Hubbry Logo
Reversal potentialReversal potentialMain
Open search
Reversal potential
Community hub
Reversal potential
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Reversal potential
Reversal potential
Reversal potential
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In a biological membrane, the reversal potential is the membrane potential at which the direction of ionic current reverses. At the reversal potential, there is no net flow of ions from one side of the membrane to the other. For channels that are permeable to only a single type of ion, the reversal potential is identical to the equilibrium potential of the ion.[1][2][3]

Equilibrium potential

[edit]

The equilibrium potential for an ion is the membrane potential at which there is no net movement of the ion.[1][2][3] The flow of any inorganic ion, such as Na+ or K+, through an ion channel (since membranes are normally impermeable to ions) is driven by the electrochemical gradient for that ion.[1][2][3][4] This gradient consists of two parts, the difference in the concentration of that ion across the membrane, and the voltage gradient.[4] When these two influences balance each other, the electrochemical gradient for the ion is zero and there is no net flow of the ion through the channel; this also translates to no current across the membrane so long as only one ionic species is involved.[1][2][3][4][5] The voltage gradient at which this equilibrium is reached is the equilibrium potential for the ion and it can be calculated from the Nernst equation.[1][2][3][4]

Mathematical models and the driving force

[edit]

We can consider as an example a positively charged ion, such as K+, and a negatively charged membrane, as it is commonly the case in most organisms.[4][5] The membrane voltage opposes the flow of the potassium ions out of the cell and the ions can leave the interior of the cell only if they have sufficient thermal energy to overcome the energy barrier produced by the negative membrane voltage.[5] However, this biasing effect can be overcome by an opposing concentration gradient if the interior concentration is high enough which favours the potassium ions leaving the cell.[5]

An important concept related to the equilibrium potential is the driving force. Driving force is simply defined as the difference between the actual membrane potential and an ion's equilibrium potential where refers to the equilibrium potential for a specific ion.[5] Relatedly, the membrane current per unit area due to the type ion channel is given by the following equation:

where is the driving force and is the specific conductance, or conductance per unit area.[5] Note that the ionic current will be zero if the membrane is impermeable to that ion in question or if the membrane voltage is exactly equal to the equilibrium potential of that ion.[5]

Use in research

[edit]

When Vm is at the reversal potential for an event such as a synaptic potential (Vm − Erev is equal to 0), the identity of the ions that flow during an EPC can be deduced by comparing the reversal potential of the EPC to the equilibrium potential for various ions. For instance several excitatory ionotropic ligand-gated neurotransmitter receptors including glutamate receptors (AMPA, NMDA, and kainate), nicotinic acetylcholine (nACh), and serotonin (5-HT3) receptors are nonselective cation channels that pass Na+ and K+ in nearly equal proportions, giving the reversal potential close to zero. The inhibitory ionotropic ligand-gated neurotransmitter receptors that carry Cl−, such as GABAA and glycine receptors, have reversal potentials close to the resting potential (approximately −70 mV) in neurons.[2]

This line of reasoning led to the development of experiments (by Akira Takeuchi and Noriko Takeuchi in 1960) that demonstrated that acetylcholine-activated ion channels are approximately equally permeable to Na+ and K+ ions. The experiment was performed by lowering the external Na+ concentration, which lowers (makes more negative) the Na+ equilibrium potential and produces a negative shift in reversal potential. Conversely, increasing the external K+ concentration raises (makes more positive) the K+ equilibrium potential and produces a positive shift in reversal potential.[2] A general expression for reversal potential of synaptic events, including for decreases in conductance, has been derived.[6]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Reversal potential

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The reversal potential (also known as the equilibrium potential) is the specific value of the at which the net ionic current through an open or synaptic conductance is zero, resulting in no net movement of ions across the due to a balance between the chemical concentration gradient and the electrical . This potential is fundamental in neuronal , as it determines the direction and magnitude of ionic currents that underlie synaptic transmission and generation. For ion channels selectively permeable to a single ion species, the reversal potential is calculated using the , which quantifies the equilibrium potential based on the ion's intracellular and extracellular concentrations, valence, , and the universal :
EX=RTzFln⁡([X]out[X]in)E_X = \frac{RT}{zF} \ln\left(\frac{[X]_{out}}{[X]_{in}}\right)
where RR is the , TT is in , zz is the ion's valence, FF is Faraday's constant, and [X][X] denotes concentration. Typical values in mammalian neurons include approximately +56 mV for Na⁺, -100 mV for K⁺, -76 mV for Cl⁻, and +125 mV for Ca²⁺, reflecting their concentration gradients across the plasma . When the deviates from this reversal potential, a driving force (the difference between and reversal potentials) propels ions inward or outward, contributing to changes in excitability. In contrast, for channels or receptors permeable to multiple ions—such as ligand-gated ion channels at synapses—the reversal potential is determined by the Goldman-Hodgkin-Katz (GHK) voltage equation, which accounts for relative permeabilities (PP) of each ion:
Vrev=RTFln⁡(PK[K]o+PNa[Na]o+PCl[Cl]iPK[K]i+PNa[Na]i+PCl[Cl]o)V_{rev} = \frac{RT}{F} \ln\left(\frac{P_K[K]_o + P_{Na}[Na]_o + P_{Cl}[Cl]_i}{P_K[K]_i + P_{Na}[Na]_i + P_{Cl}[Cl]_o}\right)
This yields a weighted average of individual Nernst potentials, influenced by the channel's selectivity. For example, in excitatory glutamatergic synapses via AMPA receptors, which are permeable to Na⁺, K⁺, and sometimes Ca²⁺, the reversal potential is near 0 mV, promoting from the typical neuronal of -60 to -70 mV and generating excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs). Conversely, inhibitory synapses like those mediated by GABA_A receptors, primarily permeable to Cl⁻ (and to a lesser extent HCO₃⁻), have a reversal potential around -65 to -75 mV, leading to hyperpolarization or shunting inhibition that stabilizes the membrane and suppresses firing. The reversal potential plays a pivotal role in neuronal signaling and is experimentally measured using techniques like voltage-clamp , where the voltage at which synaptic currents reverse direction reveals the underlying ionic selectivity. Alterations in reversal potentials, due to changes in gradients or channel properties, can profoundly impact function, contributing to phenomena such as epileptic seizures or .

Fundamentals

Definition

The reversal potential, denoted as ErevE_{\text{rev}}, is the membrane voltage at which the net ionic current through an open ion channel or synaptic conductance is zero, signifying the balance between inward and outward ion flows driven by electrochemical gradients. Conceptually, this potential marks the transition point for current direction: when the membrane potential is more negative than ErevE_{\text{rev}} (below it), the net current is inward, promoting depolarization; conversely, when the membrane potential is more positive than ErevE_{\text{rev}} (above it), the net current is outward, favoring hyperpolarization. This bidirectional behavior arises from the interplay of concentration gradients and the electrical field across the membrane, making ErevE_{\text{rev}} a key determinant of how channel activation influences cellular excitability. The reversal potential is related to but distinct from the equilibrium potential, which describes the voltage for zero net flux of a single ion species through a perfectly selective channel. The concept of reversal potential emerged in early electrophysiology studies of the mid-20th century, as investigations into ionic permeabilities revealed how changes in extracellular ion concentrations could reverse the polarity of action potentials in excitable tissues like the squid giant axon. For a qualitative example, consider a ligand-gated channel permeable to multiple ions, such as one allowing both sodium (Na+^+) and potassium (K+^+) to pass; here, ErevE_{\text{rev}} would occur at a voltage between the equilibrium potentials of Na+^+ and K+^+, weighted by their relative permeabilities through the channel.

Relation to Equilibrium Potential

The equilibrium potential for a specific , denoted as EeqE_\text{eq}, is defined as the at which the driving that across the membrane is balanced, resulting in zero net flux of the ion. This potential arises solely from the ion's concentration and charge, independent of other ions or channel properties. In contrast, the reversal potential (ErevE_\text{rev}) represents the at which the net current through an or conductance reverses direction, becoming zero overall. While EeqE_\text{eq} is strictly -specific and applies to scenarios with perfect selectivity for a single species, ErevE_\text{rev} is more general and pertains to channels or conductances that may permit multiple s, where it can deviate from any individual EeqE_\text{eq}./02:_Neuronal_Communication/2.04:_Neurotransmitter_Action-_Ionotropic_Receptors) For channels with high selectivity, such as voltage-gated potassium channels that are nearly exclusively permeable to K+^+, the reversal potential coincides exactly with the equilibrium potential (Erev=EKE_\text{rev} = E_\text{K}), typically around -90 mV under physiological conditions. When channels exhibit permeability to multiple ions, the reversal potential shifts from individual equilibrium potentials, reflecting a composite influence weighted by the relative permeabilities of the ions involved, such as the ratio of sodium to potassium permeability (PNa/PKP_\text{Na}/P_\text{K}). This weighting occurs because the net current at ErevE_\text{rev} balances the opposing fluxes of permeant ions according to their permeability coefficients and driving forces. For instance, in non-selective cation channels like those activated by acetylcholine at the neuromuscular junction, which allow both Na+^+ and K+^+ with a permeability ratio of approximately 1.5:1 favoring Na+^+, the reversal potential settles at around 0 mV—a value that is a permeability-weighted average between ENaE_\text{Na} (about +60 mV) and EKE_\text{K} (about -90 mV). This divergence highlights how multi-ion permeability integrates multiple electrochemical gradients, altering the effective driving force compared to single-ion equilibrium scenarios.

Mathematical Formulation

Nernst Equation

The describes the equilibrium potential across a for a specific species under conditions where the chemical and electrical gradients balance each other, resulting in no net flux. This equation, originally derived by in 1889, applies to the electrochemical equilibrium in solutions and has been foundational in understanding distributions in biological systems. At equilibrium, the free energy change (ΔG) for ion transport across the membrane must be zero, as there is no net driving force. The total electrochemical potential difference for an ion includes the chemical component, given by ΔG_chem = RT ln([ion]_out / [ion]_in), where R is the (8.314 J/mol·K), T is the absolute temperature in , and [ion] denotes concentration outside and inside the cell; and the electrical component, ΔG_elec = z F E_ion, where z is the ion's valence (positive for cations, negative for anions), F is the (96,485 C/mol), and E_ion is the at equilibrium. Setting ΔG_total = ΔG_chem + ΔG_elec = 0 yields z F E_ion = -RT ln([ion]_out / [ion]_in), or rearranging, Eion=RTzFln⁡([ion]out[ion]in)E_\text{ion} = \frac{RT}{zF} \ln \left( \frac{[\text{ion}]_\text{out}}{[\text{ion}]_\text{in}} \right) This potential E_ion (in volts) represents the membrane voltage (inside relative to outside) at which the ion is in electrochemical equilibrium. For physiological temperatures near 37°C (310 K), the equation simplifies using base-10 logarithms, as ln(x) = 2.3026 log_{10}(x), yielding an approximate factor of 61.5 mV per decade concentration change; a common form is Eion=61.5zlog⁡10([ion]out[ion]in) mV.E_\text{ion} = \frac{61.5}{z} \log_{10} \left( \frac{[\text{ion}]_\text{out}}{[\text{ion}]_\text{in}} \right) \ \text{mV}. For a perfectly selective ion channel permeable only to that ion, the reversal potential coincides with this Nernst equilibrium potential. In typical neurons, for potassium (K^+ , z = +1), with [K^+ ]_out ≈ 5 mM and [K^+ ]in ≈ 140 mM at 37°C, E_K ≈ (61.5/1) log{10}(5/140) ≈ -89 mV, reflecting the inward electrical pull balancing the outward chemical gradient. For sodium (Na^+ , z = +1), with [Na^+ ]_out ≈ 145 mM and [Na^+ ]in ≈ 12 mM at 37°C, E_Na ≈ (61.5/1) log{10}(145/12) ≈ +67 mV, indicating an outward electrical force countering the strong inward chemical drive. The assumes ideal solution behavior, constant ion concentrations during measurement, and perfect ion selectivity without interference from other species or membrane properties like . These limitations hold under controlled conditions but may deviate in real cellular environments with fluctuating concentrations or non-ideal activities.

