosokawa, H, Sawamura T, Kobayashi S, Ninomiya H, Miwaand S, and Masaki T. Cloning and characterization of a brain-specific cationic amino acid transporter. J Biol Chem 272: 8717-8722, 1997[Abstract/Free Full Text].

15.   Ito, K, and Groudine M. A new member of the cationic amino acid transporter family is preferentially expressed in adult mouse brain. J Biol Chem 272: 26780-26786, 1997[Abstract/Free Full Text].

16.   Kakuda, DK, Finley KD, Dionne VE, and MacLeod CL. Two distinct gene products mediate y+ type cationic amino acid transport in Xenopus oocytes and show different tissue expression patterns. Transgene 1: 91-101, 1993.

17.   Kavanaugh, MP. Voltage dependence of facilitated arginine flux mediated by the system y+ basic amino acid transporter. Biochemistry 3: 5781-5785, 1993.

18.   Kavanaugh, MP, Wang H, Zhang Z, Zhang W, Wu YN, Dechant E, North RA, and Kabat D. Control of cationic amino acid transport and retroviral receptor functions in a membrane protein family. J Biol Chem 269: 15445-15450, 1994[Abstract/Free Full Text].

19.   Kim, JW, Closs EI, Albritton LM, and Cunningham JM. Transport of cationic amino acids by the mouse ecotropic retrovirus receptor. Nature 352: 725-728, 1991[ISI][Medline].

20.   Läuger, P. Electronic Ion Pumps. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer, 1991.

21.   Nathan, C. Nitric oxide as a secretory product of mammalian cells. FASEB J 6: 3051-3061, 1992[Abstract/Free Full Text].

22.   Palacín, M, Estevez R, Bertran J, and Zorzano A. Molecular biology of mammalian plasma membrane amino acid transporters. Physiol Rev 78: 969-1054, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text].

23.   Smith, PA, Sakura H, Coles B, Gummerson N, Proks P, and Ashcroft FM. Electrogenic arginine transport mediates stimulus-secretion coupling in mouse pancreatic beta -cells. J Physiol (Lond) 499: 625-635, 1997[Abstract].

24.   Sperandeo, MP, Borsani G, Incerti B, Zollo M, Rossi E, Zuffardi O, Castaldo P, Taglialatela M, Andria G, and Sebastio G. The gene encoding a cationic amino acid transporter (SLC7A4) maps to the region deleted in the velocardiofacial syndrome. Genomics 49: 230-236, 1998[ISI][Medline].

25.   Stühmer, W. Electrophysiological recording from Xenopus oocytes. In: Methods in Enzymology, edited by Rudy B, and Iverson LE.. London: Academic, 1992, vol. 207, p. 319-338.

26.   Taylor, MA, and Smith LD. Accumulation of free amino acids in growing Xenopus laevis oocytes. Dev Biol 124: 287-290, 1987[ISI][Medline].

27.   Tzounopoulos, T, Maylie J, and Adelman JP. Induction of endogenous channels by high levels of heterologous membrane proteins in Xenopus oocytes. Biophys J 69: 904-908, 1995[Abstract].

28.   Van Winkle, LJ, and Campione AL. Functional changes in cation-preferring amino acid transport during development of preimplantation mouse conceptuses. Biochim Biophys Acta 1028: 165-173, 1990[ISI][Medline].

29.   Verrey, F, Jack DL, Paulsen IT, Saier MH, Jr, and Pfeiffer R. New glycoprotein-associated amino acid transporters. J Membr Biol 172: 181-192, 1999[ISI][Medline].

30.   Wang, H, Kavanaugh MP, North RA, and Kabat D. Cell-surface receptor for ecotropic murine retroviruses is a basic amino-acid transporter. Nature 352: 729-731, 1991[ISI][Medline].

31.   Yoshimoto, T, Yoshimoto E, and Meruelo D. Molecular cloning and characterization of a novel human gene homologous to the murine ecotropic retroviral receptor. Virology 185: 10-17, 1991[ISI][Medline].


Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 279(5):C1336-C1344
0363-6143/00 $5.00 Copyright © 2000 the American Physiological Society