Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Nitric oxide (NO) is considered to contribute to the impairment of B cell function in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The effects of compounds that release NO were tested on the membrane potential and ionic currents of mouse pancreatic B cells using intracellular microelectrodes and the whole-cell patch-clamp technique. S-Nitrosocysteine led to a concentration-dependent reduction of electrical activity induced by 15 mM glucose. At a concentration of 1 mM, S-nitrosocysteine cause a hyperpolarization of the plasma membrane with complete suppression of electrical activity. In about half of the cells tested, electrical activity reappeared during treatment with S-nitroso-cysteine or after wash-out. However, in the other cells the hyperpolarization was followed by a slow depolarization and electrical activity did not reappear. The perforated-patch whole-cell K+ATP current first increased and subsequently decreased again during exposure to 1 mM S-nitroso-cysteine. With 0.1 and 0.01 mM S-nitroso-cysteine, only the rise of the current amplitude was observed. S-nitroso-cysteine (1 mM) almost completely abolished the current through voltage-dependent Ca2+ channels (measured with Ba2+ as charge carrier). Like S-nitroso-cysteine, 100 microM sodium-nitroprusside, another donor, evoked a marked hyperpolarization of the membrane potential that was at least in part reversible. To further ascertain that the effect of S-nitroso-cysteine was mediated by NO, we tested the decomposition products of S-nitroso-cysteine. Nitrite and denitrosylated S-nitroso-cystein (1 mM) did not alter electrical activity of B cells, whereas cysteine (1 mM) caused a slight depolarization. It is concluded that exogenous NO evokes rapid changes of B cell function by influencing the activity of ion channels.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Krippeit‐Drews et al. (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: