Fig. 2.
Effect of holding potential on inhibition by isoflurane of three major voltage-gated Na+ channel isoforms. Na+ currents were evoked from holding potentials of −100 or −70 mV by 25-ms test steps to Vmax: 0 mV for Nav1.2, −10 mV for Nav1.4, and −30 mV for Nav1.5. (A) Isoflurane (approximately 0.8 mm) significantly inhibited all three isoforms from both holding potentials, but to different degrees. Normalized peak INa was fitted to the Hill equation. All three isoforms were more sensitive to isoflurane from a holding potential of −70 mV, which is near normal resting potential. (B) Representative current traces. (C) Nav1.5 was most sensitive to isoflurane at a holding potential of −70 mV, but least sensitive to isoflurane at −100 mV, whereas Nav1.2 was most sensitive to isoflurane at −100 mV and least sensitive at −70 mV. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM, n = 3–17. **P< 0.01; ***P< 0.001 by one-way analysis of variance with Newman-Keulspost hoctest (C) or by unpairedttest (A).

Effect of holding potential on inhibition by isoflurane of three major voltage-gated Na+ channel isoforms. Na+ currents were evoked from holding potentials of −100 or −70 mV by 25-ms test steps to Vmax: 0 mV for Nav1.2, −10 mV for Nav1.4, and −30 mV for Nav1.5. (A) Isoflurane (approximately 0.8 mm) significantly inhibited all three isoforms from both holding potentials, but to different degrees. Normalized peak INa was fitted to the Hill equation. All three isoforms were more sensitive to isoflurane from a holding potential of −70 mV, which is near normal resting potential. (B) Representative current traces. (C) Nav1.5 was most sensitive to isoflurane at a holding potential of −70 mV, but least sensitive to isoflurane at −100 mV, whereas Nav1.2 was most sensitive to isoflurane at −100 mV and least sensitive at −70 mV. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM, n = 3–17. **P< 0.01; ***P< 0.001 by one-way analysis of variance with Newman-Keulspost hoctest (C) or by unpairedttest (A).

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal