I'm doing patch-clamp recordings. Somebody suggested that I use K methylsulfonate instead of K gluconate. Why would that be better?
I remember a couple of papers one was from Peter Carlen's group and another more recent with Catherine C. Kaczorowski (not sure Disterhoft or Spruston's lab). Papers looked at stability of the responses in current clamp over time.
If you use the search term above and search "questions" for the term methanesulfonic several threads will popup.
Here is one discussed here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_baseline_went_up_after_whole_cell_configuration_with_KMeSO4-based_internal_solution_Can_anyone_recommend_a_solution
Here is another one: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_difference_bwteeen_potassium_sources_used_in_internal_solutions_for_whole_cell_patch_clamp
Now I am suggesting K-Gluconate over KMeSO3 (potassium methanesulfonate), so now you have a recommendation for each! God forbid someone should now suggest KMeSO4 (potassium methyl sulfate). In all seriousness, both should work well in most applications and the key is to choose one and be consistent throughout your study. I find at least for adult animal acute slice patch clamp recordings that the seal formation is reliably faster with K-Gluconate versus KMeSO3. Never understood why, but when gigaohm seals are forming quickly why ask why. When I worked in juvenile striatal slice it seemed most people in the field preferred KMeSO3, but I had good luck with K-Gluconate in my work. Still using the same basic recipe for many years now and having covered a wide variety of cell types, ages, and brain regions in mouse and human slices over that time.
There are a lot of intrapipette's solutions for patch-clamp recordings. You should chose it according to your task.
Maybe the best way is to use same solution, as was in papers, which your research is based on.
There have been reports that KGluconate blocks certain K channels. On the other hand, KMeSO3 may affect repetitive firing properties. So it depends on what electrical property you are studying, and it perhaps needs playing with both solutions. Obviously, if a low Raccess is not required, perforated-patch would be preferable since it has none of these issues.
Well since Jonathan made a pitch for K-gluc, I have to make a pitch for K-MeSO4. I agree that getting seals with K-gluc is easier and maybe better to learn with. However, the advantage of K-MeSO4 in my hands is two fold. First, when I was recording muscarinic-dependent afterdepolarizations I found that the ADP ran down very quickly with K-gluc but not with K-MeSO4 (I realize this is a specific situation). However, I also found that access resistance was lower with K-MeSO4 presumably due to the lower series resistance and increased mobility of MeSO4 over gluconate. In addition, gluconate buffers calcium Woehler et al., J. Physiol. 2014 and may precipitate in the patch pipette increasing the access resistance over time. Whatever the reason, I have had better luck with KMeSO4 for stable recordings.
The K-gluconate based internal works well for patching both young and old neurons. However it does precipitate in solution and may clog the recording pipettes what is quite annoying when happens during the experiment. Good luck!
What will happen when using K-MES or K-lactobionate?
(I am curious about it since they are used interchangeably with K-methanesulfonate in some mitochondrial assay buffers which essentially try to mimic intracellular conditions as well: https://wiki.oroboros.at/images/d/d9/MiPNet14.13_Medium-MiR06.pdf)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India