The Journal of General Physiology
CrossRef
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents

This Article
Right arrow PDF (Full Text)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Services
Right arrow Email this article
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new content in the JGP
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kato, S.
Right arrow Articles by Osa, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kato, S.
Right arrow Articles by Osa, T.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Journal of General Physiology, Vol 80, 257-277, Copyright © 1982 by The Rockefeller University Press


ARTICLES

Calcium diffusion in uterine smooth muscle sheets

S Kato, T Ogasawara and T Osa

The potassium contracture in the longitudinal muscle of estrogen- treated rat uterus was kinetically investigated. The rates of tension development after Ca addition and relaxation after Ca removal were measured under the high-potassium depolarization. Both rates decreased with an increase in preparation thickness. The relaxation rate had only a slight dependence on temperature. On the contrary, both relaxation and contraction rates in a contraction induced by an electrical stimulation strongly depended on temperature, but not on preparation size. These results suggest that the Ca diffusion process in the extracellular space is the rate-limiting step in relaxation of Ca- dependent contracture under potassium depolarization. The diffusion model, in which the effect of the unstirred layer was considered, could quantitatively explain the experimental results. The apparent diffusion coefficient in the muscle sheet was estimated to be approximately 3 x 10(-7) cm2/s. The difference from that in aqueous solution is discussed.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents