| Literature DB >> 26564067 |
Bernd Schröder1, Mirja R Wilkens1, Gundula E Ricken1, Sabine Leonhard-Marek1, David R Fraser2, Gerhard Breves3.
Abstract
The quantitative role of different segments of the gastrointestinal tract for Ca absorption, the respective mechanisms, and their regulation are not fully identified for ruminants, that is, cattle. In different in vitro experiments the forestomach wall has been demonstrated to be a major site for active Ca absorption in sheep and goats. In order to further clarify the role of the bovine rumen for Ca transport with special attention to luminal Ca concentrations, its ionic form, and pH, electrophysiological and unidirectional flux rate measurements were performed with isolated bovine rumen epithelial tissues. For Ca flux studies (Jms, Jsm) in vitro Ussing chamber technique was applied. Standard RT-PCR method was used to characterize TRPV6 and PMCA1 as potential contributors to transepithelial active Ca transport. At Ca concentrations of 1.2 mmol L(-1) on both sides of the tissues, Jms were higher than Jsm resulting under some conditions in significant Ca net flux rates (Jnet), indicating the presence of active Ca transport. In the absence of an electrical gradient, Jnet could significantly be stimulated in the presence of luminal short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs). Increasing the luminal Ca concentrations up to 11.2 mmol L(-1) resulted in significant increases in Jms without influencing Jsm. Providing Ca in its form as respective chloride, formate, or propionate salts there was no significant effect on Jms. No transcripts specific for Ca channel TRPV6 could be demonstrated. Our results indicate different mechanisms for Ca absorption in bovine rumen as compared with those usually described for the small intestines.Entities:
Keywords: Ca absorption; Ca sources; Ussing chamber; rumen wall
Year: 2015 PMID: 26564067 PMCID: PMC4673643 DOI: 10.14814/phy2.12615
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Physiol Rep ISSN: 2051-817X
Composition of the buffer solutions
| Substance | Buffer A | Buffer B | Buffer C1,2,3 | Buffer D | Buffer E |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Na+ | 143.2 | 143.2 | 143.2 | 140.0 | 141.8 |
| Cl− | 67.2 | 67.6 | 67.6–72.68 | 120.0 | 24.9–44.9 |
| Ca2+ | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2–3.74 | 1.2 | 1.2–11.2 |
| K+ | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Mg2+ | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| HCO3− | 21.0 | 21.0 | 2.0 | 21.0 | 2.0 |
| HPO42− | 1.4 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 2.4 | 0.3 |
| H2PO4− | 1.4 | 1.6 | 2.3 | 0.6 | 2.7 |
| Glucose | 5.0 | – | – | 10.0 | 5.0 |
| Formate | – | – | 1.2–3.74 | – | – |
| Acetate | – | 36.0 | 36.0 | – | 78.0 |
| Propionate | – | 15.0 | 16.2–18.74 | – | 30.0 |
| Butyrate | – | 9.0 | 9.0 | – | 12.0 |
| Gluconate | 61.0 | 1.2 | 20.9 | – | – |
| PH | 7.40 | 7.44 | 6.55 | 7.40 | 6.52 |
Concentrations are given in mmol L−1. For further information see Materials and Methods section. The superscripts refer to different buffer solutions which are explained in more detail in the “Materials and Methods” section.
Ca flux rates at different Ca concentrations and with different Ca salts on the mucosal side
| SCFA muc | Buffer muc/ser | pH muc | Ca salt | Ca mmol L−1 |
|
| Ca mmol L−1 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| nmol cm−2 h−1 | |||||||||
| − | A/A | 7.40 | Ca chloride | 1.2 | 15.98 ± 1.76 | 12.82 ± 1.62 | 6 | ||
| + | B/A | 7.44 | Ca chloride | 1.2 | 25.08 ± 3.10 | 11.33 ± 2,24 | 6 | ||
| + | C/A | 6.55 | Ca chloride | 1.2 | 16.4 ± 8.0 | 3.74 | 73.7 ± 25.1 | 4 | |
| + | C/A | 6.55 | Ca formate | 1.2 | 16.4 ± 9.8 | 3.74 | 73.0 ± 33.6 | 4 | |
| + | C/A | 6.55 | Ca propionate | 1.2 | 16.0 ± 6.0 | 3.74 | 71.8 ± 16.4 | 4 | |
| + | E/D | 6.52 | Ca chloride | 1.2 | 10.66 ± 1.06 | 9.62 ± 0.62 | 11.2 | 111.90 ± 13.37 | 6 |
Data are mean ± SEM. N = number of animals. For the composition of buffer solutions see Table1.
Figure 1RT-PCR for the detection of products specific for TRPV6 and PMCA1. NTC, no template control; rum, rumen; duo, duodenum.