Goldman-Hodgkin-Katz Voltage Equation

The Goldman-Hodgkin-Katz (GHK) voltage equation extends the principles of to scenarios involving multiple species, providing a framework for calculating the reversal potential across a permeable to several s. Originally formulated by David E. Goldman in 1943 as part of the constant field theory, which posits a linear within the and independent movement of s, the equation was refined and applied experimentally by Alan L. Hodgkin and in 1949 to analyze ionic contributions to potentials in squid giant axons. This development built on the assumption of steady-state conditions where fluxes balance at the reversal potential, with no net current flow. The GHK equation derives the reversal potential ErevE_{\text{rev}} by setting the total membrane current to zero, integrating the flux equations for each ion under the constant field approximation. For a membrane permeable to potassium (K⁺), sodium (Na⁺), and chloride (Cl⁻), the equation is: Erev=RTFln⁡(PK[K+]out+PNa[Na+]out+PCl[Cl−]inPK[K+]in+PNa[Na+]in+PCl[Cl−]out)E_{\text{rev}} = \frac{RT}{F} \ln \left( \frac{P_{\text{K}} [\text{K}^+]_{\text{out}} + P_{\text{Na}} [\text{Na}^+]_{\text{out}} + P_{\text{Cl}} [\text{Cl}^-]_{\text{in}}}{P_{\text{K}} [\text{K}^+]_{\text{in}} + P_{\text{Na}} [\text{Na}^+]_{\text{in}} + P_{\text{Cl}} [\text{Cl}^-]_{\text{out}}} \right) Here, RR is the gas constant, TT is the absolute temperature, FF is Faraday's constant, [ion]in/out[\text{ion}]_{\text{in/out}} denote intracellular and extracellular concentrations, and PionP_{\text{ion}} are the permeability coefficients, which quantify the relative ease with which each ion traverses the membrane. The permeabilities act as weighting factors, such that ions with higher PP exert greater influence on ErevE_{\text{rev}}, effectively producing a logarithmic weighted average of the individual Nernst potentials for each ion. When the permeability of one ion dominates (e.g., PK≫PNa,PClP_{\text{K}} \gg P_{\text{Na}}, P_{\text{Cl}}), the GHK equation simplifies to the Nernst equation for that ion. To apply the GHK equation, relative permeabilities are determined experimentally or estimated for specific channels, then substituted into the formula alongside measured ion concentrations. For instance, in channels with low sodium permeability relative to potassium (e.g., PNa/PK=0.05P_{\text{Na}}/P_{\text{K}} = 0.05), ErevE_{\text{rev}} shifts only slightly positive from the potassium equilibrium potential (typically around -90 mV under physiological conditions), reflecting the dominant K⁺ contribution. As the relative permeability increases, the influence of Na⁺ grows due to its steeper concentration gradient, pulling ErevE_{\text{rev}} toward more depolarized values. In a representative calculation for a cation-selective channel with PK:PNa=1:0.3P_{\text{K}}:P_{\text{Na}} = 1:0.3 (and assuming negligible Cl⁻ permeability), using typical mammalian neuronal concentrations ([K⁺]ₒ = 4 mM, [K⁺]ᵢ = 140 mM, [Na⁺]ₒ = 145 mM, [Na⁺]ᵢ = 15 mM) and a temperature of 37°C, ErevE_{\text{rev}} approximates -30 mV, illustrating how balanced permeabilities can yield intermediate potentials far from individual ion equilibria. The GHK equation relies on key assumptions, including a uniform (constant) electric field across the membrane, non-interacting ion fluxes, and steady-state conditions at ErevE_{\text{rev}} without contributions from active transport mechanisms. These simplifications neglect real-world complexities such as voltage-dependent changes in permeability, ion-ion interactions, or uneven ion distributions due to pumps, which can limit its accuracy in dynamic or non-ideal systems. Despite these constraints, the equation remains a cornerstone for modeling multi-ion reversal potentials in diverse physiological contexts.

Experimental Methods

Voltage-Clamp Techniques

The voltage-clamp technique utilizes a circuit to hold the (VmV_m) of a cell at a predetermined constant value, while simultaneously measuring the ionic currents flowing across the . This control allows researchers to vary VmV_m precisely and observe how currents respond, revealing the behavior of ion channels without the confounding effects of potential changes due to current flow. The measured current II at a given VmV_m follows the relation I=g(Vm−Erev)I = g (V_m - E_{rev}), where gg represents the membrane conductance and ErevE_{rev} is the reversal potential, enabling the assessment of current direction and magnitude based on the electrochemical driving force. The method was pioneered by Kenneth S. Cole in 1949, who introduced an early voltage-clamp apparatus using a single axial wire inserted into the to both sense voltage and inject current, achieving stable potential control for the first time. Building on this, Alan L. Hodgkin and Andrew F. Huxley advanced the technique in their 1952 experiments on isolated axons, employing a two-electrode setup—one for voltage recording and another for current passage—to dissect the time- and voltage-dependent sodium and potassium currents underlying the action potential. These foundational works established voltage clamping as a cornerstone for quantitative , particularly in large, accessible cells like axons. In a standard voltage-clamp procedure, the is impaled with microelectrodes filled with conductive solution to access the intracellular space, ensuring electrical continuity. The then applies rapid voltage steps from a holding potential to a series of test potentials, typically in 5-10 mV increments across a physiological range (e.g., -100 mV to +50 mV), while recording the resulting membrane currents. Steady-state currents, reached after transient capacitive transients, are isolated and plotted against the clamped voltages to construct an I-V curve; the reversal potential ErevE_{rev} is identified as the voltage where the extrapolated line crosses the zero-current axis, marking the point of current reversal. Subsequent refinements led to the patch-clamp technique, developed by Erwin Neher and Bert Sakmann in , which uses a micropipette to form a high-resistance (gigaohm) seal with a small patch of , enabling recordings from tiny areas or single channels. In the cell-attached mode, the patch remains intact, preserving the native intracellular milieu and allowing single-channel currents to be resolved with high (sub-millisecond), ideal for studying channel gating without altering cell contents. The whole-cell configuration, achieved by applying suction to rupture the patch beneath the pipette, provides access to the cell's interior for measuring aggregate currents from all channels, facilitating intracellular and pharmacological manipulations to isolate specific conductances, such as by blocking non-target channels with antagonists. These variants extend voltage clamping to smaller mammalian cells, overcoming limitations of earlier axial wire methods in non-giant axons. Effective voltage clamping demands attention to practical challenges, including series resistance—the ohmic drop between the tip and —which can cause voltage errors proportional to current , typically compensated by the predicting and injecting additional current to maintain accurate control, often up to 80-90% correction to avoid . Leak currents from seal imperfections or penetration are subtracted by linear from holding currents or using pharmacological blockers to isolate the signal of interest. In elongated or large cells, space-clamp errors occur due to non-uniform voltage distribution along the , exacerbated by cable properties like axial resistance, which can be mitigated by using short, small-diameter cells or segmented clamping, though complete uniformity remains difficult in complex geometries.

