We examined the effect of the Ca(2+) concentration in the endolymph ([Ca](e)) or in the endolymphatic surface cells ([Ca](i)) on the endocochlear potential (EP) by using an endolymphatic or perilymphatic perfusion technique, respectively. (i) A large increase in [Ca](e) up to approximately 10(-3) M with a fall in the EP was induced by transient asphyxia ( approximately 2 min) or by the intravenous administration of furosemide (60 mg/kg), and a significant correlation was obtained between the EP and p[Ca](e) (= -log [Ca](e), r = 0.998). (ii) Perfusion of the endolymph with 10 mM EGTA for 5 min neither produced any significant change in the EP nor altered the asphyxia-induced change in EP (DeltaEP(asp)), suggesting that neither [Ca](e) nor the Ca(2+) concentration gradient across the stria vascularis contributed directly to the generation of the EP in the condition of low [Ca](e). In contrast, endolymphatic perfusion with high Ca(2+) (more than 10 mM) produced a decrease in EP and a significant correlation was obtained between the EP and the Ca(2+) concentration of perfusion solution (r = 0.982), suggesting that Ca(2+) permeability may exist across the stria vascularis. (iii) The administration of a Ca(2+) chelator, EGTA-acetoxymethyl ester (AM, 0.3 mM), to the endolymph, which produced a gradual increase in EP, suppressed significantly, by 60-80%, DeltaEP(asp) or furosemide-induced changes in EP. In contrast, perilymphatic administration of 0.5 mM EGTA-AM caused no significant suppression of the DeltaEP(asp). These findings suggest that [Ca](i) plays an important role in generating/maintaining a large positive EP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mineharu et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: