An Excel-based model of Ca2+ diffusion and fura 2 measurements in a spherical cell

J. M. McHugh and J. L. Kenyon

Department of Physiology and Cell Biology, University of Nevada School of Medicine, Reno, Nevada 89557

Submitted 30 June 2003 ; accepted in final form 22 September 2003


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
We wrote a program that runs as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to calculate the diffusion of Ca2+ in a spherical cell in the presence of a fixed Ca2+ buffer and two diffusible Ca2+ buffers, one of which is considered to be a fluorescent Ca2+ indicator. We modeled Ca2+ diffusion during and after Ca2+ influx across the plasma membrane with parameters chosen to approximate amphibian sympathetic neurons, mammalian adrenal chromaffin cells, and rat dorsal root ganglion neurons. In each of these cell types, the model predicts that spatially averaged intracellular Ca2+ activity ([Ca2+]avg) rises to a high peak and starts to decline promptly on the termination of Ca2+ influx. We compared [Ca2+]avg with predictions of ratiometric Ca2+ measurements analyzed in two ways. Method 1 sums the fluorescence at each of the two excitation or emission wavelengths over the N compartments of the model, calculates the ratio of the summed signals, and converts this ratio to Ca2+ ([Ca2+]avg,M1). Method 2 sums the measured number of moles of Ca2+ in each of the N compartments and divides by the volume of the cell ([Ca2+]avg,M2). [Ca2+]avg,M1 peaks well after the termination of Ca2+ influx at a value substantially less than [Ca2+]avg because the summed signals do not reflect the averaged free Ca2+ if the signals come from compartments containing gradients in free Ca2+ spanning nonlinear regions of the relationship between free Ca2+ and the fluorescence signals. In contrast, [Ca2+]avg,M2 follows [Ca2+]avg closely.

intracellular calcium; kinetic model; diffusion coefficient; fura 2ff; furaptra


THE IMPORTANCE of intracellular Ca2+ activity ([Ca2+]i) as a regulator of cellular activities has led to the development of methods to study the control and distribution of Ca2+ in the cytoplasm. Two approaches that have revealed aspects of [Ca2+]i signaling are the measurement of [Ca2+]i with fluorescent Ca2+ indicators and mathematical modeling of Ca2+ diffusion through the cytoplasm. Each of these approaches has strengths and weaknesses. Fluorescent Ca2+ indicators provide a relatively simple method for monitoring localized changes in [Ca2+]i, but they can have a limited signal-to-noise ratio and there are frequently difficulties in loading them into the cytoplasm and obtaining in vivo calibrations. Furthermore, Ca2+ indicators are diffusible Ca2+ buffers that can modify the amplitude and kinetics of the changes in [Ca2+]i they are intended to measure (cf. Refs. 17, 32). Mathematical modeling of Ca2+ diffusion enables one to examine quantitatively the effects on the temporal and spatial distribution of [Ca2+]i of buffer concentration, affinity, on rate, and mobility for multiple buffering species (reviewed in Ref. 21). However, application of these models is limited by the availability of information on the properties of endogenous Ca2+ buffering mechanisms and the difficulty of modeling complex geometries. One particularly productive application of models of Ca2+ diffusion has been to investigate the impact of Ca2+ indicators on [Ca2+]i in invertebrate neurons (3), amphibian neurons (22), and adrenal chromaffin cells (13, 19).

In preparation for a series of experiments examining the control of [Ca2+]i in rat dorsal root ganglion neurons, we developed a program in the Visual Basic language feature of the Excel spreadsheet program (Microsoft, Bellevue, WA) to solve the buffer and diffusion equations described by others (3, 13, 19, 22). Although the resulting program is slow, it is easy to use and is portable to any computer that has Excel. A copy of the program and a manual to guide in its application can be downloaded at http://www.physio.unr.edu/faculty/kenyon/diffusion.htm. We used this program to study the temporal and spatial distribution of [Ca2+]i in the presence of ratiometric fluorescent Ca2+ indicators with different affinities for Ca2+. In addition, we compared averaged [Ca2+]i ([Ca2+]avg) with predictions of fura 2 measurements analyzed in two ways. Method 1 sums the fluorescence at each of the two excitation or emission wavelengths over the N compartments of the model, calculates the ratio of the summed signals, and converts this ratio to Ca2+ ([Ca2+]avg,M1). This approach corresponds to measurements made with photomultiplier tubes or the integration of the intensity of pixels forming a two-dimensional (2D) image. Method 2 sums the measured number of moles of Ca2+ in each of the N compartments and divides by the volume of the cell ([Ca2+]avg,M2). In principle, this could be done experimentally by analyzing the fluorescence intensity of the voxels making up a three-dimensional (3D) image of the cell. We find that [Ca2+]avg,M1 is not a reliable measure of [Ca2+]avg in the presence of a gradient of Ca2+ because the summed fluorescence ratio does not reflect the averaged free Ca2+ when the gradients span nonlinear regions of the relationship between free Ca2+ and the fluorescence ratio. In contrast, [Ca2+]avg,M2 follows [Ca2+]avg closely.


    METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
We facilitated our programming by adopting unified units for all the parameters. Thus time is measured in milliseconds, distance in micrometers, area in square micrometers, volume in cubic micrometers, amount in femtomoles (i.e., 10–15 mol) and concentration in femtomoles per cubic micrometer (conveniently, 1 fmol/µm3 = 1 mol/l). Parameters were entered into the program in these units. The equations were described in detail previously (3, 13, 19, 22). Briefly, the model cells are spheres made up of N compartments including a central sphere and N 1 concentric compartments identified by indexes n = 0 to N 1, where n = 0 identifies the central sphere and n = N 1 identifies the outermost compartment. Associated with each compartment are concentrations of free Ca2+ ([Ca2+]n), unbound diffusible (mobile) buffer ([MB]n), Ca2+-bound MB ([Ca-MB]n), unbound fixed buffer ([FB]n), and bound FB ([Ca-FB]n). In addition, most simulations included a second diffusible buffer component with the properties of a fluorescent Ca2+ indicator, fura ([fur]n, [Ca-fur]n).

Each of the components except the fixed buffer can diffuse between compartments as described by one of four forms of a conventional diffusion equation. For 1 <= n >= N – 2 the change over time of the concentration of solute S by diffusion is given by

(1)
where t is time, [S]n is the concentration of diffusible species (i.e., [Ca2+]n, [MB]n, [Ca-MB]n, [fur]n, [Ca-fur]n) in compartment n (fmol/µm3), DS is the diffusion coefficient of that species (µm2/ms), voln is the volume of the nth compartment (µm3), {delta} is the thickness of the compartments (µm), and An–1 and An are the surface areas of the inner and outer spheres defining compartment n (µm2).

For the outermost compartment, n = N – 1, the equation is modified such that there is only diffusional exchange with compartment n = N – 2. For the buffers the equation is

(2)
For Ca2+, terms are added describing a Ca2+ influx from the extracellular space [i.e., Ca2+ current (ICa)] and Ca2+ efflux via a pump mechanism

(3)
where ICa is expressed in coulombs per milliseconds, F is the Faraday constant (9.65 x 10–11 C/fmol), Vmax is the maximum velocity of Ca2+ pumping (fmol·µm–2·ms–2), and Km is the equilibrium constant for the Ca2+ pump (fmol/µm3). ICa is set to one of two values, an influx equal to the efflux generated by the pump at resting [Ca2+] or a much larger influx (e.g., 5 nA) through voltage-gated Ca2+ channels.

For n = 0 the equation is modified such that there is only diffusional exchange with compartment n = 1

(4)

In addition to the fluxes into and out of a compartment, the concentrations of Ca2+ and the buffers will change in response to the binding and unbinding of Ca2+ to each of the buffers as described by

(5)
where [CaB] and [B] are bound and unbound forms of the buffer present (MB, FB, and fura in fmol/µm3), koff is the off rate constant (ms–1), and kon is the on rate constant (µm3/fmol·ms = M–1·ms–1). The equilibrium constant for Ca2+ binding is then KD = koff/kon (fmol/µm3). Equations 1–5 were solved with a first-order Euler algorithm.

The program also calculated spatially averaged [Ca2+]i ([Ca2+]avg) defined as

(6)

The fluorescence signal from the indicator was modeled from the equations of Grynkiewicz et al. (6) with an approach similar to that described by Marengo and Monck (13). The fluorescence signals from the nth compartment in response to excitation at 340 and 380 nm (F340n and F380n) are given by

(7)
and

(8)
where Sf340 = 11, Sf380 = 14.2, Sb340 = 35, and Sb380 = 1 are proportionality constants relating the concentration of free ([fur]) and bound ([Ca-fur]) indicators to the amplitude of the fluorescence signal resulting from excitation at 340 and 380 nm, respectively (6). The values were chosen to mimic fluorescence changes in response to excitation at 340 and 380 nm that are proportional to those seen in in vitro measurements of fura 2 [cf. Fig. 3 in Kao (10)] and to obtain minimum fluorescence ratio (Rmin) = Sf340/Sf380 = 0.77 and maximum fluorescence ratio (Rmax) = Sb340/Sb380 = 35 as found in the original report by Grynkiewicz et al. (6). The fluorescence ratio signal from the nth compartment is then

(9)
and the measured [Ca2+] in that compartment ([Ca2+]n,M) is given by the relationship developed by Grynkiewicz et al. (6)

(10)
Note that the fluorescence signals in the model do not include noise or background fluorescence. Thus the determination of [Ca2+]n,M does not face practical limitations and at equilibrium or in a steady state [Ca2+]n,M will equal [Ca2+]n. At other times, the finite rates of Ca2+ binding and unbinding can cause [Ca2+]n,M to differ from [Ca2+]n.

We examined two methods for the determination of [Ca2+]avg from the fluorescence data. In method 1 we took the sum of the individual fluorescence signals over the entire cell and calculated the fluorescence ratio of the summed signals (Rsum) as

(11)
and then obtained a measured value ([Ca2+]avg,M1) as

(12)
This approach corresponds to measurements made with photomultiplier tubes (cf. Refs. 23, 25, 29, 30, 32) or the integration of the intensity of pixels forming a 2D image.

In method 2, we used the modeled fluorescence signals to calculate the number of moles of free Ca2+ in each of the compartments, summed the measured Ca2+, and divided by the volume of the cell

(13)
where [Ca2+]n,M was determined with Eqs. 7–10. An experimental counterpart to this method would be the measurement of the Ca2+ content of spatially localized voxels of known volume. Although technical obstacles prevent implementation of this approach in the laboratory (see DISCUSSION), this calculation provides a convenient test of the ability of the Ca2+ indicator to follow changes in Ca2+ in limited volumes of the model.

We used the parameters describing the properties of endogenous Ca2+ buffers, diffusion, and Ca2+ influx identified by Sala and Hernández-Cruz (22) to model an amphibian sympathetic neuron and parameters identified by Nowycky and Pinter (19) to model a mammalian adrenal chromaffin cell, and we identified parameters to model a rat dorsal root ganglion neuron (see below). The standard parameters used in our calculations are listed in Table 1. The properties of the second diffusible Ca2+ buffer were selected to represent three indicators that differ primarily in their rates for Ca2+ unbinding: fura 2, fura 2ff, and furaptra (parameters listed in Table 2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Standard parameters to model Ca2+ diffusion

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2. Parameters for Ca2+ indicators

 


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
We verified our program by using the parameters in Table 1 to reproduce previously published simulations (19, 22). A typical result is shown in Fig. 1A, where we plot the calculated time courses of [Ca2+]n in response to a 5-nA, 50-ms Ca2+ influx in our model amphibian sympathetic neuron for n = 39 (the outermost compartment), 29 (5 µm in from the plasma membrane), 19 (10 µm in from the plasma membrane), and 0 (the central sphere). We found no differences between our results and results presented in the original publications [compare Fig. 1A with Fig. 1B of Sala and Hernández-Cruz (22)], and we conclude that our model is valid for these calculations. We then examined the effects of a second diffusible buffer (75 µM) with the properties of fura 2 added to the model amphibian neuron with the other parameters as listed in Table 1. Although this concentration was chosen as being at the low end of those typically used to study [Ca2+]i in neuronal cell bodies, it adds a Ca2+ binding ratio of ~296 at 50 nM free Ca2+ and has a marked effect on [Ca2+]n as illustrated in Fig. 1B. We found that the additional Ca2+ buffering provided by the indicator reduces the peak amplitude of [Ca2+]n in each compartment, in agreement with previous results (22). However, in our model, fura 2 slowed the distribution of Ca2+ through the cytoplasm, in contrast to the increased rate of distribution expected from the addition of a diffusible buffer (19, 22, 24). Our result is due to the relatively low diffusion coefficient for fura 2 (7, 26), making it a relatively immobile buffer in our simulations (see DISCUSSION).



View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. A and B: Ca2+ concentration in the nth compartment ([Ca2+]n) for n = 39 (outermost compartment), 29 (5 µm in from the plasma membrane), 19 (10 µm in from the plasma membrane), and 0 (the central sphere) in a model amphibian sympathetic neuron with parameters listed in Table 1. A: absence of exogenous buffer. B: presence of 75 µM fura 2. C: comparison of averaged intracellular Ca2+ activity ([Ca2+]avg) with [Ca2+]avg determined by method 1 ([Ca2+]avg,M1) and with [Ca2+]avg determined by method 2 ([Ca2+]avg,M2) from the simulation in B. Ca2+ influx was a 5-nA current for 50 ms in all panels. Note the different amplitude and time scales in C vs. A and B.