Current-Voltage Curve Analysis

Current-voltage (I-V) curve analysis involves plotting the steady-state current amplitude recorded under voltage-clamp conditions against the clamped (V_m) to characterize behavior and determine the reversal potential (E_rev). This method constructs I-V relationships by measuring the peak or steady-state currents elicited by stepwise voltage depolarizations or ramps, with linear regions of the indicating ohmic (voltage-independent) conductance where current is proportional to the driving force (V_m - E_rev). To identify E_rev, the voltage at which net current through the channel is zero, analysts fit a to the ohmic portion of the I-V curve and to the voltage intercept, where current amplitude equals zero. For non-linear I-V curves arising from voltage-dependent gating or rectification, alternative approaches include the chord conductance method, which calculates instantaneous conductance as g_chord = I / (V_m - E_rev) iteratively to refine the estimate, or the envelope-of-tails technique, where peak tail currents following varying prepulse voltages are plotted against prepulse V_m to obtain an instantaneous I-V curve for . These methods ensure E_rev is accurately isolated even when or inactivation distorts steady-state measurements. The slope of the fitted linear region in an I-V plot yields the total conductance (g), reflecting the channel's permeability under those conditions, while deviations from linearity—such as inward or outward rectification—signal voltage-dependent gating mechanisms that alter open probability without shifting E_rev, which remains the asymptotic intercept. Rectification often appears as asymmetric current flow, with stronger inward currents at hyperpolarized potentials indicating inward rectifiers, but E_rev is independent of these gating effects. Common errors in I-V analysis include voltage inaccuracies from uncompensated series resistance (R_s), which causes the actual V_m to deviate from the command potential by I × R_s, leading to distorted curves and shifted E_rev estimates; this is mitigated by electronic compensation or post-hoc correction using measured R_s values. Contributions from endogenous or currents can also contaminate the signal, artificially altering the apparent E_rev, and are corrected via subtraction protocols such as recording pre- and post-drug traces or using pharmacological blockers to isolate the evoked current before replotting the I-V relationship. For example, in α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid () receptors, I-V curves typically exhibit a linear relationship with E_rev near 0 mV, reflecting balanced permeability to Na⁺ and K⁺ ions under symmetrical ionic conditions, allowing straightforward extrapolation from steady-state currents at various holding potentials.

