Skip to main content
Log in

The Madin Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) Epithelial Cell Monolayer as a Model Cellular Transport Barrier

  • Published:
Pharmaceutical Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two strains of Madin Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells were grown on a polycarbonate membrane with 3-µm pores without any extracellular matrix treatment. The membrane, 2.45 cm in diameter, which is part of a commercially obtained presterilized culture insert, provides two chambers when placed in a regular six-well culture plate. This device was found to be convenient for investigating transport of a few selected fluid-phase markers across the MDCK cell monolayer. Both the strain from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) and the so-called highly resistant strain I, at a serial passage between 65 and 70, showed a seeding concentration-dependent lag phase followed by a growth phase with a 21-hr doubling time. When seeded at 5 × 104 cells/cm2, cell confluence was achieved in 5 days in a modified Eagle's minimum essential medium (MEM) containing 10% fetal bovine serum under a 5% CO2 atmosphere. Similarly, transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) also reached a plateau value in 5 days. Both light and electron microscopic examinations revealed well-defined junctional structures. Transport of the fluid-phase markers, sucrose, lucifer yellow CH (LY), inulin, and dextran across the MDCK cell monolayers was studied primarily at 37°C following the apical-to-basolateral as well as the basolateral-to-apical direction. Large variations in the steady-state transport rate were observed for a given marker between the cell layer preparations. Thus, the present study proposes an “internal standard” procedure for meaningful comparisons of the transport rate. When normalized to the rate of sucrose, the rate ratio was 1.00:0.80:0.67:0.15 for sucrose:LY:inulin:dextran. This ratio was virtually independent of temperature, cell strain, direction of the marker migration, and TEER value, suggesting a common transport mechanism. The observed rate ratio appears to reflect molecular size and charge. The transport observed in the present study would consist, in theory, of both paracellular shunt and transcellular vesicular transport. Quantitative assessment of each transport mechanism in the overall transport has been difficult. The initial uptake of [3H]dextran estimated for the slowest transport observed in the present study was still 300-fold faster than a literature value. This appears to indicate that the transport observed in the present study is largely through the paracellular shunt pathway.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. M. H. Friedman. Principles and Models of Biological Transport, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986, pp. 134–157, 193–234.

    Google Scholar 

  2. J. M. Besterman and R. B. Low. Biochem. J. 210:1–13 (1983) (and references therein).

    Google Scholar 

  3. D. S. Misfeldt, S. T. Hamamoto, and D. R. Pitelka. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 73:1212–1216 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  4. M. Cereijido, E. S. Robbins, W. J. Dolan, C. A. Rotunno, and D. D. Sabatini. J. Cell Biol. 77:853–880 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. C. W. Richardson, V. Scalera, and N. L. Simmons. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 673:26–36 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  6. N. L. Simmons. J. Membrane Biol. 59:105–114 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  7. D. Louvard. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 77:4132–4136 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  8. S. Fernandez-Castello, J. J. Bolivar, R. Lopez-Vancell, G. Beaty, and M. Cereijido. In M. Taub (ed.), Tissue Culture of Epithelial Cells, Plenum Press, New York, 1985, pp. 37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  9. C. H. von Bonsdorff, S. D. Fuller, and K. Simons EMBO J. 4:2781–2792 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  10. A. M. Pitt, J. E. Gabriels, F. Badmington, J. McDowell, L. Gonzales, and M. E. Waugh. Biotech. 5:162–171 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  11. R. F. Husted, M. J. Welch, and J. B. Stokes. Am. J. Physiol. 250:C214–C221 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. A. Swanson, B. D. Yirinec, and S. C. Silverstein. J. Cell Biol. 100:851–859 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  13. M. B. Furie, B. L. Naprstek, and S. C. Silverstein. J. Cell Sci. 88:161–175 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. Taub and M. H. Saier, Jr. Methods Enzymol. LVIII:552–560 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  15. L. Gonzalez-Mariscal, L. Borboa, R. Lopez-Vancell, G. Beaty, and M. Cereijido. In M. Taub (ed.), Tissue Culture of Epithelial Cells, Plenum Press, New York, 1985, pp. 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  16. T. E. Phillips, T. L. Phillips, and M. R. Neutra. Cell Tissue Res. 247:547–554 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  17. M. J. Buckmaster, D. L. Braico, A. L. Ferris, and B. Storrie. Cell Biol. Int. Rep. 11:501–507 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  18. S. I. Rapoport. Blood-Brain Barrier in Physiology and Medicine, Raven Press, New York, 1976, p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  19. J. L. Madara, D. Barenberg, and S. Carlson. J. Cell Biol. 102:2125–2136 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cho, M.J., Thompson, D.P., Cramer, C.T. et al. The Madin Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) Epithelial Cell Monolayer as a Model Cellular Transport Barrier. Pharm Res 6, 71–77 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015807904558

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015807904558

Navigation