 

Figure 1C plots [Ca2+]avg, [Ca2+]avg,M1, and [Ca2+]avg,M2 from the simulation shown in Fig. 1B. [Ca2+]avg rises to >1 µM during the influx of Ca2+ and starts to decline when the Ca2+ influx ends. Interestingly, the amplitudes and time courses of [Ca2+]avg,M1 and [Ca2+]avg,M2 are very different. [Ca2+]avg,M2 follows [Ca2+]avg closely such that the two lines are superimposed after the peak response. The slight delay in the [Ca2+]avg,M2 trace is largely due to the finite binding kinetics of the fura 2 (results not shown). In contrast, [Ca2+]avg,M1 rises relatively slowly, misses the peak of [Ca2+]avg, and continues to increase after the end of the Ca2+ influx. Thus the time course and amplitude of [Ca2+]avg,M1 resemble experimental observations using photomultiplier tubes to detect fluorescence from high-affinity Ca2+ indicators in mammalian neuronal cell bodies (23, 25) and in mammalian adrenal chromaffin cells (18). Specifically, each of these reports noted that [Ca2+]avg,M1 increased after the end of the Ca2+ influx and attributed this to the kinetics of the distribution of Ca2+ through the cytoplasm. As described below, our model clarifies this issue.

Why does [Ca2+]avg,M1 differ from [Ca2+]avg? Although kinetic and saturation limitations on the ability of fura 2 to report free Ca2+ are well known (see DISCUSSION and Refs. 2, 8), the observation that [Ca2+]avg,M2 follows [Ca2+]avg quite well implies that the large discrepancy between [Ca2+]avg,M1 and [Ca2+]avg is not due to the properties of fura 2. Rather, the fault must lie in the analysis that produces [Ca2+]avg,M1. In particular, Eq. 11 is not valid if the fluorescence signals come from regions that include a Ca2+ gradient that spans a nonlinear portion of the curve relating free Ca2+ to the fluorescence ratio. This can be illustrated by a simple example (see also Ref. 11). Consider two compartments (n = 1 and 2) with volumes such that vol1 makes up 25% of the total and vol2 the remainder. If [Ca2+]1 = 3.8 µM and [Ca2+]2 = 0.19 µM, then [Ca2+]avg = (3.8 + 3 x 0.19)/4 = 1.09 µM. The fluorescence ratio from the two compartments (from Eqs. 7, 8, and 11) is Rsum = 5.22, which gives [Ca2+]avg,M1 = 0.29 µM, ~27% of [Ca2+]avg.

This mechanism suggests that low-affinity indicators might perform better in the measurement of [Ca2+]avg,M1 because a given change in Ca2+ will span a shorter (more linear) range of the relationship between Ca2+ and fluorescence ratio. We tested this by modeling the responses of the lower-affinity Ca2+ indicators fura 2ff and furaptra (Table 2). As shown in Fig. 2, [Ca2+]avg,M1 obtained from either of these indicators is closer to [Ca2+]avg than that obtained from fura 2.



View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Comparison of [Ca2+]avg with [Ca2+]avg,M1 in the model amphibian sympathetic neuron determined by measurements using either fura 2ff (A) or furaptra (B) (75 µM).

 

The magnitude of the discrepancy between [Ca2+]avg and [Ca2+]avg,M1 depends on the nonlinear relationship between free Ca2+ and the fluorescence signal, the magnitude of the Ca2+ gradient between the compartments, and the relative volumes of the compartments. The values chosen for the simple example above were selected to approximate the situation near the peak in [Ca2+]avg in Fig. 1C, where the Ca2+ in the outer four compartments (~25% of the total volume) peaks near 3.8 µM whereas the remainder of the cell is near 0.19 µM. The effects of varying these values systematically are shown in Fig. 3 for fura 2, fura 2ff, and furaptra. For these calculations [Ca2+]2 was set to 135 nM and [Ca2+]1 was varied between 1.35 nM and 13.5 µM. In addition, we varied the relative volume of compartment 1, setting vol1/(vol1 + vol2) to 0.25, 0.1, and 0.01 in Fig. 3, AC, respectively. These calculations show that, for fura 2, the decline in the ratio [Ca2+]avg,M1/[Ca2+]avg is more severe when [Ca2+]1 is greater than [Ca2+]2 and that [Ca2+]avg,M1/[Ca2+]avg falls below 0.8 for physiological gradients between [Ca2+]1 and [Ca2+]2 even when vol1 is only 10% of the total cell volume. Figure 3 also shows that [Ca2+]avg,M1/[Ca2+]avg is near 1 for a range of Ca2+ gradients for low-affinity Ca2+ indicators. This is because free Ca2+ ranging from 135 nM to 1–2 µM spans only short parts of the relationship between free Ca2+ and fluorescence ratio for these indicators.