Physiological Roles

In Neuronal Signaling

The resting of neurons is established as a weighted average of the reversal potentials for the ions permeable through constitutively open leak channels, with the high selectivity of leak channels dominating to keep the potential near the reversal potential, typically around -80 to -90 mV. This configuration minimizes net ionic flux at rest, as the aligns closely with the reversal potential of the most permeable ion, , while contributions from sodium and leak channels exert a smaller depolarizing influence. During action potentials, reversal potentials play a critical role in the dynamics of and . Activation of voltage-gated sodium channels, with a reversal potential approximating the sodium equilibrium potential (around +50 to +60 mV), drives rapid as sodium influx pulls the membrane toward this positive value. Subsequently, voltage-gated potassium channels open, the membrane toward the potassium reversal potential (around -80 mV), restoring the potential to rest and preventing prolonged excitation. The concept of driving force quantifies how reversal potentials influence current direction and magnitude in neuronal signaling. The net ionic current through an open channel is given by I=g(Vm−Erev)I = g (V_m - E_{\text{rev}}) where II is the current, gg is the conductance, VmV_m is the membrane potential, and ErevE_{\text{rev}} is the reversal potential; when VmV_m exceeds ErevE_{\text{rev}} (as during sodium-driven depolarization), the current amplifies inward flow, whereas VmV_m below ErevE_{\text{rev}} (as in potassium-mediated repolarization) promotes outward flow to dampen excitability. This driving force mechanism ensures precise control over spike initiation and termination. In the classic Hodgkin-Huxley model of the squid giant axon, specific reversal potential values—such as +55 mV for sodium and -72 mV for potassium—dictate the threshold for action potential firing and the extent of overshoot during spikes, demonstrating how these parameters shape the all-or-nothing nature of neuronal excitation. Pathophysiological alterations, such as mutations in ion channel genes that alter channel function, can disrupt this balance and neuronal excitability, contributing to conditions like epilepsy.

In Synaptic Transmission

In excitatory synapses, ionotropic glutamate receptors such as receptors mediate fast synaptic transmission with a reversal potential approximately 0 mV, arising from their comparable permeability to Na⁺ and K⁺ ions. This value is significantly more positive than the typical neuronal resting of around -70 mV, creating a substantial driving force for net inward current that generates depolarizing excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs) whenever the membrane potential is below the reversal potential. These EPSPs facilitate summation toward action potential thresholds, enabling effective neural communication in circuits like the hippocampus and cortex. In contrast, inhibitory synapses primarily involve GABA_A receptors, which are selectively permeable to Cl⁻ (and to a lesser extent HCO₃⁻), yielding a reversal potential near the Cl⁻ equilibrium potential (E_Cl) of approximately -70 mV in mature neurons. When the membrane potential exceeds this reversal potential, activation drives Cl⁻ influx, producing hyperpolarizing inhibitory postsynaptic potentials (IPSPs) that suppress excitability. However, if the resting potential is close to E_Cl, the synaptic conductance increase leads to shunting inhibition, where excitatory currents are short-circuited without significant voltage change, thereby reducing the efficacy of concurrent EPSPs. Biphasic synaptic responses emerge when membrane potential fluctuations during intense activity cross the , inverting the direction of synaptic current and altering integration dynamics. For instance, an initially hyperpolarizing IPSP from GABA_A activation may transition to depolarizing if the neuron depolarizes beyond E_Cl, impacting the temporal and spatial of inputs and potentially modulating network oscillations. This inversion highlights the reversal potential's role in fine-tuning synaptic efficacy under varying physiological conditions. The reversal potential for Cl⁻-permeable channels like GABA_A receptors is dynamically modulated by shifts in intracellular Cl⁻ concentration ([Cl⁻]_i), governed by the balance of cation-Cl⁻ cotransporters such as NKCC1 (which imports Cl⁻) and KCC2 (which exports Cl⁻). In developing neurons, elevated [Cl⁻]_i due to predominant NKCC1 expression shifts E_Cl positive to the , transforming responses from inhibitory to excitatory and promoting early network maturation, proliferation, and . This developmental switch to inhibitory function occurs as KCC2 expression rises, lowering [Cl⁻]_i and negating E_Cl during maturation. NMDA receptors at excitatory synapses also exhibit a reversal potential near 0 mV owing to their permeability to Na⁺, K⁺, and Ca²⁺, but their function is profoundly influenced by a voltage-dependent Mg²⁺ block at hyperpolarized potentials. This blockade prevents significant current flow near rest but is relieved by coincident from AMPA-mediated EPSPs, allowing Ca²⁺ influx critical for inducing (LTP) and synaptic strengthening. Thus, the reversal potential and associated gating mechanisms ensure NMDA receptors contribute to associative plasticity without basal noise.

Research Applications

Ion Channel Identification

The reversal potential (E_rev) serves as a key biophysical indicator for inferring the ionic permeability and selectivity of , allowing researchers to classify channels based on how closely E_rev matches the equilibrium potential (E_ion) of specific ions under controlled conditions. For instance, if the measured E_rev approximates the equilibrium potential (E_K ≈ -90 mV in typical neuronal recording solutions), this suggests high selectivity for K+ ions, as seen in many voltage-gated channels. Conversely, an E_rev near the sodium equilibrium potential (E_Na ≈ +60 mV) points to Na+-selective channels, such as voltage-gated sodium channels critical for initiation. This matching approach relies on the principle that E_rev represents the at which net ionic flux through the open channel is zero, reflecting the weighted average of permeable ions' equilibrium potentials according to their relative permeabilities. Channel types can be further distinguished by E_rev values combined with pharmacological sensitivity to specific blockers. Non-selective cation channels, often exhibiting E_rev ≈ 0 mV due to comparable permeability to Na+ and K+, can be differentiated from anion-selective channels, where E_rev aligns with the equilibrium potential (E_Cl ≈ -70 mV in many cells). For example, ligand-gated channels permeable to both cations and anions may show intermediate E_rev shifts, but application of selective blockers—like tetraethylammonium () for K+-conducting channels or for Cl--selective GABA_A receptors—confirms the identity by altering E_rev only if the blocker targets the dominant permeable . The Goldman-Hodgkin-Katz (GHK) voltage equation can briefly predict E_rev from relative permeabilities (P_ion ratios) to refine these classifications without direct flux measurements. In systems, such as oocytes or HEK293 cells, E_rev measurements confirm the functional identity of cloned ion channels by replicating expected selectivity profiles. For transient receptor potential (TRP) channels, into HEK cells followed by voltage-clamp recording of agonist-evoked currents reveals E_rev near 0 mV, indicating non-selective cation permeability, as demonstrated for (the receptor) where heat- or -activated currents reversed at approximately 0 mV in symmetrical solutions. This approach isolates channel properties from native cellular contexts, enabling precise typing of TRP family members like TRPV4, which also show cation-selective E_rev in expression. Historically, such techniques trace back to early experiments on (ACh) receptor channels at the , where shifts in reversal (from -15 mV toward 0 mV upon ion substitution) revealed mixed Na+/K+ permeability without significant Cl- conductance, establishing the non-selective cation nature of these channels. Advances in ion channel profiling integrate E_rev data with single-channel conductance measurements and gating kinetics obtained via patch-clamp , providing a comprehensive biophysical fingerprint. For example, while E_rev identifies permeability, concurrent analysis of unitary conductance (e.g., ~10 pS for many K+ channels) and voltage- or ligand-dependent gating distinguishes subtypes, as in the identification of delayed rectifier K+ channels. This multifaceted approach, pioneered in the with noise analysis and single-channel recording, enhances accuracy in classifying novel channels beyond E_rev alone. Recent techniques, such as cryo-electron (cryo-EM), allow prediction of E_rev from atomic models of channel pores, complementing electrophysiological measurements as of 2024.

