More than three decades years ago, Aharon Katchalsky and Ora Kedem (1958, 1962) pointed out that the essence of biological transport is coupling. This insight was not so much a deduction as a concise summary of observations. At an elementary level, movement of a solute in the simplest aqueous solution implies movement of a hydration shell, and therefore movement of water, thence coupling of water movement to solute movement. In biological systems, for our present purposes specifically in biomembranes, more complex coupling mechanisms were clearly perceived, albeit largely without mechanistic understanding. The necessary response of these and other physically oriented biologists was to seek an understanding of coupling processes, along with formal descriptions, in the familiar language of thermodynamics. Their effort produced an elegant systematic statement of transport coupling, in the so-called Kedem equation (Kedem, 1961; see Gerencser and Stevens, 1994):
formula
stating that any species (S) of ion or molecule capable of flow (J) across a biological membrane may do so under the influence of several categories of driving force: that due to thermal agitation acting on a concentration difference S, that due to an electric field ( ), that due to water flow (JW) and drag, that due to chemical/physical interaction with other transiting ions or molecules (JA, JB, …) and that due to chemical coupling with metabolic reactions (JR). This formalism neatly solved a major conceptual problem of the time, i.e. how to define (primary) active transport in an unequivocal and still useful way: as endergonic transport due to coupling with JR alone, where the coupled exergonic reaction would provide the driving energy. [In this version of the Kedem equation, Rs is the resistance to movement of the solute, S; and RSW, RSA, RSB…, are the operational resistances of the membrane to the coupled flows.] A logical spin-off of this exercise was another useful definition, that of secondary active transport: i.e. transport of S coupled to JW,JA, JB, etc.), wherein S moves up its electrochemical gradient (usually concentrated into cytoplasm) at the expense of downhill movement of W, A, B, etc. Passive transport was taken by default as being due to ΔμS, or Ψ, with both of these resultant flows being exergonic and requiring no other input of energy.

We have progressed a very long way in the past 35 years, to the point where we know that all of these processes are mediated rather specifically by proteins, and where we know the primary structures (amino acid sequences) of tens to hundreds of proteins in each category. One of the major generalities that has emerged during this progress is that the great functional diversity of active transport processes existing among living systems is based mainly on mechanisms in the fourth category: protein-mediated coupling between different species of transiting ions and molecules. That is the central subject of this volume, which has been assembled to provide a comprehensive, contemporary review of coupled transport and the responsible transporter proteins.

The volume is directed to scientists working in membrane transport and related areas, to graduate students and advanced undergraduate students seeking a broad purview of the subject, and to other investigators and would-be investigators seeking a view across the new frontier of Molecular Physiology. Contributers were chosen by the Editorial Board of the Journal of Experimental Biology and were selected for their accomplishments in the field, for their clarity of presentation and for their breadth of coverage in ensemble. The articles are arranged into seven chapters, each with a short introduction to put the chapter topics into a general perspective; moreover, most of the articles themselves begin with cogent background to their specific material. All of the articles were written in the period January–June, 1994.

A major difficulty in reading the literature of transport coupling proteins, particularly on first appproach, is a somewhat skeltered and redundant terminology, which arose as the field grew up among two quite separated groups of investigators. First, medically oriented researchers – exploiting such traditional model systems as the frog skin or toad bladder, and clinically related tissues such as red blood cells, kidney, gut and brain – adopted ‘exchange diffusion’ (Ussing, 1947), ‘ion exchange’ and later the term ‘countertransport’ for coupling in which the separate ionic (or molecular) species move in opposite directions through the biomembrane; they used the term ‘cotransport’ (Crane, 1965) for coupled movement of two species in the same direction. Later, bioenergeticists and microbial physiologists – inspired by Peter Mitchell’s insightful work on mitochondria and chloroplasts (e.g. Mitchell, 1972) and by the rapid development of molecular studies on bacterial transporters, particularly the lactose permease (Kaback, 1974; Newman and Wilson, 1980) – adopted the more compact terms ‘antiport’ and ‘symport’ for countertransport and cotransport; and adopted the related term ‘uniport’ (in favor of ‘facilitated diffusion’) for protein-mediated transfer of a single species of ion or molecule.

Multiple terminologies have likewise been used in reference to membrane electrical variables: for example, ‘P.D.’, ‘membrane potential’, ‘membrane voltage’, Vm, Em, and ΔΨ, for the transmembrane difference of electrical potential. Since most coupled transporters move ionic charges through biological membranes and therefore must interact with the membrane’s electric field, this multiplicity too is cumbersome.

In order to minimize the reader’s confusion due to these and other purely semantic problems, we have set down a list of preferred terms in Tables 1 and 2 and have asked contributing authors to adhere to them as closely as possible and, when variant terms are deemed necessary, to indicate the corresponding form in the table upon first use of each particular variant. A table of these terms has been compiled previously (Harold, 1986) and they are discussed more fully in Wolfersberger (1994).

Crane
,
R. K.
(
1965
).
Na+-dependent transport in the intestine and other animal tissues
.
Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol.
24
,
1000
1006
.
Gerencser
,
G. A.
and
Stevens
,
B. R.
(
1994
).
Thermodynamics of symport and antiport catalysed by cloned or native transporters
.
J. exp. Biol.
196
,
59
75
.
Harold
,
F. M.
(
1986
).
The Vital Force: A Study of Bioenergetics
.
577
pp.
New York
:
W. H. Freeman and Co
.
Kaback
,
H. R.
(
1974
).
Transport studies in bacterial membrane vesicles
.
Science
186
,
882
892
.
Katchalsky
,
A.
and
Kedem
,
O.
(
1962
).
Thermodynamics of flow processes in biological systems
.
Biophys. J.
2
(
Suppl
.),
53
78
.
Kedem
,
O.
(
1961
).
Criteria of active transport
. In
Membrane Transport and Metabolism
(ed
A.
Kleinzeller
and
A.
Kotyk
), pp.
87
93
.
Prague
:
Academia Publishing House
.
Kedem
,
O.
and
Katchalsky
,
A.
(
1958
).
Thermodynamic analysis of the permeability of biological membranes to non-electrolytes
.
Biochim. biophys. Acta
27
,
229
246
.
Mitchell
,
P.
(
1961
).
Coupling of phosphorylation to electron and hydrogen transfer by a chemi-osmotic type of mechanism
.
Nature
191
,
144
148
.
Mitchell
,
P.
(
1972
).
Performance and conservation of osmotic work by proton-coupled solute porter systems
.
Bioenergetics
4
,
265
293
.
Newman
,
M. J.
and
Wilson
,
T. H.
(
1980
).
Solubilization and reconstitution of the lactose transport system from Escherichia coli
.
J. biol. Chem.
255
,
10583
10586
.
Ussing
,
H.
(
1947
).
Interpretation of the exchange of radio-sodium in isolated muscle
.
Nature
160
,
262
.
Wolfersberger
,
M. G.
(
1994
).
Uniporters, symporters and antiporters
.
J. exp. Biol.
196
,
5
6
.