View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Abilities of the spatially averaged fluorescence ratios from the Ca2+ indicators fura 2, fura 2ff, and furaptra to measure free Ca2+ in a 2-compartment system. [Ca2+]avg,M1/[Ca2+]avg is plotted as a function of [Ca2+]1 (varied from 13.5 nM to 13.5 µM at constant [Ca2+]2 = 135 nM). The ratio vol1/(vol1 + vol2) was 0.25 (A), 0.1 (B), and 0.01 (C).

 

We also used our model to investigate the distribution and measurement of Ca2+ in cells of different sizes and containing different endogenous Ca2+ buffers. We first investigated a model of a mammalian adrenal chromaffin cell (19). Although the model buffers for this cell give a Ca2+ binding ratio similar to that in the model amphibian neuron (Table 1), the relative contributions of fixed and diffusible buffering are reversed such that most of the Ca2+ buffering is provided by the diffusible buffer in the adrenal chromaffin cell model. In addition, the adrenal chromaffin cell has a smaller radius and ICa than the amphibian neuron. Combined, these properties speed the distribution of Ca2+ through the cytoplasm, thereby reducing the discrepancy between [Ca2+]avg and [Ca2+]avg,M1 compared with the amphibian neuron. Nevertheless, as shown in Fig. 4A, [Ca2+]avg,M1 misses the peak of [Ca2+]avg and continues to increase after the end of the Ca2+ influx. As in the model amphibian sympathetic neuron, [Ca2+]avg,M2 is much closer to [Ca2+]avg than [Ca2+]avg,M1 is, but it is clear in Fig. 4A that [Ca2+]avg,M2 does not follow [Ca2+]avg in the adrenal chromaffin cell as well as it does in the amphibian sympathetic neuron or dorsal root ganglion neuron. The reasons for this are considered in DISCUSSION.



View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. Comparison of [Ca2+]avg with [Ca2+]avg,M1 and [Ca2+]avg,M2 determined by calculations using parameters appropriate for 75 µM fura 2 in a model mammalian adrenal chromaffin cell (A; Table 1) and a model dorsal root ganglion neuron (B; Table 1).

 

The models of the amphibian neuron and mammalian adrenal chromaffin cell are characterized by Ca2+ binding ratios that are higher than those reported in many cell types [reviewed by Neher (17)], including rat dorsal root ganglion neurons, in which Zeilhofer et al. (31) reported a value of 370. To examine the distribution of Ca2+ and the ability of spatially averaged fura 2 fluorescence to measure [Ca2+]avg in these cells, we chose parameters that approximated the geometry and endogenous Ca2+ buffers of small-diameter dorsal root ganglion neurons from adult rats (Table 1). Briefly, the Ca2+ binding ratio of the diffusible endogenous buffer was set to 57 based on results from chick dorsal root ganglion neurons (28) with the remaining Ca2+ binding attributed to the fixed buffer. As shown in Fig. 4B, the model predicts a large discrepancy between [Ca2+]avg and [Ca2+]avg,M1 during and after a 3-nA Ca2+ influx. As in the amphibian sympathetic neuron, [Ca2+]avg,M2 follows [Ca2+]avg quite closely.


    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The model of Ca2+ diffusion used here was considered in detail in the original publications (3, 13, 19, 22), and we will not discuss the details of the model here. However, a brief consideration of the value we chose for the diffusion coefficient of fura 2 illustrates several points arising from our work. In previous studies, values spanning an order of magnitude from 0.2 x 10–6 to 2 x 10–6 cm2/s have been used, with a cluster of relatively high values (1 x 10–6-2 x 10–6 cm2/s; Refs. 5, 1316, 20). For our modeling we considered measurements of the diffusion of fura 2 and fluo 3 (7, 26) and modeling studies using low values (1, 3, 4, 27) and used a diffusion coefficient of 0.2 x 10–6 cm2/s (0.02 µm2/ms).

How important is the value of the diffusion coefficient for the Ca2+ indicator? Qualitatively, a larger value will enhance the ability of fura 2 to buffer the Ca2+ near the plasma membrane and increase the rate of distribution of Ca2+ through the cytoplasm. These effects will shorten the lifetime of the gradient in Ca2+ that leads to the discrepancy that we found between [Ca2+]avg,M1 and [Ca2+]avg. Indeed, setting the diffusion coefficient to 2.5 x 10–6 cm2/s (0.25 µm2/ms), the value chosen by Sala and Hernández-Cruz (22), reduces the initial spike of [Ca2+]avg to ~500 nM and shortens the lifetime of the gradient of Ca2+ between the periphery and the center of the cell to ~0.5 s. In addition, the discrepancy between [Ca2+]avg and [Ca2+]avg,M1 was much smaller than that seen when using the lower diffusion coefficient (data not shown).

