Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journal of Physiology logoLink to The Journal of Physiology
. 1972 Feb;221(1):121–136. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1972.sp009743

Analysis of the membrane capacity in frog muscle

A L Hodgkin, S Nakajima
PMCID: PMC1331324  PMID: 5016975

Abstract

1. The membrane capacity (Cf) was determined from the conduction velocity and the time constant of the foot of the action potential in frog's skeletal muscle.

2. In normal fibres Cf was 2·6 μF/cm2, and the value was almost constant over a range of diameter from 55 to 140 μ.

3. In fibres, in which the transverse tubular system was disconnected from the surface by the glycerol treatment, Cf was 0·9 μF/cm2 and was fairly constant over a range of diameter from 60 to 130 μ. The low frequency capacity in glycerol-treated fibres was 1·9 μF/cm2.

4. These results as well as those obtained at low frequencies were consistent with the electrical model proposed by Adrian, Chandler & Hodgkin (1969).

5. Analysis in terms of the model and of Peachey's (1965) data on tubular dimensions led to the following quantitative conclusions. The capacities of the surface membrane (CS) and of the tubular wall (CW) are both about 1 μF/cm2. The conductances of the surface membrane (GS) and tubular wall (GW) are ca. 0·11 and 0·03 mmho/cm2, respectively. The conductivity of the luminal fluid in the tubules is ca. 6 mmho/cm.

Full text

PDF
121

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Adrian R. H., Chandler W. K., Hodgkin A. L. The kinetics of mechanical activation in frog muscle. J Physiol. 1969 Sep;204(1):207–230. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1969.sp008909. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Adrian R. H., Costantin L. L., Peachey L. D. Radial spread of contraction in frog muscle fibres. J Physiol. 1969 Sep;204(1):231–257. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1969.sp008910. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cole K. S., Curtis H. J. ELECTRIC IMPEDANCE OF NITELLA DURING ACTIVITY. J Gen Physiol. 1938 Sep 20;22(1):37–64. doi: 10.1085/jgp.22.1.37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Eisenberg R. S., Gage P. W. Ionic conductances of the surface and transverse tubular membranes of frog sartorius fibers. J Gen Physiol. 1969 Mar;53(3):279–297. doi: 10.1085/jgp.53.3.279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. FALK G., FATT P. LINEAR ELECTRICAL PROPERTIES OF STRIATED MUSCLE FIBRES OBSERVED WITH INTRACELLULAR ELECTRODES. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1964 Apr 14;160:69–123. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1964.0030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Falk G. Predicted delays in the activation of the contractile system. Biophys J. 1968 May;8(5):608–625. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(68)86511-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Freygang W. H., Jr, Rapoport S. I., Peachey L. D. Some relations between changes in the linear electrical properties of striated muscle fibers and changes in ultrastructure. J Gen Physiol. 1967 Nov;50(10):2437–2458. doi: 10.1085/jgp.50.10.2437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Gage P. W., Eisenberg R. S. Action potentials, afterpotentials, and excitation-contraction coupling in frog sartorius fibers without transverse tubules. J Gen Physiol. 1969 Mar;53(3):298–310. doi: 10.1085/jgp.53.3.298. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gage P. W., Eisenberg R. S. Capacitance of the surface and transverse tubular membrane of frog sartorius muscle fibers. J Gen Physiol. 1969 Mar;53(3):265–278. doi: 10.1085/jgp.53.3.265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. HODGKIN A. L. A note on conduction velocity. J Physiol. 1954 Jul 28;125(1):221–224. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1954.sp005152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. HODGKIN A. L., HOROWICZ P. The effect of sudden changes in ionic concentrations on the membrane potential of single muscle fibres. J Physiol. 1960 Sep;153:370–385. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1960.sp006540. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. HODGKIN A. L., HUXLEY A. F. A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. J Physiol. 1952 Aug;117(4):500–544. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1952.sp004764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hodgkin A. L., Nakajima S. The effect of diameter on the electrical constants of frog skeletal muscle fibres. J Physiol. 1972 Feb;221(1):105–120. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1972.sp009742. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hodgkin A. L. The membrane resistance of a non-medullated nerve fibre. J Physiol. 1947 Jul 31;106(3):305–318. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1947.sp004214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hodgkin A. L. The relation between conduction velocity and the electrical resistance outside a nerve fibre. J Physiol. 1939 Jan 14;94(4):560–570. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1939.sp003702. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Peachey L. D. The sarcoplasmic reticulum and transverse tubules of the frog's sartorius. J Cell Biol. 1965 Jun;25(3 Suppl):209–231. doi: 10.1083/jcb.25.3.209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Schneider M. F. Linear electrical properties of the transverse tubules and surface membrane of skeletal muscle fibers. J Gen Physiol. 1970 Nov;56(5):640–671. doi: 10.1085/jgp.56.5.640. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. TASAKI I., HAGIWARA S. Capacity of muscle fiber membrane. Am J Physiol. 1957 Mar;188(3):423–429. doi: 10.1152/ajplegacy.1957.188.3.423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Physiology are provided here courtesy of The Physiological Society

RESOURCES