Angiotensin II-stimulated secretion by adrenal glomerulosa cells and contraction by vascular smooth muscle (VSM) are dependent on calcium influx through membrane calcium channels. We have examined the hypothesis that the altered responsiveness of adrenal glomerulosa cells and VSM to angiotensin II during NaCl restriction may be associated with a change in membrane calcium channel number. To test this hypothesis, female rats were placed on a high or low NaCl diet. On the 14th day, membranes were prepared from the zona glomerulosa, aorta, mesenteric artery, and uterus. [3H]Nitrendipine binding was used to monitor calcium channel number. The [3H]nitrendipine binding capacity was observed to be higher in the zona glomerulosa during NaCl restriction than during high NaCl intake (83 +/- 18 vs. 49 +/- 9 fmol/mg protein, P less than 0.025, n = 6 paired experiments). The binding capacities of [3H]nitrendipine on the low and high NaCl diet were similar in the mesenteric artery (10 +/- 1 vs. 9 +/- 1 fmol/mg protein, n = 8), aorta (33 +/- 5 vs. 35 +/- 8 fmol/mg protein, n = 5), or uterus (87 +/- 15 vs. 85 +/- 16 fmol/mg protein, n = 4), respectively. The dissociation constants of [3H]nitrendipine binding did not differ on a low or high NaCl intake in the zona glomerulosa (0.84 +/- .12 vs. 0.79 +/- .10 nM), mesenteric artery (0.82 +/- .06 vs. 83 +/- .05 nM), aorta (0.90 +/- .11 vs. 0.92 +/- .12 nM), or uterus (0.55 +/- .12 vs. 0.56 +/- .10 nM), respectively. We conclude that the blunted response of VSM to angiotensin II during NaCl restriction is best explained by the previously reported lower number of angiotensin II receptors since calcium channel number does not change. In the adrenal glomerulosa cell, NaCl restriction is associated with a higher number of membrane calcium channels and angiotensin II receptors. The increase in calcium channel number may reflect the influence of an unknown factor(s) believed to be necessary for the full expression of the adrenal glomerulosa cell response to NaCl restriction.
R J Schiebinger
The Editorial Board will only consider comments that are deemed relevant and of interest to readers. The Journal will not post data that have not been subjected to peer review; or a comment that is essentially a reiteration of another comment.