Several issues are raised here. First, we find that intuition is frequently misleading with regard to Ca2+ diffusion in the presence of fixed and diffusible buffers and the behavior of this system is best understood by calculations. Second, the state of knowledge with regard to important parameters of the model is poor. Third, the identification of the relative importance of the various parameters generally requires calculation. For example, our experience with the model is that the diffusion coefficient for fura 2 has a large effect on its ability to buffer and to measure free Ca2+ in our simulations. Finally, given the number of issues to be investigated, no individual can be expected to make all of the important simulations. Others will be interested in different endogenous buffers, or different Ca2+ indicators, or different geometries, etc., and they will need to run their own simulations to answer their questions. To meet this need, we have developed a program to model Ca2+ diffusion in the presence of fixed and diffusible buffering that will run in a widely available spreadsheet.

One calculation we could not find in the literature is the predicted time course of spatially averaged Ca2+, i.e., [Ca2+]avg. Accordingly, we set up our program to calculate this parameter and we also examined two approaches to obtain it from the modeled fluorescence signal of a ratiometric Ca2+ indicator. Method 1 sums the fluorescence at each of the two excitation or emission wavelengths over the N compartments of the model, calculates the ratio of the summed signals, and converts this ratio to Ca2+ ([Ca2+]avg,M1). Experimentally this is done by recording the fluorescence from the whole cell with one or two photomultiplier tubes or by summing the intensity of pixels in fluorescence images. Our calculations show that, relative to [Ca2+]avg, [Ca2+]avg,M1 increases more slowly to a lower peak value and continues to increase after the end of the Ca2+ influx. These characteristics resemble measurements of spatially averaged Ca2+ from a number of laboratories (cf. Refs. 18, 23, 25) and have been attributed to limited fura 2 binding kinetics and the distribution of Ca2+ through the volume of the cell. Our modeling demonstrates that the observed waveforms are expected as a consequence of the gradients of Ca2+ within the cell and a flawed analysis. Specifically, summing the fluorescence signals, calculating the ratio (Eq. 11), and converting this ratio to Ca2+ is not valid if the signals come from regions that include a Ca2+ gradient that spans a nonlinear portion of the curve relating free Ca2+ to the fluorescence ratio.

Method 2 sums the measured number of moles of Ca2+ in each of the N compartments and divides by the volume of the cell. Experimentally, this could be accomplished by determining [Ca2+]n,M (as described in Eq. 10) and the volume for each voxel in a 3D image of the cell. Although this information could be obtained in principle by a high-time-resolution z-scan with a confocal microscope, we are not aware of hardware suitable for the task. In addition, if a high-affinity indicator is used, our simulations show that this approach will face the problem of measuring Ca2+ in volumes in which nearly all the indicator is bound with Ca2+ (results not shown). In this case, the denominator of the fluorescence ratio will be very small and subject to errors caused by background fluorescence and noise and consequent uncertainty in the estimation of the free Ca2+. Thus the analysis of voxels is problematic for a number of reasons. Similarly, quantitative measurement of [Ca2+] from the analysis of pixels from a 2D image is difficult because interpretation of these images requires that the fluorescence be collected from all parts of the cell and the contribution of signal coming from outside the focal plane be corrected in the image. A complete understanding of these issues is beyond the scope of the present work, but we do not see how voxel or pixel information can be used to determine [Ca2+]avg in the presence of gradients in Ca2+.

In summary, we find that for the measurement of [Ca2+]avg, method 1 is invalid and that method 2 is impractical. Thus we cannot suggest an approach that can use high-affinity indicators to reliably measure the rapid rise, high peak, and sharp decline of [Ca2+]avg predicted by our model of Ca2+ diffusion. Rather, our results suggest that the use of low-affinity indicators and method 1 has potential for this measurement. Other workers have also pointed out advantages of low-affinity indicators, including their lower Ca2+ binding ratio and improved resolution of micromolar free Ca2+ due to a lower degree of saturation (8, 12). However, these issues are independent of our main finding that the spatially averaged fluorescence ratio from a low-affinity indicator more accurately reflects [Ca2+]avg in the presence of Ca2+ gradients because those gradients span shorter (more nearly linear) segments of the curve relating free Ca2+ to fluorescence ratio. Along with these advantages one must also consider disadvantages including difficulty in measuring resting Ca2+ and small signals in response to an increase in Ca2+ that may limit their usefulness.

