Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journal of Physiology logoLink to The Journal of Physiology
. 1976 Jan;254(1):87–107. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1976.sp011223

Electrical responses to frog taste cells to chemical stimuli.

N Akaike, A Noma, M Sato
PMCID: PMC1309182  PMID: 1082505

Abstract

1. Cells inside a fungiform papilla of the frog tongue were impaled with a glass capillary micro-electrode filled with 3 M-KCl. Cells considered to be taste cells showed a resting potential of about -35 mV and an input resistance of 17 Momega on the average. 2. Application of chemical stimuli such as salts, acids and quinine produced a sustained depolarization in a taste cell, the magnitude of depolarization being dependent on the stimulus concentration. Water and weak NaCl solution yielded a hyperpolarization. The thresholds for depolarization as well as the concentration-response relationships for various chemical stimuli in taste cells are in approximate agreement with those determined from the glossopharyngeal nerve responses. 3. The magnitude of depolarization produced by 0-1 M-NaCl and 0-03 M-CaCl2 was dependent on the membrane potential level and reduced linearly with a rise in the latter. However, depolarizations generated by 0-001 M-HDl and 0-02 M quinine changed little in magnitude by a membrane potential change over a wide range. 4. During depolarizations induced by NaCl and KCl a marked reduction in the input resistance of a cell was observed, the amount of the reduction depending on the stimulus concentration. The reduction was also produced by CaCl2 and HCl, but it is small compared with those by NaCl and KCl. Quinine produced an increase in the resistance associated with a depolarization. Water and weak NaCl solution produced an increase in the resistance associated with hyperpolarization. 5. The receptive mechanisms for various kinds of chemical stimuli are discussed in relation to changes in the membrane potential and the membrane conductance of taste cells.

Full text

PDF
87

Selected References

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

  1. ANDERSSON B., ZOTTERMAN Y. The water taste in the frog. Acta Physiol Scand. 1950 Feb 20;20(1):95–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1716.1950.tb00686.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. BEIDLER L. M. Properties of chemoreceptors of tongue of rat. J Neurophysiol. 1953 Nov;16(6):595–607. doi: 10.1152/jn.1953.16.6.595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. CASELLA C., RAPUZZI G. Azione dell'acqua, del CaC12 e del NaC1 sui ricettori linguali nella rana. Arch Sci Biol (Bologna) 1957 Mar-Apr;41(2):191–203. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. DeHan R., Graziadei P. P. Functional anatomy of frog's taste organs. Experientia. 1971 Jul;27(7):823–826. doi: 10.1007/BF02136888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. FATT P., KATZ B. An analysis of the end-plate potential recorded with an intracellular electrode. J Physiol. 1951 Nov 28;115(3):320–370. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1951.sp004675. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Graziadei P. P., DeHan R. S. The ultrastructure of frogs' taste organs. Acta Anat (Basel) 1971;80(4):563–603. doi: 10.1159/000143715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. KIMURA K., BEIDLER L. M. Microelectrode study of taste receptors of rat and hamster. J Cell Comp Physiol. 1961 Oct;58:131–139. doi: 10.1002/jcp.1030580204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. KUSANO K. Analysis of the single unit activity of gustatory receptors in the frog tongue. Jpn J Physiol. 1960 Dec 15;10:620–633. doi: 10.2170/jjphysiol.10.620. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. KUSANO K., SATO M. Properties of fungiform papillae in frog's tongue. Jpn J Physiol. 1957 Dec 20;7(4):324–338. doi: 10.2170/jjphysiol.7.324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ozeki M. Conductance change associated with receptor potentials of gustatory cells in rat. J Gen Physiol. 1971 Dec;58(6):688–699. doi: 10.1085/jgp.58.6.688. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ozeki M. Hetero-electrogenesis of the gustatory cell membrane in rat. Nature. 1970 Nov 28;228(5274):868–869. doi: 10.1038/228868b0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Ozeki M., Sato M. Responses of gustatory cells in the tongue of rat to stimuli representing four taste qualities. Comp Biochem Physiol A Comp Physiol. 1972 Feb 1;41(2):391–407. doi: 10.1016/0300-9629(72)90070-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Sato T., Beidler L. M. Relation between receptor potential and resistance change in the frog taste cells. Brain Res. 1973 Apr 27;53(2):455–457. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(73)90233-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sato T. Multiple sensitivity of single taste cells of the frog tongue to four basic taste stimuli. J Cell Physiol. 1972 Oct;80(2):207–218. doi: 10.1002/jcp.1040800207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Sato T. The response of frog taste cells (Rana nigromaculata and Rana catesbeana). Experientia. 1969;25(7):709–710. doi: 10.1007/BF01897577. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. YAMASHITA S. CHEMORECEPTOR RESPONSE IN FROG, AS MODIFIED BY TEMPERATURE CHANGE. Jpn J Physiol. 1964 Oct 15;14:488–504. doi: 10.2170/jjphysiol.14.488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. YAMASHITA S. Stimulating effectiveness of cations and anions on chemoreceptors in the frog tongue. Jpn J Physiol. 1963 Feb 15;13:54–63. doi: 10.2170/jjphysiol.13.54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES