Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journal of Physiology logoLink to The Journal of Physiology
. 1982 Jan;322:257–272. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1982.sp014036

Desensitization at the frog neuromuscular junction: a biphasic process

Anne Feltz 1,*, Alain Trautmann 1
PMCID: PMC1249669  PMID: 6978400

Abstract

1. The desensitization of the cholinergic receptor has been investigated at the frog neuromuscular junction. The agonist was either perfused or applied by ionophoresis.

2. In all situations, desensitization develops in two phases: a fast one, experimentally in the second range but likely to be briefer, and a slower one, which extends over tens of seconds.

3. When the presence of the agonist is prolonged, desensitization approaches a steady state, estimated through the amplitude of a test response. In steady-state conditions, this amplitude depends upon the desensitizing agonist concentration. The dose—response curve for desensitization induced by carbachol (CCh) indicates that half of the receptors can be desensitized at room temperature in the presence of 2·3 μm-CCh. The shape of the curve suggests that one desensitized receptor can bind two CCh molecules.

4. The recovery from desensitization, estimated with a repetitive test pulse, displays two exponential phases. The time constant of the fast phase is 11-12 sec, and 4-5 min for the slow phase, regardless of the concentration or the nature of the agonist (acetylcholine or carbachol).

5. The factor which most strikingly affects the relative amplitudes of the fast and slow phases of recovery is the duration of the (desensitizing) agonist application. Desensitizations lasting a few seconds are followed by a `fast' recovery, whereas the slow phase of recovery is prominent when the agonist has been applied for more than 2 min.

6. The fast and slow phases of desensitization onset and offset are not due to independent causes but are coupled: in given conditions, the onset can be essentially fast, and the recovery slow.

7. All our findings can fit in a cyclic scheme of desensitization, derived from the one of Katz & Thesleff (1957) with two modifications: whether activatable or desensitized, one receptor molecule would have two agonist binding sites; moreover, the desensitized receptor would exist in two distinct and interconverting conformations: D1, giving rise to the fast phases of onset and offset, and D2, responsible for the existence of the slow components of desensitization.

Full text

PDF
257

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Adams P. R. A study of desensitization using voltage clamp. Pflugers Arch. 1975 Oct 28;360(2):135–144. doi: 10.1007/BF00580536. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Anwyl R., Narahashi T. Desensitization of the acetylcholine receptor of denervated rat soleus muscle and the effect of calcium. Br J Pharmacol. 1980 May;69(1):91–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.1980.tb10886.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dionne V. E., Steinbach J. H., Stevens C. F. An analysis of the dose-response relationship at voltage-clamped frog neuromuscular junctions. J Physiol. 1978 Aug;281:421–444. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1978.sp012431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Eldefrawi M. E., Aronstam R. S., Bakry N. M., Eldefrawi A. T., Albuquerque E. X. Activation, inactivation, and desensitization of acetylcholine receptor channel complex detected by binding of perhydrohistrionicotoxin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1980 Apr;77(4):2309–2313. doi: 10.1073/pnas.77.4.2309. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Feltz A., Trautmann A. Interaction between nerve-related acetylcholine and bath applied agonists at the frog end-plate. J Physiol. 1980 Feb;299:533–552. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1980.sp013141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Heidmann T., Changeux J. P. Interaction of a fluorescent agonist with the membrane-bound acetylcholine receptor from Torpedo marmorata in the millisecond time range: resolution of an "intermediate" conformational transition and evidence for positive cooperative effects. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1980 Dec 16;97(3):889–896. doi: 10.1016/0006-291x(80)91460-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. KATZ B., MILEDI R. THE MEASUREMENT OF SYNAPTIC DELAY, AND THE TIME COURSE OF ACETYLCHOLINE RELEASE AT THE NEUROMUSCULAR JUNCTION. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1965 Feb 16;161:483–495. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1965.0016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. KATZ B., THESLEFF S. A study of the desensitization produced by acetylcholine at the motor end-plate. J Physiol. 1957 Aug 29;138(1):63–80. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1957.sp005838. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Magazanik L. G., Vyskocit F. The effect of temperature on desensitization kinetics at the post-synaptic membrane of the frog muscle fibre. J Physiol. 1975 Jul;249(2):285–300. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1975.sp011016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Neubig R. R., Cohen J. B. Permeability control by cholinergic receptors in Torpedo postsynaptic membranes: agonist dose-response relations measured at second and millisecond times. Biochemistry. 1980 Jun 10;19(12):2770–2779. doi: 10.1021/bi00553a036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Raftery M. A., Hunkapiller M. W., Strader C. D., Hood L. E. Acetylcholine receptor: complex of homologous subunits. Science. 1980 Jun 27;208(4451):1454–1456. doi: 10.1126/science.7384786. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Rang H. P. Drug receptors and their function. Nature. 1971 May 14;231(5298):91–96. doi: 10.1038/231091a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Rang H. P., Ritter J. M. On the mechanism of desensitization at cholinergic receptors. Mol Pharmacol. 1970 Jul;6(4):357–382. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sakmann B., Patlak J., Neher E. Single acetylcholine-activated channels show burst-kinetics in presence of desensitizing concentrations of agonist. Nature. 1980 Jul 3;286(5768):71–73. doi: 10.1038/286071a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Scubon-Mulieri B., Parsons R. L. Desensitization onset and recovery at the potassium-depolarized frog neuromuscular junction are voltage sensitive. J Gen Physiol. 1978 Mar;71(3):285–299. doi: 10.1085/jgp.71.3.285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. TAUC L., GERSCHENFELD H. M. A cholinergic mechanism of inhibitory synaptic transmission in a molluscan nervous system. J Neurophysiol. 1962 Mar;25:236–262. doi: 10.1152/jn.1962.25.2.236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Vigny M., Bon S., Massoulié J., Leterrier F. Active-site catalytic efficiency of acetylcholinesterase molecular forms in Electrophorus, torpedo, rat and chicken. Eur J Biochem. 1978 Apr 17;85(2):317–323. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1978.tb12241.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Weber M., David-Pfeuty T., Changeux J. P. Regulation of binding properties of the nicotinic receptor protein by cholinergic ligands in membrane fragments from Torpedo marmorata. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1975 Sep;72(9):3443–3447. doi: 10.1073/pnas.72.9.3443. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Weiland G., Georgia B., Wee V. T., Chignell C. F., Taylor P. Ligand interactions with cholinergic receptor-enriched membranes from Torpedo: influence of agonist exposure on receptor properties. Mol Pharmacol. 1976 Nov;12(6):1091–1105. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Physiology are provided here courtesy of The Physiological Society

RESOURCES