Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.

Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Original Paper

Free Access

Sensitivity of Chloride Efflux vs. Transepithelial Measurements in Mixed CF and Normal Airway Epithelial Cell Populations

Illek B.1 · Lei D.2 · Fischer H.1 · Gruenert D.C.3,4

Author affiliations

1Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, Oakland,2Novartis Corporation, Emeryville,3Departments of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Laboratory Medicine, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regeneration Medicine and Stem Cell Research, University of California, San Francisco,4Department of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington

Corresponding Author

Dieter C. Gruenert, PhD

Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Head and Neck Cancer Lab

Mt Zion Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco

Box 1330, 2340 Sutter St, N319, San Francisco, CA 94115-1330 (USA)

Tel. +1 415-476-8586, Fax +1 415-476-8588, E-Mail dgruenert@ohns.ucsf.edu

Related Articles for ""

Cell Physiol Biochem 2010;26:983–990

Do you have an account?

Login Information

Contact Information

I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.


Background/Aims: While the Cl- efflux assays are relatively straightforward, their ability to assess the efficacy of phenotypic correction in cystic fibrosis (CF) tissue or cells may be limited. Accurate assessment of therapeutic efficacy, i.e., correlating wild type CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) levels with phenotypic correction in tissue or individual cells, requires a sensitive assay. Methods: Radioactive chloride (36Cl) efflux was compared to Ussing chamber analysis for measuring cAMP-dependent Cl- transport in mixtures of human normal (16HBE14o-) and cystic fibrosis (CF) (CFTE29o- or CFBE41o-, respectively) airway epithelial cells. Cell mixtures with decreasing amounts of 16HBE14o- cells were evaluated. Results: Efflux and Ussing chamber studies on mixed populations of normal and CF airway epithelial cells showed that, as the number of CF cells within the population was progressively increased, the cAMP-dependent Cl- decreased. The 36Cl efflux assay was effective for measuring Cl- transport when ≥ 25% of the cells were normal. If < 25% of the cells were phenotypically wild-type (wt), the 36Cl efflux assay was no longer reliable. Polarized CFBE41o- cells, also homozygous for the ΔF508 mutation, were used in the Ussing chamber studies. Ussing analysis detected cAMP-dependent Cl- currents in mixtures with ≥1% wild-type cells indicating that Ussing analysis is more sensitive than 36Cl efflux analysis for detection of functional CFTR. Conclusions: Assessment of CFTR function by Ussing analysis is more sensitive than 36Cl efflux analysis. Ussing analysis indicates that cell mixtures containing 10% 16HBE14o- cells showed 40-50% of normal cAMP-dependent Cl- transport that drops off exponentially between 10-1% wild-type cells.

© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Accepted: November 15, 2010
Published online: January 04, 2011
Issue release date: January 2011

Number of Print Pages: 8
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 0

ISSN: 1015-8987 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9778 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/CPB

Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.