| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
yfangl097543
Joined: 22 Jun 2007 Posts: 25
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:04 pm Post subject: Question 20 |
|
|
| I don't understand why the K+ has to move with the Cl-. I thought that answer A was plausible because there is excess negative charge on the side with the negatively charged proteins, so that the K+ would move to that side to neutralize the excess negative charge. Isn't that an electrochemical gradient? Why is the movement of Cl- required for the movement of K+? It seems that most of the Cl- wouldn't want to move to the side of the excess negative charge anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
admin Site Admin
Joined: 08 Dec 2003 Posts: 2176
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Consider question 19 and its explanation. At the beginning, there is no electrical gradient but then there is a net movement of Cl- moving from Y to X down its chemical gradient. The moment that one Cl- moves from Y to X, that forms the basis for why K+ would move from Y to X. You can argue that K+ is simply going down an electrical gradient (which is what you mentioned); however, it is clearly moving against its chemical gradient thus answer choice A would be incorrect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wallstng1442
Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Posts: 19
|
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why can't an active transport mechanism be a likely explanation? If a solute is moving from an area of lower concentration to one of greater concentration, I'm thinking active transport. I understand the reasoning for the keyed answer, but how am I to know to use the previous question's answer for this one (especially since I got the previous question wrong!)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
admin Site Admin
Joined: 08 Dec 2003 Posts: 2176
|
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Why can't an active transport mechanism be a likely explanation? If a solute is moving from an area of lower concentration to one of greater concentration, I'm thinking active transport. |
Exactly! But that is not the situation that was described. It's not saying that K went from low to high. Instead we see that both sides are equal in [K+] then we are told that at equilibrium (a word normally used to refer to a reaction which is spontaneous in both directions) there is an imbalance of [K+].
| Quote: | | I understand the reasoning for the keyed answer, but how am I to know to use the previous question's answer for this one (especially since I got the previous question wrong!)? |
Actually, the Explanation for Q20 referred to Q19 only to save time and avoid repetition. Even if there was no Q19, you would be expected to be able to determine the answer for Q20.
Last edited by admin on Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:00 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
asfino12217
Joined: 13 Aug 2008 Posts: 17
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| why can't k+ move to x because of the electrical gradient? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jonathan.g4101
Joined: 07 Jun 2009 Posts: 1
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
but electrochemical gradient is comprised of the combination of electrical and chemical gradient.
If something moves passively it is because of electrochemical gradient, regardless if it is up concentration gradient. That would only mean that the electrical gradient outweighs the chemical gradient. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pperng4757
Joined: 02 Jul 2009 Posts: 1
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jonathan.g4101 wrote: | but electrochemical gradient is comprised of the combination of electrical and chemical gradient.
If something moves passively it is because of electrochemical gradient, regardless if it is up concentration gradient. That would only mean that the electrical gradient outweighs the chemical gradient. |
Exactly, I agree...I may have skimmed, but why isn't A a sufficient response then? Plus, the NET movement of Cl- ions is to the right into Y, so by the same logic, K+ could follow those Cl- ions back into compartment Y... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jellywing_2058
Joined: 04 May 2009 Posts: 179
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
As admin pointed it out, the K+ goes down the electrical gradient, but NOT down the chemical gradient.
Option A says
| Quote: | | some K+ diffused across the membrane from Y to X along an electrochemical gradient. |
This is false as you even said, electrochemical gradient is a combination of both the electrical and the chemical gradient. Therefore Option A is eliminated |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
quadalpha
Joined: 21 Feb 2010 Posts: 65
|
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jellywing_2058 wrote: | As admin pointed it out, the K+ goes down the electrical gradient, but NOT down the chemical gradient.
Option A says
| Quote: | | some K+ diffused across the membrane from Y to X along an electrochemical gradient. |
This is false as you even said, electrochemical gradient is a combination of both the electrical and the chemical gradient. Therefore Option A is eliminated |
Actually, an electrochemical gradient is the summation of electrostatic and chemical effects.
A and C say essentially the same thing, except "moved with" is hardly a scientific term. Is the suggestion that K+ ions are somehow associated (ionically?) with Cl- ions? That idea doesn't really hold up. So are we then saying that the K+ ions are generally attracted to the more negative region? In this case, the system forms a transient electrochemical gradient. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nemil.shah3570
Joined: 09 Apr 2010 Posts: 1
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does "the negative charge of a nondiffusible anion hinders diffusion of the diffusible cations and favors diffusion of the diffusible anions" (from the passage Paragraph 2 Sentence 2) hinder the K+ from diffusing across its electrical gradient?
So K+ wouldn't be able to move across the membrane? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
admin Site Admin
Joined: 08 Dec 2003 Posts: 2176
|
Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The presence of proteins would hinder the diffusion of K from X to Y, not from Y to X. That is why the normal concentration of K is higher inside the cell, compared with the extracellular fluid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|