We expected that our calculations would illustrate the inability of fura 2 to report the large and fast changes in Ca2+ near the plasma membrane because of a limited on rate for binding and saturation (cf. Refs. 2, 8). Instead, the agreement between [Ca2+]avg,M2 and [Ca2+]avg and the ability of fura 2 to follow [Ca2+]n,M in all of the compartments of the amphibian neuron (results not shown) suggest that fura 2 can follow physiological changes in Ca2+ quite well. However, this is not a general result and a sufficiently large flux density (fmol·s–1·µm–3) will deplete the unbound fura 2 in a compartment, thereby slowing the formation of Ca2+-bound fura 2. This was documented by Nowycky and Pinter (19), who found that fura 2 underestimated the free Ca2+ in the outermost compartment of the model adrenal chromaffin cell. We confirmed this by using parameters from Table 1 for the cell and parameters from Table 2 for fura 2, finding that at the end of a 50-ms, 0.5-nA Ca2+ influx, [Ca2+]74 peaked near 3.5 µM while [Ca2+]74,M peaked at ~2.5 µM. This shortfall is why [Ca2+]avg,M2 is clearly slower than [Ca2+]avg in the model chromaffin cell compared with the model neurons (compare Fig. 4A with Figs. 1C and 4B). This poor performance relative to that in the amphibian neuron is due to the 3.5 times higher flux density into the outermost compartment of the adrenal chromaffin model (0.074 fmol·s–1·µm–3) compared with that in the amphibian neuron (0.021 fmol·s–1·µm–3). The greater depletion of the unbound fura 2 also contributes to the discrepancy between [Ca2+]avg and [Ca2+]avg,M1 in Fig. 4A but does not account for the major portion of the discrepancy that we attribute to the flawed nature of the [Ca2+]avg,M1 measurement.

In summary, we developed an Excel-based model of Ca2+ diffusion that can be readily adapted to investigate the effects of fixed and diffusible Ca2+ buffering in spherical cells. We also investigated the amplitude and time course of [Ca2+]avg and the measurement of this parameter. Our results indicate that available measurements of [Ca2+]avg are not valid during times in which there are gradients of Ca2+ and that [Ca2+]avg rises faster to higher levels than the measurements indicate.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Dr. Martha Nowycky for pointing out the typographical error in the parameters listed by Sala and Hernández-Cruz (see Table 1) and Dr. Grant Nicol for finding a similar error of ours in an early draft and for comments on the manuscript. We thank Dr. Greg Dick for timely advice at several stages of this work.

GRANTS

This work was supported by National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Grant NS-41037.


    FOOTNOTES
 

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: J. L. Kenyon, Dept. of Physiology & Cell Biology/MS352, Univ. of Nevada School of Medicine, Reno, NV 89557 (E-mail:kenyon{at}physiology.unr.edu).

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.


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
1. Baylor SM and Hollingworth S. Model of sarcomeric Ca2+ movements, including ATP Ca2+ binding and diffusion, during activation of frog skeletal muscle. J Gen Physiol 112: 297–316, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2. Berlin JR and Konishi M. Ca2+ transients in cardiac myocytes measured with high and low affinity Ca2+ indicators. Biophys J 65: 1632–1647, 1993.[Abstract]

3. Connor JA and Nikolakopoulou G. Calcium diffusion and buffering in nerve cytoplasm. Lect Math Life Sci 15: 79–101, 1982.

4. Falcke M. Buffers and oscillations in intracellular Ca2+ dynamics. Biophys J 84: 28–41, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

5. Gil A, Segura J, Pertusa JA, and Soria B. Monte Carlo simulation of 3-D buffered Ca2+ diffusion in neuroendocrine cells. Biophys J 78: 13–33, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

6. Grynkiewicz G, Poenie M, and Tsien RY. A new generation of Ca2+ indicators with greatly improved fluorescence properties. J Biol Chem 260: 3440–3450, 1985.[Abstract]

7. Harkins AB, Kurebayashi N, and Baylor SM. Resting myoplasmic free calcium in frog skeletal muscle fibers estimated with fluo-3. Biophys J 65: 865–881, 1993.[Abstract]

8. Ito K, Miyashita Y, and Kasai H. Micromolar and submicromolar Ca2+ spikes regulating distinct cellular functions in pancreatic acinar cells. EMBO J 16: 242–251, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

9. Kao JP and Tsien RY. Ca2+ binding kinetics of fura-2 and azo-1 from temperature-jump relaxation measurements. Biophys J 53: 635–639, 1988.[Abstract]

