It has been proposed that the mercurial-sensitive water transporter in mammalian erythrocytes is the anion exchanger band 3 (AE1) and/or the glucose transporter, band 4.5 (GLUT1). Using a functional assay for water channel expression in Xenopus oocytes (Zhang, R., K. A. Logee, and A. S. Verkman. 1990. J. Biol. Chem. 265:15375-15378), we compared osmotic water permeability (Pf) of oocytes injected with water, reticulocyte mRNA, AE1 mRNA, and GLUT1 mRNA. Injection of oocytes with 5-50 ng of in vitro-transcribed AE1 mRNA had no effect on Pf, but increased trans-stimulated 36Cl uptake greater than fourfold in a dinitro-disulfonic stilbene (DNDS)-inhibitable manner. Injection with 1-50 ng of in vitro-transcribed GLUT1 mRNA increased 3H-methylglucose uptake greater than 15-fold in a cytochalasin B-sensitive manner and increased Pf from (3.7 +/- 0.4) x 10(-4) cm/s (SE, n = 16, 10 degrees C) in water-injected oocytes up to (13 +/- 1) x 10(-4) cm/s (n = 18). Both the increments in sugar and water transport were inhibited by cytochalasin B (25 microM) and phloretin (0.2 mM); neither was inhibited by 0.3 mM HgCl2. In oocytes injected with 50 ng of rabbit reticulocyte mRNA, the Pf of (18 +/- 2) x 10(-4) cm/s (n = 18) was reduced to (4.0 +/- 0.6) x 10(-4) cm/s (n = 10) by HgCl2, but was not inhibited by DNDS (0.4 mM), cytochalasin B or phloretin. Coinjection of reticulocyte mRNA with antisense oligodeoxyribonucleotides against AE1 or GLUT1 did not affect Pf, but inhibited completely the incremental uptake of 36Cl or 3H-methylglucose, respectively. Expression of size-fractionated mRNA from reticulocyte gave a 2-2.5-kb size for water channel mRNA, less than the 4-4.5-kb size for the Cl transporter. These results provide evidence that facilitated water transport in erythrocytes is mediated not by bands 3 or 4.5, but by distinct water transport protein(s).
R Zhang, S L Alper, B Thorens, A S Verkman
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.