Pharmacological Studies

Pharmacological studies employ reversal potential measurements to detect alterations in selectivity induced by drugs, as shifts in E_rev reflect changes in relative permeabilities. Using voltage-clamp techniques to generate current-voltage relationships, researchers observe how pharmacological agents modify the channel pore or binding sites, thereby adjusting permeability ratios such as P_Na/P_K or P_Ca/P_Na according to the Goldman-Hodgkin-Katz equation. These shifts provide insights into drug binding mechanisms and selectivity profiles, distinguishing between open-channel blockers, allosteric modulators, and agents that alter coordination within the pore. A key application involves drugs that change permeability ratios, leading to measurable E_rev shifts. For instance, in NMDA receptors—a ligand-gated cation channel—the ifenprodil reduces calcium permeability (P_Ca/P_monovalent) by stabilizing a low-Ca²⁺ state, influencing divalent ion flux and in neurological disorders without altering the reversal potential. Similarly, intracellular polyamines like in inward rectifier K⁺ channels (Kir) exert voltage-dependent block on outward currents, enhancing inward rectification and altering the I-V curve's slope near E_rev without substantially shifting the true E_rev from E_K; this block mimics pharmacological rectification and highlights endogenous regulation akin to drug effects. Reversal potential analysis also elucidates drug mechanisms by confirming agonist-induced conductances and block sites in ligand-gated channels. Application of agonists like glutamate to NMDA receptors or GABA to GABAA receptors activates specific ion fluxes, with E_rev matching the equilibrium potential of the permeant (e.g., ~0 mV for non-selective cation channels or E_Cl for anion-selective GABAA), verifying selectivity. Modulators that bind within the pore or at subunit interfaces can shift E_rev if they alter ion occupancy—for example, positive allosteric modulators increasing conductance without selectivity change maintain E_rev, while pore-blocking antagonists reduce current amplitude without shifting it, pinpointing extracellular versus intracellular block sites. In , leverages automated patch-clamp platforms to assay E_rev for modulators. These systems enable parallel recording from hundreds of cells, applying voltage ramps to derive I-V curves and quantify drug-induced changes in E_rev, conductance, and rectification—facilitating identification of selective blockers or openers with minimal false positives. For example, screening libraries against cardiac s detects compounds that block hERG K⁺ currents, aiding safety profiling for risk. This approach has accelerated development of subtype-specific therapeutics, with throughput exceeding 10,000 compounds per day in optimized setups. Recent AI-based frameworks, as of 2024, automate analysis of whole-cell recordings to characterize kinetics including E_rev shifts. Representative examples illustrate these principles in voltage-gated channels. Local anesthetics like lidocaine reduce Na⁺ permeability in voltage-gated Na⁺ channels by binding to the intracellular pore in the open state, decreasing inward current amplitude during repetitive firing; while primarily a use-dependent block without direct E_rev shift in pure Na⁺ solutions, in physiological mixtures, reduced Na⁺ dominance can effectively shift composite membrane potentials toward E_K, contributing to conduction slowing. Clinically, E_rev alterations or eliminations by toxins underscore pharmacological blockade mechanisms. (TTX), a potent Na⁺ channel blocker, occludes the outer pore of voltage-gated Na⁺ channels, abolishing Na⁺ currents without altering the intrinsic E_rev (~+50 mV); this complete suppression prevents toward E_rev, explaining TTX's role in paralyzing and muscle function, as seen in pufferfish poisoning and its use as a tool for isolating TTX-resistant isoforms in pain pathways.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/reversal-potential
  2. https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroscience/m/s1/chapter13.html
  3. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/aton-lab/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101/2020/01/document1.pdf
  4. https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroscience/s1/chapter04.html
  5. https://www.physiologyweb.com/lecture_notes/resting_membrane_potential/resting_membrane_potential_membrane_ionic_current_equations.html
  6. https://opentext.uoregon.edu/neurobiology/chapter/membrane-potential/
  7. https://openbooks.lib.msu.edu/neuroscience/chapter/membrane-potential/
  8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11013/
  9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11102/
  10. https://knowledge.electrochem.org/encycl/art-n02-nernst.htm
  11. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Chem1_(Lower)/16:_Electrochemistry/16.04:_The_Nernst_Equation
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5688357/
  13. https://www.physiologyweb.com/calculators/ghk_equation_calculator.html
  14. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Voltage_clamp
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/voltage-clamp-technique
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3424716/
  17. https://openbooks.lib.msu.edu/neuroscience/chapter/voltage-clamp/
  18. https://www.utdallas.edu/~tres/microelectrode/microelectrodes_ch02.pdf
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4735409/
  20. https://www.leica-microsystems.com/science-lab/life-science/the-patch-clamp-technique/
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/cell-attached-patch-clamp
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10190937/
  23. https://www.scientifica.uk.com/neurowire/labhacks-to-compensate-or-not-to-compensate-that-is-the-question
  24. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82077-8
  25. https://www.humboldt.edu/sites/default/files/psychology/2025-04/bo5.pdf
  26. https://www.researchgate.net/post/How-do-I-Calculate-Plot-a-Conductance-Voltage-Curve-from-Current-Voltage-Data
  27. https://rupress.org/jgp/article/118/5/457/45366/Gating-Kinetics-of-the-1i-T-Type-Calcium-Channel
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000634959877568X
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2290660/
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1557572/
  31. https://www.utdallas.edu/~tres/microelectrode/microelectrodes_ch03.pdf
  32. http://www.cell.com/neuron/pdf/S0896-6273%2804%2900364-2.pdf
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1572730/
  34. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538338/
  35. https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroscience/m/s1/chapter02.html
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5567559/
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627300803396
  38. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1381418/
  39. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627303002009
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0014488669900181
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627303000564
  42. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627316309576
  43. https://rupress.org/jgp/article/137/5/415/42916/Ion-selectivity-in-channels-and-transportersIon
  44. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adx1680
  45. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26910/
  46. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2511783122
  47. https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1432-1327.2000.01669.x
  48. https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/jphysiol.2003.054734
  49. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/44/20/e1392232024
  50. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03871-2
  51. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17460441.2020.1791079
  52. https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/advs.202404166
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3205381/
  54. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/571107/
  55. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/22/23/10277
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.