10. Kao JPY. Practical aspects of measuring [Ca2+] with fluorescent indicators. Methods Cell Biol 40: 155–181, 1994.[ISI][Medline]

11. Kasai H and Takahashi N. Multiple kinetic components and the Ca2+ requirements of exocytosis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 354: 331–335, 1999.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

12. Konishi M and Berlin JR. Ca transients in cardiac myocytes measured with a low affinity fluorescent indicator, furaptra. Biophys J 64: 1331–1343, 1993.[Abstract]

13. Marengo FD and Monck JR. Development and dissipation of Ca2+ gradients in adrenal chromaffin cells. Biophys J 79: 1800–1820, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

14. Michailova A, DelPrincipe F, Egger M, and Niggli E. Spatiotemporal features of Ca2+ buffering and diffusion in atrial cardiac myocytes with inhibited sarcoplasmic reticulum. Biophys J 83: 3134–3151, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

15. Naraghi M and Neher E. Linearized buffered Ca2+ diffusion in microdomains and its implications for calculation of [Ca2+] at the mouth of a calcium channel. J Neurosci 17: 6961–6973, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

16. Neher E. Concentration profiles of intracellular calcium in the presence of a diffusible chelator. In: Calcium Electrogenesis and Neuronal Functioning, edited by Heinemann U, Klee M, Neher E, and Singer W. Berlin: Springer, 1986, p. 80–96.

17. Neher E. The use of fura-2 for estimating Ca buffers and Ca fluxes. Neuropharmacology 34: 1423–1442, 1995.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

18. Neher E and Augustine GJ. Calcium gradients and buffers in bovine chromaffin cells. J Physiol 450: 273–301, 1992.[Abstract]

19. Nowycky MC and Pinter MJ. Time courses of calcium and calcium-bound buffers following calcium influx in a model cell. Biophys J 64: 77–91, 1993.[Abstract]

20. Pusch M and Neher E. Rates of diffusional exchange between small cells and a measuring patch pipette. Pflügers Arch 411: 204–211, 1988.[ISI][Medline]

21. Ríos E and Stern MD. Calcium in close quarters: microdomain feedback in excitation-contraction coupling and other cell biological phenomena. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 26: 47–62, 1997.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

22. Sala F and Hernández-Cruz A. Calcium diffusion modeling in a spherical neuron. Relevance of buffering properties. Biophys J 57: 313–324, 1990.[Abstract]

23. Shmigol A, Verkhratsky A, and Isenberg G. Calcium-induced calcium release in rat sensory neurons. J Physiol 489: 627–636, 1995.[Abstract]

24. Stern MD. Buffering of calcium in the vicinity of a channel pore. Cell Calcium 13: 183–192, 1992.[ISI][Medline]

25. Thayer SA and Miller RJ. Regulation of the intracellular free calcium concentration in single rat dorsal root ganglion neurones in vitro. J Physiol 425: 85–115, 1990.[Abstract]

26. Timmerman MP and Ashley CC. Fura-2 diffusion and its use as an indicator of transient free calcium changes in single striated muscle cells. FEBS Lett 209: 1–8, 1986.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

27. Wagner J and Keizer J. Effects of rapid buffers on Ca2+ diffusion and Ca2+ oscillations. Biophys J 67: 447–456, 1994.[Abstract]

28. Ward SM and Kenyon JL. The spatial relationships between Ca2+ channels and Ca2+-activated channels and the function of Ca2+-buffering in avian sensory neurons. Cell Calcium 28: 233–246, 2000.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

29. Werth JL and Thayer SA. Mitochondria buffer physiological calcium loads in cultured rat dorsal root ganglion neurons. J Neurosci 14: 348–356, 1994.[Abstract]

30. Xu T, Naraghi M, Kang H, and Neher E. Kinetic studies of Ca2+ binding and Ca2+ clearance in the cytosol of adrenal chromaffin cells. Biophys J 73: 532–545, 1997.[Abstract]

31. Zeilhofer HU, Swandulla D, Reeh PW, and Kress M. Ca2+ permeability of the sustained proton-induced cation current in adult rat dorsal root ganglion neurons. J Neurophysiol 76: 2834–2840, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

32. Zhou Z and Neher E. Mobile and immobile calcium buffers in bovine adrenal chromaffin cells. J Physiol 469: 245–273, 1993.[Abstract]





This Article
Abstract
Full Text (PDF)
All Versions of this Article:
286/2/C342    most recent
00270.2003v1
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Citation Map
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Download to citation manager
Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Google Scholar
Articles by McHugh, J. M.
Articles by Kenyon, J. L.
Articles citing this Article
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by McHugh, J. M.
Articles by Kenyon, J. L.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2004 by the American Physiological Society.