MCAT


 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Question 20

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    mcat-prep.com Forum Index -> GS-6 Biological Sciences
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
yfangl097543



Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 25

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:04 pm    Post subject: Question 20 Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 2176

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
wallstng1442



Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with 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. 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
View user's profile Send private message
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 2176

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
asfino12217



Joined: 13 Aug 2008
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

why can't k+ move to x because of the electrical gradient?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jonathan.g4101



Joined: 07 Jun 2009
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
pperng4757



Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
jellywing_2058



Joined: 04 May 2009
Posts: 179

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
quadalpha



Joined: 21 Feb 2010
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
nemil.shah3570



Joined: 09 Apr 2010
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 2176

PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    mcat-prep.com Forum Index -> GS-6 Biological Sciences All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
phpBB SEO