scholarly journals Cholinergic modulation of electrosensory processing in the electrosensory lateral line lobe of Apteronotus leptorhynchus

Author(s):  
Krahe Rüdiger
1998 ◽  
Vol 80 (6) ◽  
pp. 3173-3196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil J. Berman ◽  
Leonard Maler

Berman, Neil J. and Leonard Maler. Inhibition evoked from primary afferents in the electrosensory lateral line lobe of the weakly electric fish ( Apteronotus leptorhynchus). J. Neurophysiol. 80: 3173–3196, 1998. The responses of two types of projection neurons of the electrosensory lateral line lobe, basilar (BP) and nonbasilar (NBP) pyramidal cells, to stimulation of primary electrosensory afferents were determined in the weakly electric fish, Apteronotus leptorhynchus. Using dyes to identify cell type, the response of NBP cells to stimulation of primary afferents was inhibitory, whereas the response of BP cells was excitation followed by inhibition. γ-Aminobutyric acid (GABA) applications produced biphasic (depolarization then hyperpolarization) responses in most cells. GABAA antagonists blocked the depolarizing effect of GABA and reduced the hyperpolarizing effect. The GABAB antagonists weakly antagonized the hyperpolarizing effect. The early depolarization had a larger increase in cell conductance than the late hyperpolarization. The conductance changes were voltage dependent, increasing with depolarization. In both cell types, baclofen produced a slow small hyperpolarization and reduced the inhibitory postsynaptic potentials (IPSPs) evoked by primary afferent stimulation. Tetanic stimulation of primary afferents at physiological rates (100–200 Hz) produced strongly summating compound IPSPs (∼500-ms duration) in NBP cells, which were usually sensitive to GABAA but not GABAB antagonists; in some cells there remained a slow IPSP that was unaffected by GABAB antagonists. BP cells responded with excitatory or mixed excitatory + inhibitory responses. The inhibitory response had both a fast (∼30 ms, GABAA) and long-lasting slow phase (∼800 ms, mostly blocked by GABAA antagonists). In some cells there was a GABAA antagonist-insensitive slow IPSP (∼500 ms) that was sensitive to GABAB antagonists. Application of glutamate ionotropic receptor antagonists blocked the inhibitory response of NBP cells to primary afferent stimulation and the excitatory response of BP cells but enhanced the BP cell slow IPSP; this remaining slow IPSP was reduced by GABAB antagonists. Unit recordings in the granule cell layer and computer simulations of pyramidal cell inhibition suggested that the duration of the slow GABAA inhibition reflects the prolonged firing of GABAergic granule cell interneurons to primary afferent input. Correlation of the results with known GABAergic circuitry in the electrosensory lobe suggests that the GABAergic type 2 granule cell input to both pyramidal cell types is via GABAA receptors. The properties of the GC2 GABAA input are well suited to their putative role in gain control, regulation of phasicness, and coincidence detection. The slow GABAB IPSP evoked in BP cells is likely due to ovoid cell input to their basal dendrites.


Author(s):  
K. Hama

The lateral line organs of the sea eel consist of canal and pit organs which are different in function. The former is a low frequency vibration detector whereas the latter functions as an ion receptor as well as a mechano receptor.The fine structure of the sensory epithelia of both organs were studied by means of ordinary transmission electron microscope, high voltage electron microscope and of surface scanning electron microscope.The sensory cells of the canal organ are polarized in front-caudal direction and those of the pit organ are polarized in dorso-ventral direction. The sensory epithelia of both organs have thinner surface coats compared to the surrounding ordinary epithelial cells, which have very thick fuzzy coatings on the apical surface.


Author(s):  
Edward D. DeLamater ◽  
Walter R. Courtenay ◽  
Cecil Whitaker

Comparative scanning electron microscopy studies of fish scales of different orders, families, genera and species within genera have demonstrated differences which warrant elaboration. These differences in detail appear to be sufficient to act as “fingerprints”, at least, for family differences. To date, the lateral line scales have been primarily studied. These demonstrate differences in the lateral line canals; the pattern of ridging with or without secondary protuberances along the edges; the pattern of spines or their absence on the anterior border of the scales; the presence or absence of single or multiple holes on the ventral and dorsal sides of the lateral line canal covers. The distances between the ridges in the pattern appear likewise to be important.A statement of fish scale structure and a comparison of family and species differences will be presented.The authors wish to thank Dr. Donald Marzalek and Mr. Wallace Charm of the Marine and Atmospheric Laboratory of the University of Miami and Dr. Sheldon Moll and Dr. Richard Turnage of AMR for their exhaustive help in these preliminary studies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document